- +

Author Topic: PD law - 'Manufacturing consent and copyright law'  (Read 7470 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Yoc

  • S T A F F
  • Administrators
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15028
  • Karma: 57
  • 14 Years Strong!
PD law - 'Manufacturing consent and copyright law'
« on: April 04, 2010, 12:47:37 AM »
Here's an interesting blog entry we here might enjoy on the principles of Copyright law I found on usenet.
Never an easy concept to understand.

http://tinyurl.com/ybeacpu

Feel free to comment or correct if you find anything.
-Yoc

Digital Comic Museum

PD law - 'Manufacturing consent and copyright law'
« on: April 04, 2010, 12:47:37 AM »

Offline John C

  • Administrators
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1316
  • Karma: 3
    • John's Blog
Re: PD law - 'Manufacturing consent and copyright law'
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2010, 08:37:42 AM »
While I agree with the basic premise that copyright law needs reform, it's a weird approach to use the Kirby case to make it.  I mean, if the New York Times Science Section ran a story on Venus, would there be outcry that there wasn't a single mention of Mars?  The case has nothing to do with the public domain unless you're an agitator.

I might also take issue with the "corporate behemoth" crack at the end.  Without Marvel's reach, I imagine the Fantastic Four would be as popular as other superhero properties Kirby did mostly on his own, like Fighting American, Captain Victory, and Silver Star.

And to take the author's own approach, nowhere in HIS article does he mention all the rise in Creative Commons material, licensed openly for anybody to use, regardless of copyright.  (No, I wouldn't expect him to, which is partly my point above.)  Does it matter that blonde-haired pseudo-Shakespearean Thor isn't public domain when (warning:  I'm making this example up, don't ask me who) someone has published a Marvel-free Thor and given license to use it as long as credit has been given?  Where it does matter, doesn't that make the author every bit the "copyright vampire" Marvel has been...?

Offline Yoc

  • S T A F F
  • Administrators
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15028
  • Karma: 57
  • 14 Years Strong!
Re: PD law - 'Manufacturing consent and copyright law'
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2010, 11:13:07 AM »
True enough John, but this post and his own were made to encourage people to investigate the concept and speak about it.
:)

Offline JVJ (RIP)

  • VIP Uploaders
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Karma: 58
  • paix
    • ImageS Magazine
Re: PD law - 'Manufacturing consent and copyright law'
« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2010, 11:33:18 AM »
While I agree with the basic premise that copyright law needs reform, it's a weird approach to use the Kirby case to make it.  I mean, if the New York Times Science Section ran a story on Venus, would there be outcry that there wasn't a single mention of Mars?  The case has nothing to do with the public domain unless you're an agitator.

I might also take issue with the "corporate behemoth" crack at the end.  Without Marvel's reach, I imagine the Fantastic Four would be as popular as other superhero properties Kirby did mostly on his own, like Fighting American, Captain Victory, and Silver Star.

And to take the author's own approach, nowhere in HIS article does he mention all the rise in Creative Commons material, licensed openly for anybody to use, regardless of copyright.  (No, I wouldn't expect him to, which is partly my point above.)  Does it matter that blonde-haired pseudo-Shakespearean Thor isn't public domain when (warning:  I'm making this example up, don't ask me who) someone has published a Marvel-free Thor and given license to use it as long as credit has been given?  Where it does matter, doesn't that make the author every bit the "copyright vampire" Marvel has been...?

The problem, as I see it, John,
is that it should be possible for someone else to create a blonde, thee and thou-spouting Thor who transforms into Donald Blake if they wanted to. And, just as Walt Disney's versions of Snow White and Cinderella and The Little Mermaid and Zorro and Treasure Island and 20,000 Leagues Under the Seas, and etc. etc. have become the new defacto "versions" of those stories, perhaps someone else could create one for Thor. It's been done several times (Why does Walt Simonson spring suddenly to mind?) under the corporate aegis of Marvel, but think of what might happen if Thor was in the Public Domain.

Disney mined the public domain and made it meaningful (and commercially viable) to a new audience. The point is that neither Marvel nor Disney were corporate behemoths when they started. And Marvel and Jack Kirby managed 100 issues of the FF without benefit of corporate stature or support. Now, the corporate heirs of both companies are trying to prevent using material they DID NOT CREATE from being mined by creatives as source material for modern works.

I have no belief that the heirs of either Kirby or Disney should still be profiting, any more than I think the heirs of Robert Louis Stevenson should have benefited from Disney's 1950 adaptation.

