The Power of The Public Domain

[@careypridgeon]

Terry Pratchett allowed people to write plays and make money based on his work, attending some of the performances.

[@johnscott6984]

And it isn't just that the original creators are dead, in many cases the corporate overlords took specific measures to rook those creators and their legal heirs out of any rights to those characters.

[@andywellsglobaldomination]

Fun fact... the most popular American songwriter of the 19th century, Stephen Foster, sold his songs outright and only made money from buyout costs... His publisher flourished while Foster starved....

[@bleigh3369]

If true, that would indeed be a violation of their rights. Do you have an example of these "many cases" where you claim "corporate overlords took specific measures to rook those creators and their legal heirs out of any rights to those characters"? Or are you just referring to examples like the one andy provides here, which is NOT at all anyone 'rooking' anyone else of their rights.

[@TLSoulDude]

I discovered the power of the public domain this year. I outlined a Victorian adventure series where Sherlock Holmes and Pecos Bill go through various public domain fiction and have adventures. It was a creative writing experience that I had a LOT of fun with.

[@NitwitsWorld]

Uh-oh….. 😢

[@deletebilderberg]

Wishing you and yours a very Merry Christmas Dave.

[@mulengroak4687]

If Trek were public domain, Axanar would be conpleted and well loved.

[@wtriker1701]

Thanks to incompetence by the producer they weren't able to finish it, before the lawsuit hit. They had enough time AND millions of dollars by then - but kept spending the money for anything else BUT producing that train wreck. Even now as they are still "allowed" to produce two 15 minute sequences since the lawsuit ENDED, they haven't been getting to THAT finish line. Take that into consideration.

[@sigmacademy]

The Axanar creator is STILL busy trying to finish it, unlike all the critics who are suspiciously friendly with studios.

[@NitwitsWorld]

@@sigmacademy sure Jane.…….

[@logicmeister1821]

Copyright Law needs to be MAJORLY shortened

[@LordBitememan]

I would say baseline should be ten years from date of publication with exceptions like if you're producing a series, actively generating continuity sequels, or producing an extended universe of some sort. Additional exception should be that living creators can file for ten year extensions every ten years, to the exclusion of corporations which have acquired properties and also to the exclusion of estates, but with each extension after the first must demonstrate that the property is annually earning an amount equal to the federal poverty line.

[@poisonedyoyo]

The Copyright Restoration Act could overturn some of that, but I will say it would mean a lot more projects could only be sold in the US if it passes.

[@lonjohnson5161]

There is a variation on this where the copyrights have been abandoned. Austin McConnell is building his own connected universe based on superheroes that nobody cared enough to maintain the copyright on. He explains why he's doing it in some detail on his channel.

[@macsnafu]

The Super Zeroes, yes. And if anyone wants to do their own versions of public domain superheroes, many of them can be found on sites like Comic Book Plus, which only has public domain comics on it. Maybe instead of doing Superman, you want to update Wonder Man, an early Superman competitor that was quickly shut down by legal action by National Comics, the original name of DC comics.

[@inkermoy]

@@macsnafu might have some problem trademarking Wonder Man since he's a Marvel hero now.

[@macsnafu]

@@inkermoy Argh, I forgot about that!

[@LokiScarletWasHere]

Something important to note, is that once the original incarnation of something goes public domain, that also means you can make your own new design of it. You don't have to make an uncanny abomination like the horror films are doing with the rubber hose stuff. People were worried it'd be infringement for Pooh to be yellow or to wear clothes. But Blood and Honey proved this isn't a problem as long as you're not using Disney's adaptation as a source. (Horror Pooh is notably more clothed than Disney's Pooh and made horrifyingly legally distinct in his design) Wanna make a version where Santa Claus was a Batman with a Batcave under the Basilica di San Nicola, disguised as a tomb to hide his immortality? Once the OG Batman comic goes public domain, you might be able to get away with that. Might have some issues with the trademark being evergreen, but that can be fixed by calling him something like Pipistrellomo.

[@poisonedyoyo]

Ugh if I can't even make Winnie the Pooh yellow? People only mentioned the red shirt. I will say Clownfish TV called Blood and Honey "parody" and it confused me why they had to wait till something was in the public domain for a parody, but I guess that means they were doubly protected.

[@nunyabizness6595]

I will be long dead when Trek and SW become public domain because I'm 67 but something about the idea that folks will do great versions of Trek still makes me happy. At least others will enjoy.❤❤❤

[@WillHerrmann]

It would be interesting to see a derivative of Star Trek TOS released the year 1966 enters copyright. It would be based only on the first 15 episodes, meaning no Chekov, no Klingons, and no Vulcans except Spock. There would be Romulans though due to "Balance of Terror", and I'd bet they would be a major focus.

[@DanielS2001]

The Showtime TV series Penny Dreadful is a great example of taking public domain characters and creating a new work with them. Though the show features original characters, the show also features Victor Frankenstein and his creation Adam, Dorian Gray and Dracula in the story in a rather unique way.

[@neilmcdougall4927]

Already covered in Alan Moore's Extraordinary League of Gentlemen

[@TruDis01]

Weird how Mickey Mouse is the cornerstone of the entire Disney brand, yet there's never really been any major standalone Mickey Mouse movies🤔

[@WillEnd96]

His aspirational nature (Walt Disney is said to have often compared him to James Stewart's characters) has made him a difficult character to market, and write. Kinda like Superman. Donald Duck being so abundantly successful compared to Mickey was a lifelong professional frustration for Disney.

[@TomyDayos]

@@TruDis01 What about Fantasia?

[@TruDis01]

@TomyDayos I guess. It was more of a cameo in that though

[@TomyDayos]

@@TruDis01 Now you really got me... Let me think.... Prince and the pauper is not standalone movie, right? Neither is the Brave Little Tailor? I gues that you are right, I cannot think of anything that mickey is the central point and is a movie...

[@NitwitsWorld]

@@TomyDayosBrave Little Toaster isn't much of a Disney film sadly. I wish it was but it was published under Touchstone pictures

[@SirBlackReeds]

Am I the only one who remembers the lesson from Winnie the Pooh and Steamboat Willie? People can do anything with these properties, and they just pump out horror slop.

