Copyright Basics: Crash Course Intellectual Property #2

[@midnightsg]

I have to give you guys credit... Trying so hard to teach the youths of the internet the legalities, rules, and reasons for copyright laws on the web.

[@krq113]

midnightsg I have a question you maybe can help me with if you have a second. :) I create presentation templates for graphic designers. It could be a picture of an iPhone, edited in to a template in photoshop, so designers can display there apps on the screen. My question is - Am i allowed to take pictures of the interior of say the new "Tesla Model S" and transform the dashboard touchscreen into a template, and then sell them? With the Tesla logo in frame.. Or do i have to remove the logo? Hope you have a minute, and you can make sense of what im asking :) All the best

[@commode7x]

midnightsg Giving them credit for a failed experiment. It's a laudable goal, yet an overambitious one.

[@RozzamaTRON]

nhaugaard1 I work with (a certain area of) copyright all the time, although I'm not an expert. However, my gut instinct is this: strictly speaking, if you remove the logo, you're well within the law. However, you could also very likely leave the logo in with no negative ramifications - from their point of view, what you're providing is essentially advertising for them, so they would be crazy to try to stop you doing it. However, I always think it's worthwhile to get permission if you can, and you'd be surprised how easy it can be to get in touch with the right people sometimes. Just ask.

[@krq113]

RozzamaTRON Thank you for your answar :) Thats exactly what i am thinking. I have done some mockup in the past, and they have been downloaded more then 150K times. By designers. So yes, its amazing free advertising for the product. I all ready contacted different companies like Tesla and Apple. But with no respons what so ever. But when i look at Graphicriverdotnet where people sell mockups i noticed they just avoid using the correct name for the product, and changes it, like: "Apple Watch = iWatch" - And then removes the logo completely.

[@Ddub1083]

nhaugaard1 Just to let you know, the above answers are incorrect. You cannot use the interior of a car and simply remove the logo and say its your design. Thats certainly a violation of likely trademark or trade dress law. You certainly could not say or imply its a tesla s interior with or without the logo. And again, about the "free advertising" thing, the whole point of copyright law is to give the creator THE CHOICE of whether to engage his work in any ways. It doesnt matter if it would be technically beneficial for them or give them "free advertising", the point is they have the RIGHT to choose for themselves not have you choose for them unilaterally (without their input) simply because you feel it will be good advertising for them. I would seriously advise against having a model thats exactly like a trademarked product. You are certainly violating their rights, you just may be too small to go after.

[@jacobjacobsen7698]

I am a law student studying copyright and from my understanding of the law this video is fantastically done. Highly accurate, incredibly comprehensive for a ten minute video, well organized, interesting.

[@bentoth9555]

"Stan does that seem biased? Oh, I'm Stan."

[@Asasnol21]

+

[@Pratchettgaiman]

I think that whenever it becomes close to when Mickey Mouse will go out of copyright, the length of copyright gets mysteriously extended

[@Blemery1]

David Lev I thought it was because of Winnie the Pooh

[@EvilAntonio]

Bernadette Emery Nah David is right it goes by Steamboat Willy, the first appearance of Mickey Mouse

[@Theturtleowl]

David Lev I believe Disney got a lifelong copyright on Mickey. So yeah...

[@elinope4745]

David Lev the laws have been changed, it will be based off of 70 years after the last mickey mouse copyrighted work gets printed. if you add a new idea to an existing copyright, than the copryright gets extended as if the new idea was the original copyrighted material. so if disney owns the copyright (as a company) and one of its employees writes a new mickey mouse story than the copyright now extends to 20 years past the new production. the copyright of mickey mouse is owned by a company and not a person. disney already addressed this problem some time ago. that is why they have the vault, its a timer on a mild change made to a movie that is about to fall out of copyright (20 years after the original is no longer in active population).

[@Ddub1083]

Eli Nope lol not true at all... by adding to the copyright you do not magically extend the copyright for the original impression. Moreover, the copyright goes from the date of creation... not from the date of last publication, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You need to read up a bit.

[@thalandor46]

I thought I was really going to enjoy this series, but I'm quickly realizing that it's mostly just going to make me furiously angry over everything I hate about copyright law.

[@zanemhs23]

Being a musician, copyright is critical. And these videos are incredibly informative and helpful for musicians of any genre. Highly recommend!

