Jump to content

Marvel Cinematic Universe, Phase Three and BEYOOOOONND


Bazza

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 11k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 9/28/2021 at 12:04 AM, Christopher R Taylor said:

art is a bit different than other products someone can make.  If I make you a meal, its gone when you've eaten it, and you're the only one who could have it.  But a book, for example, is new to each person and can be re-read and enjoyed for generations.  Why shouldn't a creator be paid for that work each new time it sells?  Once they die its no longer their work to be paid for, so I can see copyright fading but until then, they reasonably ought to be paid for their labor.

 

If I make a beautiful hand-carved chair, charge people for the use of it, and they gladly pay each time for the length of my life because the chair is so breathtakingly beautiful...my chair doesn't pass into the public domain after my death.

 

People are free to make different chairs. But the public is never entitled to own my chair.

 

So some artists, such as wood carvers, are protected to a greater extent than authors because tangible property is considered more valuable than intellectual property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Similar to Archer's point, if I build a house on a plot of land, how long should I have the right to use, or direct the use, of that house?  We could use it for low-income housing, a shelter for battered women or runaway children, an orphanage or various other public uses, or just knock it down and have a little park there.  When does the real estate revert to the public domain?  If I sell it, how long should the buyer retain exclusive rights to the property?

 

Let's try some real-life examples, and maybe people can assess how their preferred  models would work.

 

EXAMPLE #1

 

John Lennon died in 1980.  How long should his widow, children - whoever he selected under his will - benefit from his works? In other words, how long should he control who benefits from his labour and creativity?

 

Now, contrast that with how long Paul McCartney should control the benefits from his labour and creativity.

 

EXAMPLE #2

 

In what year should I be allowed to publish a game that's about 15% generic superhero setting with a few sample characters, 10% small derivative mini-adventure/adventure seeds and 75% a reproduction of the Hero System rules?  Recall that Champions 1e was published in 1981, 40 years ago.  Its original creators sold the rights 20 or so years ago (5th Edition was released in 2001).

 

EXAMPLE #3

 

Elsewhere on the Boards, there's a discussion about the planned re-imagining of Babylon 5.  Why can't CW, or anyone else, just do whatever they want with the B5 concept, characters, etc.?  The original ran from 1994 to 1998 - it's been well; over 20 years.  Yet the only real optimism about this venture is that J. Michael Straczynski remains heavily involved.

 

Now, he could still be heavily involved if we ditched the copyrights, and removed any ability of JMS to govern the use of his concepts.  But anyone else could also do a Babylon 5 project without his involvement, at the same time if they were so inclined.

 

At the same time, because WB controls the TV rights, JMS has largely been blocked from using B5 for the past couple of decades.  But he chose to assign those rights to WB - and WB freighted a lot of costs and risks in producing the show, which was massively different from the TV norms of the day, and consequently massively risky.  Would WB (or anyone else) have fronted those costs and risks if they could not be confident they would reap the rewards if the show was a success?  JMS could not have funded the project himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

If I make a beautiful hand-carved chair, charge people for the use of it, and they gladly pay each time for the length of my life because the chair is so breathtakingly beautiful...my chair doesn't pass into the public domain after my death.

 

I don't get paid for every book that's sold each time it changes hands.  Just each individual book.  Just like if you make chairs, each chair is sold separately.  The design of that chair is your property because you created it and deserve credit for what you did, without having it stolen.  But once you are dead, that design is protected as long as patent or copyright (whichever is applicable) does not expire.  Since you, as the creator are gone, then you are no longer payable or can have control over it.

 

Quote

People are free to make different chairs. But the public is never entitled to own my chair.

 

Sure, but that's not because you created it.  Its because its your property.  I sell a book to someone, their book isn't anybody else's property either, its theirs and doesn't become public domain, because it is a product.  The design of the chair, however, is a different concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, archer said:

 

If I make a beautiful hand-carved chair, charge people for the use of it, and they gladly pay each time for the length of my life because the chair is so breathtakingly beautiful...my chair doesn't pass into the public domain after my death.

 

People are free to make different chairs. But the public is never entitled to own my chair.

 

So some artists, such as wood carvers, are protected to a greater extent than authors because tangible property is considered more valuable than intellectual property.

 

The chair is not an intellectual property, it is a material object.  That is the difference.

