A Congressional fact-finding committee discovered that only about 2% of IPs older than 50 years retained any monetary...

>A Congressional fact-finding committee discovered that only about 2% of IPs older than 50 years retained any monetary value for their owner. It concluded that there was almost no justifiable case for copyright terms to last longer than 50 years.[34]

Attached: il_794xN.1527749821_1t45.jpg (794x652, 21.32K)

I gotta be honest I don't really understand or care about the copyright thing Disney does.
It doesn't exactly stop people from already using Mickey as whatever they want. People already draw comics and shorts of Mickey, usually making fun of him. The only difference I can tell is you can't make direct cash from using Mickey's image, like selling a backpack with his face on it that isn't officially made by Disney.
Of course, this again doesn't exactly stop anyone from just doing it because they want to.
Someone explain and make me less of a smoothbrain

Attached: Screenshot_20200305-210243.png (760x760, 210.9K)

As long as you are criticizing the mouse, using him in some sort of stupid joke that lasts ten seconds or dramatically changing it in some way you can use it. If you want to use the mouse in a "serious" way and without changing it what so ever like using him in a short you are not allowed to do that. Day care centers got sued by Disney for painting Micky on a wall. Because others are not allowed to use 50+ year old characters culture is stagnant as a whole.

I doubt much more than 2% of IPs less than ten years have any monetary value either.

The Copyright Extension Act of 1976 extended copyright terms to 75 years, for the 140 years preceding that they were 28 years and could be renewed once for another 28. This creates some peculiar situations. Star Wars thus will not be PD until 2052 while Jaws, only two years earlier, was covered by the old 28 year term thus becomes PD in 2031.

at least Sonny Bono got what he deserved

I am sorry but as a proud Disnoid I must tell you that is just patently absurd and furthermore all copyright should be extended indefinitely and don't you just think it would be wonderful to see what kind of amazing films Disney could make if they owned even more stuff and owned it forever? I love Disney+ and I love Disney parks!

Hell just a few months ago a copyright enforcement group representing Disney tried to shake down a school PTA for playing the Lion King at a fundraiser event without paying Disney the proper licensing fees which is, of course, totally absurd but such is the Distopia that we now live in.

Just make a new thing. If you can't use the original IP use an expy. Superman isn't fair use at the moment but that doesn't stop superman from appearing in the boys, marvel comics, invincible, supreme, irredeemable, astro city, megamind, hancock, my hero academia and a million other things. Just because these characters aren't called superman doesn't mean they aren't just superman. A rose by any other name would be just as sweet. Ultimately IP doesn't matter because original characters or even unoriginal characters with different names can easily be made.

Theres another factor as well. Copyright forces studios to at least make something different in name. Do you honestly think there would be any heroes other than spiderman hitting the silver screen if not for copyright laws? Copyright doesn't restrict ideas it only forces the people with money a certain pool of things they can use.

Attached: Pop art.jpg (768x577, 101.75K)

Easier said than done

but its been done. would changing copyright laws really improve anything?

Video games have demonstrated that this rarely works out, you can't just reskin something and expect it to have the same appeal. That's not to say it never works but it's hardly a catch-all solution.

What we're seeing now is Disney being more concerned with doing remakes, prequels, and sequels to their copyrighted stuff.

Even if its wearing the same skin that doesn't mean it has the same appeal. Konami's Metal Gear Offerings have by no means been well received. Hell castlevania and bloodstained shows us that as far as appeal goes the only thing that matters is the actual product and not any brand it's a part of .

I want to fuck Pete.

Attached: 1577003785974.png (220x272, 66.27K)

Honestly copyright should last for life of the author and that’s it. That way lazy greedy family/heirs can’t make money off of someone else’s work

No, the reason it's more than life of the author is to prevent people from trying to kill the author. I'd say life + 50 years is okay.

>hmmmm i want to make a silver screen adaption for Henry Bungalow's Big Dick Adventure

>Unfortunately Ella Yigowitz won't surrender up the film rights

>How can i, a wealthy conglomerate with lots of money ensure that i get those rights whilst Big Dick Adventures is still a hot IP.

>Hmmmmmm

You're acting like this isn't something that already happens.

Alternatively

>be wealthy film studio ceo

>be about to release final instalment in clitoris chronicles

>realise you could make and extra couple million of off ticket sales and merch if the author were to relinquish their rights

>hmmmm

yes but imagine if we were robbed of the world's greatest authors on a greater basis just to obtain film rights.

