Drawn! The Illustration and Cartooning Blog

No way; a limit like this would hurt an individual more than a large company. I imagine 14 years from now, I might be finishing up my breakthrough graphic novel. You know, the one that makes me famous and enables me to make a living doing what I love? I would want to be able to cash in and sell all the other books that couldn't find their audience in the previous 14 years because I didn't have a name. My family deserves that for putting up with me all these years, holed away in my art studio. As someone who is spending his life creating original content - I deserve my copyrights to last for at least my full life. God willing, I hope that's more than 14 years.

Absolutely not. What's mine is mine and stays mine.
If I make a house, the thing and all the rights that concern it will be mine forever, but that should not count for artwork? That is crazy...

I hear what you're saying Fabricani, but you would probably not copyright your novel until it's actually finished. After that, you market and distribute it, and hope for the best. Your creation is likely to generate the majority of its revenue within the first few years of release. Seventy-five years later—unless you've just created the next Batman—and frankly it could be argued that the environment that helped bring about the era of The Giant Cultural Icons is over for the most part, seeing as all we're mostly doing these days is re-hashing old stuff—it's not likely people would even be able to find it, let alone that it would still be generating enough revenue to benefit your descendants.

Remember, this is only a paper he wrote, in which he made very generalized calculations (there will always be exceptions, or people who feel they should be exempted), and as the article states:

Neither the US nor the UK are in any danger of rethinking copyright law from scratch...

And he feels that his calculations reveal the following:

An optimal copyright term of 14 years, which is designed to encourage the best balance of incentive to create new work and social welfare that comes from having work enter the public domain (where it often inspires new creative acts).

The alternative—to continue to extend copyright terms indefinitely, as large corporations see fit (and right now, THEY'RE the ones with the power to do this, NOT YOU)—means creative works could theoretically (let's hope not in practice) NEVER enter the public domain.

@jeroen "Absolutely not. What’s mine is mine and stays mine."

Fair enough -- but corporations shouldn't have the same privilege? I'm not saying copyright should be indefinite, but it's an idea conceived before corporate monoliths, radio, television, and comics. (When people talk about copyright reform, their idea of copyright really only works for books). We need another way of looking at this that fits with today's reality of "intellectual property."

@Luc "the era of The Giant Cultural Icons is over for the most part"

Two words: Harry Potter. Suppose JK Rowling took two years or more with each book. That means that Philospher's Stone would be going into public domain just as Deathly Hallows was being released. That presents a huge problem not just for JK Rowling, but for anyone that paid her for the right to produce movies, cartoons, comics, and action figures based on her characters.

I realize this is all theoretical -- but I do wonder why Disney shouldn't be allowed to protect their brand and Warners should lose out on properties which still generate income for them because of ideas dating back a century or more.

Imagine if NOTHING ever entered into the public domain. Imagine if you could no longer use music that was hundreds of years old, or images of old Masters' paintings. Museums and Libraries would have to shut down. Or worse, they would be big businesses, probably turned into "cultural" theme parks and stock-art agencies.

Read about the copyright issues behind the use of the song "Happy Birthday To You." This is why you don't hear it performed by characters in movies or on TV shows anymore.

Abuse of copyright due to misunderstanding of it has actually resulted in certain public places posting signs claiming that the actual AREA itself (such as a public park or building) is under copyright, thus taking photos could allegedly get you arrested. This is what happens when something that was meant to prevent the stealing of ideas from artists gets out of hand.

I completely agree that for a fixed and reasonable period of time one should own all the rights to one's own creations, but it makes no sense to say one's copyright could last thousands of years, or through to infinity! Who would own the rights thousands of years after you die? Your family would have been through hundreds of generations. Who would manage the royalty fees? And how would they divvy them all up? And why would it be worth it then?

I posted the above before seeing Rebort's post.

@Rebort, re my comment "the era of The Giant Cultural Icons is over for the most part"

I did say "for the most part" and "it could be argued that." I'm not stating absolutes. But you make a fantastic point, regarding the Harry Potter franchise. HP is one of the few that is genuinely creator-inspired though, unlike most of the stuff out there today that makes it to the big leagues which is usually "created" in-house by the larger media companies.

And you're right: if copyright terms were reduced to 14 years, how might that influence creators when it comes to multi-part projects like that? I don't have the answer, but the current trend of extending copyright terms and abusing copyright definitions sure ain't it.

