Current Events > Why do copyrights need to be extended after the death of the creator?

(+) Yeah! (+)

A man can't be entitled to the sweat of his brow if he can't sweat because he's dead.
---

That's deadist
---

Because their children and grandchildren should get to be do-nothing fuckoffs their entire lives.

But what if he sold the rights to a company?
---

If a company is still using the creation, then it should be exempt from that copyright law. Instead, Disney keeps extending the law for EVERYONE, where it needs to just be for Mickey and crew.
---

PoopPotato posted...

If a company is still using the creation, then it should be exempt from that copyright law. Instead, Disney keeps extending the law for EVERYONE, where it needs to just be for Mickey and crew.

Why? They would still have perpetual trademark protection from unauthorized use, doesn't seem any reason why the copyright should be indefinite as well.
---

PoopPotato posted...

If a company is still using the creation, then it should be exempt from that copyright law. Instead, Disney keeps extending the law for EVERYONE, where it needs to just be for Mickey and crew.

Walt Disney's been dead for quite some time.
---

so you want Spider-Man to be a free for all now?

I don't see why I shouldn't be able to create work to support my children after I'm dead. If I invested in rental property for them, it's not like the houses would suddenly be free for anyone to use and to live in after I'm dead.

Companies should be forced to make something new after 100 years.

Mickey should be public domain.
---

Zikten posted...

so you want Spider-Man to be a free for all now?

If Marvel's still worth its salt, its Spider-Man comics should still outsell other ones. If not, that's the free market at work.
---

Garioshi posted...

Zikten posted...

so you want Spider-Man to be a free for all now?

If Marvel's still worth its salt, its Spider-Man comics should still outsell other ones. If not, that's the free market at work.

Great point.

If I make better Spiderman comics than marvel, they need to hire me instead of sue me for copyright and leech off my hardwork.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Companies should be forced to make something new after 100 years.

Mickey should be public domain.

Because you want him to be? Why should it be possible for you to make money off of someone else's intellectual property?

I think it'd be reasonable to base it off whether the copyright holder is making active use of it, or just treating it as a cash cow (or worse, pulling a "no one can have it!" type thing).
---

SaithSayer posted...

Why should it be possible for you to make money off of someone else's intellectual property?

because that person has been dead for a long time and the intellectual property is now ubiquitous part of culture

the same reason I can publish the works of shakespeare and profit off of them

btw it is ignorant to assume I could easily profit off of something that is public domain

public domain means everyone can use it

why would people pay me for something they can make themselves?
---

Copyright duration was originally 14 years, non-transferrable, with 1 renewal if and only if the author is still alive on the expiration date. There's no reason for it to be longer than that. It should be the shortest duration possible that still provides an incentive to create.
---

because disney has to keep making money some how.
---

CircleOfManias posted...

Copyright duration was originally 14 years, non-transferrable, with 1 renewal if and only if the author is still alive on the expiration date. There's no reason for it to be longer than that. It should be the shortest duration possible that still provides an incentive to create.

to add to this, copyrights that remain in limbo because the original company dies. where no one can claim the copyright but it's still valid because it was never sold.

and let's not forget youtube and it's ridiculous copyright strikes it loves to do.

the entire system needs to be reevaluated.

the point of intellectual property is to give you a chance to profit off you idea

an idea that you have already profitted from 100x over before you died, then you died and it has been years
is no longer intellectual property

It has transcended from the intellect into reality. It has been realized as cash, lots and lots of cash. Cash your heirs inherited when you died.

There is no reason it should still be exclusive to anybody, even some corporate person.
---

You should be able to decide the ultimate fate of your stuff on a financial level.

Just make it to where content can be made but profits can't. Y'know like any of those fan games people try to make and then get cease and desist letters threatening a lawsuit...

They should be able to make their fan games but sure as fuck not sell them.

darkphoenix181 posted...

Companies should be forced to make something new after 100 years.

Mickey should be public domain.

No?

Any missuse of Mickey Mouse would hurt Disney's image.
---

Member when spider man and mickey canonically exist in jojo?
---

LordFarquad1312 posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

Companies should be forced to make something new after 100 years.

Mickey should be public domain.

No?

Any missuse of Mickey Mouse would hurt Disney's image.

Song of the South happened.

LordFarquad1312 posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

Companies should be forced to make something new after 100 years.

Mickey should be public domain.

No?