[@droth1031]

Cheap, easy to make, and guaranteed to gain a lot of attention from everyone complaining. It's like playing with cheat codes.

[@bleigh3369]

"Am I the only one who remembers the lesson...People can do anything with these properties, and they just pump out horror slop. Of course, whether one LIKES what somebody does with STOLEN property is IRRELEVANT. One's emotions do NOT change the fact that the property IS stolen - ie that the property belongs to someone else, NOT the (pleasing or displeasing) thief.

[@GhettoFabulousLorch]

Those were both Disney properties. Those horror flicks were just stunts to capitalize on Disney stuff going public domain. Zoom out and there are hardly any cheap horror movies ever made to capitalize on public domain works.

[@jasonschlierman412]

Cheep films that will be forgotten rather quickly. However, greater access to the original works is amazing and eventually, better quality works will get created thanks to the public domain that might just rival the original stuff. New stories for Robin Hood, the Wizard of Oz or Sherlock Holmes are being created all the time. Imagine if Superman, Spider-Man and Captain Kirk were to join them?!

[@choreomaniac]

The reason is that cheap horror cannot be confused with an official Disney product. Imagine someone makes an animated feature starring Peter Pan, Steamboat Willie and Winnie the Pooh. Or builds amusement park rides based on these characters. Disney will sue. They will argue trademark infringement and customer confusion. They will likely lose but it would cost tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands to defend themselves. The less customer confusion, the more likely Disney won’t sue.

[@AshleyWincer]

Bringing the copyright back to 30 years would be great. It would force creative companies to come up with a lot more new characters more often. It would eliminate the milking of tired old characters from the World War 2 era..

[@bleigh3369]

*"It would force..."* Indeed it would. Of course, putting a g un to someone's head and FORCING them to create "a lot more characters" for you is the DEFINITION of the VIOLATION of the individual's right to his OWN life and his OWN effort - ie it is the treatment of that individual as your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as you see fit (forced), to satisfy your desires (for characters). Human beings are NOT your CHATTEL. They do not exist to satisfy ANY of your wants, wishes, or WHIMS. But thanks for identifying the fact that the Southern Slave Owner's philosophy is alive and kicking today.

[@poisonedyoyo]

I think 56 years will be fine but I will say if Jackie Chan Adventures entered public domain in the next decade that would be insane.

[@izzafizza339]

We need star trek to be in public domain like soon

[@splawnrobert]

CBS /P∆RAMOUNT isn't enforcing the 15 minute time limit rule on F∆N FlLMS . They just don't enforce it. And there are tons of fan films and series eps - ST∆R TREK ANTYLLUS STAR TREK AV∆LON ST∆R TREK FARRAGUT ST∆R TREK CONTINUES ST∆R TR£K RENEGADES ETC......

[@thedarkknight1971]

Studios - "NO! IT'S Mine! Mine! Miney! Miney! Moiney! Moiney! Money! Money!" 🤨😏 😎🇬🇧

[@garethmorgan8326]

Doctor Who will not go into the Public Domain until 2090, we will all be long gone by then sadly.

[@gsleo2396]

Pretty sure it will happen earlier, IPs enter the public domain after 95 years, and doctor who is 60 years old, so it should happen within the next 30 to 40 years, so 2050s or 2060s, I'll probably still be around then and so will Dave and a lot of people watching these videos, even if we'll be geezers.

[@hivebrain]

In the UK the rule is 70 years after the creator dies. For TV and film that includes the writer, director and composer, which are going to be different for each episode. I checked the first two episodes and in both cases at least one creator is still alive, which means those episodes will be public domain in 2095 at the absolute earliest.

[@AzraelThanatos]

@@hivebrain The UK also has the entire Peter Pan mess where they gave it a perpetual copyright...which still pops up with things in anything involving Peter Pan

[@ronwit]

The real pity is not that we won't be around but the IPs will be so thoroughly tainted by the holders that no one may care that they are then available.

[@deletebilderberg]

It's already gone.

[@zatoitchigilmore9162]

I love your channel Dave, I've been subscribed for some time now. I miss computing forever, but what can you do aye! Thank you so much for covering interesting topics that people actually want to hear 😊

[@thisspaceforrent5737]

Some people are doing this already. I haven't read it myself, but there was a crowdfunding campaign a while back for a graphic novel called "Terror in the Trenches." It used Black Terror -- an old comics character who has lapsed into the public domain.

[@omniviewer2115]

All that power...and all people use it for these days is to make the same darn slasher movies over and over again for the sake of a quick buck.

[@matthewsuchomski2593]

yea, I watched your recent video on that topic, and I agree wholeheartedly.

[@funkydiscogod]

I think it has to do with lawyers. Even if it's public domain, their lawyers won't let you create a Steamboat Willie cartoon that looks like it could have been the work of Walt Disney.

[@omniviewer2115]

@@funkydiscogod There are more options than "remake the cartoon" and "make the character a knife-wielding maniac". Why not have Steamboat Willie be a pulp adventurer? Or reimagine him as a pirate? Or put a steampunk twist on it? No, instead people just default to the same generic slasher plot. Pooh, Pinocchio, Popeye, Mickey, Bambi, Peter Pan...heck, even the Grinch has a slasher movie, and he's not even public domain yet. I fully intend to make use of public domain characters myself, mind you, so I'm not just shouting into the wind and expecting someone else to do the work. Still, the people who are already doing the work aren't putting in any real effort, and that's a problem.

[@funkydiscogod]

​@@omniviewer2115 Even if it's public domain, you may have to prove to a court that "pirate Steamboat Willie" or "steampunk Steamboat Willie" isn't a copy of a much later Mickey Mouse cartoon. It may be that the only way to avoid a lawsuit is to use the character in a way that does not overlap with the family-friendly original, and this is why we get slasher movies. Sure, it's speculation on my part, and I'm no lawyer. But we know how litigious some corporations can be, and Mickey Mouse has a reputation for exactly that.

[@sigmacademy]

Slashers are relatively cheap to make, which suit smaller production companies, plus the horror genre is known for pulling customers regardless of quality issues.

[@MaestroDrake]

I remember your previous video. I thought this was a re-upload where you remind us it's important to embrace characters we create.

