Michael G. Koerner wrote:
> Robert A. Woodward wrote:
> > In article <1148224683.990442.89790@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Noel" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>---Hmm. I support the notion of shorter copyrights, but
> >>for distributional reasons.
> >>
> >>Two points.
> >>
> >>First, I'm not so sure that there would no effects. Frex, in
> >>a world where Spiderman is in the public domain, do the big
> >>blockbusters get made? (I just watched both movies back-
> >>to-back while working yesterday, so I'd miss 'em. I'd cer-
> >>tainly miss 'em more than any Spiderman comic book
> >>written after 1964. Although that final episode with the
> >>alien suit was kinda cool.)
> >>
> >>Second, aren't copyrights renewable? After all, new Spider-
> >>man comics are still being made. So would Spiderman really
> >>be in the public domain even if copyrights were limited to, say,
> >>15 years?
> >>
> >>We need a lawyer.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Also, is Spiderman a trademark, just like Mickey? I would guess
> > yes. That would make much of the copyright discussion irrelevant.
>
> I'm not a lawyer, either, but from what I know, a work that has passed into
> public domain can be copied, sold, etc to ones' heart's content (yes, even by
> its original studio/publisher/etc), BUT, any maintained trademark on any of
> its characters continues, so you cannot make any NEW works using those
> particular characters.
---Well. Then the answer to Mike's question becomes clear.
There is no cultural change to having shorter copyright periods:
Spiderman movies still get made, etcetera. On the other hand,
the American income distribution is marginally better.
Sounds like all positive to me.
Best,
Noel
|