Luc: Yeah, I understand it's a general theory. But theorists need to be pragmatic when thinking these things through. When I read that you'd tend to agree, I see an example of how blind theory affects people's opinion. Personally, I'd rather see individual artist protected even if it means no one ever gets their mitts on Mickey Mouse. God forbid we have to be creative and innovate.

It's reasonable that art becomes public after the artist's death. At that point, the art has a life of own. But by no means should an artist ever loose their work durning their lives. Ever.

We must always err on the side of protecting the artist. They are outnumbered by consumers.

And I wasn't talking about taking 14 years to create one book, or a series of books. I'm talking about the reasonably selfish desire of an artist to sell _old and completed_ works after they establish their name. Jesus, it's the least they deserve after a life of poverty.

@Luc - I know you weren't speaking in absolutes. Harry Potter just popped into my head upon reading the phrase "Giant Cultural Icons." :-)

I don't have any solid answers either. I just think it's odd that we should go to Disney and force them to open up their brand to their competitors. Or go to Warners and tell them -- in the middle of their production of a new Batman movie franchise -- that Universal can make a Batman movie, or some cut-rate Turkish production house, or .. Ron Jeremy.

I agree that it's abused -- your Happy Birthday is a good point (I'd add DJ Dangermouse's Grey Album too, really an original take based wholly off the work of other artists). I just don't see any kind of solution that makes sense and fits with both individual ownership, corporate ownership, and a worldwide media saturation.

PS: A 14 year limit -- or really, any smaller limit -- would most probably kill mid-list authors too. Too often in these discussions, we forget that the majority is most definitely not JRR Tolkien, JK Rowling, or Stephen King. Far from it.

That's flat out crazy. Copyright should stay with the creator till they die and or stay within the family. What should be changed or all out revoked is the law /case law viewing the corporation as a private individual. In my view if you create a lasting character or image, you and your family should reap some sort of kick back for it.

Folks like Jeff Smith and J.K. Rowling would heartily disagree with that. 14 years, pffft! The only people who would say that are people who want to cash in on the public domain status.

The purpose of copyright is to promote the creation innovative works for the good of society, not to protect your income stream. If you want to argue that 14 years would kill the viability of small-volume creators, go ahead and do that. I would certainly agree with you. But the argument that you "own" an idea, or that the interests of the Republic are served by perpetual or life-long copyright are not very defensible when scrutinized.

Personally I would be happy with 14 years with a voluntary extension if the author is still alive, or really just a straight 28 years. Digital media has made it so simple to create and distribute that it could be considered an onerous burden to have to proactively renew for example, an entire stock photo portfolio comprised of thousands of individual pieces. If you can't profit enough from your work in 28 years, it's time to create something new--which is exactly the point of copyright.

@EXPLOSION
Agreed. Or maybe we could just go back to the ol' life+50 years model. That seemed to work quite well for everyone until jumbo corporations started being treated better than human beings and demand—and obtain—lengthier copyright terms.

I still don't buy the short term limitation on copyright. What if that creator/artist creates one good concept, film, book, song or a classic image that he or she has created. Or a classic that lasts well till their death or beyond. Stuff runs in cycles of popularity. There's also those works that may not have hit a decade a go but something renews interest in it. Stock company's buying up images painted by Rockwell. If Rockwell was wanted to, he should be able to leave rights to usage in his will where ever applicable. It's intellectual property. Just as viable as land. The only reason stuff goes into public domain is because it was a crap idea or the creator didn't know any better. Batman was Bob Kane's only good idea. True it was a work-for-hire. It's lasted well past his death. Peanuts was Charles Schultz's. If I can't reap all the possible rewards if I am lucky enough, why the heck am I in the commercial arts?

Patents, which are as much a result of hard work as any art piece only last about 20 years. Then they enter public domain. Why should works of art be more heavily protected than other types of intellectual property?

It seems to me that some creative types like to think that they're totally unique and that their own work is born in a vacuum, alone and naked and must therefore be controlled by them for eternity. But everything they do is based on very rich cultural heritage which was created before perpetual copyright was born. They're taking but they don't want to give back.

The actual length of copyright is a more complex matter. Commercial works make most of their profits in first few months or years (movies), and fine art/original art profits come from uniqueness, not from distribution. About only exception are books which can take some time before sales take off.

But no matter what, protecting some imaginary profits decades into the future while slowly bleeding current public domain sphere dry is not good for culture as a whole. Purpose of the copyright is not to allow lazy grand-grand-children to feed off until they burst. That's like keep getting your grandfathers factory salary after he's dead, for work you didn't do. Original purpose of copyright was to make sure that maximum amount of creative works enter and enrich public domain in timely manner while creator is compensated with short-term distribution monopoly.