[@mustardsfire22]

LOVED SEEING MATT MURDOCK IN THE THOUGHT BUBBLE!!!!!!

[@mwitty100]

I think we need to go with the original limit here: 14 years is plenty. 14 years after 'Star Wars' first hit theaters, George Lucas had made $2.6 billion on the merchandising alone. 14 years is plenty to make your money. After that, it should default to the Public Domain, where others can use it. This means that people who grow up with a work can make different versions, creations, and adaptations of it in their own lifetime, growing and expanding our art, culture, and mythology.

[@PogieJoe]

I'm loving this series so far! Honestly, I think copyright should extend to 25 years after the creation of the work. That way the creator/creators have a long chunk of time to collect money from it without being greedy. Some of the best works of the early 20th century came from the shortness of or entire lack of copyright on certain materials.

[@AvielMenter]

The problem is essentially that Disney is using ancient copyrighted works, and they have a lot of lobbying power, so it keeps getting extended. Perhaps the duration of copyright shouldn't be fixed, but contingent on continued use of that copyright with respect to new works. Basically, while the copyright holder is using the intellectual property to create new works, he can hold it indefinitely, but otherwise it expires after (for example) 25 years.

[@crashcourse]

***** I am personally a big advocate of the renewal system. It would solve a lot of issues with orphan works moving into the public domain. -stan

[@AvielMenter]

CrashCourse amazing! You told me to express my opinion in the comments, then actually read it! That's a sufficiently novel practice I think it's eligible for a patent.

[@ErikYoungren]

11:30 Way the frig too long. We need to restore the copyright term to 14 years with *one* 14 year extension.

[@SamoScopom]

I think it should go by increments. Life time: full copyright coverage. After that 15 years of: creative commons for non-profit with contribution. After that 15 years CC for profit as well. And after that public domain.

[@travisbewley7084]

SamoScopom That sounds way too sensible to be an actual law passed by congress

[@jalanganje2532]

SamoScopom nice idea

[@rosagibson6570]

SamoScopom I think the lifetime should be scaled to 15 years, but that is a good idea.

[@myntmarsellus241]

SamoScopom Why should they get lifetime coverage? If you said 15, 15, 15, public domain I would be down but you're missing the incentive part of copyright in here (unless I'm misreading you). Copyright is about incentivizing people to make more stuff because they can't profit off of one work for their life time.

[@travisbewley7084]

***** That's a good point, a lifetime copyright could actual cause a person to produce less great works because they can retire off of one good one.

[@turkaan]

It makes me happy listening to his first 3 sentences! Good work crashcourse!!

[@LetsTakeWalk]

Copyright and patent law should be limited to 30 years max. After that, if you want more money exclusively for what you made, innovate. As it was in the beginning.

[@eddyavailable]

depends on categories. Tech moves so fast 5 years max on this category.

[@gabemacaodha7750]

I think that copyright should only last the lifetime of the author. Once the author is dead people should be free to make their own interpretations of that work, otherwise we are simply stifling creativity.

[@ch334792]

Really liking this series - Stan is great in front of the camera for once! Keep up the good work!

[@ThePokeman92]

You know what? A finite set of time may not be the best method of keeping copyrights active, particularly for digital works and media. Some works remain popular for decades, while others are difficult if not impossible to obtain through a legal sale after a few short years. Why can't we come up with a "use it or lose it" copyright law,where if a product is not given any means of a legal sale accessible to the majority of the population, it expires after a short time, like say 5-10 years, then the life + 70 rule can define an upper limit? Not only does this allow for continued protection of works as long as the copyright holder feels it is beneficial to make use of it, but when it is decided the product is no longer making money or protecting an interest, it can expire freely in a relatively short time. Of course, some loopholes might need to be investigated such as "what constitutes a product being available for sale to the majority of the population" - I could definitely see a company arguing that they have a copy of a work available in a proprietary format from the 90s that is no longer in use and therefore almost impossible for people to make use of, for example, so a definition of "readily available to the majority of the population" might need to be in order. Someone might claim that it could be difficult to maintain something available for "sale" but it costs very little to keep a GB of data available on a cloud-based store for distribution these days. If the company does not make enough in sales to maintain that presence, the product likely would not make much more money over the life of the life+70 copyright anyway without some sort of massive revival that occurs mostly by chance. The only remaining obvious problem I would then see is keeping track of all this, in which case I would argue the copyrights need to be made searchable in a public database so people can easily find out what is copyrighted and what is not.

