Copyright-e-o
Matt Baldwin (of Defective Yeti fame) has written an interesting piece about copyright laws and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Basically, he discusses how the League was made possible by copyright laws allowing works to fall into the public domain (originally 28 years), which is being made more difficult now as congress regularly extends the copyright periods (now 70 years posthumous). to me extending copyright periods seems like the wrong way to go. If anything, our world happens faster now, so the scale should be shortening. Similar to so many of the other significant laws passed by congress and the like (read FCC deregulation…please let them roll this back) they seem bent on preserving the corporate interests, not those of individuals. By keeping knowledge, ideas, art, and icons out of the public domain the people of our country are deprived of the ability to expand and strengthen ideas. My understanding is that the creator rarely keeps ownership of their idea anyway. Let’s open up the ideas. I am not suggesting the abolition of copyright and intellectual property laws, but a significant inspection of their intent is necessary, which if done smartly and honestly, I believe that the only outcome will be a shortening of the copyright limits. Imagine a world in which all of the classic Atari video games were available free and legal, where schools could put Garfield in their yearbooks without lawyers, and that handsome man from About A Boy no longer lived off of royalty checks from his father’s xmas jingle.
Comments
One Response to “Copyright-e-o”
Pics
-
This is an interesting little article, but I think the issue is more complicated than it appears at first glance. To begin with, the “League of Extraordinary Rodents” is, legally speaking, a perfectly safe idea. It would clearly fall into the parody and satire exceptions to the copyright law.
Also, there are exceptions for “Fair Use” which have existed since the common law first addressed copyrights, and remains largely unchanged by even the most recent copyright legislation (“Digital Millennium Copyright Act”). Basically there is a four-factor balancing test to determine whether or not the alleged “infringer” is violating any of the copyright-owners protected rights. Suffice it to say that the courts have traditionally recognized that Copyright law is directed primarly at serving the public, not the copyright owner.
This is distinct from Patent and Trademark law which are far more protective of the owner’s rights…and I feel far more of a threat to the development and free exchange of information and ideas. Patenting the human genome sound outrageous? Dow (and many other pharmaceuti-Corporations as well) have already patented bacteria and other “living” organic “products” for sale and profit.
Ahhh, capitalism unchecked….what a savage force of nature…