 

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Similar to Archer's point, if I build a house on a plot of land, how long should I have the right to use, or direct the use, of that house?  We could use it for low-income housing, a shelter for battered women or runaway children, an orphanage or various other public uses, or just knock it down and have a little park there.  When does the real estate revert to the public domain?  If I sell it, how long should the buyer retain exclusive rights to the property?

 

 

Again...you're talking real property.  Completely different idea, different principles.  Connecting them is nonsensical.

 

 

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I don't get paid for every book that's sold each time it changes hands.  Just each individual book.  Just like if you make chairs, each chair is sold separately.  The design of that chair is your property because you created it and deserve credit for what you did, without having it stolen.  But once you are dead, that design is protected as long as patent or copyright (whichever is applicable) does not expire.  Since you, as the creator are gone, then you are no longer payable or can have control over it.

 

 

And this is pointing out there are *2* sets of rights here.

#1:  the IP that reflects the chair's design.  

#2:  the chair itself is a physical object and it's covered by simple ownership principles.

 

They're completely separate because they address completely different entities.

 

Quote

EXAMPLE #1

 

John Lennon died in 1980.  How long should his widow, children - whoever he selected under his will - benefit from his works? In other words, how long should he control who benefits from his labour and creativity?

 

Now, contrast that with how long Paul McCartney should control the benefits from his labour and creativity.

 

Why should they be treated differently?  I'm fine with a long period of time.  No one's arguing against that.  What we're arguing is the EXTREME length of time now attached...and the moves made to continue to extend that period.

 

Quote

EXAMPLE #2

 

In what year should I be allowed to publish a game that's about 15% generic superhero setting with a few sample characters, 10% small derivative mini-adventure/adventure seeds and 75% a reproduction of the Hero System rules?  Recall that Champions 1e was published in 1981, 40 years ago.  Its original creators sold the rights 20 or so years ago (5th Edition was released in 2001).

 

The first point here is "original creator" has no place in the discussion, it's irrelevant.  Because the copyright isn't connected to the creator;  it's connected to the creation.

Second point...we've never established what a fair and reasonable period is, for copyright.  For the sake of argument, let's say 50 years from first publication.

Then...on that basis, the FIRST EDITION rules would pass into the public domain in 2031.  But ONLY the first edition rules.  Selling the rights doesn't change it.  Release of later editions doesn't change that.  However, if you used anything in any later version that was NOT in the first edition rules, you'd be violating still-existing copyrights.  

 

I may be wrong here, tho...it may be that 5th and 6th edition copyright protection covers the older editions.  If so, then you couldn't legally do what you suggest until THEIR copyrights expire.  Drug patents work this way;  the manufacturers tweak to extend the time before the patent expires.  "We added a citrate buffer" was purely "we want to keep the patent active."  New editions of a system may be similar.  And in any case, what you'd be allowed to do would at best be VERY narrow.

 

Also note that GURPS doesn't violate copyright, even if the systems at certain levels are similar.  So you can't copyright a 3d6-based point-buy system, or Shadowrun's dice pools system, or White Wolf's d10, or the exploding d10 approach.  Those are abstract concepts.  You can only copyright implementations.  GURPS handles most things quite differently, for example.

 

Quote

EXAMPLE #3

 

Elsewhere on the Boards, there's a discussion about the planned re-imagining of Babylon 5.  Why can't CW, or anyone else, just do whatever they want with the B5 concept, characters, etc.?  The original ran from 1994 to 1998 - it's been well; over 20 years.  Yet the only real optimism about this venture is that J. Michael Straczynski remains heavily involved.

 

Now, he could still be heavily involved if we ditched the copyrights, and removed any ability of JMS to govern the use of his concepts.  But anyone else could also do a Babylon 5 project without his involvement, at the same time if they were so inclined.

 

At the same time, because WB controls the TV rights, JMS has largely been blocked from using B5 for the past couple of decades.  But he chose to assign those rights to WB - and WB freighted a lot of costs and risks in producing the show, which was massively different from the TV norms of the day, and consequently massively risky.  Would WB (or anyone else) have fronted those costs and risks if they could not be confident they would reap the rewards if the show was a success?  JMS could not have funded the project himself.

 

No one's argued for the copyrights to suddenly vanish.  So 20 years is still within a reasonable time frame even for me.  

