[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Question

Hal Vaughan wrote:

On Monday 26 December 2005 10:22 pm, Katipo wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
In any case, I don't think anything should stay in copyright for 50 years.
Definitely not, and in some cases, it's 70 or 90!

I'd like to see, dependent on case, an absolute maximum of 15, but in a
lot of cases, 5.

I wonder, how many copyrights or patents do you hold?

If you're a drug company or a big hardware/software company, 5 years can be enough time, but if you're an individual, it can take much longer.

Then the individual needs to get off his backside.
And a five year plan will give him the motivation to do it.

Let's see...

Creative process, terminating in basic prototype, for example.
Five years begins here!!!
O.K., you seem to be under the impression that you are only permitted to deal with one agent.

Approach six accountants with a coherent business plan, and if you're not up and running within twelve months, with your pick of viable financial investors, your product doesn't have a market.
If it does, you have a partner who supplies the manufacturing process.
You perhaps handle the marketing between you.
That's not hard.
It's a field I know well.

I'm in my 40s and have stories and scripts I wrote in my early 20s that I copyrighted.

Anything, repeat, anything you write, you automatically own the copyright on.
Even a basic letter home to Mum.

I'll finally be in a position to produce them (with some re-writing) in the next few years. It can vary a lot.
Then it's far from a full time project.

If I bust my rear and make an amusement park and own the land, I can make money on it for my lifetime by charging admission, and my descendants or the corporation can continue forever. If I put the same effort into busting my a$$ to write software or a movie, I should not be punished by not being allowed much time to make money on it.
Why should you be?
You approach more than one party.
You sincerely believe you have a viable product, yet you insist on selling to only one potential customer in an international market. I'm sure, that if Run Run Shaw got his hands on a hot script, he wouldn't screw around for five years waiting for the concept to become unfashionable, he'd get it out there making money. He'd do it in a lot less than five years (how about five months, or a year for a mega production), and you're sitting back counting royalties.

Call me when it happens, we'll party.

With that having been said, there is a big difference for intellectual property. Stories, characters, and scenes from movies, for example, make their way into the zeitgeist and public consciousness and should be allowed to be integrated into other works after a time,

It will be, and everything is.
There is not one note in the sound spectrum that hasn't been played before, it's the individual musician that puts them all together, in an expression of individual past experience, that nobody else can quite emulate. Should we all be denied the sounds of Charlie Parker or Miles Davis, because somebody thinks he has some kind of ownership claim to the note of F#?

but on the other hand, if they are that well liked, shouldn't the creator be given as much reward as possible for it?

He should be able to earn enough, and maybe a bit (or even, a whole lot) more, dependent on individual levels of lethargy, business acumen (Yes, that's a talent too), and other aspects that may, or may not be, brought to bear.

Poe got $100 for The Raven, but it became popular. While he did sign away the rights (he needed the money), is it fair for the creator of a work to sit back and watch while others reference their work, over and over, in products which create a profit?
That would give me a considerable amount of pleasure, if I happened to be the creator of the original work. No praise more sincere than that of emulation. And, if they can build on it, even better.

Whether copyright or patent, that gives the creator enough time to make
money from his creation, even if he has the handicap of having to hunt
around for a partner to supply the finance for a project.

No, often it does not.  You've never dealt with an agent or producer.

I wouldn't assume too much here.

Some are honest, many are not.

Yep, you've got to be street smart to survive.

All they would have to do is sit on a good script for 5 years (if you had your way), then produce it.

No, only if you had your way.
If I had mine, one of the other five would have actioned something, while your one off sat on his tod.

The writer, at that point, is S.O.L. Many big companies can make money in a short time, but many individuals do not have the resources to make a profit that quickly.
That's why you get a financial partner.

After that amount of time, if he's not far enough ahead of the rest of
the market, that's business.

That may work in software, but copyrights apply to a lot besides software.
Every product, and I employ the terminology in its broadest sense, has its idiosyncracies, but business principle remains the same.


Reply to: