Copyright Laws and Creativity

[Arthur]

Bluestone is making videos of super heroines, and it appears to me that the existing copyright laws may be interfering too much in the creative process. I thought it would be worthwhile to hear from the small independent video producers in this community their thoughts on the good and bad sides of copyright laws. I have no special knowledge of copyright laws - I'm just a consumer of videos.

An example of this issue is the show "Battlestar Galactica". I prefer the re-make starring Edward James Olmos over the original show starring Lorne Greene, because the re-make show raised interesting issues about man's relationship to machines, God, and the development of the human race. What if the copyright owner of the original show refused to permit the creation of the re-make? The people who produced the re-make show would have been denied the opportunity to express themselves creatively, and the consumers would have been denied the opportunity to enjoy an entertaining and thought-provoking TV series.

Existing copyright laws seem to give a virtual monopoly on the use of a fictional character to the owner of the copyright. This monopoly helps protect video producers from video piracy and plagiarism that would hurt their ability to earn a living. However, the monopoly also has the effect of preventing other producers from creating new and better versions of the character or better storylines than the original.

If the producers who improved the character or story lines were allowed to market their videos, then competition in the market place would force the original creator to step up his game and improve his characters and storylines in order to stay competitive. This kind of competition would benefit the consumer by providing him with more choices and better material that stays fresh because of the influx of new ideas.

How do other people feel about the good and bad aspects of copyright laws? Is there anything that could be done to change the laws in a way that simultaneously promotes more creativity while protecting the original creator of a fictional character?

Arthur

[Algenon5]

I'm not a producer, but as an volunteer IA contributor I have something to say about copyright law in the US.

I'm utterly in favor of strong, enforceable copyright laws that protect the financial and intellectual rights of creators, producers, their financial backers and their immediate heirs. This most certainly applies to all the producers in our community.

However, moneyed interests - who have nothing to do with the long-dead creators and financial backers of copyrighted works - through their Washington lobbyists have forced through Congress a series of laws which have effectively resulted in a "copyright forever" situation. On the slightest and often bogus pretext copyright can be claimed on works which have long been in the public domain. Since there is no one to challenge them, these spurious claims usually stand. Do the original producers or their heirs receive any financial rewards from this legal piracy? Not a penny.

Another sad aspect of this situation is the thousands of American feature films which never see the light of day because they are in thrall to operations like TCM, that won't release them on DVD or lease them to online exhibitors like Netflix. How did TCM acquire this treasury of American film? Through stock transfers and fire sales resulting from the collapse of studios like MGM. Did the heirs of the original creators and financiers benefit financially? Of course not!

Moreover, US copyright law is a mess. It is such a mass of conflicting regulations figuring out what actually is a valid copyright sometimes can be a nightmare.

Tomorrow I'll complain about Canadians sneaking across the Vermont border to steal our fall foliage.

Soapbox Al

[Algenon5]

Arthur, after I was knocked off my soapbox by a Canadian foliage thief, I realized I hadn't responded to your central question.

Of course a character is entitled to full copyright protection, like any other creation. Suppose I invent the animated character Billy Bloodworm, and it's huge box office success. Kids all over the country are nagging their parent to take them to see the repulsive little sucker. Without copyright protection what's to stop Pixar from putting their Billy Bloodworm in direct competition with my slimy little creep? In addition, suppose Pixar does such a lousy job, it effectively destroys the character. Billy Bloodworm is my character, my creation, my vision, now and for the future. Whether in the name of creative freedom or anything else, you don't have the right to monkey with my worm.

Al

[smudger]

If we relate it to the Bluestone situation, though, it is totally ridiculous. He didn't set out to create a feature film that would be shown in theatres across the world (copyright claim justified) but a short fetish clip that would go on private and extremely limited sale (copyright claim oppressive).

The purpose of copyright- to protect financial interest in a production or stop real plagiarism- should be what counts.

I am reminded of a case a few years ago where that international bully-boy corporation McDonalds went to court seeking to shut down a restaurant in Scotland, which had called itself McDonald's on the flimsy pretext that it was the proprietor's name. They came before a good old Scottish judge who told them, in very correct legal terminology, to fuck off.

That is how it should be for copyright.

[Arthur]

I agree that a character is entitled to full copyright protection, but I also believe that the laws should limit the duration of that protection.

The period of full copyright protection would give the copyright owner time to pay off the initial costs of developing the characters and story lines and market-testing their creations. The period of copyright protection would also give the original version time to become "burned" into people's memory.