 

JMS didn't 'choose'.  If he wanted it done, those were the terms.  This wasn't the adaptation of an existing property.  Also, BTW, Warner did NOT own Babylon 5 initially.  PTEN did.  PTEN was partly owned by Warner...but not entirely.  PTEN collapsed due to conflicts between the ownership factions.  Warner inherited the rights.  As for the rest...who cares?  What's your point?  The issue at hand is How Long Should Copyrights Last?  

 

You're indirectly bringing up ancillary points...should Warner's control of the B5 concept lapse due to non-use, and thus revert to JMS?  That's separate from the notion that Warner has the right to sell the original B5 series.  But...the copyright is their property, so...yes.  They can keep it locked up and there's nothing anyone can do about that.  Trying to change *that* would be opening up a can of worms.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

Again...you're talking real property.  Completely different idea, different principles.  Connecting them is nonsensical.

 

 

Why is it "nonsensical" to propose treating real property and intellectual property in the same manner?

 

Real property is yours or your heirs (barring unlikely events like eminent domain or an earthquake sinking your property under the sea).

 

Intellectual property is yours or your heirs as long as you never publish it in any way. But if you do, it is automatically taken away from your control at some point.

 

I can see the point of that with patents for inventions.

 

I but I see no rationale for it, at all, when it comes to artistic endeavors like Captain Underpants. The creator might be cornering the market on "Captain Underpants" but he's in no way limiting the market for children's characters. Or even children's superhero characters.

 

And society isn't experiencing an undue burden from lack of Mickey Mouse cartoons because Disney is owning the character and other authors are not getting to use that one particular character.

 

Mickey Mouse isn't a folk hero of some sort. The popularity the character has is because the corporation which owns it has spent huge wads of money keeping the character in the public's eye. 

 

 

 

Geez, I gotta get some sleep. Can't focus enough to finish making a point....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, archer said:

 

Why is it "nonsensical" to propose treating real property and intellectual property in the same manner?

 

 

 

I can't make the argument very well, so....lessee...

 

https://photocopyrightlaw.com/why-do-copyrights-expire/#:~:text=Copyright is a property right,the ownership of tangible property.

 

Another public domain advocacy site puts it this way:

 

Quote

Diamonds are forever, but copyright isn’t. It’s not supposed to be. Copyright expiration is important for the public domain. Because once a work’s copyright term has expired, the work is free for all to use — to repurpose, to republish, to build upon. The public domain fuels creativity ... and the longer you lock up works, well, you get the idea. 

 

And last, patent and copyright law is rooted in the Constitution.  If you want a longer, more erudite discussion, try here:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/

 

Copyright is clause 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, how does letting Mickey Mouse be used by anyone who wants to use the character fuel creativity?  Wouldn't more creativity be required to create your own character than to recycle Walt's mouse?

 

2 hours ago, archer said:

 

Why is it "nonsensical" to propose treating real property and intellectual property in the same manner?

Let's rephrase for emphasis:  Why is it "nonsensical" to propose treating one type of property and another type of property in the same manner?

 

Why should the owner of an artistic work - a character image, novel or song - be less entitled to control the future use of that work than the owner of a parcel of land with a building on it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How it used to be. From Wikipedia:
""US copyright law traces its lineage back to the British Statute of Anne, which influenced the first US federal copyright law, the Copyright Act of 1790. The length of copyright established by the Founding Fathers was short, 14 years, plus the ability to renew it one time, for 14 more. 40 years later, the initial term was changed to 28 years. It was not until a full 180 years after its establishment that it was significantly extended beyond that, in Copyright Act of 1976 to "Either 75 years or the life of the author plus 50 years" and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 (also called the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act", because it prevented the copyright from expiring on the first commercial success of the cartoon character Mickey Mouse), which increased it even more, to 120 years, or the life of the author plus 70 years."

