Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes, but only after a significant amount of time.

Yes, within a few decades.

Yes, within a decade.

Only in certain cases.

I am undecided.

No, never.

Other (Please post)

Don't care. / View poll.

[Pathos]

So, yep, what it says on the tin. Should franchises / intellectual properties that don't get touched by the company that owns them (i.e. releasing a significant product within that franchise) go public domain?

Pros:-

• No more intense legal debates about copyright after fifty years.
• Allows people to eventually get their hands on what they love and create more of it.
• Stops intellectual properties from ever eventually dying out.
• Releases rights to the fans.

Cons:-

• Would likely be heavily exploited.
• Intense legal debates on how long it should be since it has been "used" and what constitutes a significant product.

I was considering this whilst playing Creatures 3, which is a part of a franchise which will never be developed further. It still has a pretty loyal fanbase, but it's been dwindling for a few years due to lack of updates and literally 0 response from the company that owns the franchise.

So, what do you guys think?

[DarthCloakedDwarf]

Once an author dies, a certain amount of time passes and then all his works end up in the public domain (unless they give the rights to a company and blah blah blah). I think after a product "dies", for example, a book that is no longer published by the writers (D&D3.5 splatbooks, anyone?) should enter into the public domain after a certain amount of time of non-published status.

Since there's no legal way to get a new D&D3.5e book anymore, which I think is super-lame, since the new edition sucks.

[Pathos]

Once an author dies, a certain amount of time passes and then all his works end up in the public domain (unless they give the rights to a company and blah blah blah). I think after a product "dies", for example, a book that is no longer published by the writers (D&D3.5 splatbooks, anyone?) should enter into the public domain after a certain amount of time of non-published status.

Since there's no legal way to get a new D&D3.5e book anymore, which I think is super-lame, since the new edition sucks.

Have you tried the Pathfinder RPG? It's actually pretty epic, and their campaigns are topnotch, although they jump through themes a bit too much for my taste.

[fenrif]

MPAA and RIAA are slowly killing public domain. That way they can keep re-selling you music and movies in special edition, new format, greatest hits versions. Politicians keep being paid to pass laws to extend copyright time over and over.

It used to be that copyright lasted 28 years, then you could renew it for another 28 years if you were so inclined. Now it lasts 70 years, with works-for-hire lasting 98 years. 98 years after the creators death. So if someone writes a book, the public has to wait almost 100 years after they die for it to become public. Don't expect it to stop there.

Here is a quick breakdown of how public domain has changed, and also a nice list of things that should've entered PD on January 1 of this year.

Public domain encourages competition and creativity. It's more important than ever in todays world, where remixing and re-editing are emerging art forms accessable to everyone with a computer.

Fun-fact: Star Wars should be public domain in 2033 according to the law as it stood when the film was released. According to modern law (changed the year after the release of Star Wars) it'll be PD in 2072. Though I have serious doubts it'll ever be public domain.

[Pathos]

They keep doing that so they can re-release books, too. Stuff like Tolkien etc.

It's just sickening.

[DarthCloakedDwarf]

Once an author dies, a certain amount of time passes and then all his works end up in the public domain (unless they give the rights to a company and blah blah blah). I think after a product "dies", for example, a book that is no longer published by the writers (D&D3.5 splatbooks, anyone?) should enter into the public domain after a certain amount of time of non-published status.

Since there's no legal way to get a new D&D3.5e book anymore, which I think is super-lame, since the new edition sucks.

Have you tried the Pathfinder RPG? It's actually pretty epic, and their campaigns are topnotch, although they jump through themes a bit too much for my taste.

I haven't heard anything good about Pathfinder, everyone I know who plays it says that they just buffed the core classes to rediculous levels and left the splatbook stuff (my favorite classes) alone.

[Soadreqm]

What if the title in question is not made by a faceless corporation, but a poor indie developer? Cave Story was released in 2004, and a WiiWare game has been in the making for quite some time. The author, Pixel, approved of this. If the copyright expiration was sent to a decade*, Nintendo could just wait four more years and remake it without his consent, or even informing him. I don't think they'd even have to credit him.

Tolkien was mentioned. How do you think the fanbase would react if some big-name Hollywood studio decided that since the work has been in public domain for ages, they can just take it, butcher the story as they see fit, cut any characters they don't see as interesting, and release the resulting forgettable pseudo-medieval action flick directly to DVD? They'd probably make sick profits, too.

*At the time of writing, seven people have voted that.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Any work, regardless of whether it is a work for hire, should enter the public domain completely and without encumbrance, 20 years after the death of the author, or a maximum of 40 years in any case.

For works with multiple authors, it's 20 years after the death of the last surviving author, or 40 years regardless.

This means Mickey Mouse would be in public domain. The movie Alien, made in 1979, is only 31 years old. If Ridley Scott and everyone else who could be considered an author died today, in nine years it would be 40 years old and it would enter public domain. But if everyone died when the film came out in 1979, it would have entered public domain in 1999.

This allows an individual or company to benefit fully from the profits of the work, without maintaining a perpetual copyright.

Our culture grows and changes, and uses old ideas to create new ones. Eternal copyright chills cultural development, both reducing creative output and reducing the quality of the output that sees the light of day.

