[Will]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rojero:
So does it mean that batman and superman are already public domain?

As I mentioned, this has changed recently (I believe it has finally been extended to infinity, but I don't have a source on that, and may be recalling incorrectly). A 1910 Version might be; however, the comic industry slowly changes the character concept and images over time; the Batman and Superman of today aren't the Batman and Superman of 1910. There may be similarities, but they aren't the same.

---

It hasn't quite reached infinity yet, but I don't doubt it will get closer around 2023. The "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act" basically extended copyrights for twenty years. Since I don't really feel like summarizing, I'll just block quote an article describing the current law, and give the link for citation purposes. Wouldn't want to get sued for wrongful use of IP, after all...

The new term of copyright, for works created after January 1, 1978, will be the life of the author plus 70 years. For works made for hire, and anonymous and pseudonymous works, the term will be 120 years from creation or 95 years from first publication, whichever occurs first. And for works created prior to 1978 whose terms have not yet expired, the term will be 95 years from first publication (or the date of registration if prior to publication).

That article also mentions how Disney will retain rights to several of its characters (including Mickey, Minnie, Pluto, Goofy, etc.) for twenty more years. You see, they were about to enter the public domain. Of course, Disney was pushing very hard for this Act to be passed...

Originally posted by Chief Engineer Erax:

quote:

---

Clearly it's awfully inefficient to have us designing hardware and software and lawsuits all for the purpose of limiting everyone's access to media, when the technology to freely share all of it is already in place. There needs to be another system developed for rewarding content creators, which allows creative people to earn a living while still making their content available for free distribution

You just about said it all. But no one has come forward with such a system. Many people have tried and many more are still trying. But while we are not yet there we are, well, here, where the law is quite harsh but also ultimately unenforceable.

---

Actually, there was a quite effective system for quite some time in Europe. The rich households would take in some writers, artists, and musicians, effectively sponsoring them. In other words, a "patron of the arts" was much more common. It was a status symbol to be able to support artists. However, it has now fallen on the masses to be patrons. And, frankly, most people couldn't care less... I don't blame them, either. Along with the shift to having the masses support art, the purpose of artistic ventures has increasingly been mass appeal. In effect, "Art for money's sake" instead of "Art for art's sake". Which, IMHO, is also why so much of what the American "entertainment industry" churns out... sucks. All the focus is on how to make more money, and no room for creativity and originality is left (ever wonder why there are so many sequels to crappy movies coming out, and crappy sequels coming out to ruin decent originals? or, why most songs you hear sound eerily similar?). Unfortunately, there aren't many among the wealthy that would be willing to be patrons of the arts anymore... profit is the only goal.