What do you do if the original creator isn't a who but a corporation. What if two people co wrote a comic and one realises they could double their earnings in a single action.

Thirty years and you get to renew it for another ten years. That's it.

I guess those remaining 2% are then worth a lot of money.

That's stupid. It should be lifetime plus some number of decades since that would cover the issue in It shouldn't be 95 years on account that it's way too long, though. And this isn't a US thing, this is also an issue with other copyrights around the world.

In a total of 40 years you'll have made more than your share of money off a popular IP that you have, don't be greedy

Nope, just a precaution. The current length is still way too long though.

20 years after the death of the original creator is enough. Fuck Disney

>the MCU is not as profitable as they told us
Well, well...

I could go on for hours about how ridiculously long US copyright terms have stagnated our creative culture by encouraging companies to keep reusing the same few 50+ year old characters and IPs that they cheated the original creators out of the rights to.
Ever wonder why most of the best known superheroes created this decade (Kamala Khan, Miles Morales, Spider-Gwen, Simon Baz, Jessica Cruz) are legacy characters? Because if they were new and original the creator would actually have some control. As long as they keep all new characters as permutations of old IP they don’t have to pay royalties.

Attached: ss disney.jpg (1193x796, 265.34K)

>Because others are not allowed to use 50+ year old characters culture is stagnant as a whole.
culture is stagnant because people cant copy shit from 50 yerars ago?

Who cares? Would you really want twenty different companies using the same characters and designs? Besides, trademark is a bigger issue than copyright.

Disney can't own my IP if I produce porn of my IP side by side with it.

just think how many historic films from the silent era might have been discovered and preserved, if preservationists were allowed to sell what they've recovered to recoup costs.

instead most everything just rots in the film cans.

hope you're happy, mick

Attached: 1555388407081.png (220x234, 6.24K)

>Would you really want twenty different companies using the same characters and designs
Already happens with fairy tale and mythological characters and public domain literature like Dracula.

capitalism is a failed state

>culture is stagnant because people cant copy shit from 50 yerars ago?
50 years ago means all of Star Trek TOS. it's not that long.

Imagine if Star Trek TOS weren't still pop culture, but instead it were history, and belonged to all of us. It's hard to imagine, isn't it?

We forget that Disney's vault of classic feature-length animation is mostly stuff that was public domain at the time, fairy tales. By creating the definitive work in the new medium of film, Disney "owned" the definitive version of public domain characters through today, and was able to jerk consumers around in the 1990s with their "we're putting this in the disney vault forever if you don't buy it now" bullshit

Naturally, people filming their own Star Treks isn't something most people do... a few people have, by groveling to CBS. but ONE production did it "wrong" and CBS pulled the plug on all fan films longer than 15 minutes. fucking hell

the public domain has been dead for so long, we've forgotten what it's even for.

there were a glorious eight months in 1998 when we thought we got 1923 back, but fucking Sonny Bono....

>It shouldn't be 95 years on account that it's way too long, though. And this isn't a US thing, this is also an issue with other copyrights around the world.
there are a bunch of treaties in which most of the countries of the world have to keep their copyright laws to a certain minimum standard

Unregulated? Absolutely.

Attached: k1ER-yX19p2biujP6GWtA2oReJydC9xFZh4Hf0nf2ls.png (960x390, 161.08K)

ah yes, all those failed unregulated capitalist states

>defends Wall Street fat cats while getting fired due to corporate cuts and downsizing
What did he mean by this?

Attached: huh.gif (210x216, 1.59M)

i think if you dont want stagnation you should maybe move on from shit that was made half a century ago

then again this is the board dedicated to the industry that only survives thanks to characters that were created in the 40s

>wall street
this is something in america
which isn't an unregulated capitalist state

All different interpretations and takes. And don't compare Mickey to King Arthur or Heracles. I honestly don't see much value in someone "creating their own take" on Mickey.