As an author, I have no problem with knowing that my work will make me money for only 40 years. And that if I die, my estate will continue making money off of it if those 40 years aren't up yet, up to 20 years after my death. That's a long-ass time!

The problem is that a company exists regardless of the deaths of its component cells (the employees). The shareholders change too, but the shares still exist in someone's name here or there. So the company wants to retain its copyright forever and ever.

But what the company wants, is not always best. Certainly they do not have our cultural interests at heart. They look after their own profits, as was the intention.

[chaoticag]

I think the works should be released free on license, leaving the copyright in place just in case someone wants to expand it, and building a fanbase.

[bjlong]

I think that old copyright laws will soon go the way of the dinosaurs--more and more authors are releasing Creative Commons sort of licenses, which get fan involvement up. (Fan fiction, fan animation, etc.) This increases the popularity of their works. Moreover, they seem to be more inclined to work together on projects, whether big or small, inside a universe. This is the big reason that there are mythoses around certain works--for example, Lovecraft would have little recognition if he wasn't given extensive treatment by other authors after his death.

Big name copyrights are increasingly loaning out the characters to other writers and directors--see the recent Marvel movies. Sure, it's under a Marvel license, but the fact of the matter is that Marvel is willing to involve outside writers and artists because they're finding that this is more useful, and more profitable. The very fact that we're seeing movies of Spiderman, Iron Man, etc. is evidence of a broadening of copyright.

Even more so, companies don't really have much incentive to chase after little guys remixing something. They're only really likely to do it if the remix explodes in popularity, and even then, the guy has a pretty good career cut out for him somewhere.

That said, if a company isn't doing much with a character or work of art, then they should be forced to give it up. For example, a book that doesn't get infusion of new cannon, via sequels or movies, should enter public domain in ~20 years.

[Pathos]

Hmm, this thread is surprisingly anti-copyright. It's just odd, because the piracy thread is definitely pro-copyright.

[ChairmanPoo]

No it isnt. If you notice, the piracy thread polls are very much against piracy being punished (only 13 in favor of punishing piracy).

And there's a difference between this topic and the piracy topic, anyway. There are people who might think that piracy is a crime, yet also think that copyrrights should last less time

[Zangi]

Damn... reading comprehension only lights up after I click the vote button. 
-1 Yes only after significant time
+1 Yes after a decade

But... it should be for non-commercial use.  No-one should be making money off it.  Donations are fine as long as it is not 'required' to gain access to the non-commercial stuff.
Not doing anything with it for a decade is acknowledgment that the IP holder doesn't care about it and forever gives up the right to kill fan-made/public shit related to the IP, as long as they arn't commercial.

If the IP holder(s) die and noone owns it, it should be open to public commercial use.

The IP Holder can still sell the rights for its commercial use after it goes public.  But, has already forever given up the right to kill fan-made/public shit related to their IP unless it is commercial.

+20 years later (30 years), IP Holder should lose all exclusive rights to it, having done jack with it in all that time...  Which means noone can say they own the IP, anyone can commercially do stuff with it.

EDIT: Changed commercial rights to exclusive rights in last point.

[IronyOwl]

The trouble I see with this issue is that no one has offered any objective definitions or explanations for anything. Why should it become public domain ten years after it's released? Why twenty years after the creator dies? Why five years with no new installments? Why public domain and not granted to whoever grabs it first?

It doesn't necessarily make it a bad discussion, but I'm not seeing what makes this "What should we do?" and not "When would you like to inherit the intellectual property of others and what would you do with them?"

[fenrif]

Tolkien was mentioned. How do you think the fanbase would react if some big-name Hollywood studio decided that since the work has been in public domain for ages, they can just take it, butcher the story as they see fit, cut any characters they don't see as interesting, and release the resulting forgettable pseudo-medieval action flick directly to DVD? They'd probably make sick profits, too.

The fans could make their own film, and do it right. Or any other movie studio in the world could see Hollywoods version is crap, and make their own true-to-source film and rake in the profits. It's much better than at the moment, because now if a big hollywood studio decides to make a film noone else can make a film based on the same source material (Assuming its copyrighted).

The trouble I see with this issue is that no one has offered any objective definitions or explanations for anything. Why should it become public domain ten years after it's released? Why twenty years after the creator dies? Why five years with no new installments? Why public domain and not granted to whoever grabs it first?

It doesn't necessarily make it a bad discussion, but I'm not seeing what makes this "What should we do?" and not "When would you like to inherit the intellectual property of others and what would you do with them?"

I'd be happy if they went back to the pre-1978 copyright laws. 28 years after the work is created, with an option to renew it another 28 years after that.

It has to be public domain as opposed to first come first serve rights because it encourages creativity, competition, and enriches our shared culture. That's what public domain is all about. Imagine if shakespeare wasn't in public domain... No school would be able to produce a play based on his works, or get cheap copies of his works. You'd have to pay through the nose for lines like "Alas, poor Yorick" and "Romeo Romeo, where for art thou Romeo."

Instead it is part of our societies shared cultural wealth. We can all enjoy them as we see fit, read them, listen to them, watch them, produce our own versions of them, etc.