[@brianmcguinness9642]

It's ok to time travel if you want to. Wells' The Time Machine is in the public domain.

[@Avarn388]

I’m currently working on a novel but my next work once I’m done I want to look at some public domain characters and try to work with them. You will be surprised how many hidden gems there are out there that haven’t gotten the attention and could be neat.

[@wearetomorrowspast.5617]

Gilgamesh? I'd pay good money to see that happen.

[@Avarn388]

@@wearetomorrowspast.5617Not quite. Though, that’s an idea I’d love to tackle or even see someone else do so. It’s an original work I’ve created which I borrowed a lot from East Asian and southeast Asian myth. I was thinking of tackling a western superhero story. I’ve been on a western kick and I do think I have a cool idea for how to approach it in a fresh way.

[@Infamous1892]

His name is H.P. Lovecraft.

[@shawnotoole1421]

I write books and illustrate the covers. I create the title fonts. None of it is fan fiction or fan art, though I am an aficionado of such work. Fans often improve their inspirations.

[@gojira387]

I'm just waiting for The Spider to go public domain in the next couple years. Underrated characters like him are where all the potential is at in the future.

[@NitwitsWorld]

The Spider? Static Shock superhero?

[@gojira387]

@@NitwitsWorld No. A Pulp Fiction character made in the early 1930's to emulate the success of The Shadow. A really ruthless Punisher-type crimefighter who has basically been forgotten since the 40s. If we can't have The Punisher or Batman, their predecessors like The Spider or The Shadow will have to do.

[@NitwitsWorld]

@@gojira387 Damn, I'm dumb.

[@scottnolan2833]

For a long time, fan fiction was a wasteland of Mary Sue garbage and kink, but these days we're privileged to see a renaissance of fan fiction. I envy the nerds of sixty years hence!

[@slicerneons3300]

I do admit, the low quality Winnie the Pooh and Popeye the Sailor horror Slasher films.prove the public can abuse an IP with great callousness.

[@ExpressoMechanicTV]

Look at what was done with the Banana Splits and they're not even in the public domain!

[@matthewpatrick7263]

Look at the abuse the copyright owners have been doing to their own franchises.

[@Alextrocute]

Characters and stories should grow, evolve, and morph over time. New interpretations, what-ifs, appearances, so that they can continue to have a meaningful impact on people into the future. I am afraid that people of the future will not care about anything we made by time it enters the public domain. Because they don't care, they will forget... when they forget what we made, it's easy to forget about us entirely...

[@skylx0812]

My normal avatar is a stylized silver blade design I sketched in high school for a jewelry making class. Years later I used it in my very first "serious" attempt at using photoshop. It became the avatar I used for several websites including deviantART. Once while chatting with somone from the US east coast they said they didn't believe it was my original work. I asked why and he said he saw it in a motavational poster on a wall in a youth center. When I was in high school my paintings that I would be working on would get stolen from the art class before I could finish them. People steal. But personally I'm happy if the fan art I create based on my fave scifi novels draws attention to the original work. I once informed a publisher of what I was doing and included a link to the work, they said they'd inform the author. Since I never recieved any cease and desist letters I figured they were ok with it.

[@samym1694]

4:30 yes that's why in a Video Game "God of War" that Thor doesn't looked like Chris Hemsworth,why Loki is the son of a Greek God Kratos & why Odin looked like a Slim old Man

[@AlwaysAudacity]

Two generations (50-60) years should be sufficient for anything to be locked up.

[@AlphaProto]

They may go public domain, but they are going to enforce trademark like crazy.

[@amehak1922]

There's a limit though, they can't completely prevent new works of a public domain property

[@RushedAnimation]

​@amehak1922 ok, so you can make a Superman comic or movie about a Superman who can't fly, and if you put the word "Superman" "Man of Steel" or "Man of Tomorrow" anywhere on the cover/title, you'll be sued for trademark infringement

[@amehak1922]

@@RushedAnimation maybe

[@macsnafu]

Yes of course they will, but trademark is more limited than copyright in some ways. Most importantly, they have to keep using the trademark in order to keep it, and if they stop using it, they can lose it.

[@poisonedyoyo]

@@macsnafu Thank goodness because there is something Disney is not using that will enter public domain in a few years (or sooner if that Copyright Restoration Act goes through) and I want to do something with it.

[@Dreamfox-df6bg]

If they were milking old stuff, that's one thing, but so many movies and shows are forgotten by the corporations that own them and because they are still copyrighted no one could use them.

[@richardlbowles]

I can imagine the Disney Corporation in the year AD 9000 lobbying for the copyright period being extended to 7100 years.

[@SergioLeonardoCornejo]

I think public domain is a great thing. But I think not everyone should be allowed to use it. Why? Because I have noticed a trend of using it to "corrupt", to put it in simple terms, the work of others.

[@bumblebee9337]

Hollywood is corrupt.

[@jrconway3]

Unfortunately that's what public domain means. Public domain means public--anyone can use it. You can't simply say some people are not allowed to use a property but others can. The basic idea behind the public domain is something is just common now. A lot of things are "public domain" by default because they're just common every day use.

[@josephippolito1402]

Exactly

[@bleigh3369]

@@josephippolito1402 So you feel the State (copyright law) treating an individual's life and effort as the PROPERTY of others is "a great thing". But you also feel that the State must dictate the 'proper' use of that property for everyone. In other words, you feel that the individual is the PROPERTY of the State, to be disposed of as it sees fit, to satisfy its desires. Got it.

[@macsnafu]

It doesn't work that way. if you don't like how someone uses a public domain character, then don't give it any support. In any case, I think the shock value of "corrupting" characters like Winnie the Pooh won't last and more thoghtful and faithful uses of the characters will arise.

[@francisjo3]

Copyright is broken, and Disney broke it.

[@TomyDayos]

We need to ask politicians to reduce the amount of time that copyright lasts.

[@funkydiscogod]

@@TomyDayos Imagine politicians listening to peasants.