>i think if you dont want stagnation you should maybe move on from shit that was made half a century ago

that's kind of the problem.

why is hollywood full of sequels and reboots? Well, it always has been -- the color Wizard of Oz we all know is a remake, even. but it's only reached ridiculous proportions because every studio has a big IP hoard, that they split into three piles: "safe" ones that they can reboot every five years like Spiderman, "potential" ones where the book was popular so maybe they'll make a movie if they're desperate, or "unsafe" ones they only own because they got tricked into a bidding war with the other studios about who owns the film rights to that guy who put a hot air balloon on his lawnchair, and the $500,000 is a rounding error that they can recoup by pretending it was an expense on a movie they don't want to pay actors back-end royalties for.

well, they're running out of shit in the potentials pile, and the shit pile is just making everyone in it regret that they sold their rights before Netflix and Amazon started funding that shit.

if these comics were public domain, and Marvel weren't the only ones allowed to make Iron Man... then the incentive to just make more Iron Mans is less, and the incentive to innovate is more...

>I honestly don't see much value in someone "creating their own take" on Mickey.
would be nice if you could put Mickey on the wall of your preschool without Disney suing you tho

but that's trademark, which can be renewed forever. fuck, Panda Express trademarked the word "panda" so they can shut down any restaurant with "panda" in the name

Attached: angry-maus.png (900x733, 144.99K)

that's not really relevant tho
i think a finger painting stuck to a preschool shouldnt be illegal regardless of how old the trademark on the original character is

>retained any monetary value for their owner.
Can't really give a two shit about this argument. They're mad that they can't make money from IPs of others?

I'm all for public domain when it comes to freedom of conservation/distribution, but it annoys me that most faggots just care about it only because they want to make money off their mediocre fanfics. I hate how much of our culture is blatantly second hand at this point. As is you don't even have to actually be original, just don't make it the exact same damn thing that's copyrighted and/or trademarked.
See: all the knockoffs that exist.

We don't need more Mickey Mouse, we don't need more Star Wars, we don't need more Batman or Harry Potter, regardless who makes money off of them.

Attached: nai.png (807x950, 714.17K)

Are we going to pretend audiences/readers have nothing to do with it?
People only care about what they already know, especially capefags. When original characters are created nobody reads them and they buy 12 Batman-related books instead.

You can absolutely make the proverbial "similar but legally distinct" Star Trek. I mean we live at a time where the Orville exists and Galaxy Quest would probably have gotten a sequel if it wasn't for Alan Rickman's unfortunate demise.

Hell look at cape comics and how much of them are blatant ripoffs of each other. So no, you can't make money off telling stories that feature Captain Kirk and Spock and co, but honestly I don't know why it should matter.

Audiences. Audiences demand more shit like they already consumed. There would now be MORE people with an incentive to make money off Iron Man.

Copyright heirs are essentially glorified welfare leeches.

>t. Nick Rodwell

Weird that you hold up regulation as the solution in a thread about copyright law, but okay.

what
saying that some regulations are good and should exist does not imply that all regulations are good

THIS.Thank you,someone finally said it,modern fandoms are leeches,they just want to parasite existing work instead of creating anything new
Internet is accelerating that "second hand thing" you mentionned,there isnt growth anymore.When it comes to creative contents,Half of YouTube is just reviews or """parody""" of existing products,Yas Forums only make wojaks meme. Internet have also its hand at slowly killing creativity

Memes to begin with are "second hand", they're eminently referential.
I definitely agree with you on youtubers, and if you'll allow me to go on a tangeant: fair use is great yadda yadda, but when you make a career off of showing other people's work to an audience, you shouldn't act like a shocked virgin when copyright holders show their dicks, and you should especially not make it about "internet creation getting stifled". If you were actually creative or if you had the business sense to check how to fucking pay to have the rights to use copyrighted material (which some youtubers do), this mess wouldn't exist.

The internet being the wild west was fun for a while but now it's just so fucking stale, because people like stale shit.

>Audiences. Audiences demand more shit like they already consumed. There would now be MORE people with an incentive to make money off Iron Man.

And that would also mean more need to create new stuff. You don't see how it works?

>And that would also mean more need to create new stuff.
It wouldn't. Fuck's sake look how much people use PD characters already. And you're expecting a creativity boost to fucking Hollywood studios of all things.

>Fuck's sake look how much people use PD characters already

So what? The bad stuff shows up and disappears. Or are you telling me you're still seething over multiple Robin Hood movies after a decade?

>And you're expecting a creativity boost to fucking Hollywood studios of all things.

The smart ones would realize they can't rely on older properties too long and then move their focus on later stuff, or be forced to create new things.