Any missuse of Mickey Mouse would hurt Disney's image.

That makes no sense. People can make Mickey Mouse hentai today.

Only difference is if Mickey was public domain, disney couldn't sue them if they made money off of making Mickey hentai.
---

It should entirely depend on the context of the usage. If Nintendo is still around in 2050s, they'll likely be making better use of their IPs than some random guy wanting to jump on the name. If by the 2050s Nintendo has been dead for two decades and vultures have been picking at the rights for no reason other than cash grabs, then is should be released to the public. These laws never expected entities to last hundreds of years.

nemu posted...

It should entirely depend on the context of the usage. If Nintendo is still around in 2050s, they'll likely be making better use of their IPs than some random guy wanting to jump on the name. If by the 2050s Nintendo has been dead for two decades and vultures have been picking at the rights for no reason other than cash grabs, then is should be released to the public. These laws never expected entities to last hundreds of years.

Bad logic.

If nintendo makes better use of their ips, then a guy making a nintendo game as their competition shouldn't be legally forced to stop.

That is, he who makes the better mario, gets more money.

Also, if everyone is making a mario because it is public domain, will be hard to "cash grab".

Cash grab only works when a company can monopolize an IP via copyright.
---

"I'm entitled to the creativity of others just so long as it is old!"

Seems a moot point given most artists don't own the copyright of their work when they are alive.

SaithSayer posted...

"I'm entitled to the creativity of others just so long as it is old!"

You literally are.
You can play beethoven without royalties.
You can shove shakespeare quotes in any work you make.
You can master coveted painting techniques from watching youtube.

It is fundamental to mankind that innovation becomes public property when the innovater dies.

If this wasn't true, you couldn't make pizza yourself without paying a royalty to the inventor of pizza's family.

Like, you guys need to think about this more.
---

That's using it. Using it isn't the same as making money off of it.

darkphoenix181 posted...

SaithSayer posted...

"I'm entitled to the creativity of others just so long as it is old!"

You literally are.
You can play beethoven without royalties.
You can shove shakespeare quotes in any work you make.
You can master coveted painting techniques from watching youtube.

It is fundamental to mankind that innovation becomes public property when the innovater dies.

If this wasn't true, you couldn't make pizza yourself without paying a royalty to the inventor of pizza's family.

Like, you guys need to think about this more.

Should I be entitled to the list of KFC's 11 herbs and spices? Is it wrong that everybody doesn't know the ingredients for Coca Cola?

SaithSayer posted...

Should I be entitled to the list of KFC's 11 herbs and spices? Is it wrong that everybody doesn't know the ingredients for Coca Cola?

If these are already well known and you make coke in your backyard, should you be sued and forced to stop by coke?

100 years from now, if make chicken and put thise 11 herbs on it, should KFC have the right to make you stop?

It is like you don't understand what is being argued.
You literally are asking if coke and kfc should be forced to make public their secrets.

Fyi copyright isn't about forcing secrets public.
Public domain means something already ubiquitous in the public space is no longer monopolized.
---

They own the rights and have for way longer than you guys are saying a copyright should last.

And we're talking about TURNING A PROFIT rather than just making it yourself.

SaithSayer posted...

They own the rights and have for way longer than you guys are saying a copyright should last.

And we're talking about TURNING A PROFIT rather than just making it yourself.

People sell pizzas today without paying royalties to the inventor of pizza do they not?

Beethoven is in movies and they don't pay a dime to descendants or relatives.

Coke already made billions off of coke. If the recipe was well known and 50 years from now a guy starts selling it, sure he should be able to make a profit.
See, this forces the giant megacorp to innovate and come up with something new rather than monopolize a 150 year old recipe.

You want mankind to be stale and not make new things? Giant megacorps have more money than a regular guy. Why we want the regular guy to be the inventor but let megacorps coast on some dead dude?

Btw, why do you think they hide the recipe?

Like coke is the worst example you could have picked when there is hundreds of coke clones anyways making profits.

Do you think it is wrong that people can make cola without paying royalties?
---

Nobody knows for certain who originally invented pizza.

People who think like you are the REASON Coca Cola and KFC keep their shit such a secret. If people find out how, they'll feel entitled to it and courts will force them to allow others to use and make profits from it.

So they gotta make sure nobody finds out how. Ridiculous.