"Intellectual property" is a misnomer, copyright never was nor ever acted like property in a legal sense. It's a limited-time government-enforced monopoly granted to a creator for a potentially infinite and publicly beneficial resource; whereas physical property is a finite resource for private benefit.

But I guess my strongest argument would be that ideas are culture first--can you really argue that your ideas are completely original and not incubated and thriving in a larger environment? As an original creator, our government has seen fit to protect your ability to profit from your work for the benefit of everyone, as an incentive for your contribution to culture. But part of this agreement has always been that this time would be limited. The reason is because culture, while not entirely comprised of "free" knowledge, is fed and rejuvenated by it. Public Domain IS culture. At some point Superman isn't just someone's cash cow; it's become a part of America, like Paul Bunyan, built into the American consciousness. After a certain point, DC is putting a burden on the free flow of culture by holding on to Superman, which is contrary to the purpose of copyright and therefore disallowed. Copyright was made for a limited time because it was always about culture.

The amount of "Limited time" of course is debatable. My belief is that anything copyrighted when I am a kid should become public domain at some point in my adult life. The reason I say this is because stuff that I loved when I was a kid has become part of my life by the time I become an adult. It's been absorbed into me, it is a part of who I am. If I am a creator, it undeniably contributes to what I create. I believe this is the point that control has been wrested from the creator and now belongs to everyone.

Don't get me wrong, I do not want creators to get screwed. I can definitely see the disadvantage of a 14-year scheme for the individual creator. But I believe that copyright that lasts a lifetime or longer is destructive to the free growth of culture and therefore goes against the purpose of copyright.

One point I'd like to make is that long copyrights can stunt academic research. If a work is in the hands of descendents of the artist, and I want to write about that artist and need to reproduce their work, but the family says no, I'm out of luck. At the same time, I respect the family's right to profit off the work. I'd like to see a law where the family/creator can charge a fair market value for use of the work, but can't block publication of AN ALREADY ONCE-PUBLISHED PIECE for scholarly purposes. I wish I could extend that law to cover works never previously published, but I have sympathy for the many reasons why that piece might have been left unpublished (it was bad, too personal, sacred, whatever).

My second point is to comment on Luc's bit above where he says museums would be reduced to being stock art agencies. Actually, they already rely in large part on revenue from reproduction rights of artifacts, more so in the UK than Canada I believe. I once worked at the British Museum, and was told that whichever museum owned the original, they were the ones who got to charge for repro of it. I don't think there was any expiry date on that.

How long should we let Coca Cola keep it's logo? Or FedEx, or Major League Baseball?

Why is it that some creative people don't think that their work or the work of other creative people has value?

If you want to draw Batman all day long, go ahead. The only reason you'd need the copyright removed would be so that you can profit from drawing him. As long as Disney is still using Mickey in their theme parks, I think he's an asset and they should be able to protect their assets. Should Schultz have been forced to come up with a new idea after 14 years? Should Metropolitan Life or Cedar Fair be allowed to use the popularity of Snoopy to promote their business without compensating Schultz?

Just because "it has grown simpler to print books, record music, and edit films using new digital tools" and "the production and reproduction costs for creative work in have dropped substantially" doesn't mean that the life of the work has diminished nor the value.

Feel free to create art for the public to use. Be as generous as you like. Just don't try to stop others from creating a brand for themselves and being able to profit from it.

If you want to see something really scary, check out what the Orphan Works act tried to do. http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topic...

You have to laugh at Disney, a company that's made many large fortunes from mining public domain stories for all they're worth, scrambling and wheedling to ensure that no one else gets to play with their toys.

God knows this whole issue is enormously complex, and certainly beyond my meagre brain, but there's something hugely stinky about the musclebound lunkhead corporations getting to more or less buy changes in the law that benefit their selfish financial concerns.

Don't mix trademarks with copyright. They are two different things. Mickey Mouse is a trademark, Coca-Cola is a trademark and Harry Potter is a trademark. Trademark rights won't disappear with time unless it is not used - and then it fells to the public domain. Trademarks offer more than enough protection for the Mouse, no worries. Anyone can do a book about wizarding school, but they can't use Harry Potter(TM).


