In less than 8 years both Supes & Bats will be public domain 1 1

[Chicago Boy]

At least versions of them. Any thoughts? 

[jimbo_7071]

On 4/21/2024 at 9:25 AM, Chicago Boy said:

At least versions of them. Any thoughts? 

They should have entered the public domain a long time ago. The 1998 Copyright Protection Act was yet another example of Congress placing corporate interests above public interest.

[Hepcat]

 I strongly disagree.

I don't see how anyone but DC should have the right to Superman and Batman these days.

 

Edited April 21 by Hepcat

[Hepcat]

I believe in the concept of intellectual property rights. The publishing, music and filmmaking industries and the livelihood of the participants in those industries are founded on intellectual property rights. Removing intellectual property rights would almost completely remove anyone's incentive to create such intellectual property.

Moreover I don't see how the public's interest would be served if any johnny-come-lately fly-by-night operator could publish "Superman" or "Batman" comics. Legacy, continuity? Those concepts would go completely out the door. (Admittedly DC itself hasn't done much better than a passable job in that regard either.)

Edited April 21 by Hepcat

[sfcityduck]

On 4/21/2024 at 6:25 AM, Chicago Boy said:

At least versions of them. Any thoughts? 

Your date is wrong. It will be 10 or 11 years.

The copyrights are good for 95 years. So Superman is up (hits the 96th year) in 2034 and Batman in 2035.

[jimbo_7071]

On 4/21/2024 at 12:14 PM, Hepcat said:

I believe in the concept of intellectual property rights. The publishing, music and filmmaking industries and the livelihood of the participants in those industries are founded on intellectual property rights. Removing intellectual property rights would almost completely remove anyone's incentive to create such intellectual property.

Moreover I don't see how the public's interest would be served if any johnny-come-lately fly-by-night operator could publish "Superman" or "Batman" comics. Legacy, continuity? Those concepts would go completely out the door. (Admittedly DC itself hasn't done much better than a passable job in that regard either.)

No one is talking about eliminating intellectual property rights.

Copyright protections are meant to encourage creativity.

Copyright protections that last too long stifle creativity.

Copyright protections have always expired a certain amount of time after the death of the creator. That allows others to build on and use old works for creative endeavors.

Large corporations don't usually die (although some go defunct), which is why it is necessary to have an expiration date based on when a work is first created or published.

Right now, the timeframe for copyright protections is excessive.

[sfcityduck]

On 4/21/2024 at 9:14 AM, Hepcat said:

I believe in the concept of intellectual property rights. The publishing, music and filmmaking industries and the livelihood of the participants in those industries are founded on intellectual property rights. Removing intellectual property rights would almost completely remove anyone' sincentive to create such intellectual property.

 

Since the copyrights are good for post 1978 creations until 70 years after the creator dies, e.g., Harry Potter's clock has not even begun to click, it seems unlikely that there will be much of a deterrent to new creations. Someone like J.K. Rowling shows the incentive to create is to become a billionaire off of a zero investment story, and a constant stream of funds in a market with no competitors that has already run 27 years with another 70 years to go after she dies, which may not be for another 25 plus years (she's 58 now). If so, that would lead to copyright protection lasting 122 years. That should inure not only to her benefit but also her three kids who will all be dead under this scenario before the copyright expires (one born before the book came out and the other two in the early 2000s), and her grandkids (who will be born soon - next ten years or so - if she's going to have any) who might also die before the copyrights expire. 

So, no, I don't see existing copyright laws as a deterrent at all.

 

[sfcityduck]

On 4/21/2024 at 8:04 AM, jimbo_7071 said:

They should have entered the public domain a long time ago. The 1998 Copyright Protection Act was yet another example of Congress placing corporate interests above public interest.

On the other side of the coin: What exactly is the public interest in letting the Harry Potter copyright expire 125 years from now?  Or Superman or Batman in 2034 and 2035? Or any literary property?

For me, the public is better served by forcing creators to imagine new vistas, like Marvel did in the 1960s. Prior to the 1976 Act, the term of protection was was 28 years with a possibility of a 28 year extension, for a total maximum term of 56 years. Imagine a world where Superman's copyright would expire 28 years after his creation. That would have been 1966. We may never have seen the many new characters that arose because the oldest most popular characters were still protected. I have no problem with the copyright protection afforded then or now from a public interest perspective. 

 

[Hepcat]

On 4/21/2024 at 12:33 PM, jimbo_7071 said:

Large corporations don't usually die (although some go defunct), which is why it is necessary to have an expiration date based on when a work is first created or published.

Right now, the timeframe for copyright protections is excessive.

DC's Superman and Batman properties are therefore an excellent example of why it's not only not necessary to have expiration dates based on creation dates, but why basing these expiration dates on creation dates is an absolutely harebrained idea. For Superman and Batman to enter the public domain and thus have multiple publishers and thus storylines is beyond ridiculous.

Edited April 21 by Hepcat

[Chicago Boy]

On 4/21/2024 at 11:32 AM, sfcityduck said:

Your date is wrong. It will be 10 or 11 years.