"

The Congress shall have Power [...] to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

The goal of copyright law, as set forth in the Copyright Clause of the US Constitution, is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."[6] This includes incentivizing the creation of art, literature, architecture, music, and other works of authorship. As with many legal doctrines, the effectiveness of copyright law in achieving its stated purpose is a matter of debate.[7]

 

So, the intent of the law was "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.", and as such there are two situations. IT grants a monopoly to the creator, but then only for a set amount of time. Now I can agree that the current time of 120 years, or Lifetime of the author, plus 70 years  is maybe an excessively long time, but on the other hand I am unconvinced of the necessity of it reverting to the public domain, when it will either end up as Marxist deconstructions, porn, or hideous fanfic.:winkgrin:  In any case the law is the law, and you either obey it, vote to change it, or declare bloody revolution and shoot your neighbors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what current copyright laws say,  but I believe that they have gotten to be too strong in the way of mega corporations and uber wealthy.  This gets to the point of coming as close to ignoring the common person as they legally can.  What I believe should be done is to rewrite the copyright laws so that starting the day the law is written or material is copyrighted,  a 50 year clock is started.  There can be ONE renewal if the original author is still alive and they can prove that there is still strong need for the ORIGINAL work, NO MODIFICATION ALLOWED. If it has been modified,  then it can't be put up for renewal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to apologize for the recent development that I am sure many of you here are already aware of. It was my lack of foresight, a quality that I thought I possessed in abundance, which unleashed this threat upon the Multiverse.

My word may not mean much anymore since I am now an oath breaker but I promise that I will do all I can to stop this calamity that threatens you and everything else in Existence.  Whatever it takes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, unclevlad said:

JMS didn't 'choose'.  If he wanted it done, those were the terms.  This wasn't the adaptation of an existing property.  Also, BTW, Warner did NOT own Babylon 5 initially.  PTEN did.  PTEN was partly owned by Warner...but not entirely.  PTEN collapsed due to conflicts between the ownership factions.  Warner inherited the rights.  As for the rest...who cares?  What's your point?  The issue at hand is How Long Should Copyrights Last?  

 

You're indirectly bringing up ancillary points...should Warner's control of the B5 concept lapse due to non-use, and thus revert to JMS?  That's separate from the notion that Warner has the right to sell the original B5 series.  But...the copyright is their property, so...yes.  They can keep it locked up and there's nothing anyone can do about that.  Trying to change *that* would be opening up a can of worms.

 

Both JMS and WB (PTEN at the time) had to choose whether to enter into that contract.  Like most choices, they have consequences.  JMS may never have been able to bring his vision to the screen, in any form. had he declined to surrender the rights he surrendered. Alternatively, perhaps he could have traded away other rights to retain those ones, whether with PTEN or with another party.  He could certainly have made a counter-offer to PTEN.  Contracts are negotiated.  PTEN could certainly say "that is the deal we are offering; take it or leave it".  JMS could have chosen to leave it, and look for another organization to bring his ideas to fruition.  He could have done other work, hoping to save up enough capital to leverage B5 into production on his own.  But the consequences of those choices may have been never seeing his vision brought to life, and not monetizing his ideas.  He chose to give up some of his rights in exchange for moving the project forward, making some money and building his reputation and personal brand.

 

The fact that we may dislike the consequences of some of our choices does not invalidate their existence.  I can choose not to work, but that choice carries some financial implications I would prefer to avoid.  I can choose to work less, and earn less, which would require me to either spend less, save less for my eventual retirement or combine the two in some manner.

 

The starting point for negotiation with PTEN was the rights that JMS had over his creation, which included the duration of the copyright.  If I am the organization which will fund the development, implementation and marketing of the product, I need to consider the profit potential.   The duration in which I will have rights over the IP developed is a factor in that profit potential.  If that duration is lower, so is what JMS has to offer PTEN, weakening his negotiating position. A creator has only his creations to sell.  The duration of copyright impacts the selling price, and his negotiating power, for those creations.

 

If we had a few hundred years of history under the First Nations belief that no one can own land, I suspect our real estate laws would look very different today.  Instead, they evolved from the English "all land is owned by the crown" model as it evolved over centuries to private land ownership, and now the land owner controls the property until and unless those rights to the property are sold.  The rights to IP evolved differently, and they could have evolved in any number of different ways. They continue to evolve. It is not "right" or "wrong" that land ownership is permanent and "artistic work or concept" ownership is temporary.  It is simply the current state of our culture and law.  And it can be changed.

 

Show me how the world would be a better place if, instead of developing Fringe for 2008, J.J. Abrams had revamped Babylon 5 because copyrights were never extended beyond that original 14 years, so B5 became a free for all in 2008.  Or the studio simply decided to bet on a revamped B5 by someone with no original ideas of their own, since it succeeded some years back, rather than take a chance on this new Fringe concept.  Or that PTEN choosing a revamped 6 Million Dollar Man/ Bionic Woman revamp (they ended in 1978) instead of B5 would have been superior.