[@somewony]

***** Yeah, but why? Copyright does not serve to promote the pockets of the creators of works. It serves to promote the creation of works. After a certain period the added incentive to create works starts getting smaller than the prevention of adaptive works. Copyright should not be longer than that.

[@ThePokeman92]

somewony Most creators will not create if they cannot support themselves on their creations, and most businesses will not finance research if their creations cannot allow them to at least make a small profit over the life of the product. I'm not really one to argue the appropriate maximum length as it's been debated to hell and back with no one side wanting to give the other any leeway, I just want a way to remove copyright protection from abandoned works that the original copyright holder no longer cares to maintain. I'm just using the current law as an example of the upper limit in this case.

[@somewony]

***** I wasn't arguing against that. I just fear that the system you proposed would cause the creation of shitty copyright preserving works and prevent people from making adaptive works. We already see this sometimes. Why do you think there's a new shitty spiderman movie every five years?

[@ThePokeman92]

somewony ah I see. I didn't consider adaptive works, but as far as I'm aware adaptive works only have a copyright for themselves, not the older work. For example, if spiderman 2 is released, it doesn't stop spiderman 1 from entering public domain when it's copyright expires, regardless of the new movie. As for characters and franchises... I guess that's a whole other can of worms. I was thinking more about individual works than whole franchises, but I suppose my solution would work there, you get up to life+70 on the franchise, but if you let the first work expire, that single work is not public domain, regardless of the status of the franchise.

[@Ddub1083]

***** An issue you seem to be missing is that currently a creator of work CAN remove the copyright. They can remove the copyright and put a GPL or Collective Commons license on the work whenever they want... they choose not to, because they wish to make money from their work. If you have a desire to make an adaptive or derivative work, then there is a demand for the ip in the original work. Since there's a demand, there is a price where it can be had. Your theory presupposes that some work has essentially lost all copyright value in being unused, but if its wanted in an adaptive work then its value is not 0... and therefore the copyright still has value. Your program would only work for copyrighted works that no one wants to use... so what good is that? The point however is not what is "good" for other creators... the point of copyright is what is good for the original creator. The copyright means its THEIR choice what to do with their work... when you make something automatic you are stripping their property right (intellectual property) to do with their work as they please. Imagine you own a vacant lot... you have the right to do whatever you want with that property or do nothing if you want. you can prevent others from going on it but you arent forced into "using" your land... its your property. Same with copyright, imagine if your vacant lot became govt property or public property simply because you didnt use it.

[@rapturerock]

This series is already ridiculously interesting. I'm in

[@mikeoxsbigg1]

My wife works in the field. Now I can ACTUALLY know what she's talking about.

[@CoffeePoints]

Mike Oxsbigg Or you could have just Googled....

[@AnimefreakHQ]

TheMightyWill It's headache to go through walls of texts.

[@mikeoxsbigg1]

Watching this I realize I know more than I think I know.

[@mikeoxsbigg1]

I do all the time, issue is confidentiality. Half of it I'm not privy to and get a filtered product. In some ways the less I know the better. Seems like paperwork.

[@sayabukanhasan]

Mike Oxsbigg lel i thought you meant your wife was a farmer at first, "works in the field"

[@itscoderchris]

Helping people learn stuff is the best reward 🔥

[@Zarsla]

Daredevil reference: 7:16. Also will CrashCourse talk about creative commons or fan-fiction & other fan-works and their roles with copyright?

[@Ren99510]

Nice Daredevil nod there, Though Cafe!

[@that1weirdkid27]

Daredevil as the lawyer! yessss

[@Checkedbox]

yeh aha:p

[@SidheKnight]

Lifetime of the author + 70 fucking years? Too long. Make it: lifetime of the author + 10 years.

[@somewony]

SidheKnight Make it 15 years after publication.

[@Alzorath]

SidheKnight You can blame Mickey Mouse for that... (seriously, look up the history of Mickey Mouse/Disney and Copyright, quite the interesting tidbit of knowledge :P)

[@GalanDun]

SidheKnight I agree.