After the copyright has expired, other companies such as Pixar or whoever should be granted the opportunity to express themselves by creating their own version. If the Pixar version is really bad, then they would lose money and not be a threat to the original creator. I can't recall an occasion when a bad re-make of a movie destroyed my interest in the original version. If anything, a bad re-make of a movie makes the original look better by contrast. Gary Cooper IS Will Kane in "High Noon", and the sequel with Lee Majors does not diminish my interest in the Gary Cooper version.

I hadn't heard of the court case with McDonalds in Scotland. A problem with that situation is the high cost of going to trial in America. Small video producers won't have enough money to pay for a lengthy court trial, so they may be forced to settle out of court.

I hear people in Scotland eat a thing called Haggis. Which is worse - the heart, liver, and lungs of a sheep encased in the animal's stomach or a Big Mac?

Arthur

[Nightposter]

I can recall two instances where the McDonald's fast food restaurants sued smaller restaurants who happen to have a similar name. They lost both times. One was a restaurant on the East Coast called McDonald's family restaurant. It was a small storefront restaurant, that bore no resemblance to the golden arches and didn't even have hamburgers on the menu. They were seafood place that had been in business since 1948. The judge in his decision told the defendants that they might consider filing suit against the fast food chain as the fast food chain came later. The name of the family owning the local restaurant? McDonald

The second restaurant was in the Midwest, it had been in business since 1925 in the small town square. Its name was Mac Donald's, Owned by the Mac Donald family since opening . Apparently, the fast food chain decided that the nearby interstate off ramp was a good place for one of their burger joints, and they sued claiming Infringement. After they lost the infringement lawsuit, they decided not to build, and moved their restaurant 20 miles down the road.

[Arthur]

It's encouraging to hear that a small family-owned business can stand up to a large corporation with more resources and win.

[Algenon5]

What you're saying, Arthur, is there's a time limit on how long I can own the exclusive rights to my property and the benefits derived there from; and after some nebulous time I no longer have the right to protect the value of said property for the benefit of my heirs. I hate to sound like Ian Rand speaking through "The Fountainhead," but that's nonsense.

Once a property's copyright expires and it falls into the public domain, you are free to do what you want with it. Admittedly this doesn't happen very often these days. The corporate copyright lawyers are too sharp for that.

Al

[Arthur]

Al,

There actually are time limits on copyright protection, as described in pages 5-6 of this reference published by the U.S. Copyright Office.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

I do not know why the law makers chose those specific number of years for the protection to last, and I can see why you would think that their reasons for choosing those number of years and not some other would be "nebulous".

In your first post, you complained about the "copyright forever" situation on works which have long been in the public domain. The time limits on copyright protection are intended to block the "copyright forever" situation.

Arthur

[Algenon5]

I know that, Arthur. My comment was on your suggestion.

Quote:

"The period of full copyright protection would give the copyright owner time to pay off the initial costs of developing the characters and story lines and market-testing their creations. The period of copyright protection would also give the original version time to become "burned" into people's memory."

In terms of the average human lifetime 90 years is as good as copyright forever.

Al

[mikedark]

I have a hard time knowing what's in the public domain period. I think American copyright law is that it's the length of the creator's life, +70 years. Which means a lot of stuff from the turn of the century should still be off limits. But then you go out and can find that same stuff either legally for free in the Nook or Kindle stores, or on numerous DVDs from varied studios, often of varying quality depending on the print that particular distributor uses, which creates a mess trying to pick out the best copy.

As for the Blue situation, sadly most superheroines are not owned by the creators, but owned by the companies. And given that DC and Marvel are owned by Warner and Disney respectively, legally using their characters in anything other than vaguely disguised versions is an absolute nightmare. Warner and Disney are probably the most protective media corporations on the planet. Which sucks, because I would love to write a SHIELD series for Blue!

[Pennpaul]

While discussion seems appropo, reality of copyrighted characters is a given. Direct usage of a copyrighted character does incur the wrath of the "companies". Case in point, Kimberly Marvel was forced by threat of litigation to cease using the professional name "Marvel Girl"

So whatever a producers uses as characters, without express permission, is subject to effective litigation by the "companies". Tis better to invent your own character. Case in point, any of the FRENZY interpretations seemed to avoid naming the characters. The titles cannot be copyrighted. Material content can.

4P

[mikedark]

As a writer, I've always been told to take the tropes I like of my favorite characters and find a new angle to come at them. That's perfect for creating whole new properties, but if what you're being asked to do is essentially fanfiction, that becomes a little harder because then you have to be creative with keeping the character familiar as themselves but renamed in some way.