[@bleigh3369]

"Copyright is broken, and Disney broke it." Copyright IS broken. But it is broken because it presumes the individual is the PROPERTY of the State, which GIFTS temporary 'privileges' to individuals rather than recognizing the fact that the individual's life and effort are his SOLE, monopolistic property. The only way to fix copyright laws is to STOP the State from STEALING the life and effort of the individual from him and giving it to everyone else. Put simply, as with ALL other property, there is rightfully NO 'time limit' when it comes to the disposal of one's OWN life and one's OWN effort. And this is true whether one's life and effort *created* a property OR whether one's life and effort were *traded* for a property. A creator has NO special claim to his property which a trader lacks.

[@bleigh3369]

@@TomyDayos "We need to ask politicians to reduce the amount of time that copyright lasts." We need people (like yourself) to realize the individual's right to his OWN life and OWN effort are not other people's PROPERTY, to be disposed of as those others see fit, to satisfy their desires. In other words, because others are NOT your CHATTEL, you don't get to dictate 'how long' a person gets to keep his OWN life and his OWN effort. NO human being is your PROPERTY. PERIOD.

[@TomyDayos]

@@funkydiscogod I agree.

[@wesmcinerny4524]

I will admit, lately, the public domain is being uncreative by doing dark, slasher horror films too much.

[@mikoajryniak2644]

If only those were good but no. They are all crap. Winnie the Pooh, Mickey Mouse, soon Popeye will join them.

[@jrconway3]

Its just the first thing often done with these kinds of properties. More creative liberties can be taken by others down the line.

[@AkuTenshiiZero]

Probably just because they are cheap to make. Horror movies, particularly slashers, are often found early in filmmaker's careers due to how low budget they can be.

[@josephippolito1402]

You're free to adapt your own your based on it

[@josephfisher426]

That's because horror is a proven commodity in which it is acceptable to be visibly cheap. No reason others can't do it, but there isn't an automatic route to being distributed.

[@destinycaptain247]

2:16 -to further complicate things Disney has muddied the waters with respect to clear propriety of copyright with Steamboat Willie. As they have also introduced variations that reuse this design. So anyone going forward trying to use the original version is going to have a very difficult and protracted legal fight with Disney, as Disney is going to claim that they are actually not using the original version they are using another derivation, which still has several years more left of copyrightprotection. Tom Connors at midnight edge has covered this extensively on their channel.

[@TomyDayos]

I fully agree with you. We need to ask politicians to remove 10 years or more from copyright and return the public domain to its former self. The life of the creator plus 70 years is too much!

[@bleigh3369]

"The life of the creator plus 70 years is too much!" Yeah! By what 'right' does anyone keep ownership of property they didn't personally create?! Just because they traded THEIR life and THEIR effort for ownership of that property shouldn't mean that the property is THEIRS. It should belong to ANYONE and EVERYONE regardless - because WE WISH IT! LOL

[@kurtisdeakin]

You again. You talk down to a lot of people in these comments. Problem is creators often don't keep their work anyway, and instead it's the soulless companies and money men buying them up and spoiling them. You're thinking of a perfect world, and it just doesn't exist.

[@bleigh3369]

@@kurtisdeakin "Problem is creators often don't keep their work anyway" The fact that a creator of a property exercises his RIGHT to sell his property is NOT a "problem" to be solved. "soulless companies and money men buying them up and spoiling them." The fact that an individual exercises his RIGHT to buy a property is NOT a "problem" to be solved. And the fact that you don't LIKE what a person (be he a creator or buyer) does with HIS OWN PROPERTY does not make his EXERCISE of his rights a "problem" to be solved. "You're thinking of a perfect world, and it just doesn't exist." No. YOU are the one imagining a FANTASY standard to which the real world supposedly doesn't live up to (aka your FANTASY "just doesn't exist"). And so you demand FORCE be used against innocent people in order to try to create your FANTASY world. Put simply, you demand the 'right' to dispose of the individual's life and effort as if it was YOUR PROPERTY, to dispose of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR FANTASY. That is the Southern Slave Owner's philosophy - the prohibition of which is your definition of "problem" here.

[@TomyDayos]

@@kurtisdeakin I know its companies, its always the companies that keep these things. You are right in everything that you told. The thing is that there is people who want these companies to hold control over IPs forever. We need the public domain as new ideas are created on the back of old ones. And these companies who push each time more draconian copyright laws are the same that benefit from taking from public domain, disney for example.

[@scubadave32]

Bloody hell Dave you got some health issues going on we’re only 41 I’m sure we’re going to make it to 79 🤞🏼 my dads 83 and still sharp as a tack, always positive I say (hope you are well by the way just in case)

[@andrewrowland1989]

In 9 years, 1938 Superman will go to public domain. In 10 years, 1939 Batman will go public domain. In 12 years, both Captain America and Wonder Woman will go public domain

[@bleigh3369]

Such theft is sad and wrong.

[@kurtisdeakin]

Theft? It's law. Stops a monopoly

[@bleigh3369]

@@kurtisdeakin "Theft? It's law. Stops a monopoly." Thanks for *explicitly* confessing the fact that you REJECT the individual's right to his OWN life and his OWN effort (property). I really appreciate you *explicitly* declaring your Southern Slave Owner's desire to treat the individual's life and effort as the PROPERTY of others, instead of the individual possessing a MONOPOLY on his OWN life and his OWN effort (property). THAT is the monopoly you are demanding be stopped. I appreciate you removing ALL doubt to the contrary here. After all, it's always helpful when eviI SELF-identifies.

[@DeejonLoy]

50 years should have been the standard.

[@kerrytusc]

Or less!

[@tzeccentric7848]

Well, maybe, one day, I'll do a better Peter Rabbit take than that one with James Corden.

[@kurtisdeakin]

That wouldn't be hard, tbh lol

[@travtotheworld]

I'd put copywrite at something like life of the artist+30 years, not just a flat 30 years. I think if someone creates something worthwhile at age 25 they deserve to reap the rewards for the rest of their lives. Keep in mind too, that there's LOTS of stuff that is in the public domain and it sucks. Most of the original Wizard of Oz material is in the public domain, but pretty much everything done with that outside of the Judy Garland movie is unimpressive or outright trash. Also, the first things people did when Winnie the Pooh entered the public domain was start making cheap horror movies and porn.

[@jrconway3]

Yeah, I agree. It should be based on the life of the author. If a property is owned by a corporation, however, that's a bit of a different story. Corporations can go on forever.