[@PatrickAllenNL]

SidheKnight No I think it is just fine..maybe 50 years or 25 after death but this seems oke..need to respect the art.

[@ii121]

somewony No, someone should at least be able to make money off their creation throughout their lifetime. If I released an album in 1995 and in 2015 it gets "rediscovered" and suddenly there's a huge second wave for me... I should be able to profit from this. Once I'm dead though, I don't think my estate should be able to profit from it longer than a few years (if at all).

[@RobKinneySouthpaw]

Stan's puns are running rampant without John Green standing right there to complain about them. I'm not complaining.

[@Ziffer777]

Love the Daredevil reference in the thought bubble.

[@Nickimation]

Thanks a lot for this video, I was working on a contract for my first official job as an animator and I remembered what this video taught me, which really helped!

[@sjwimmel]

"Oh, I'm Stan". Brilliant.

[@sumayya003]

Is Stan like related to the Green brothers in anyway? He literally looks like John's older brother. He resembles John more than Hank does!

[@Wifi_Cable]

When a video about copyright will be obsolete due to changing copyright laws before it goes into the public domain, copyright is too long.

[@whitneyempey4429]

I just think it's awesome that Thought Cafe animated themselves as dogs. XD

[@faragar1791]

So, I just need to make sure I live to the age of 115, and I'll be alive when this video enters the public domain.

[@lfior]

ok I feel like I need to thank crashcourse 20 million times for existing but I can't do that right now so, thank you! This is extremely helpful. The funniest thing was I started watching crash course IP (the intro) and it explained how it is very useful to be familiar with the basics for like everyone, and next day in class the teacher brought up a discussion about patents and I was like "Hey, IP" and began just talking about what I remembered from the previous day. ---> applying knowledge

[@blueap06]

I think that a copyright should last about 25 years. We all work on the ideas of others and to limit someone from ever using an idea from the time they were alive is crazy.

[@imo.o]

I think no matter what year is given, 70 or whatnot, there will always be debate over whether it is too long or short. I am interested to know more of the reasoning behind why people think it is shorter or longer though as I haven't researched this yet.

[@cheeseisgreat24]

I think that's not only way too long, but it seriously stifles the growth of new ideas. It'd really be great to have the opportunity to see what would happen to something in the hands of its fans, which is kinda hard to happen when the copyright on it basically says "No, you are not allowed to use Han Solo as a character in this otherwise original work of art, he is copyrighted and licensing fees are enormous enough that you would never be able to pay them out of pocket, and no studio is backing you, so f-- off." Then the original fans die out, and all the ideas that COULD have happened are lost to time. Meanwhile, the major copyright holders either milk the product for all it's worth under their control, or let the ideas from it slowly dim away, only letting it flare up again when they stifle the new production from it. I've seen that happen to two absolutely brilliant re-hashes of 35-40 year old IPs. And what's worse is, they were both entirely out of public memory, so it's not like they were trying to capitalize on the popularity of star wars or something and steal from that (like in my example above,) but rather trying to revitalize a storyline that had gone by the wayside and nobody remembered anything about.

[@sonichd7810]

Having copyright through the life span of the original creator sounds good to me. However, once I die, there will be no need for +70 years of copyright. I'm sure at least 7 years is more than enough time for my future business to get back on track without me...That is, if the world and I don't end Tomorrow. Lol

[@wiseboar]

the thing is, you either do lifetime + a ridiculous amount, or make it independent of lifetime alltogether. You wouldn't want it to be beneficial to anyone if they kill you... I'd just do it similar to patents: 20 years. If you can't make money from it during the first 20 years, too bad

[@eddyavailable]

tell that to mickey

[@FoxDr]

