Copyright Law of 1976

[BK007]

According to this article;

 

http://filmschoolrejects.com/features/6-things-the-film-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about.php/4

 

Disney were the main proponent of this.

 

And yeah, I didn't do extensive research but;

 

https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2014/pre-1976

 

really tells us that the copyright law seems to be doing more harm than good for culture.

 

Is this true? What would you say?

 

Regarding restorations of films, which are unlike books and music where it could be read or listened to at the highest quality even now, would it help or hinder? If anyone had access to it, no one would bother to restore a movie am I right? And if they did restore it, anyone could then use that product and re-sell it, am I right?

 

Still, the amount of movies that just rot away never to be seen again due to this law probably outweighs the benefits of a select few movies that can be sold again and again. After all, as the article states, most value is frontloaded, so by the time 56 years go by, there's not much left to mine anyway.

 

So, yes, this has turned into another bash Disney post for me. For a company that makes $40b on merchandise and hires hack writers to pen soulless scripts, they set everyone back just because they wanted to make more money on Steamboat Willie, that was not even under proper copyright. I have not done law, I was wondering if this act could be repealed or is Disney's grip and lobby too strong?

 

Here we are, the world, oblivious to the tricks companies pull. Disney has really done a lot of damage for all the good they've done (and that really only encompasses some of their animated work)

[Plain Old Tele]

I think that US copyright law needs to be drastically overhauled, but that it'll never happen.

 

The original concept of copyright was to give writers, creators, musicians, and so forth the ability to profit from their work. I forget the details, it was something like 20 years after the creation of each specific work. The object was not to allow someone to profit indefinitely, it was to give them a solid base to live on while encouraging them to continue to create. It was absolutely not created to allow corporations to profit from said works indefinitely. At this point, copyright has been so wildly extended that it's way beyond the original intent, and actually hurts the overall creation of new entertainment.

[BadAtGender]

I agree that it's unlikely to be drastically overhauled, at least not without some massive paradigm shift in the way government is run. We're too far down that well, unfortunately.

 

We are nearing the end of the most recent extension to the copyright act. I believe in about 5 or 6 years, some of the older works will start entering public domain. I'm not sure if anything major will hit in the first few years, but Mickey Mouse is set to enter public domain in the next decade in 2023.

 

Of course, there's the difference between trademarks and copyrights. So while the individual stories can enter public domain, which I believe would allow the republication of those original works by anyone (for free or profit), duplication of images that are trademarked may not be allowed. So maybe someone could release those original Mickey shorts, but may not be able to create anything new involving Mickey? I'm not sure.

 

Something like Superman, which should enter starting in 2033, is even more difficult because of the ongoing story and shared universe nature of the character. So I don't know what would happen if, say, Action #1 was in public domain while any subsequent elements were not. It seems like, even if someone could create new stories involving Superman, they'd be walking a really fine line while doing so, and potentially opening themselves up to a tremendous lawsuit.

 

Personally, I'm in favor of copyrights, but mostly only inasmuch as they're protection for individual creators. The huge corporations have plenty of other resources to bring to bear that they really don't need the protection. And especially not for 96 years or whatever it is.

 

WaPo's got a nice article on it all. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25/15-years-ago-congress-kept-mickey-mouse-out-of-the-public-domain-will-they-do-it-again/

[BK007]

This is why we're seeing such an emphasis on brands and lack of creativity. If these characters, as they should, enter into public domain, than anyone can use them and the corporations like Disney have no control. Quality would prevail not like now.

 

I think any creation of new work though, for example if someone created their own superhero comic of Superman, that would or they could make that bound by the copyright law, so obviously there is still some money to be made, if I understand correctly.

[BK007]

I agree that it's unlikely to be drastically overhauled, at least not without some massive paradigm shift in the way government is run. We're too far down that well, unfortunately.

 

We are nearing the end of the most recent extension to the copyright act. I believe in about 5 or 6 years, some of the older works will start entering public domain. I'm not sure if anything major will hit in the first few years, but Mickey Mouse is set to enter public domain in the next decade in 2023.

 

Of course, there's the difference between trademarks and copyrights. So while the individual stories can enter public domain, which I believe would allow the republication of those original works by anyone (for free or profit), duplication of images that are trademarked may not be allowed. So maybe someone could release those original Mickey shorts, but may not be able to create anything new involving Mickey? I'm not sure.