The copyrights are good for 95 years. So Superman is up (hits the 96th year) in 2034 and Batman in 2035.

Thx. I thought it was 93 

[Sauce Dog]

It just means we will get a slew of horrible low budget direct-to-streaming horror movies utilizing the characters in spooky roles (Like Brightburn, but with more explicitly matching costumes and names). Not that I mind, I don't have to watch em, but I'm honestly hoping this allows someone to make a Batman film where it is filmed as a horror movie from the perspective of a criminal gang being hunted by 'the bat' during a heist gone wrong.

[sfcityduck]

On 4/21/2024 at 10:50 AM, Sauce Dog said:

It just means we will get a slew of horrible low budget direct-to-streaming horror movies utilizing the characters in spooky roles (Like Brightburn, but with more explicitly matching costumes and names). Not that I mind, I don't have to watch em, but I'm honestly hoping this allows someone to make a Batman film where it is filmed as a horror movie from the perspective of a criminal gang being hunted by 'the bat' during a heist gone wrong.

Great idea, but now its in the public domain.

The Winnie the Pooh horror movie made a couple million off a $100K budget. My guess is that its not real high quality, but I have not seen it (and don't intend to). That's the kind of cheap exploitation I would expect to occur initially. 

But, on the other hand, there's been some brilliant post-expiration work on Sherlock Holmes. Young Sherlock, Enola Holmes, a number of straight up Sherlocks, like Benedict C's, have all been pretty brilliant. 

[Yorick]

There was some discussion of this topic in the movie threads.

Bad press is good press too.  That Winnie the Pooh movie only drew more attention to those characters.  Perhaps revitalizing the OG fan-base.  I could care less if someone makes a bad superman movie.  They're doing that now.  But if one good superman story comes from it, I'm happy!  And the other thing to keep in mind, public domain will only allow those character's initial versions to be used (Superman without flight, without Kryptonite, without Supergirl, etc).  There are so many elements that are added onto these characters as the years go by that wouldn't yet be public domain.

[adamstrange]

On 4/21/2024 at 2:35 PM, sfcityduck said:

Great idea, but now its in the public domain.

 

But, on the other hand, there's been some brilliant post-expiration work on Sherlock Holmes. Young Sherlock, Enola Holmes, a number of straight up Sherlocks, like Benedict C's, have all been pretty brilliant. 

Stories and characters from Alexandre Dumas, Robert Louis Stevenson, and Jules Verne have been leveraged by a variety of creators without damaging the reputation of the originators. The bad adaptations have not prevented others from trying their hand at the material.

[Yorick]

On 4/21/2024 at 8:04 AM, jimbo_7071 said:

The 1998 DISNEY Protection Act

FTFY

[JollyComics]

On 4/21/2024 at 1:35 PM, sfcityduck said:

Winnie the Pooh horror movie?

What horror characters will be?

Winnie the Pooh -  Cocaine Bear or Prophecy?
Christopher Robin - Vampire?
Tigger -
Piglet -
Eeyore -
Rabbit -
Kanga -
Roo -
Owl -

[AJD]

On 4/22/2024 at 1:57 AM, Hepcat said:

 I strongly disagree.

I don't see how anyone but DC should have the right to Superman and Batman these days.

 

So would you support Shakespeare's great great great... ... great grandchildren still charging people royalties for any use of his words, plots or characters, or even preventing anyone doing a resetting of his works? I think the existing laws already protect creators more than is probably required to continue to provide an incentive to create.

[Hepcat]

The difference is in the "use it or lose it" provisions of case law. Shakespeare understandably did nothing with respect to continuing to use his creations. (He died.) So his creations became "abandoned property" under Common Law (just like a couch you put out on the curb) and thus entered the public domain centuries before such concepts were even codified in acts of Parliament.

DC though has kept Superman in very active publication since his creation. In no way, shape or form has he been "abandoned".

[adamstrange]

Copyrights and patents were mentioned in the US Constitution because it was thought that some protection for them would encourage investment of time and resources required to invent things. 

It was expected the protections would be of limited duration because nothing is completely new.  Those who invent were standing on shoulders of giants who preceded them, and to restrict re-use of new inventions was to over-reward inventors and delay further advancements.

[tth2]

On 4/24/2024 at 1:29 AM, Hepcat said:

The difference is in the "use it or lose it" provisions of case law. Shakespeare understandably did nothing with respect to continuing to use his creations. (He died.) So his creations became "abandoned property" under Common Law (just like a couch you put out on the curb) and thus entered the public domain centuries before such concepts were even codified in acts of Parliament.

DC though has kept Superman in very active publication since his creation. In no way, shape or form has he been "abandoned".

Privately owned corporations didn't exist in Shakespeare's day.  The assumption was that IP rights belonged to individuals, who would eventually die, and that created a natural expiration of IP protection.  Corporations, which can in theory live forever, have distorted the original intention of IP protection.

If corporations should be able to hold on to copyrights forever, then why shouldn't they also be allowed to hold on to patents forever? 

I'm not aware that Disney has suffered any great harm (or harm at all) as a result of losing its copyright protection over the earliest versions of Mickey Mouse.