*Short rant about the "+70 years", you can skip it for the interesting (I hope) questions* I really hate the "+70 years". If you want to set an "at least X time" so that the author dying doesn't pose problems to corporations, make it, I don't know, 70 years extendable as long as the author lives. 70 years, we're talking letting 3 generations profit from the work of someone, even if he died right after making it, some persons will profit actively (not counting heritage) of the writings of a person they only heard of a few times in their life ! *QUESTION TIME !!!* In the case of companies, the idea of "works for hire" combined with "as long as the owner lives" confuses me. In France, companies are legally categorized as "personne morale" (moral being), meaning they are considered like a living entity in the eyes of the law. I believe this is the same in the USA (please correct me if wrong, I am not a lawyer, not even in France). Wouldn't that make the company, a potentially immortal being, the author, and thus, make the work copyrighted forever ? I also wonder, in the case of works for hire, does the hired author keep any rights to his works (putting aside the monetary ones) ? For example, if I produce an algorithm that my company then detains the copyrights to, am I allowed to use it in other works, outside of the company, assuming the algorithm wasn't protected by other agreements such as non-disclosure ? I think this Crash Course is a great idea. I love creating stuff, but the legal matters have always been a nightmare to me.

[@TutuOnAbridger]

daFreakinFox There are separate rules governing the length allowed for copyrights originating in corporations. I believe it is 100 years flat. (Well, for now) And no, if they could prove you were reusing the algorithm and they wanted to sue for infringement they could. However, they would need to prove that the section you were using would not fall under fair use.

[@Ddub1083]

daFreakinFox If you did a work for hire, YOU do not own any rights in the work at all. Presuming you have a normal work for hire agreement, the company/person you work for normally withholds all the rights to the work in exchange for paying you. So in that sense, no, you do not have the right to use it (without their permission) in outside works.

[@MortimerZabi]

Love the series so far. I hope international trade agreements will be covered in later episodes, because they have strong implications when it comes to the territoriality of IP Law,

[@HeeminGamin]

"this video won't open the public domain until Janurary 1st 2111" by that time Disney will undoubtly stretch the length of copywrite again.. I know the current law says "These Exclusive rights last for the life time of the author +70 years" the law should say "Anything made before 'Steamboat Willie' is in the public domain everything else is safe."

[@GelidGanef]

HeeminGamin At this point they kinda have to keep it up indefinitely though. Cause I don't know about you, but as soon as Mickey hits public domain I know for sure I am going all copyleft guerrilla on that sh**

[@HeeminGamin]

Mickey Mouse Pornos... Mickey Mouse Pornos as far as the eye can see.

[@SangoProductions213]

HeeminGamin I can guarentee you that those already happen. It's like a rule of the internet.

[@HeeminGamin]

legal ones... Sango... legal ones. think about it ones that Disney can't legally do anything about. Fun story... back when Disney was still getting started 2 employee's made a short X-rated film with Mickey and Disney afterwards Walt got up laughed and and asked who did it... the 2 identified themselves and then he praises the stylish animation and then promptly fired them on the spot and ordered the film to be destroyed.

[@andrewgray-df8tw]

HeeminGamin I don't think the majority would be in favor of that. They might try something like reserving copyright for companies with a certain amount of value attached to their names, though. The name Disney is just so embedded into American culture, there's no way they're just gonna let someone else come along and try to claim something like a movie franchise as their own in order to make a sequel.

[@johnploense2944]

I love Stan, have him host more shows!

[@burnhamaj]

I've been really excited for this series.

[@kwameharris7079]

I think the length of time is appropriate. It covers not only the lifetime of the author, 'seeing they might be adults when submitting the work', but also of a certain amount of their offspring's life, ' imagining they might have had children and would like to take care of them in some form'.

[@talideon]

Personally, I'd set it at 30 years with the option of renewing after 30 up to a total of 60 years. That's plenty and covers a person's working life up until their death, gives sufficient protection to corporations, and means orphaned works have a chance of entering the public domain sooner.

[@wiseboar]

Why cover the author's personal life though? This doesn't incentivize progress and creation, it incentivizes a corporation to make money off some work for freaking ages 15 years max, and I'd even go so far as to make extensions every 3 years a necessity. Just look at how KZbin and Copyright claims lay waste to small channels. This is just ridiculous

[@nathansweet3035]

I think that copyright laws should not extend for much past a person's death, because their posterity would be earning money w/o contributing to society. That would effectively counteract the goals of capitalism as they would not have much motivation to contribute to society.

[@Ddub1083]

+Nathan Sweet Right but you arent considering that many MANY copyrights are held by companies... not the original creator or the company was considered the original creator under the "work for hire" doctrine. So in those cases, its less abou tthe family and more about continuing to provide revenue for the company. If a company cannot protect its copyrights because of the arbitrary timing of deaths of the original creators, they will be less motivated to contribute to society.

