Continuations by people other than the original author/creator aren't worth getting worked up about.

[Bramblethorn]

25 years isn't very long though.

I'm thinking of Jim Morrison's literary/poetry content, all of which went into print fifty years after his death - basically as a consequence of no will when he died, his estate went to Pamela Courson who similarly died not long after, also intestate. Then there was a long-standing legal debate between the Courson family, other interested parties (including Manzarek, Krieger and Densmore), a woman who claimed to have married Morrison in a Wicca ceremony, and Morrison's sister, Anne.

His latest material is a joint estate copyright IIRC, published in 2021. Roughly half had been published previously, I'd say, but there's a lot of notebook material that's "new".

I think that says less about how long copyright terms ought to be than it does about the importance of making a will (and including intellectual property in that will). Any time somebody that valuable dies intestate and without a clear heir it's going to be a mess. (If the term had been shorter, would there have been incentive for interested parties to sort it out a bit sooner and publish that material earlier? I dunno.)

My feeling that terms should be shorter is motivated by cases like that of Sherlock Holmes. Doyle published the first story in 1887, the last in 1927, and died in 1930. He had five children but none of them had surviving issue; the last of them died in 1997 at which point the rights passed to a bunch of nephews and nieces once removed, a step-great-grandson, and so on.

I'm not going to dig up all the different versions of copyright law that have applied to ACD's works, but the latest of those stories didn't enter public domain in the USA until 2023. Even though the earlier ones had long since passed into the public domain everywhere, the Doyle Estate continued to use their rights over the later stories to extract a cut from anybody selling stories about Holmes and Watson - I recall one of their arguments was that Holmes only started displaying emotion in the later stories, so anything that showed Holmes displaying emotion infringed on their copyrights. Ludicrous, but it was enough to deter publishers until Leslie Klinger got tired of paying the protection money and finally beat them in court in 2014. At that point, 127 years after "A Study in Scarlet" was first published and 84 years after ACD's death, Holmes and Watson finally became available to anybody who wanted to write about them. (And the Doyle Estate still maintained ownership over the material that actually was novel to the last few stories, until 2023.)

I guess there's a broader argument to be had here about inherited wealth but it's hard for me to see that a bunch of people who had never even met Doyle, who became heirs only through the lucky accident of five different people dying childless, should've been able to keep a lock on those characters for well over a century. That feels positively parasitic. They had plenty of time to make their money and invest it.

(Obviously long copyright terms weren't the only problem there either, but they certainly didn't help matters.)

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I think that says less about how long copyright terms ought to be than it does about the importance of making a will (and including intellectual property in that will). Any time somebody that valuable dies intestate and without a clear heir it's going to be a mess. (If the term had been shorter, would there have been incentive for interested parties to sort it out a bit sooner and publish that material earlier? I dunno.)

My feeling that terms should be shorter is motivated by cases like that of Sherlock Holmes. Doyle published the first story in 1887, the last in 1927, and died in 1930. He had five children but none of them had surviving issue; the last of them died in 1997 at which point the rights passed to a bunch of nephews and nieces once removed, a step-great-grandson, and so on.

I'm not going to dig up all the different versions of copyright law that have applied to ACD's works, but the latest of those stories didn't enter public domain in the USA until 2023. Even though the earlier ones had long since passed into the public domain everywhere, the Doyle Estate continued to use their rights over the later stories to extract a cut from anybody selling stories about Holmes and Watson - I recall one of their arguments was that Holmes only started displaying emotion in the later stories, so anything that showed Holmes displaying emotion infringed on their copyrights. Ludicrous, but it was enough to deter publishers until Leslie Klinger got tired of paying the protection money and finally beat them in court in 2014. At that point, 127 years after "A Study in Scarlet" was first published and 84 years after ACD's death, Holmes and Watson finally became available to anybody who wanted to write about them. (And the Doyle Estate still maintained ownership over the material that actually was novel to the last few stories, until 2023.)

I guess there's a broader argument to be had here about inherited wealth but it's hard for me to see that a bunch of people who had never even met Doyle, who became heirs only through the lucky accident of five different people dying childless, should've been able to keep a lock on those characters for well over a century. That feels positively parasitic. They had plenty of time to make their money and invest it.

(Obviously long copyright terms weren't the only problem there either, but they certainly didn't help matters.)

I agree, it's always seemed ludicrous to me that if you make a life saving drug you get patent protection for 20 years.
If I write a book about you making that drug I get copyright protection for life and beyond.

 

[TheLobster]

I agree, it's always seemed ludicrous to me that if you make a life saving drug you get patent protection for 20 years.
If I write a book about you making that drug I get copyright protection for life and beyond.

I think it makes sense. Tangible inventions usually have inherent benefits that make them eminently marketable, and it’s typically just about the first mover advantage anyway that allows you to dominate the market early on.

Works of fiction have no such inherent traits, and aren’t even subject to physical limitations when it comes to resources needed to replicate them. It makes sense that legal protections around them are stronger.

 

[alohadave]

I think it makes sense. Tangible inventions usually have inherent benefits that make them eminently marketable, and it’s typically just about the first mover advantage anyway that allows you to dominate the market early on.