And I agree with you that the Kirby case has nothing to do with the Public Domain. It WAS a poor choice of examples. Also I agree as to Kirby's past achievements being less than memorable, and I said as much in the last issue of The Jack Kirby Collector (#54). But I state again that FF and Thor established themselves and succeeded without any "Corporate Behemoth" behind them - so I don't see the mention of same as being a "crack" but more of a salient point in the argument.

Your analogy of Venus and Mars doesn't hold up, I don't think. The analogy would be better stated as talking about Venus without mentioning Outer Space. Anything that is not copyrighted is public domain. Together they(copyrighted material and public domain material) comprise everything being talked about. So I believe that the mention of public domain is germane to any discussion of copyright. And the "Creative Commons" aspect may have implications in the future, but has little impact on the discussion at hand.

As always, thanks for an interesting post.

Peace, Jim (|:{>
Peace, Jim (|:{>

JVJ Publishing and VW inc.

Offline Yoc

  • S T A F F
  • Administrators
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15028
  • Karma: 57
  • 14 Years Strong!
Re: PD law - 'Manufacturing consent and copyright law'
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2010, 12:05:54 PM »
Thanks for your post as well Jim!
:)

Offline John C

  • Administrators
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1316
  • Karma: 3
    • John's Blog
Re: PD law - 'Manufacturing consent and copyright law'
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2010, 05:04:39 PM »
The problem, as I see it, John,
is that it should be possible for someone else to create a blonde, thee and thou-spouting Thor who transforms into Donald Blake if they wanted to. And, just as Walt Disney's versions of Snow White and Cinderella and The Little Mermaid and Zorro and Treasure Island and 20,000 Leagues Under the Seas, and etc. etc. have become the new defacto "versions" of those stories, perhaps someone else could create one for Thor. It's been done several times (Why does Walt Simonson spring suddenly to mind?) under the corporate aegis of Marvel, but think of what might happen if Thor was in the Public Domain.

You're not wrong at all.  However, I also look at it as, well, Marvel isn't done with Thor, yet.  They paid for it, and they should be allowed to get what use they can out of the idea.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the pseudo-libertarian, nicely-fascist "corporations are people too" concept.  But even (especially?) today when the cost of entry for self-publication is almost nil, publishers serve an important service of getting ideas INTO currency so that they're worth protecting.  I think Kirby's career speaks well to that.

(For what it's worth, I don't care how long the copyright terms are, though they're probably too long.  I care that they last forever without any effort.  If they needed to be renewed every ten years in perpetuity, I'd be happy, because the fact that someone's filing the paper means that they're aware of what they're sitting on, and I can find them if I need to license it.  But without renewals, the world is basically forbidden to get fresh, analyzed copies of the later Jimmie Dale novels, just because the rights are stranded in some Disney vault from the time Walt had a great idea for a TV series.)

That's not to say that I wouldn't be thrilled to see what happens if the world plays around with a public domain Superman or Fantastic Four or Iron Man, of course.  But I also see that wall as good for innovation, hopefully one day giving us the NEXT Superman or Fantastic Four or Iron Man to capture our imaginations.  I realize it's unpopular to say, these days, but I still think there's plenty of room for innovation in the field that not being allowed to copy the Hulk shouldn't be all that painful.

Offline bbbrown

  • VIP
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16
  • Karma: 4
Re: PD law - 'Manufacturing consent and copyright law'
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2010, 08:24:52 PM »
John C,

I agree with you regarding that there shouldn't be things locked away just because some one bought the rights years ago.

With todays publishing capabilities and the internet I think it should be possible to go to some site and get a copy of any out of print book, paying a fee depending on if I wanted a digital copy or was willing to pay more to get an actual paper version of it.  If this means that some Mark Twain novel is not available for purchase there could be several companies offering the book  or if it was some more recent author, just the publisher that owns the rights.

Offline bchat

  • VIP
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 186
  • Karma: 22
Re: PD law - 'Manufacturing consent and copyright law'
« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2010, 09:19:40 PM »

(For what it's worth, I don't care how long the copyright terms are, though they're probably too long.  I care that they last forever without any effort.  If they needed to be renewed every ten years in perpetuity, I'd be happy, because the fact that someone's filing the paper means that they're aware of what they're sitting on, and I can find them if I need to license it.  But without renewals, the world is basically forbidden to get fresh, analyzed copies of the later Jimmie Dale novels, just because the rights are stranded in some Disney vault from the time Walt had a great idea for a TV series.)

I see the major disadvantage to automatic Copyright renewals being ideas virtually locked-away well after the original publisher has disappeared.  I think of the fly-by-night publishers of the 1980s & 90s who disappeared years ago without transferring the Copyrights to another company.  Maybe they didn't have great concepts, but who knows if there is some creative individual out there who has great ideas for those characters.  They have nobody to contact & legally can't touch those characters/concepts without the consent of a company that no longer exists for fear of being sued when someone claiming they own the Copyrights pops-up out of nowhere.