 

Or, taking a different approach, that a network should have taken on Star Trek: TNG if they knew anyone could create their own Star Trek and undercut them, since the original ended in 1969 so that the rights were all public domain.

 

I am not sold that throwing other peoples' creations into the public domain would stimulate, rather than stifle, creativity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, The Watcher said:

I would like to apologize for the recent development that I am sure many of you here are already aware of. It was my lack of foresight, a quality that I thought I possessed in abundance, which unleashed this threat upon the Multiverse.

My word may not mean much anymore since I am now an oath breaker but I promise that I will do all I can to stop this calamity that threatens you and everything else in Existence.  Whatever it takes.

 

Thank you for your tireless efforts.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The What If stories I've read about so far from the show have been pretty lame.  Part of the reason the What If comic book was interesting was because it was released after decades and thousands of comics had come out, they could pick between all these stories and characters and come up with something good.  There just haven't been enough stories yet to do a good What If run in the cinematic universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This latest What If? episode made little to no sense in many areas. The premise had potential, but the specifics were moronic.

 

18 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

it will either end up as Marxist deconstructions, porn, or hideous fanfic.

 

There are a great many other possibilities, which I have to believe you are aware of or are capable of imagining. We should never allow notions of propriety or limited taste to constrain what art may be or where it may go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Asperion said:

I know what current copyright laws say,  but I believe that they have gotten to be too strong in the way of mega corporations and uber wealthy.  This gets to the point of coming as close to ignoring the common person as they legally can.  What I believe should be done is to rewrite the copyright laws so that starting the day the law is written or material is copyrighted,  a 50 year clock is started.  There can be ONE renewal if the original author is still alive and they can prove that there is still strong need for the ORIGINAL work, NO MODIFICATION ALLOWED. If it has been modified,  then it can't be put up for renewal. 

So, don't do a second Mickey Mouse cartoon, change a single word in your song or write a second novel in a series, or issue of a comic book character, or you will lose your copyright?  Or does each cartoon, book or story get its own 50 years?  That's what causes Superman issues - Superman and Lois - Action Comics #1.  Perry White, Jor-El, Senator Sam Lane, Jimmy Olson, Daily Planet, Lex Luthor, Kryptonite etc. etc. etc., not so much.  Even his chest symbol changed over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2021 at 10:50 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

That concept is often referred to as "work for hire".  Let's say DC Comics hires me to write a new series, and I create a brand-new Superhero.  I'm working for them.  They own the fruits of my creativity.  And I get paid whatever we agreed that I get paid for writing that series.

 

Who got the better deal?

 

Well, if I created, say, Cyborg, the I'd say they got the better deal.  But if I created Brother Power, the Geek?  Not so much.  I have chosen the low-risk approach, trading away the potential benefits if I create a real winner to still get paid if my work does not sell.

 

Maybe I really think my creation has potential.  I can always self-publish and reap all the rewards.  But I also pay all the costs, and take all the risks.  If it doesn't sell, I may be writing for DC for a long time after to pay off my creditors.  And don't think DC Comics will be promoting my indie creation with their house ads!

 

Well said. As an illustrator and graphic designer who does work for hire, I'm quite okay with the agreement that my employer (or their clients) own and control work I do on the job in exchange for a steady paycheck (and health insurance). I entered that agreement with eyes open, and could have chosen instead to create art on my own time and be responsible for all the costs, marketing, and so forth if I wanted sole ownership and control. Admittedly I've never created IP that became a major element of popular culture like Mickey Mouse or Superman did, but it's not as if comic book companies yanked those early writers and artists off the streets and impressed them into servitude against their will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, zslane said:

This latest What If? episode made little to no sense in many areas. The premise had potential, but the specifics were moronic.

 

 

There are a great many other possibilities, which I have to believe you are aware of or are capable of imagining. We should never allow notions of propriety or limited taste to constrain what art may be or where it may go.

 

Quite possibly, but I think it's better for Artists to create something from scratch, or from very 'distant" sources, rather than borrow from their contemporaries. If you are going to draw Mickey Mouse, or Superman, then just accept a "work for hire" contract, and get paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...