[@bleigh3369]

"I think if someone creates something worthwhile at age 25 they deserve to reap the rewards for the rest of their lives." So if the original owner of your home dies, then you *feel* that YOU should lose ownership of the property you purchased from them (or from others). You *feel* that OTHERS should gain ownership of that property - because of some 'need' of theirs or of everyone else. Talk about "cheap horror" - ie treating the individual's life and effort as others' PROPERTY, to be disposed of as they see fit, to satisfy their desires.

[@bleigh3369]

@@jrconway3 "Corporations can go on forever." And, by right, so does the ownership of ALL property. By what *right* do you declare that YOU get to own something currently owned by someone else? By what *right* do you claim to dictate that someone else's property ceases to be THEIR property and becomes everyone else's property? For example, by what *right* do you declare the house someone bought should CEASE to be their house and instead become everyone else's property, to be disposed of as they see fit, to satisfy their desires? Put simply, by what *right* do you treat the lives and effort of everyone as your PROPERTY?

[@gregsimoes8645]

@@bleigh3369 There are many differences between PHYSICAL property and INTELLECTUAL property. The most obvious is that with physical property, if someone else takes it, I no longer have it, but with intellectual property, you can replicate it and mine is still there. There can be many philosophical discussions on whether or not anyone should retain the rights to profit on an idea in perpetuity, but let's not pretend that a story and a physical house operate in the same way.

[@bleigh3369]

@@gregsimoes8645 "There are many differences between PHYSICAL property and INTELLECTUAL property." NONE of which changes the fact that the property in question is the life and effort of its creator/owner. YOU have NO right to make ANY contact with that life and effort (property) absent or in contradiction to the consent of that creator/owner. PERIOD. In other words, whether it be primarily intellectual or primarily physical, NO aspect of an individual's life and effort are YOUR PROPERTY to dispose of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires. Each individual is the SOLE, monopolistic owner of his life and effort. Your WISH to "pretend" the individual is your CHATTEL - to "pretend" that you are the owner of that life and effort - is the SAME eviI philosophy as that of the Southern Slave Owner.

[@nerdicwarrior]

I only wish that people who make anything with public domain characters would do something more creative with them rather than just turning them into slasher movie villains, like what they did with Winnie the Pooh and they're apparently doing with Popeye next.

[@igodreamer7096]

Batman with a machinegun? LET'S GO PUBLIC DOMAIN BROS!!!! ⭐⭐⭐⭐

[@alanobrien3736]

Dave, not related to this video but wanted to say how much I enjoyed your book. It's a really enjoyable read. Thought provoking too. Congratulations. First in a series?

[@Draugo]

The most telling thing about copyright is that US only started to care after there was US authors who's work was started to be copied by others. Until then presses in US copied and sold tons of copyrighted works from Europe without any qualms about it.

[@KevinTumlinson]

So, for my 100th birthday, I'm making a public domain Star Wars movie.

[@ELEKTROSKANSEN]

I can not agree. If I'd create a character that takes off and makes a ton of money - I'd like it to be copyrighted as long as my family lineage exists. Let my grandsons profit from it, let them have a good life because people love what I made. You can always come to me and ask me to use my character for some money in exchange, why not? Why would I let you use something I created for free? Not only you want to use my character, you also want to use the fame it build up. No, man. Be creative, make your own stuff. Lots of these fan-fiction stuff is garbage anyway.

[@daniellarsen-e3s]

Laws to extend copyright have passed, but nothing says new laws reducing copyright cannot also pass. I'm sure a populist rhetoric about taking our nation's greatest myths out of the hands of woke corporations could be made to convince a MAGA government to speed up the process of letting fans have their franchises back.

[@Wobblybob2004]

I wonder if Disney are so enthusiastic about extending the copyright of Peter Pan and still paying Great Ormond street children's hospital royalties?

[@FJB2020LGB]

0:57 that sounds like a monopoly

[@DrFranklynAnderson]

Ha! My comment from yesterday coincided with today’s video!

[@maxamillion2140]

The Mad Doctor (which is a mickey mouse cartoon) is in the public domain and has been since 1961. Which means you can show the film and use certain elements of the film but not all of them. Certain episodes of the 1941 Superman cartoon are public domain. So many of these elements of famous super heroes and characters are already available.

[@EugeneMurray-z1b]

Don't forget that alot of this behavior is to uphold share value which helps maintain pension values

[@samym1694]

So even before Bob Iger, all other previous Disney CEO's wasted cash on lobbying for rights?

[@SoggyDonuts79]

I’m a little torn on this issue. Because if I had created any of these characters, I would NEVER want some idiot making money off MY work and creativity. Get ready for gay and trans Batman.

[@funkydiscogod]

We already have that.

[@bleigh3369]

"if I had created any of these characters, I would NEVER want some idiot making money off MY work and creativity." And because those characters are YOUR life and YOUR effort (property), you have every right to prohibit others making ANY contact with your life and your effort (property). That's because your life and your effort are NOT the PROPERTY of any other human being, no matter how many people here WISH otherwise. Thus I don't know why you are "a little torn on the issue". Unless of course you LIKE the idea of treating others as your property, to be disposed of as you see fit, to satisfy your desires - but you DISLIKE the idea of others treating you as their property, to be disposed of as they see fit, to satisfy their desires.

[@SirBlackReeds]

There's already a gay and trans Joker in the vanity project known as _The People's Joker._

[@SoggyDonuts79]

@@bleigh3369 WTF are you talking about? You read WAY too much into that. Calm down, lol. I’m torn on it because on one hand I personally wouldn’t want just anyone to be able to use my creation to make money off of or potentially ruin that character. But on the other hand, this open market of public domain would allow a more traditional version of a superhero to succeed at the box office over a woke dei version. And as it stands right now, the corporate owners of most ip’s are woke and doing poorly by their characters.

[@bleigh3369]

@@SoggyDonuts79 *"I'm torn on it because..."* You just *confirmed* EVERYTHING I just wrote. You just explicitly declared you DISLIKE the idea of others disposing of YOUR life and effort as THEY see fit (because of the detriment you *feel* it could cause). And you also just explicitly declared you LIKE the idea of you (and others) disposing of the individual's life and effort (because of the benefit you *feel* it would provide others). So thanks for PROVING I "read" EXACTLY what you wrote. LOL indeed!