[@cwflad]

Love the Daredevil reference at 7:11

[@BrandensGaming]

Thank you for doing this series. I had a thought recently that I would have liked to watch a series on ip to understand a bit more about it and, lo and behold, you start making a series about it.

[@grammarjack9251]

Love the Daredevil reference!

[@alexkramerblogs]

This series is gold! I'm really enjoying them!

[@tuber12111]

YES STAN HAS TAKEN OVER

[@undolf4097]

The roomba gag made this video worth my time.

[@BeckaBN]

His voice is really soothing

[@AlmostYourFavourite]

Congrats to 3 million subscribers :) Keep up the great work ^^

[@OgeBOG]

Hmmm...This video gives a deep insight to copy right laws.Its indeed an opener, Thanks CRASHCOURSE

[@22Tidus]

Love these, keep them coming Stan.

[@Energya01]

Great job Stan! Keep it up :)

[@N....]

10 years, period. No lifetimes considered, no extensions.

[@JinwooYoon1217]

Stan "The Man" Muller.

[@westtech001]

I would like a ruling that, as Congress is granted the right to allow copyrights for a limited time, that if copyright terms are longer than the average lifespan of an American at the time of creation, it should fall into the public domain no longer than that. The average copyright shouldn't be around longer than the average person.

[@dr.ravinjay]

In Indonesia, it can take up to 5 years for a particular copyright (like a logo) to be approved. Afterwards, it is only protected for 10 years.

[@RoscoeKane]

Make it a flat 25 years. If you sit around and figure "well I can only collect money on my work for 25 years, what they heck is the point?" then you are in a tiny minority. Copyright encourages people to create because it ensures them that they will be able to collect money based on the market value of their work, someone else can't just sell what you created. But your work is based on the culture you draw from and probably based in part on previous works. Therefore, the public gets ownership of your work after you have had some time to make your money based on it.

[@won1once]

One reason for the 70 years is so the family can control the vision of the copyright holder. Sadly most individuals end up selling to a corporation. The complexity of copyright can easily be seen by examining iconic creations like Star Trek and Harry Potter.

[@tomheadley]

1790 - 14 years 1831 - 28 Years +14 year extension 1909 - 28 Years +28 year extension 1976 - Life +50 years 1998 - Life +70 years

[@OGiggi]

It should 15 years. Just long enough for the inheritors to profit from, but short enough to promote learning and creativity.

[@michaelmosleymusic]

thank you for the lesson.

[@NithinPrakashz]

40 Years from the date of publication. Plain and simple.

[@chrislee-anneminturn5111]

Oh my, so much information to understand. And yes I am a real person, and yes 120 years shorter than 90 years! and still such a long time, will it even be remotely relevant by then? Thanks for the video, its been very helpful.

[@Blitz6804]

Remember the constitution grants "for limited times." As an attorney who has done a fair bit of research in the copyright field, I really think we should go back to the older methods (pre Disney) of 14 years from date of registration. That should be long enough to get the bulk of the money the work is going to get, and after that, let the public domain take it.

[@ikram96]

My favorite channel of ALL time 😍😍 very educational!

[@micahsandt]

1. Lifetime of author - absolutely agree 2. +70 years - That's fair... because My children (or whoever) should be able to reap the benefits, and I guess that would even pass into my grandchildren a little but end there. If I can pass down a house why can't I pass down my art?

[@wiseboar]

because it kills progress and only having lifetime of the author incentivizes killing the artist 15 years max and be done with it. We'd see an increase in our art like never before

[@TheLupinOfLife]

Crash course Law would be awesome!

[@Drdirtydee]

This man's voice is awesome

[@krq113]

Who creates the animations? They are so impressive..

[@Jatleby]

nhaugaard1 Thanks dude! We make em over here at Thought Cafe in Toronto, check out some of our other work at thoughtcafe.ca

[@AusSP]

nhaugaard1 Thought Cafe. It's a studio in Canada.

[@krq113]

Thanks guys! James Tuer you guys are amazing. I'm currently working on a bunch of projects, i will definitely get in touch. So impressive.

[@dierderikd3986]

I love this series.

[@benaaronmusic]

Lifetime +70 years? Time to start creating!