Works of fiction have no such inherent traits, and aren’t even subject to physical limitations when it comes to resources needed to replicate them. It makes sense that legal protections around them are stronger.

Originally, copyrights in the US were 14 years, with only one optional 14 year extension. If people back then could market their work in that much time, we can do much better now.

I see no reason why copyright on works should outlive their creator by 70-95 years.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I think it makes sense. Tangible inventions usually have inherent benefits that make them eminently marketable, and it’s typically just about the first mover advantage anyway that allows you to dominate the market early on.

Works of fiction have no such inherent traits, and aren’t even subject to physical limitations when it comes to resources needed to replicate them. It makes sense that legal protections around them are stronger.

Perhaps, but that isn't true of all patents. Many are for a process or even software code that is no harder to replicate than an e-book. If we look at pharmaceuticals which have massive R&D costs there isn't much advantage left once the generics can hit the market. Other than what you can garner through spending even more money on marketing.

I'd like to see the copyright go to something like: Life of the creator, or 25 years whichever comes later.

I do think we need some protections in place for those rare cases where a creator puts their work out and drops dead 5 days later, but I don't think someone's Grandchild should be controlling a literary work 60 years after Grandpa died.

 

[yowser]

I agree with others that copyright ought to be a far shorter time. You should be rewarded for your creativity, but not as extensively as current practice.

One of the huge drawbacks to this policy has to do with so-called 'orphan' works. Owner dies (or publisher who has the rights refuses to release them) and the piece lingers in no man's land. The thing is out of print, very few copies still extant (so not in many libraries or archives.) Nobody can reprint it, offer a new edition, the written brilliance just sits there like a dead duck. It ought to be in the public domain, but many works just lie dormant, the creativity in a demilitarised zone of inaccessibility.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I agree with others that copyright ought to be a far shorter time. You should be rewarded for your creativity, but not as extensively as current practice.

One of the huge drawbacks to this policy has to do with so-called 'orphan' works. Owner dies (or publisher who has the rights refuses to release them) and the piece lingers in no man's land. The thing is out of print, very few copies still extant (so not in many libraries or archives.) Nobody can reprint it, offer a new edition, the written brilliance just sits there like a dead duck. It ought to be in the public domain, but many works just lie dormant, the creativity in a demilitarised zone of inaccessibility.

There are a bunch of movies that are effectively in purgatory over rights issues, usually over the copyright and licensing for the music used in them.
I'm all for copyright protecting a creator and giving them the opportunity to profit off their work but at some point this just gets ridiculous.

 

[alohadave]

I agree with others that copyright ought to be a far shorter time. You should be rewarded for your creativity, but not as extensively as current practice.

One of the huge drawbacks to this policy has to do with so-called 'orphan' works. Owner dies (or publisher who has the rights refuses to release them) and the piece lingers in no man's land. The thing is out of print, very few copies still extant (so not in many libraries or archives.) Nobody can reprint it, offer a new edition, the written brilliance just sits there like a dead duck. It ought to be in the public domain, but many works just lie dormant, the creativity in a demilitarised zone of inaccessibility.

And by the time the max extent of time has passed, the work is rarely still culturally relevant to anyone but historians.

I've had random thoughts of taking books that come into public domain and making modern copies, even if just as an ebook, but then I think about who would ever actually buy it.

 

[Otto26]

I think derivative works are just fine under the correct circumstances. This site doesn't allow them so I don't write them. I have updated my profile to allow other authors to create derivative works (fan-fiction). It'll never happen and, if it does, it'll probably be stuff that I hate. That's life.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

And by the time the max extent of time has passed, the work is rarely still culturally relevant to anyone but historians.

I've had random thoughts of taking books that come into public domain and making modern copies, even if just as an ebook, but then I think about who would ever actually buy it.

Imagine a world where Star Wars went into the public domain in 1991...or, since of course Lucas would have renewed it 2005.

 

[SkyBubble]

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell protected the right to parody.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I agree with others that copyright ought to be a far shorter time. You should be rewarded for your creativity, but not as extensively as current practice.

One of the huge drawbacks to this policy has to do with so-called 'orphan' works. Owner dies (or publisher who has the rights refuses to release them) and the piece lingers in no man's land. The thing is out of print, very few copies still extant (so not in many libraries or archives.) Nobody can reprint it, offer a new edition, the written brilliance just sits there like a dead duck. It ought to be in the public domain, but many works just lie dormant, the creativity in a demilitarised zone of inaccessibility.

It's particularly aggravating when this happens to still-living authors, who would love to see their story back in print, but the rights holder doesn't feel like it. (Which can happen for a lot of reasons other than "nobody would buy it").

For that particular case the best solution might be a reversion clause - if you don't do anything with the property in X amount of time, the rights revert to the author. But that only works if authors get it into the contract.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell protected the right to parody.

Specifically, parody of public figures. Not all figures are public and not all derivative works are parody.

 

[SkyBubble]

I personally have mixed feelings about fanfic. It's probably, in most cases, copyright infringement, and some authors don't like it in the same way that some Lit authors don't want their stuff used without permission.