[@EugeneMurray-z1b]

The 1st person to live 1000 years.... Already walks The Earth

[@napoleonfeanor]

The Hobbit will become free in the next decade. I think for actual authors, it should be their lifetime plus maybe 10-20 years. Christopher handled his father's work well but once he died...

[@bleigh3369]

On the basis of what 'right' do you bIitheIy declare others should LOSE their right to THEIR life and THEIR effort (property)? Put simply, on the basis of what 'right' do you declare a homeowner should LOSE ownership of his home because the original owner died "10-20 years" ago??!! Talk about treating the individual's life and effort as *your* PROPERTY, to be disposed of as *you* see fit, to satisfy *your* desires. That is the *same* philosophy as the Southern Slave Owner.

[@hitandruncommentor]

I used to be against this. I was on the, ip is same as physical possessions, crew. I wish it worked but as you've pointed out, by the time the grandchildren have it they tend go mistreat it.

[@matthewpatrick7263]

I'd make it 50 years or the human creator's life (not the corporation), whichever ends last.

[@napoleonfeanor]

@@matthewpatrick7263 I'd go a bit further if there is a case like with Tolkien and Herbert, where their sons try to finish something. But I agree about corpo stuff.

[@matthewpatrick7263]

@@napoleonfeanor In that case, Tolkien's son was introducing unpublished new works that would then have new copyright time.

[@somthingsomething665]

Drinking game : Take a drink every time Dave says "public domain" 😅😅

[@sillypuppy5940]

Problem is that a lot of the copyright owners (not the creators) cannot be trusted with what they have bought. So perhaps have the full term for the creator, but a buyer gets fewer years.

[@nitronorman1491]

These days our only Shared Community Experience is watching Hollywood Trash and talking about what we hated about it. Its so old now, but something we can all agree on and enjoy as they're torn apart by the mob.

[@SheldonSmith-vw8lw]

The most important public-domain character in Western literature is most likely King Arthur ... who, like Robin Hood, had never been under copyright in the first place.

[@itsblitz4437]

U know Bill Willingham's Fables comics tried to fight against the greed of the corporate publisher DC by Bill Willingham himself to declare his comics as public domain which was kind of unprecedented however not if that will work out.

[@bleigh3369]

*"tried to fight against the greed of the corporate publisher DC by...[declaring] his comics as public domain"* There is a VERY big question as to IF Bill is indeed the sole owner of Fables and thus has the authority to dispose of Fables solely as HE sees fit. As the Washington Journal of Law, Technology, and Arts reports "The Copyright Office lists both Willingham and DC as the authors of Fables, Willingham for the text, and DC for the art. Since comic books are joint works, and the copyrights were registered within five years of creation, Willingham and DC comics are presumed joint-owners of Fables". In accord with this fact, DC has explicitly stated they ARE the owner of Fables and Bill had no right to unilaterally give away Fables to anyone. Moreover, even Bill himself explicitly declares he isn't certain about that fact. When declaring Fables to be "public domain" in his substack, Bill explicitly provided the caveat "IIf I understand the law correctly..."" And, as of this moment, that 'understanding' has yet to be either confirmed or contradicted by the law. That said, IF Bill WAS the sole owner of Fables, then - contrary to the claim here - he did NOT do ANYTHING *to* DC - any more than he did anything *to* Marvel by his actions. In such circumstances, DC was NEVER the owners of the property in the first place, any more than Marvel was its owner. Of course, IF Bill was NOT the sole owner of Fables, then what he did to DC is try to get others to *steal* DC's property (no different than declaring on a city street: 'Hey - here's MY car! It's unlocked and I'm giving it away to ANYONE who wants it! Come and get it!!'') That is not fighting "greed". That is the VIOLATION of rights. That is REJECTING the individual's rights to his OWN life and his OWN effort (in this case, the rights of every individual who OWNS DC to THEIR life and THEIR effort). So either Bill did NOTHING to the "corporate publisher" - or - he VIOLATED their rights.

[@ShinSeikiEvan]

Usually these comic strips, music, and movies are completely forgotten by the time they go into public domain because the author has been dead so long and the estate squanders the IP. It's really sad. Things my grandparents enjoyed as kids completly forgotten by the culture.

[@TomyDayos]

We need to ask politicians to reduce the amount of time that copyright lasts.

[@thepayne7862]

There are so many great Pulp comic and Golden Age comic characters that are Public Domain, who's stories would make great movies.

[@funkydiscogod]

Yes, and I'm sure those properties are already being investigated for their potential carrying capacity for The Message.

[@inkermoy]

I recently got a crowdfunded comic based off the old Black Terror WW2 character. Nice art, actually hadn't read it yet. So people are making use of them already.

[@TomyDayos]

Thew thing is that the life of the author plus 70 years is too much. All the fans of the original are dead when it hit public domain and nobody ever know they exist. We need to reduce the amount of years that copyright last.

[@thepayne7862]

That's kind of my point people don't know they, exist so, so it would be a completely new character to them.

[@Marinealver]

6:09 The moment we all are waiting for!

[@ArminiusGroß]

Yeah, I don't respect studios that can't make money with an IP telling other people that they aren't allowed to do better

[@Aikurisu]

Star Wars desperately needed it after the first three films. It needs it like a resurrection spell after the last few.

[@macsnafu]

The trademarked Mickey Mouse ears only belong to Disney as long as they keep using them. If they stop using the ears, then their rights via trademark ends. Trademarks aren't "permanent" per se.

[@matthewwilliams9200]

I love copyright creators build your own crap

[@Rekuzan]

You should see what Devilartemis did to Steamboat willie! (Blew him the f**k up is what they did!) 🤣🤣🤣

[@2tone209]

AY UP DAVE

[@hotgrapescomics]

There should be a new Flash Gordon movie. Imagine a FG movie now

[@SirBlackReeds]

Taika Waititi was set to direct one for Fox. Then Disney bought them.

[@hotgrapescomics]

@SirBlackReeds Ew

[@jamesw.weissii3795]

Good sir, please have a little optimism about the future length of your life. Life extension technology is real. My personal motto is, "Live forever or die trying!" Peace!

