TV/Movies Megathread

[Barrister]

Things seem to be getting really complex over the coming years with several popular characters becoming public domain but only in limited versions.

Legally speaking it's kind of fascinating.

As I understand it most of Sherlock Holmes is public domain, but not the later stories.  So anyone wanting to use Sherlock Holmes has to be careful not to use characters or elements introduced in those later stories.

Or Mickey Mouse is (or will shortly be) in the public domain - but only the Steamboat Willie version, which is hardly the most familiar version of the character.

[Jacob]

I don't agree.

Which part don't you agree with?

For starters - what do you mean by "strict IP laws"?  I think you mean lengthy copyright, which is life of the author plus 70 years.

Yeah lengthy copyright is a big part of it, so that's what I mean, but also the general mindspace where creative activity is about generating "IP" and owning "IP" is about efficiently exploiting it. I mean, there's always been a business built on art - and it's often been cynical in a number of ways.

Still at this point being "an IP holder" is a full-fledged business model in a way I think is relatively new. There are any number of companies whose entire business is buying IP and licensing it out. At the same time, there are many other companies whose approach to creating "content" is honed in on generating

I'm no lawyer, so I can't point to the legal aspect in more than very broad strokes (and likely missing nuance) - but ultimately the idea of IP is a social construct created by legislation. I'm fairly comfortable saying that legislation is a significant part of how these businesses approach creativity, and that approach is massively directed towards "generating IP" in a way that meets businees priorities on how to turn IP rights into cash.

From the point of view of "a creative" that definitely has an impact on how ideas and output are shaped, and their chances of making it through the many many hoops from concept to actually being created.

That said, it's obviously also a social, business model, and generally economical development.

Interestingly, at least to me, it seems almost all of the top tier IP that's being exploited so efficiently were created before the current laser honed "build big IP and exploit it massively" model of business really hit its stride.

But what if you had a shorter period?  I mean if it was life +50 years LOTR would be hitting public domain this year (Tolkein died in 1973).

If LOTR was in the public domain - do you think we'd get less LOTR content, or more?  My guess is more.

I mean it's not like we have a shortage of works based on public domain IP such as Sherlock Holmes or Christmas Carol.

Indeed. Some of it good, some of it bad, some of it wacky... but I think we'd see a wider variety and more creativity. Certainly, for LotR I think we'd be seeing a lot more fan and indie projects of various kinds. But probably also a bunch of derivative crap.

[Jacob]

Still, I believe that with shorter expiration times you wouldn't get so much double-downing on franchises by multimedia corporations, since they couldn't fully control the IP.

Exactly. If the IP isn't 100% locked down, spending massive amounts of money building "brand value" is higher risk as others can access that brand value. Instead you might have to commit more effort to the quality of the individual product (film, game, TV series) since you can't rely on the echoes of previous quality and the brand devotion of the fan base.

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCN_q3hX_RE

Stumbled across this last night.  Robert Shaw singing Ladies of Spain in some early pirate movie.  Which makes his reprise in Jaws a nice little self referential shout out.

[grumbler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCN_q3hX_RE

Stumbled across this last night.  Robert Shaw singing Ladies of Spain in some early pirate movie.  Which makes his reprise in Jaws a nice little self referential shout out.

That link takes me to a vid of Nancy Whiskey by the Irish Rovers.

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCN_q3hX_RE

woops

[Admiral Yi]

wtf

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCN_q3hX_RE

try this one

[Admiral Yi]

what a strange youtube glitch.  oh well

[HVC]

Here, try this one

https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ

[Admiral Yi]

 

[Tonitrus]

I'll help you out...

[Admiral Yi]

grazie holmes

[HVC]

 

[viper37]

Yeah lengthy copyright is a big part of it, so that's what I mean, but also the general mindspace where creative activity is about generating "IP" and owning "IP" is about efficiently exploiting it. I mean, there's always been a business built on art - and it's often been cynical in a number of ways.ook at it another way.

Look at it another way.

The Terminator franchise.  At some points, and maybe it still is the case, the rights were set to expire a set number of years after the last movie was produced.  If the company holding the IP did not produce a movie, the IP rights were expiring and reverting back to someone else.

So what happened?  Lots of successive Terminator movies of average/dubious quality.  Not less.  For fear of losing these rights.

It's a bit different, but similar than your proposal: if the rights are going to expire after a shorter time, the IP holders are going to produce more material over a shorter period of time to make sure that IP is as profitable as possible before they lose it.

Imagine knowing your car will drive itself back to the garage in 2 weeks.  Will you let it stay in your parking lot for two weeks undisturbed, or will you drive around as much as you feel to for the next week?  Same thing for IP.