One thing that I think it getting lost in the “Disney’s Alice in Wonderland” and “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” side of the argument is that Public Domain doesn’t just allow you to write a version of “Romeo and Juliette” where everyone lives. (As Garden Gnomes.) It also allows you to publish the work whole cloth.

As long as the work is an on-going concern, it is likely to remain in print to make money for the rightsholders. But when a work is no longer making enough money to be “worth it” for the rightsholders, it gets locked away. Much like the second season of “Fantasy Island”, Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” may not make a lot of money, but it is a work that desreves to be read, and that the public should be aware of.

And we are back to the “Pirate as Curator” argument…

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/adrianhon/100007156/infinite-copyright-a-modest-proposal

[...] has also been attacking other companies’ Oz-related trademark filings. Just another example of how trademarks can be used as weapons regardless of whether copyrighted material has become part [...]

Steelbolt, ideas aren’t copyrightable; the expression of those ideas is. So I can’t prevent other people from writing a story about an alien who comes to earth as a baby and learns to fly to help others, but I can copyright Superman (although he had a lot in common with another novel, so good thing people weren’t as litigious then as they are now).

David, you’re reminding me of Spider Robinson’s excellent story Melancholy Elephants, which describes an intellectual property battle in the near future. It shaped a lot of my thinking on this subject.

AK, great examples.

How many unlicensed Sherlock Holmes movies, comics, books, et al, are available?
He’s PD in the US and seems to be selling better than ever!

There’s a plethora of Jane Austin-based books and movies ranging from updated versions to Elizabethan zombie-hunters!
And the original works are all PD!

The original Dracula and Frankenstein novels are PD.
Do you have any idea how many tales in every conceivable media (almost all unlicensed from the Stoker or Shelley families) have been produced?

In all those cases, are there any cries of “Give Austin’s, Stoker’s, Shelley’s, and Doyle’s families a cut of the profits from these current works by new creators!” ?

Copyright is the plans for the house. Everyone agrees that is an Architect designs your house, he should get paid. But at the same time, no one should be kept from designing a house with a specific number of doors or a cupola over a bay window just because someone else thought of it first. Much in the way that the Patent on the Better Mousetrap eventually disolves so that everyone can see how it works and try their hand at designing the Better Better Mousetrap, so too does Copyright eventually fade to let other people see what they can do with “English Lord raised by Apes”. (Naming your comic after someone else’s character is a bit obtuse, but the ERB Heirs would be obliged to defend themselves against any use of “Half-naked Princess of Mars” stories as well.)

In the end, like so much of life, it is a balance between the value to the Individual and the value to the Collective. If anyone could advertise their work as “Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet”, the Shakespeare would think twice about ever publishing. So we give him some breathing room to try and make some money off of his “new” and “unique” idea. But if no one were ever again able to write a tale of “Star Crossed Lovers” because Shakespeare held the rights, then eventually nothing would get printed that didn’t already exist, and no one would make money except the people who already have money. So after a “reasonable” ammount of time, we say “Thanks for your contribution, we really appreciate it, but it is time to get off the stage and make way for Alan Smithee’s Romeo and Juliet.”

Of course, how broad “Star Crossed Lovers” or “Half Naked Princess of Mars” has to be to truly defend the Individual’s rights of ownership, and how long is “reasonable” is what makes horse races.

And we can’t use “characters we’re all familiar with” because they are trademarked (as you point out) even though Burroughs’ works are in the public domain.

A good case could be made that the public domain actually reduces creativity, as it takes away any incentive to promote the works. Economics tells us that lowering the price to zero can actually reduce the supply of a commodity by eliminating the incentive to produce it.

Anyway, I don’t pretend to have all the answers. However it does seem to me that a system that protected the actual complete works while allowing others to use the concepts and characters (essentially the opposite of what we have now) might be preferable.

It seems so arbitrary, especially now when intellectual property is such a large part of the economy.

Seems so simple, and something like it may very well happen when Disney’s older properties come up for expiration again.

If this Public Domain thing was enforced for a certain time period of ownership, then would that not mean giant corporate companies such as Marvel Comics and Dc Comics and all other businesses that create cartoon or novel creations eventually fall under the category of Public Domain?

Why is it not the case when it comes to the super giants who own their businesses and make a profit? It wouldn’t make sense if they lost the rights to their creation due to the changes in the copyright law that now allows the creators of music,art and all other creation to have ownership indefinitely.

The best examples are the banks and corporate companies that have been around since the 1930′s if not the 1920′s who have all managed to keep ownership of their business name and even famous trademarks that they have come to be known by.

I’m a comic book cartoonist and a comic strip artist slash writer,colorist and I ink my own works.When it’s my time to leave I would be happy knowing that the my kids and family will have the rights to my creations and that this will be for many generations.

I have no problem with this and the way the copyright law and trademark works is that you keep them up to date.Of course the copyright last longer then the trademark.I already got my works copyrighted so I’m set.That’s my say in this conversation.

[...] Legal | Johanna Draper Carlson looks at the Edgar Rice Burroughs Inc. lawsuit against Dynamite Entertainment, and questions whether the indefinite term for trademark rights means that copyrights never really expire. [Comics Worth Reading] [...]

ERB, Inc. may be suing, but since Disney is the only company that’s done anything significant (read, lots of money and publicity) with any ERB characters in 20 years, it’s easy to see the Disney tentacles in this. Disney understands that in the court of public opinion, a family company suing over their grandfather’s legacy is going to be more sympathetic than the mega-corporation.

but as has been pointed out in other venues, you have to defend your trademark rights vigorously. Was the straight to video “A Princess of Mars” movie with Traci Lords sued for infringement last year?

given the difficult track record that John Carter has always had in comics, it almost looks like sour grapes to sue the one company that seems to be having success with the character.

The fact that any of the books are still in copyright, and that copyright will now live longer than even the creators would, is a subject that is as seperate as it is shameful.