[@bleigh3369]

That's okay. The 'your life and effort are the property of others' gang here will just declare you - the original owner of a thing - lose your right to your life and effort after 70 years. After all, you've selfishly gotten any benefit out of it for long enough. It is time for others to benefit from your life and effort. That's what the "public domain" anti-monopolists declare is the whole point of such property rights - NOT to recognize that the property is YOURS, not theirs, but simply to grant a temporary 'reward' so as to encourage the individual to create things OTHERS value. For them, *you* are *their* PROPERTY. You exist to satisfy the wants and needs of others. You shouldn't be 'allowed' a selfish and destructive monopoly over your life and effort. That violates everyone else's "right" to your life and effort. That is why you, in your long life, must be forcibly stripped of your PERMISSION to use your life and effort (property) as you see fit.

[@kurtisdeakin]

Blah blah Bleigh is blah blah blahing yet again

[@845835]

US Congress...BEST POLITICIANS MONEY CAN BUY!

[@TomyDayos]

We need to ask politicians to reduce the amount of time that copyright lasts...

[@GundamWarrior1]

Also found out Tintin is entering the public domain. Interesting.

[@choreomaniac]

The problem is not the 0.1 percent of IP that still makes money after 50 years but the loss of the other 99.9 percent that cannot be built upon for fear of being sued out of nowhere. These are orphaned copyrights and are not worth researching who owns them. But if someone creates a successful product based on an orphan IP, it is likely to be challenged even if only frivolously. I’d say copyright should be for 25 years and a one time 25 year extension for a nominal fee, say $1000. Obviously the owners of Mickey Mouse, Spider Man, Harry Potter, etc would pay the $1000 but most would revert to the public in just 25 years.

[@bleigh3369]

*"not worth researching who owns them"* If a person simply strolls out into a land and tries to claim some part of it as HIS property without bothering to do the necessary "researching" to discover if that land is already owned or not, that is HIS problem, not the problem of the owner of that property. Of course, as such, the 'solution' to the wannabe land-owner's 'problem' is NOT for you to simply to CANCEL the rights of the existing owner of that land. That land is NOT yours to do with as you WISH. Put simply, that individual's life and effort (property) are his and his ALONE. He is NOT your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as you see fit, to satisfy your desires. The fact that you COVET *his* life and *his* effort (property) does NOT magically change that FACT.

[@joebloggs1356]

The woke versions cant be done for 100 years. Thank God!!!!

[@thisspaceforrent5737]

No need to wait; plenty of characters from the 19th and early 20th century are already in the public domain. Some we know from later adaptations; others we've probably never heard of. I imagine a great time could be had digging through old pulps and penny dreadfuls looking for usable material. In fact, it's probably best to look for things that haven't had movie adaptations, since movies complicate things tremendously, forcing you to dance through a minefield of trademarks and movie-only material.

[@dennisanderson3895]

A FB group I joined is devoted to PD characters. It makes me shake my head sometimes with appeals for good PD substitution for [insert copyrighted characters here). The sad part, to me, is the lack of innovation in those cases - rather than finding the PDs oneself or developing an original pastiche. Not trying to be a stick in the mud but it just seems like they want to use the copyrighted but show sneaky they are.

[@jongrover8763]

The original Oz books are in the public domain.

[@josephnash2081]

The problem with current copyright laws is that interest in these "Intellectual Properties" or (IPs) wanes long before the characters enter Public Domain. Look at Peanuts, by the time Charlie Brown, Snoopy, Linus etc. enter public domain, no one will care. The original point of Copyright law was to allow creators to leave their creations to their wives and children who might not otherwise have any means of support.

[@jasonschlierman412]

I’d wager very few family members of artists behind the biggest IPs right now are making much, if anything, on their lives one’s creation. More likely some punk from business school who had zero to do with it is making money off of it.

[@jackuber7358]

Good news, John Carter and the Princess of Mars went into Public Domain in March of this year: 2024. Sour Disney an put out a good movie!

[@sigmacademy]

05:13. Quick correction: multiple standalone Thor movies (non-Marvel) has been made, on which copyright still applies. People who want to use public domain characters still need to avoid infringing on those owners' copyrights as well. Tricky line to walk, plus, isn't mining public domain STILL doing reboots and lacking creativity?

[@derp2397]

Only if you respect the original source, if you make an entire reinterpretation of the characters, that's how you get new things

[@deathfab]

F that. I invent something, it's mine forever.

[@XX-sp3tt]

What's the point of holding onto it when you're dead?!

[@deathfab]

@ it’s mine. I want everything buried with me and no more publication. If I were George Lucus I’d do this with Star Wars. Imagine how special that’s be.

[@DeetotheDubs]

In other words, it dies with you?

[@jasonschlierman412]

@@deathfabThat’s not how ideas work. Sorry. Stories from thousands of years ago are still with us.

[@deathfab]

@jasonschlierman412 it's mine

[@ajitbengali]

Imagine Spider-Man being in public domain. Finally free from the grasps of Sony and Disney Marvel. Then passionate Spider-Man fans could adapt his stories more faithfully than the god awful studios.

[@AngryDuck79]

Copyright should only exist for the lifetime of the creator.

[@PaulVandersypen]

I understand why you said that, but I disagree. What if you create a character and a week later you died in a car accident? Your heirs, and your legal Will, would not be empowered and could not control your creation, severely limiting what your family could earn.

[@AngryDuck79]

@PaulVandersypen they shouldn't control your creation. It's your creation. Ideas aren't property and they shouldn't be inheritable as though they were.

[@bleigh3369]

@@AngryDuck79 *"It's your creation. Ideas aren't property"* Of course, the second sentence here is a blatant contradiction of the first sentence.

[@AngryDuck79]

@@bleigh3369 only if youre dishonest and cut the sentence in half. Go kick rocks.

[@Willchannel90]

Uprise of creativity.

[@bleigh3369]

Uprise of thieves.

[@skwills1629]

Star Trek, The Cage Was Copyrighted to 1964, so shall be Publics Domain in 2059. Star Trek The Original Series Season 1 Will Be Public Domain in 1961, Followed by Season 2 in 1962, and Season 3 in 1963.

[@josephippolito1402]

No public domain in Canada til 2044

[@emperorofscelnar8443]

I think if a creator is longer with us on Earth itself then his or her art should enter the public domain.

