I think I'd prefer a world where there were fewer remakes and adaptations of existing franchises, and people focused on coming up with new things instead. I'm not suggesting that copyright should be extended for that purpose.

Arguably the reasons there are more remakes and adaptations of existing franchises is specifically for value to accrue to those IP's, in a very siloed and narrow way with minimal cross-pollination across brand ownership lines.

Remakes and adaptations are a timeless part of storytelling though. Having a template for a popular story with the freedom to adapt it to a new time period and audience is how we transmit our culture. For example:

    Pygmalion (Greek myth) -> Pygmalion (Shaw play) -> My Fair Lady -> She's All That  
    Hamlet -> The Lion King
    The Odyssey -> O Brother Where Art Thou (and countless others)
    Emma (Jane Austen) -> Clueless

But wouldn't these adaptations still be allowed even if the original was copyrighted? Hamlet -> The Lion King has similarities but there's enough differences that even if Hamlet were copyrighted it'd still be allowed as a separate work of art.

They might be. NAL, but if a work is sufficiently transformative I think you can argue that copyright doesn’t apply. You might have to go through an expensive lawsuit to get to that point though.

Copyright has a chilling effect too. My wife is an art historian and publishes academic papers and books on contemporary art. Many times the artists are still alive and she’ll need their permission to reproduce an image of their artwork.

Technically, reproducing something for commentary or criticism, especially in an academic or educational context, would fall under fair use. But no publisher is going to risk having to defend that in court, certainly not for an academic work that isn’t going to make any money, so in practice you have to obtain (often expensive) reproduction rights from the rights holders.

The problem with remakes and adaptations of existing franchises is that they all basically follow the same safe and tested structure. So they are boring and feel all the same because they basically are.

I might argue that this phenomenon is too a byproduct of copyrights. In a world were everyone can create interesting things on any IP, there's no market for cookie-cutter adaptations. People watch cookie-cutter adaptations and remakes because it's the only way to experience the characters and worlds they like. If they had another option they probably just skip the reboot and go watch the new take from a different studio or director.

A lot of what made Disney so beloved is remaking and adapting existing works. There's nothing inherently wrong with the act of remixing, it is in fact the driver and source of a lot of great culture we've had the honor of experiencing over hundreds, thousands of years (yet particularly in the past 50).

What I don't understand why people seem to think Disney alone should benefit from existing works, and nobody else. Or that copyright being restricted to a single entity is the best way to ensure "good" works being produced.

Both can coexist.

Consider that Greek mythology or Irish fairy stories are basically different stories in the same "cinematic universe."

But... that universe isn't a monopoly. Many authors contributed. Stories were tailored to different audiences.

The cliche blockbuster remakes are corny because they are, but the concept of remakes, universes and sequels isn't bad.

There's another mechanism at play. It wasn't always there.

Take Max and Dave Fleischer cartoons of the 1920s and 1930s. They'd star black singers like Cab Calloway, make references to LGBT subculture, premiere immigrants, Jewish characters, and the full spectrum of society. They were engaged with integrating live action and animation and experimenting with the film as art form.

Compare that to say Walt Disney, the most whitewashed family friendly content.

And it wasn't just "Hayes code", there's something deeper in how people want to relate to their entertainment. Adventurous narratives that challenge people's assumptions doesn't seem to be what people are looking for when they are relaxing from a hard day

That's true, but I think those are just two different markets. I'm more than happy if Disney continues to make whitewashed family friendly movies for people to unwind in the evening. But I would also want other companies to make other kinds of contents with the same IP, targeting different people with different expectations.

On the digital world we are all about finding unique niches and unique needs, but in media we are mostly stuck with "the big studio that makes the thing that appeals to most people as possible". That's ok, but it's only one way of approaching the market and the audiences. It would be nice if other people would be able to test other things also using the same worlds and characters if they wish so.

> I'm more than happy if Disney continues to make whitewashed family friendly movies for people to unwind in the evening. But I would also want other companies to make other kinds of contents with the same IP, targeting different people with different expectations.

You can see how that won't fly with politicians, especially American ones: "Then some innocent kid might get hold of Black Cinderella, who is into bondage and S/M, and be ruined for life! Won't somebody think of the chiiildruuunnn!"

There are plenty of characters that aren't still under copyright. Sherlock Holmes, Norse and Greek Mythological heroes, Winnie the Pooh (now), most of the fairy tale stories (which Disney used early on) and a huge number of other characters and stories. You are focusing on the small number of popular franchises that are popular because people are creating new content instead of the huge number of stories that are there just waiting for someone to make a movie, video game, etc.

You're onto something there. Dropping copyright terms back to the original 14 years could drown us in franchises. Creating new IP you'd be up against more content in competition for your audience, not less.

Currently the limiter to how much I actually consume something from the public domain (it's not much) is not my access to the works themselves, but my time.

The opposite is easy to imagine: We would not have Shakespeare with modern intellectual property protection.

This is true of the works of HP Lovecraft. They get made and remade all the time, plus there's a lot of merch that goes with it. I have a "Miskatonic University" tee shirt that I rather like.

We’d end up in a world full of absolute junk like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Good stewardship is valuable, not just from an economic perspective.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies didn't in any way damaged or removed anything from Pride and Prejudice though. The book is still there for everyone to enjoy.

The movie was also a commercial failure, I'm not sure we would end up with so much junk if it doesn't sell.

Would we? You can do that now because parody is exempted from copyright, so there's not much preventing you from doing Zombie Lord of the Rings or whatever (Tolkien parody works already exist, eg Bored of the Rings).

Amazing all is possible without everyone milking the same characters and universe over and over and over.

It would be way better if economic system favored many smaller competing studios producing a lot of different stuff. Better then one or two big ones, doing essentially same or similar movie again and again.