Offline John C

  • Administrators
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1316
  • Karma: 3
    • John's Blog
Re: PD law - 'Manufacturing consent and copyright law'
« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2010, 05:44:27 PM »
BChat, I agree, and I'll go a step further.  History is slipping away (except among pirates, basically).  A book, as you say, might not be good, but what if it had the seeds to Byrne's Superman reboot, for example (Lancelot Strong comes to mind further back, as does Hero Alliance)?  It'd be an important artifact for research, because it shows the flow of influence and ideas, but instead it would be something we're not allowed to share because someone (who presumably doesn't care about it, and may not even be aware of the ownership) has exclusive reprint rights and isn't exercising them.

BBBrown, I would agree if that didn't sort of violate the central principle in copyright, which is that the owner has the, well, right to make the decisions.  I'd love that kind of system, but it means creators giving up the option to actively suppress their work for whatever reason.

(This was longer and better-reasoned a couple of nights ago, but the upgrade got in my way.  Apologies for the haste.)

Offline narfstar

  • VIP Uploaders
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1675
  • Karma: 74
Re: PD law - 'Manufacturing consent and copyright law'
« Reply #9 on: April 08, 2010, 06:12:03 PM »
The Pirates of Preservation exist. The obscure titles from the 80's and 90's are being scanned and placed on the internet. Illegal as it may be, it makes worries about most books disappearing forever not seem very warranted.

Offline argosail

  • DCM Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: 0
Re: PD law - 'Manufacturing consent and copyright law'
« Reply #10 on: April 09, 2010, 04:09:37 AM »
Actually, the government is looking into creating a new class for intellectual properties called, "Orphaned Works."  The gist is, if you don't know who (if anyone) rightfully owns a work, and you've made every effort to find out, you place some kind of symbol or something on the work in recognition of the fact that it is an "orphaned work."  It means, that you may legally publish the work, until such time as a rightful owner of the work comes forward.  It is protection against a lawsuit.  I have been very interested in this, because my website (see my sig), is an effort to collect information on usable characters, and I'm thinking about adding characters from a 1980's action figure line (with mini comics) called "Eagle Force" which was produced by a company called MEGO.  Mego is now completely disbanded and the rights to Eagle Force, as far as I know, were never sold to anyone.  At least, nobody has used the characters in 30 years.  They have been orphaned, and I would love to give them a new home.  But I admit, I'm a little afraid to tell people they can use these characters, until I have contacted a known artist who was about 80 percent responsible for creating the characters.  I imagine the same dilemma exists with fly-by-night comic companies.  Many of those were creator owned, so their creations will be owned by them until well after their deaths.  However, if there is evidence that a now defunct comic company hired the creators, and legally owned the character copyrights, then those works would be considered PD or at least, orphaned.  As far as posting comics online, you can probably get away with posting any comic if it is not making anyone any money, regardless of the law.  But, if you plan to make money off of something, you need to do your research.

I am actually in favor of companies like Marvel maintaining the copyright to works like Thor which they actively use.  I just wish the corporate giants weren't so stingy about all their long forgotten characters.  People say, "well, why not just invent new characters?"  The invention of new characters is great, but my problem is that a lot of "new characters" are just rehashes of the old ones.  There is something to be said about the familiarity of an old character, and demonstrating some pride in that character's heritage, while creating something new and amazing.  You can take Dracula or King Arthur and run with it a million different ways.  Let Marvel have their Thor if they use him.  There are still plenty of specific characters, including alternate versions of Thor, which us creative types can use.  The key is to give them the kind of recognition that Marvel's version has.  The difference between Marvel and Kirby, isn't the characters, but the support given to the characters.  With sites like mine, and enough people supporting them, we can make PD characters just as recognizable as anything in the Marvel stable.  Some of the PD superheroes are even better than some of the ones Marvel has going for it.  Let them have their crazy Shakespeare talking Thor, if we can generate a PD version with even more presence.
Links removed by staff.

Offline John C

  • Administrators
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1316
  • Karma: 3
    • John's Blog
Re: PD law - 'Manufacturing consent and copyright law'
« Reply #11 on: April 09, 2010, 04:23:13 PM »
Actually, the government is looking into creating a new class for intellectual properties called, "Orphaned Works."

You'll forgive my cynicism, but this is a "I'll believe it when I see it" situation.  There's no motivation, these days, for the government to make material freely available, and plenty of motivation to give lawyers more opportunities to sue.

With organizations like SPA and RIAA throwing a tantrum any time they don't get what they want, I don't see this going any further than the Supreme Court overturning the DMCA or the "it costs a dollar every twenty-five years to keep copyrights current" bill.