 

Something like Superman, which should enter starting in 2033, is even more difficult because of the ongoing story and shared universe nature of the character. So I don't know what would happen if, say, Action #1 was in public domain while any subsequent elements were not. It seems like, even if someone could create new stories involving Superman, they'd be walking a really fine line while doing so, and potentially opening themselves up to a tremendous lawsuit.

 

Personally, I'm in favor of copyrights, but mostly only inasmuch as they're protection for individual creators. The huge corporations have plenty of other resources to bring to bear that they really don't need the protection. And especially not for 96 years or whatever it is.

 

WaPo's got a nice article on it all. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25/15-years-ago-congress-kept-mickey-mouse-out-of-the-public-domain-will-they-do-it-again/

 

Thanks for the article. That's really good.

 

Disney are just getting too big. It's not good.

[Romet Loodus]

really tells us that the copyright law seems to be doing more harm than good for culture.

 

Is this true? What would you say?

 

I would agree.

 

If you are interested in this subject, then you might want to also read the torrentfreak.com blog.

 

Rick Falkvinge makes a strong case against the copyright laws:

http://torrentfreak.com/author/rick-falkvinge/

[Plain Old Tele]

Lawrence Lessig has written extensively about this as well. I recommend Free Culture for anyone interested.

 

Here's an interview with him: http://cabinetmagazine.org/issues/8/lessig.php

 

The great irony, of course, is that Disney relied extensively on copyright for practically all of their famous animated films. So it's extremely disingenuous on their part to deny others the same benefits they got. Reinterpreting and reinventing older stories is one of the key tenets of entertainment.

[BK007]

When are they going to discuss/debate this law again?

 

Time is of the essence. I mean, I don't understand why they couldn't simply make a loophole allowing Disney to abuse Mickey Mouse as much as they want, and have everything else continue to fall into the public domain.

 

The majority of works are forgotten and uncared for and could use a second life. In that interview you posted Tele, his suggestion makes a lot of sense, why not pay for the right to extend the copyright and if you fail to pay for it, the rights fall into the public domain?

 

It makes so much sense, is it possible they consider this or will they simply be ignorant and slap another 20 years and be done with it? Surely they cannot be that stupid?

 

The studios themselves, they own so many films, do they care for most of it? They are selfish but they do nothing with it, if they had to pay to keep extending their copyright, I think logically many films will fall into the public domain.

 

The last time anything fell into the public domain was 1975?

[TServo2049]

The problem with public domain and movies is that for a lot of films, while the copyrights expire, the studios still hold the physical assets. They are very nervous about spending money on restorations for DVD/Blu-ray if they aren't assured complete control over the film. They are competing with shitty dollar-bin releases copied from VHS tapes. This is why it took so long to get excellent copies of the Max Fleischer Superman cartoons (EVEN THOUGH Time Warner owns the copyright/trademarks on the character). This is why fans had to basically twist the arms of Paramount and Olive Films to walk back their initial decision to not release some of the most well-known Betty Boop cartoons just because they were no longer under copyright. This is why we don't have restorations of the original A Star Is Born, Meet John Doe or Life With Father from the high-quality elements that are still under studio control. This is why films like The Last Time I Saw Paris and Beneath the 12-Mile Reef didn't get studio DVD releases until the advent of manufacture-on-demand in the late 00s/early 10s. This is why the United States were denied restorations of most of Hitchcock's British work, restorations the UK already had, until about the time of the Supreme Court decision about past international copyright-restoration agreements (which affirmed that said films were still under the control of their British copyright holders and not actually in the PD). This is why CBS won't release the black-and-white episodes of The Beverly Hillbillies on DVD (the only reason there is any good DVD is because MPI made a deal with Paul Henning's family to make use of Paul's personal prints). This is a common enough occurrence that classic film enthusiasts even have a term for it: "Public domain hell."High-quality non-studio-sanctioned PD releases are rare. They require finding materials and having the necessary money to restore, master and release them. A lot of silent films are handled this way, but they still compete with dollar garbage. Max Fleischer's Gulliver's Travels is PD, and it took an animation fan in Michigan personally locating and transferring an original print for us to get a truly quality DVD/BD release of it. (Most other PD versions ultimately trace back to one decent transfer from an archive print that was released on laserdisc.)There are surely films that would be unavailable to the public were it not for PD, but there are equally many films which suffer for studios being unwilling to commercially exploit them BECAUSE they're PD. So it's not a clear-cut "good vs. evil" situation.

Edited July 6, 2014 by TServo2049