[@emperorofscelnar8443]

Sorry if a creator is no longer with us then his or her art should enter the public domain.

[@bleigh3369]

So you feel the life and effort of others is your PROPERTY, to dictate how and when it should be disposed of as you see fit, to satisfy your ends. Got it.

[@emperorofscelnar8443]

@@bleigh3369 But there are some cases where a creator is okay with people doing fan stuff with there creation like with George Lucas, he was fine with people making Star Wars fan stuff.

[@emperorofscelnar8443]

I think the Original Star Trek series should enter the public domain since the original creator is no longer with us on this planet.

[@bleigh3369]

@@emperorofscelnar8443 "there are some cases where a creator is okay with people doing fan stuff with there [sic] creation" And it is the PROPERTY owner's right to *allow* others to use his property as he sees fit (just as it is his right to *deny* others the use of his property as he sees fit). In other words, HE dictates how HIS life and HIS effort are disposed of - NOT others (as is the demand here in regard to "public domain" aka the rejection of owner's *right* to his property).

[@hitandruncommentor]

I write. But i admit the current copy write laws is insane. Its just too long.

[@Nasguy-b7q]

Star Trek fan film Axanar is spectacular. It would have greatly help Star Trek and they embraced it and released it instead of discovery, it would have saved the franchise.

[@n00b247]

This would have been helpful only if original copyright laws were never altered. In 10 more years Batman Spiderman and Roachman and Gatorman all gonna be milked to the point of 0 interest for the audience. Till then we will all have 2 more Spiderman trilogies and 3 more Barman vs Superman adaptations. And public domain characters are all perfect examples of that. Nobody wants them anymore. They are not profitable because they are not interesting. Not the other way around.

[@andywellsglobaldomination]

Let's also not forget the legal shanangans that took IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE out of public domain. We only know the movie because it was public domain and cheaply rented by local TV stations... along with other movies, e.g., Danny Kaye's THE INSPECTOR GENERAL... which is likely still in PD...

[@sorenpx]

It's a Wonderful Life is an interesting case because after it slipped into the public domain, the rights were later reacquired. It seems like once something is in the public domain, it should be in the public domain forever. As an aside, I will also mention that even when it was in the public domain it was not royalty-free because the story it was based on is still under copyright. (At least that's how I understand it.)

[@bleigh3369]

@@sorenpx *"It seems like once something is in the public domain, it should be in the public domain forever"* In this case, it was (successfully) argued that a mistake had been made by the law (ie that the property was still owned). Thus the law corrected its earlier error and returned the property to its *rightful* owner. Hopefully, you are NOT against the law correcting itself. For example, hopefully you are NOT against freeing a man mistakenly convicted and jailed of a crime it turns out he did not commit. Hopefully you do NOT declare - like you did here - that the innocent man should remain in jail "forever" instead of that error being corrected.

[@sorenpx]

@@bleigh3369 According to Wikipedia, it fell into the public domain due to "a clerical error at the NTA" (National Telefilm Associates, which owned the rights). Maybe if you want to hold onto your copyright, make sure that it is properly renewed.

[@bleigh3369]

@@sorenpx *"it fell into the public domain due to "a clerical error""* It is interesting that you chose to OMIT from your post the REST of the facts about the issue that wiki ALSO presented: "despite the lapsed copyright, television stations that aired it still had to pay royalties because-though the film's images had entered the public domain-the film's story was still restricted as a derivative work of the published story The Greatest Gift, whose copyright Philip Van Doren Stern had renewed in 1971." In other words - exactly as I stated - the law ERRONEOUSLY thought the property was rightfully "public domain" because of the ONE "lapsed copyright" (which is STILL "lapsed" ie *that* copyright was NOT reinstated). But the courts MISTAKENLY overlooked the still existing foundational copyrights. As such, the courts CORRECTED their error (ie removed the property from "public domain") and returned the property to its RIGHTFUL owner. In response to this CORRECTION of the error made by the courts, you declared that such properties should remain in the "public domain" "forever" - and you did so for NO other reason than the courts had placed them in the "public domain" in the first place. I simply identified the blatant INJUSTICE of the principle you were demanding be practiced - ie I identified the blatant INJUSTICE of leaving a mistake by the courts *intentionally* UNCORRECTED (such as intentionally leaving an innocent man in jail) as was your wish here. And - in the face of that INJUSTICE - I explicitly 'hoped' you would repudiate the principle you were espousing. Unfortunately it would seem that 'hope' was for naught and that you do NOT reject that UNJUST principle.

[@MrChristophSteininge]

As we see from less known IPs it always pays off to create something new, write books with new and fresh ideas. And I do not mean medleys of already existing clichés like Rebel Moon. Fan films are sometimes great but share a weakness and that is truncated creativity. The time and effort to create them could have been better spent to create something entirely new. Like so many film makers in the 70ies did, that are the great IPs of today that are milked endlessly, ad nauseam. Many people ask: what is happening to fantasy, why has it become so bad? The popularity is to blame and the chance to make huge amounts of monyey is irresistible to big corporations who dont care a fig to storytelling, they only care for the dollar. The recent discovery of AI, or something that is similar, will only exacerbate this situation. Particularly by imitating true creativity and creating tools for film making that are unavailable to anybody except very munificent companies and corporations.

[@kc0itf]

I sure hope we don't have to wait until Star Trek hits the Public Domain before we get REAL Star Trek again...

[@gaspo69]

Star Trek Axanar got totally torched by Paramount because it was actually better than what the studio was "creating"

[@funkydiscogod]

It's because Axanar was improving Paramount's property. If IP was treated like real estate, Axanar could have been awarded possession based on squatter's rights.

[@bleigh3369]

Of course, whether one agrees with your assessment or not about the quality of Axanar, as the *rightful* owner of Star Trek, Paramount had *every* right to 'torch' Axanar - or anyone else trying to make contact with their person or property absent their consent. In other words, regardless of whether a man feels he is a better lover than a woman's chosen partner, that *feeling* doesn't grant him the 'right' to have sex with her absent or in contradiction to her consent. The idea that one should be make contact with the life and effort of another person absent or in contradiction to her consent is R@PE.