I'd love to see it, but the odds of it happening...?

Offline JVJ (RIP)

  • VIP Uploaders
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Karma: 58
  • paix
    • ImageS Magazine
Re: PD law - 'Manufacturing consent and copyright law'
« Reply #12 on: April 09, 2010, 05:24:55 PM »
Actually, the government is looking into creating a new class for intellectual properties called, "Orphaned Works."  The gist is, if you don't know who (if anyone) rightfully owns a work, and you've made every effort to find out, you place some kind of symbol or something on the work in recognition of the fact that it is an "orphaned work."  It means, that you may legally publish the work, until such time as a rightful owner of the work comes forward.  It is protection against a lawsuit.  I have been very interested in this, because my website (see my sig), is an effort to collect information on usable characters, and I'm thinking about adding characters from a 1980's action figure line (with mini comics) called "Eagle Force" which was produced by a company called MEGO.  Mego is now completely disbanded and the rights to Eagle Force, as far as I know, were never sold to anyone.  At least, nobody has used the characters in 30 years.  They have been orphaned, and I would love to give them a new home. 
And the new law also limits the penalties anyone has to pay for ripping YOU off, so the incentive to really look for you as the copyright holder is pretty much eliminated. So, if Wal=Mart decides to use your superhero in one of their ads, AND YOU CATCH THEM at it, they have to pay you the "reasonable rate" that you normally would charge with perhaps a small "penalty" fee that YOU wouldn't even notice.

Just remember that every time you are happy that other people are giving up their rights, that same law applies to YOUR rights, too. I wouldn't be so quick to lobby for any "orphaned works" bill. It's all dependent on who is defining "orphan" and which people/companies are behind the bill

(|:{>
Peace, Jim (|:{>

JVJ Publishing and VW inc.

Offline narfstar

  • VIP Uploaders
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1675
  • Karma: 74
Re: PD law - 'Manufacturing consent and copyright law'
« Reply #13 on: April 09, 2010, 06:34:27 PM »
I agree Jim that the rights of the copyright holder should be protected. Which I think the idea of cheap renewal is good. If the company is not interested enough to renew then let be open to the world. If a company wants to renew they should be able to.

Offline bchat

  • VIP
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 186
  • Karma: 22
Re: PD law - 'Manufacturing consent and copyright law'
« Reply #14 on: April 09, 2010, 06:37:12 PM »
Actually, the government is looking into creating a new class for intellectual properties called, "Orphaned Works."  The gist is, if you don't know who (if anyone) rightfully owns a work, and you've made every effort to find out, you place some kind of symbol or something on the work in recognition of the fact that it is an "orphaned work."  It means, that you may legally publish the work, until such time as a rightful owner of the work comes forward.  It is protection against a lawsuit.  I have been very interested in this, because my website (see my sig), is an effort to collect information on usable characters, and I'm thinking about adding characters from a 1980's action figure line (with mini comics) called "Eagle Force" which was produced by a company called MEGO.  Mego is now completely disbanded and the rights to Eagle Force, as far as I know, were never sold to anyone.  At least, nobody has used the characters in 30 years.  They have been orphaned, and I would love to give them a new home.
And the new law also limits the penalties anyone has to pay for ripping YOU off, so the incentive to really look for you as the copyright holder is pretty much eliminated. So, if Wal=Mart decides to use your superhero in one of their ads, AND YOU CATCH THEM at it, they have to pay you the "reasonable rate" that you normally would charge with perhaps a small "penalty" fee that YOU wouldn't even notice.


From what I read about "Orphaned Works", the person who is infringing on a Copyright has to prove that they exhausted all avenues of research in determining who the Copyright owner is (EDIT: adding that they have to show they made an attempt to contact the owner as well if they found evidence of one).  It wouldn't be enough to say "we couldn't find anyone to contact", they would have to prove that they did everything they could to figure-out WHO owned the work.  In short, if Wal-Mart decided to steal something that they claimed falls into the "Orphaned Work" category, and then attempted to convince a court that they "tried" to contact someone when/if they get sued for it, the court will ask "show your work".   Again, from what I understand, it's this "show your work" aspect of the "Orphaned Works" idea that is causing it to get hung-up in the law-making process, as some people are worried that it would open the door to "legal Copyright Infringement". 

By the way, of what I've read about the subject, the main focus of the "Orphaned Works" idea isn't movies, comics or music, it's photographs.   The owner of a picture may not have registered a Copyright, or the photo itself, if reproduced in a magazine, may not have clearly noted who the Copyright owner was.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2010, 08:11:55 PM by bchat »