[@azophi]

The downfall: KZbin Rewind 2018 The ad-pocalypse The copyright issue T-series beats (and sues) PewDiePie

[@micdf]

Seems a lot of people are misunderstanding a key point here. A work entering the public domain doesn't mean that the original creator stops making money from it. Copyright only keeps OTHERS from using your work for profit. When it's exhausted, you can still publish your work and profit from it, but others can now publish the same work, so you are forced to either compete or create something new. THAT'S how it promotes artistic creativity. Not only are others free to use your work in their own creative endeavors, but now you as a creator are put back to work instead of resting on your previously earned laurels.

[@SydiusVideo]

Thank you

[@evanminton8315]

The copyright definitely lasts way too long. If the owner dies at age 100, the copyright's going to last for almost 2 centuries! That's insane! Look, if you're dead, you're not going to be bothered if anyone uses your stuff, so why should it last so long after the owner passes away? Are the ghosts of the copyright holders going to come back and haunt you for infringement or something? Seriously.

[@spazzen]

+Evan Minton well yes if they copyright their finger paintings at age 1 it'll make it to 170 years old, I agree its too long, but the argument that you won't care about your stuff I find bizzare, it'd be like saying, I know I own this house but random strangers can have it instead of my kids I'm dead I don't care. Some people might not care, but most do care what happens to their things, which is why they have wills.

[@emilychou720]

Intellectual property?! Crash Course should totally do a course on taxes and other useful adulty things.

[@MrRobbPhoenix]

Wow! So this is the fabled Stan we keep hearing about...

[@bstoppel1]

I look forward to the discussion of Transformative Work and Fair Use.

[@johnnywatts8098]

Stan, in 2014 I copyrighted the material from my website as a literary work but it was not in the form of a book, just a reproduction of my website homepage. Afterward, my research which resulted from my website inspired me to further my cryptologic exploration of the Bible and after deciphering much more data, I decided to actually write a non fiction book that stood on its' own as an independent literary effort, though the book stemmed from my 2014 website material, which was just a vague overview of the codes I uncovered about the Shroud of Turin. My 2016 book was all new material that I wrote between 2015 and 2016 and presented the results of my research in an entirely different presentation than what my website presented. The scope of my 2016 book was vastly different in expression than what I copyrighted in 2014. Regarding the issue of 'facts', there might be some who would say my book is not based on fact but conjecture because it involves cryptology and the deciphering of secretive data in the Bible, not unlike The Bible Code in some ways. I phoned the US Copyright Office recently and asked a clerk there if my 2014 copyright would protect my 2016 book after explaining the details to her. She told me I would need to file for a new copyright registration for my 2016 book, even though the theme of it was derived from the material I copyrighted from my 2014 website. So I filed for a special handling copyright application for my 2016 book and now the US Copyright Office is giving me a hard time, claiming the material I am now trying to copyright was basically copied from the 2014 material but it was not copied as they claim but rather, written anew in non fiction book form, with chapters and is close to 300 pages long whereas the website material was nowhere near that length. The case is so far unresolved and up in the air. Any thoughts?

[@TaiChiKnees]

I only learned about work for hire in the last year, and had to look at my contract as an adjunct faculty at a college to discover whether my teaching videos were my own property (evidently they are). But since then I've been terrified to post any video, music or images unless they were made by me or I was certain they were public domain or CC (figuring out how to do attributions were another misery I had to go through). I'm really looking forward to the rest of this series; hopefully I'll discover I'm all within the law and maybe am actually more concerned than I need to be.

[@lukenuetzmann]

I'm sure when Disney's early IPs begin to reach that point the law will mysteriously be extended once again. 40 years starting when the work is copyrighted.

[@JamesLewis2]

It should be mentioned that although the US federal government does not allow its own creative works to be copyrighted, some state governments actually do copyright their creative works.

[@KydaIndie]

That magic 8 ball makes me so happy and I don't know why

[@Ugunark]

I'd like to see copyright be significantly shorter. On the scale of 7-21 years. The synthesis of ideas, and the novel application of those ideas are how we progress culterally and I'd love to see that process fed more rapidly.

