Re:Disney backs down from 'Steamboat Willie' YouTube copyrig...
by majewsky on Tuesday January 09, 2024 @04:17AM
(#38923957)
> Big players can afford protection even when a product isn't profitable
$1 doubling each year would be over $1 million after just 20 years, and over $1 billion after 30 years. Out of the big catalog of circa 30-year-old Disney content, maybe The Lion King still brings in enough revenue to justify a billion dollar yearly copyright fee, but most other stuff from that era sure won't.
> What defines a work? For a TV series, is it the entire show, each season, or each episode?
Now this is the billion-dollar question (pun absolutely intended).
1. Big players can afford protection even when a product isn't profitable - Disney may lock things up to claim a catalog even if most, independently, isn't worth much.
2. What defines a work? For a TV series, is it the entire show, each season, or each episode?
3. Some works exist in much higher quantity. Ie, photography vs video games. A photographer would have to increase their prices dramatically to retain copyright for even a short period.
I am all for copyright reform, but this option doesn't work. I'm a much bigger fan of the idea of everything being public domain PERIOD with the arts being publicly funded - Ben Jordan has a great video defending this idea I can't link to easily while at work.