So Wicked shouldn't have been written?

 

[SimonDoom]

So Wicked shouldn't have been written?

That presented no problem. Frank Baum's original book entered the public domain in the 1950s. After that, no copyright existed. People were free to write whatever adaptations of it they wanted to.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

It's particularly aggravating when this happens to still-living authors, who would love to see their story back in print, but the rights holder doesn't feel like it. (Which can happen for a lot of reasons other than "nobody would buy it").

For that particular case the best solution might be a reversion clause - if you don't do anything with the property in X amount of time, the rights revert to the author. But that only works if authors get it into the contract.

Good in theory, but in practice you would see companies resorting to strategies like the 1994 Fantastic Four which was only made to retain the rights and never released. That isn't an outlier, there is actually a term, ashcan copy, for something made just to retain the rights.

 

[Bramblethorn]

That presented no problem. Frank Baum's original book entered the public domain in the 1950s. After that, no copyright existed. People were free to write whatever adaptations of it they wanted to.

Adding to this: the 1939 film is still in copyright, and Wicked mostly steers clear of elements that are original to that film. For instance, the magic slippers are silver in the original book but red in the 1939 movie, so Wicked sticks with silver.

One prominent element it does share with the film that didn't come from the book is the Wicked Witch/Elphaba being green. My understanding is that Margaret Hamilton's portrayal in the film was so influential that the idea of green-skinned witches became generic and unprotectable, but the specific shade of green used in the 1939 film is still protected so competing versions need to use a different green.

(Probably for the best; Hamilton's makeup was poisonous.)

 

[SkyBubble]

Many of the people have said to take the premise and make it your own. Writing your own take on an idea is fine. Picking up where someone left off without their permission, is not.

T.S. Eliot said "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal." I think this is related to what he meant. Borrow a little of his work, or Shakespeare's, or Rowling's (within the fair use exemption) and do something new with it.

 

[SkyBubble]

As stated, Laurel requires lit writers to gain permission prior to publishing work inspired by another lit author.

There's a difference between "inspired by" and "based on" or using. I have a series of stories about a couple of friends who reconnect at their college Homecoming and, well, this being Literotica, you know what happens.

Now, if somebody reads my stories and says to him/herself "Hmmm...a couple reconnects at Homecoming," and writes a new story with their own characters because they read mine and it inspired them, they're entirely within their rights. I might even read it.

If they take my characters and my collegiate setting and use them in a story, using my framework and my series, then that's a violation of my copyright.

 

[Katie_Mae]

There's a difference between "inspired by" and "based on" or using. I have a series of stories about a couple of friends who reconnect at their college Homecoming and, well, this being Literotica, you know what happens.

Now, if somebody reads my stories and says to him/herself "Hmmm...a couple reconnects at Homecoming," and writes a new story with their own characters because they read mine and it inspired them, they're entirely within their rights. I might even read it.

If they take my characters and my collegiate setting and use them in a story, using my framework and my series, then that's a violation of my copyright.

I'm not Laurel. I don't make, change or enforce the rules. If Laurel rejects an "inspired by" story asking the author to get permission from the author of the inspiration, then that's on her, not me.

 

[alohadave]

For that particular case the best solution might be a reversion clause - if you don't do anything with the property in X amount of time, the rights revert to the author. But that only works if authors get it into the contract.

There is a termination provision in copyright law. https://www.copyright.gov/recordation/termination.html

 

[alohadave]

Good in theory, but in practice you would see companies resorting to strategies like the 1994 Fantastic Four which was only made to retain the rights and never released. That isn't an outlier, there is actually a term, ashcan copy, for something made just to retain the rights.

This is the reason that Sony made so many Spiderman movies.

 

[Britva415]

I've had random thoughts of taking books that come into public domain and making modern copies, even if just as an ebook, but then I think about who would ever actually buy it.

The trouble with this is, you aren't the only one with this idea, and your ebook will have to compete with a whole bunch of other people's ebooks with the same public-domain material.

This is real, not hypothetical. Amazon has many different ebook sellers doing exactly this with many, many different titles, but still duplicating each other's efforts and even appearing to rip off each other's listings.

 

[alohadave]

The trouble with this is, you aren't the only one with this idea, and your ebook will have to compete with a whole bunch of other people's ebooks with the same public-domain material.

This is real, not hypothetical. Amazon has many different ebook sellers doing exactly this with many, many different titles, but still duplicating each other's efforts and even appearing to rip off each other's listings.

Just when I think I have an original idea...

 

[Kelliezgirl]

The trouble with this is, you aren't the only one with this idea, and your ebook will have to compete with a whole bunch of other people's ebooks with the same public-domain material.

This is real, not hypothetical. Amazon has many different ebook sellers doing exactly this with many, many different titles, but still duplicating each other's efforts and even appearing to rip off each other's listings.

Leaving out the cesspool that Amazon creates with some of that stuff, is this necessarily a bad thing? I'd rather have 15 people fighting over selling me an E-book of Edward Bulwer-Lytton's masterpiece "Paul Clifford" than not be able to get it at all.
Any solution is going to be messy to some extent or other, but I'd rather side with making things more readily available than less.