[@o76923]

I think the statute of Anne had one thing right: 14 years is reasonable. The system impedes progress at this point unsteady if fostering it. Though how about this alternative: 20 years or until you have generated revenue based on the idea equal to 20× the investment into creating it, whichever comes first. That way big ideas quickly make their money and then everyone can improve them but you still get a window even if your idea isn't profitable.

[@tetrapharmakos8868]

Thanks! This is my favorite Crash Course yet!

[@rainkeltoia]

Kudos Thought Cafe for referencing Matt Murdock/Daredevil in their spot.

[@TheTheGirlYouDontKno]

The problem is that people who want to make it shorter are consumers whereas people who want to make it longer are the people who benefit from the length. Both parties have vested interest in the rulling therefore an objective opinion cannot be formed.

[@jamesl1332]

I'd like some more discussion on software patents vs software copyright. Also, yes, reduce the time. If your stuff ain't good enough to make money in your lifetime, it's not good enough to protect it for your heirs either. Corporations clearly want copyright extended because corporations are people who never die. But I think that unwise and part of what breeds trolls. If anything, a corporation is in the business of creation and their rights should be less than an individual's rights, in order to encourage them to keep creating and finding better efficiencies. Similar to a recession, the more limited the opportunities, the better the solutions/outcomes will be. Constrain corporate copyright and witness even better fruits. Same with patents.

[@Oldbaydog777]

Stan Muller is doing great! I am loving these videos!

[@RozzamaTRON]

"The greatest reward is hoping people learn stuff" - Stan. This quote on its own explains why the copyright period is far too long. Copyright was put in place to give an incentive for creators to create, right? In my experience, most creators do so for the love of it, or - even better - because they think they are doing something good for humankind. There's no need to make copyright ownership particularly lucrative, because (at least the good, useful) creators aren't thinking "what's in it for me?" And they're almost certainly not thinking "What's in it for my great-grandchildren?" But as everyone knows, copyright laws are now set in favor of corporate copyright holders, who have privileged making money over helping society, and the whole system is broken. Reset the whole thing to 50 years after creation, at most.

[@gregorybiche89]

roomba bit was awesome! cheers

[@benr.4238]

So wait, am I infringing on copyright laws with this username/picture? I mean I probably won't change it either way, but was just wondering.

[@asia246222]

Darth Vader No. It's tricky to explain because it mostly relies on a provision of copyright law that's more of a defense than an outright rule, but basically since you're using the name and image in such an inconsequential way without making any profit off of the idea you're fine. Copyright infractions mostly depend on the owner of the copyright making some noise about it, so as long as it's this small Disney isn't going to bother. No judge would convict, even if you are technically breaking the law.

[@commode7x]

***** Don't underestimate the power of East Texas. The only reason why there isn't a suit against Darth Vader is because Disney hasn't gotten to him, yet. The regularly sue everyone and everything that they can get their hands on. If they could automate the lawsuit process, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

[@Democlis]

commode7x shhhh stop talking right NOW (and i AM telling you to do so in an obviously rude manner) don't give ideas to them if they decide to come here to sue Darth Vader they might find this suggestion endearing and hire a few programers to do so.

[@commode7x]

Democlis They already have programmers working with Google to make an automated lawsuit system. Last time they testified in Congress regarding the issue, they mentioned language that would allow such a thing to become legal. Some have even talked about automating the ballot box towards creating an automated judicial system. That was near a decade ago. The ideas have already been developed and are ready to roll out. Only bureaucracy prevents its implementation.

[@rosagibson6570]

commode7x I'm sorry but everytime I think about Disney and copyright, I just see Mikey Mouse in a suit with a frown on his face.

[@CYellowan]

Holy shit, make more of these! The more relevant to my type of person... not normal, the bigger the chance will be fore me to become a patreon obviously. I mean, this intel directly affect my quickly growing hobby. Go figure. Great video, going to wait for more of these exact ones!

[@dannydude2121]

Yellow I didnt know you are also a hardcore pc learner

[@CYellowan]

dannydude21 One can never learn an art well enough! To put it on point, even after 10 years of watching KZbin videos, there are still important things to learn about this field. Thus i posted that old comment. :P

[@Xenolilly]

Thank you for the information about biographies. I'm planning on writing one soon, and I wondered how well protected it would be. I understand the facts can't be protected. that makes sense.

[@JustKazza]

Nice daredevil reference 😃