Also none of the ripoffs taste like coke really. RC sucks butt and everyone knows it...including them.

let's not forget that the brand and the product are two entirely different things

i'm in support of being able to use mickey. i'm not in support of someone just creating "Disney #2" with all of the logos and branding stolen. but if someone were to, say, take mickey to a really dark level and it became a success, as long as it's under a different brand then that's really disney's fault for not expanding their use of mickey.
---

One reason is so that the copyright holder can prepare for the expiration. Imagine if Walt Disney had gotten hit by a bus. The company would have been screwed. But since his death, they've had lots of time to work on other new stuff that can continue to carry the company when (if?) Mickey goes Public Domain.

Plus, it's not as much a triviality as you think. Copyright applies to much more than media. For example, ARM, one of the biggest microcontroller companies in the world, doesn't manufacture anything. They license out the design as IP to Phillips or Nintendo or whoever so they can manufacture the processors as part of a larger design. Another company that would be screwed upon the wrong person's unexpected death.
---

SaithSayer posted...

Nobody knows for certain who originally invented pizza.

People who think like you are the REASON Coca Cola and KFC keep their shit such a secret. If people find out how, they'll feel entitled to it and courts will force them to allow others to use and make profits from it.

So they gotta make sure nobody finds out how. Ridiculous.

Also none of the ripoffs taste like coke really. RC sucks butt and everyone knows it...including them.

When pizza was invented, this kind of thing didn't exist.

You couldn't copyright such an idea and perpetually make money.

Now you can.
The cronut is a copyrighted or patwnted food.

Imagine if pizza had been invented in this age.
Then you would have to go to one place to eat it.
Everything else would have to make ingredient concessions and not call it pizza or pay royalties.

And I think you see how stupid that is.

In any case food is a little different. Competitors can still make cronuts just change it up a little and not use that name.
---

No, you'd be able to make pizza at home. You just wouldn't be buying fully made pizzas from somewhere else.

SaithSayer posted...

No, you'd be able to make pizza at home. You just wouldn't be buying fully made pizzas from somewhere else.

And why is that a good thing?
You dislike that pizza hut, dominoes etc get to exist?

They all profit off of one dudes idea. Does that anger you?
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

dominoes

I ate Dominoes the other day. Had symptoms of food poisoning afterward. And it tasted like garbage too.

They were literally better before they improved it.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

SaithSayer posted...

No, you'd be able to make pizza at home. You just wouldn't be buying fully made pizzas from somewhere else.

And why is that a good thing?
You dislike that pizza hut, dominoes etc get to exist?

They all profit off of one dudes idea. Does that anger you?

What dude? They theorize that they know, but they don't for sure. The country of origin is the only thing they're sure of.

Also their pizzas all taste a bit different. Same when you compare Coca Cola to Pepsi or RC.

Here is a non-food example.

Dracula.

50 yeara after Bram Stroker died, Dracula was a protected work. 1962 it became public.

Imagine if Disney had somehow owned that like Mickey and kept renewing it.

Then you couldn't dress as Dracula in a youtube video without copyright strike.

Only Disney could make Dracula movies.

Yet look what we have today. Dracula is in video games like Castlevania. He is in kids movies like Hotel Transylvania.
He is in adult gritty films. Books.

All that innovation of the idea would have been dead in its tracks if they had copyright laws back then like there is today and some company bought dracula.
---

Well you guys talk about things becoming stagnated. If someone else owns Dracula, you get to come up with your own idea instead. Improvement, variety, innovation and all that.

Also nobody owns vampires...just that name. Why does the vampire have to BE Dracula?

SaithSayer posted...

Because their children and grandchildren should get to be do-nothing fuckoffs their entire lives.

lol pretty much this.
---

I feel like a lot of people in this topic is confusing the purpose of copyright law with trademark and patent laws.
---

Geiki Ganger posted...

I feel like a lot of people in this topic is confusing the purpose of copyright law with trademark and patent laws.

This is probably true. You should post all the differences.

It incentives murder.
---

SaithSayer posted...

Well you guys talk about things becoming stagnated. If someone else owns Dracula, you get to come up with your own idea instead. Improvement, variety, innovation and all that.

Also nobody owns vampires...just that name. Why does the vampire have to BE Dracula?

Dracula is just one more thing to add to the story.
Innovation isn't stagnated by having MORE options, but less.

And maybe the public likes reading Dracula more than your new character because Dracula is a ubiquitous idea.

But the creator is dead for like 150 years. Who should profit from dracula now?
---