Folklore is in public domain, you use it, it's part of the culture you live in. Modern folklore is part of the culture too but you can't use it, comment it or create works based on it as it's, nowadays, under corporate copyright. Icons of yesteryear can't be used to pay homages or to reflect your childhood. If something, say Superman(TM), is in public domain how can someone sell it for profit? It's free for all, not just for wannabe profitmakers. What lengthy copyrights prohibit is publication of derivative works. It doesn't matter if it's non-profit fan art, you can't show it, no matter how big part of you and your childhood that cultural icon is. Copyright of today is not there for artists, it's there for companies who wan't to keep their monopolies forever, doing tired rehashes with their beaten money-cows. Copyright is a license for distribution monopoly, nothing else, and monopolies should be limited.

If copyright like today would have existed decades back, Disney could've never done any movies as their work was based on Grimm, and Grimm would've been copyrighted. Future works grow from public domain and that's why 1900's was so fruitful: there was plenty of public domain to build a piece upon. Besides short copyright term back in the days didn't make artists to stop working, so yes, incentive was enough and they knew there would be plenty of time to make their profits in 14 years for creating new works. Nowadays derivative and commentary pieces are hard to do, as you will find yourself in court against multi-billion corporation with very hungry legal division.

14 years might be tad too short (I would like to have about 20-50 years for my works and limited artistic control for life), but still, perpetual copyright is very bad. I know I would like to keep getting monthly paychecks for paving work my grand-dad did 60 years ago but what right do I have for that?

the following video is a very interesting watch in regards to the whole copyrights debate. Some might find it a tad slow and maybe a little boring, but bare with the narrator, he makes an interesting point. And lovers of certain strands of contemporary music, should recognize some of the references. The video is focussed on music, but I believe it works for visual art as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac

There are many interesting points brought up in this discussion, and as much as the creative part of me wants complete ownership and control of my creations forever, I know that copyright laws were initially designed to promote creativity and innovation, and not to protect the creator's work indefinitely. Whether this is right or wrong is another issue.

As onr of the earliest posters pointed out, the old model of 50 years after the death of the creator seems more than fair, especially considering that patents expire after 20 years whether you are dead or not.

Even as I type this I want to argue with myself. It's a tricky situation.

I have to admit that I am confused as to how trademarks play into this. Disney made a Bambi movie one year after the book "Bambi" went into the public domain. However, the movie was clearly a derivative work. If the character Bambi had itself been trademarked, would this have prevented Disney from making a movie based on those characters? Likewise, though by all rights the earliest Mickey Mouse cartoons should now be in the public domain, would I have the right to make my own Mickey Mouse cartoons even though Disney Corp. still has Mickey Mouse trademarked? Is trademarking a "character" even legitimate? While trademarking the distinctive mouse ears logo is obviously covered, being able to trademark all character likenesses would seem to be a covert way to prevent anyone from taking advantage of a public domain work in the case that the characters were trademarked by the company that created the work.

How would it work out if there were NO copyright laws? What would happen?

protracted intellectual property rights:

prevent the sharing of scientific information and inhibit scientific progress.

Make the cost of life saving drugs and treatment prohibitive for those who need them.

Make corporations and individuals wealthy and are at the foundation of the power that multinational corporations hold. This power and bottom line thinking enables corporations to act irresponsibly in almost every practical regard. "Corporate citizens" have no regard for their communities or environments beyond the bottom line.

And of course, protracted intellectual property rights prevent the creation of new works and derivative works based on older works.

As for the current practical aspect of a potential 14 year limit on this stuff--

Why should JK Rowling or anyone get rich from Harry Potter? Why is this necessary? I mean, why does any individual need this kind of wealth in general?

And why would you copyright a work in progress before it's been published? If you want to protect your 14 year in the making graphic novel, don't show it to anyone until your done.

And few if any of the original people involved in the creation of these 50+ year old properties like Warner Bros characters and Disney characters are benefitting from their sucess. Disney and Warner Bros. shareholders are.

I doubt they are even making that much from old work. Profit has already been made decades ago. Reason for clunging to the unused copyright is to see if there would be some profit opportunity hundred years into the future and to strategically prevent others from creating derivative versions (like Disney did to Grimm, and in the process created massive wealth and jobs too, I presume). There are economical reasons for limiting copyright term but nobody wants give up a monopoly once they have it.

You could ask why Rowling should get money forever for work she did once? When somebody builds a house they don't keep getting royalties. I guess Rowling has already enough monetary incitement to write a new book.

Copyright starts to run when work first becames publicly available, if I remember right.

This notion of "ideal copyright" is absurd. Better to have none at all. An excellent essay in this regard is: "Against Intellectual Property" http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf . Provocative, and well worth a good study. No math required!