Random Thoughts

[formulanone]

It's our secret front for gambling. Loosest dreidels in town!

I normally cleaned up. I am an honorary MOT for attending many a seder dinner with my college roommate's family.

I'm not much for parsing gambling odds, but I think the odds favor all users of a dreidel; two of the four possibilities win (one all, one half), another is "nothing happens", and another is just putting in two coins/candies/tokens. So no casino would use it.

[kphoger]

Honestly, I would think that going after a school for handing out copies of music or scripts instead of the originals is ridiculous, at least provided the school was just doing so to avoid damage and not to pay for fewer than they're using. 

Isn't that what every single school would claim they were doing, then?

But then again, I grew up in the golden age of VHS and cassette tapes where people recorded and shared media with their friends all the time, all perfectly legal per the Supreme Court unless you were making and selling copies.  It was nice when fair use was still the norm and not the exception.

Me too.  Then again, it had to go to the Supreme Court first.

[Scott5114]

Isn't that what every single school would claim they were doing, then?

Yes. And there is nothing wrong with that.

[kphoger]

Honestly, I would think that going after a school for handing out copies of music or scripts instead of the originals is ridiculous, at least provided the school was just doing so to avoid damage ...

Isn't that what every single school would claim they were doing, then?

Yes. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Perhaps you're right.  But it renders |vdeane|'s qualifying clause meaningless.

[mgk920]

Would the Disney co. (renowned for tightly holding on to  and defending their copyrights) ever gotten as big as they did if there wasn't a healthy public domain?  Most of their most beloved works were adaptations of earlier works whose copyrights had (by their respective times at that time) already expired.

Mike

[kkt]

Plays for schools are a significant niche of the business.  They're usually more like G or PG rated, rather than potentially PG-13 or even stronger like some Broadway shows.  They often have more parts because their problem is more casting everyone who wants to be in the show, rather than paying the actors Equity salaries.  Parts and plots are simpler, special effects are easier...

This used to be more true, but more and more elementary schools are producing Broadway titles. My son's elementary school is doing Matilda this year, they did Frozen last year - and they are by no means an outlier. Shrek is a super popular title, so is Seussical - this is in addition to older titles like Annie, Sound of Music, Peter Pan, etc. The royalty houses (MTI in particular) recognized this and now offer "junior" or "school" editions of a bunch of titles, shortening them, changing some keys, making them easier for younger performers, etc.

What drama and music teachers are finding more and more is in order to compete with the myriad of other extra-curricular activities out there, they have to pick titles that are well-known to the kids and have some "flash."

Nobody gets rich in play writing or publishing.  Maybe if you get a best-seller, but for school plays that's not super likely.  Not the playwright, not the publisher...  Stealing by photocopying the script is more like Tiny Tim stealing from Little Orphan Annie.  If they cannot afford the scripts and performance rights, they can seek out-of-copyright plays.

I can't wait for my son's elementary school to do The Red Mill. 

When my kid was in high school a few years ago one of the spring musicals was A Chorus Line.  They performed it both in the standard version and in the junior version on different nights.  The senior version was not a huge shock to the high school students, but some families want to go as a group including elementary-age younger siblings.

(My kid wasn't on the stage for that one, but worked in the costume shop making lots of glittery leotards and top hats for the finale...)

[kkt]

Isn't that what every single school would claim they were doing, then?

Yes. And there is nothing wrong with that.

So playwrights should all be unpaid?
I think there is something wrong with that.

I'd be all for shorter copyright terms, more like the 28 years that it was up to the 1960s, but not eliminating copyright protection entirely.

[DTComposer]

Would the Disney co. (renowned for tightly holding on to  and defending their copyrights) ever gotten as big as they did if there wasn't a healthy public domain?  Most of their most beloved works were adaptations of earlier works whose copyrights had (by their respective times at that time) already expired.

Mike

Very true, but their adaptations were/are intended to re-tell those tales in a way that honored the originals, and were designed for a family audience.

Compare that to "Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey" or this film, whose intent (especially with Blood and Honey) is to take characters recognized and beloved by millions of children (for Pooh, both the Disney and the original A.A. Milne versions) and put them in outrageously violent, sexual, and generally not-appropriate-for-children situations. It scratches some sort of itch for a lot of people (Rule 34 exists, after all).

I'd be all for shorter copyright terms, more like the 28 years that it was up to the 1960s, but not eliminating copyright protection entirely.

As I mentioned upthread, I am all for hefty protections on the IP itself (and paying to ensure those protections stay in place) - but I'm not in favor of paying royalties that the creators will never see (because they're dead). Mickey Mouse should never be in the public domain, because as soon as that happens, some child is going to search for him on YouTube or Google and find him dismembering Goofy or having intimate relations with Donald. It happens already, imagine how much there would be if it became legal to do so.

[kphoger]

Mickey Mouse should never be in the public domain, because as soon as that happens, some child is going to search for him on YouTube or Google and find him dismembering Goofy or having intimate relations with Donald. It happens already, imagine how much there would be if it became legal to do so.

I just searched for {steamboat willie} in both Google and YouTube, and I didn't see anything inappropriate pop up.

[Molandfreak]

Would the Disney co. (renowned for tightly holding on to  and defending their copyrights) ever gotten as big as they did if there wasn't a healthy public domain?  Most of their most beloved works were adaptations of earlier works whose copyrights had (by their respective times at that time) already expired.

Mike

Very true, but their adaptations were/are intended to re-tell those tales in a way that honored the originals, and were designed for a family audience.

Compare that to "Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey" or this film, whose intent (especially with Blood and Honey) is to take characters recognized and beloved by millions of children (for Pooh, both the Disney and the original A.A. Milne versions) and put them in outrageously violent, sexual, and generally not-appropriate-for-children situations. It scratches some sort of itch for a lot of people (Rule 34 exists, after all).

I'd be all for shorter copyright terms, more like the 28 years that it was up to the 1960s, but not eliminating copyright protection entirely.

As I mentioned upthread, I am all for hefty protections on the IP itself (and paying to ensure those protections stay in place) - but I'm not in favor of paying royalties that the creators will never see (because they're dead). Mickey Mouse should never be in the public domain, because as soon as that happens, some child is going to search for him on YouTube or Google and find him dismembering Goofy or having intimate relations with Donald. It happens already, imagine how much there would be if it became legal to do so.

What a harsh, backwards take. Corporations should be allowed to renew a copyright that has existed since before their executives were even born in perpetuity because creatively-bankrupt assholes will appropriate the property in NSFW ways?

Search results for "Winnie the Pooh," "Mickey Mouse," and "Steamboat Willie" do not include any sort of content that isn't officially licensed. Meanwhile, a search for "Alice in Wonderland," a property that has been in the public domain since before Disney started to use it, mainly returns results connected to either the original book or the Disney films—nothing NSFW there.

What makes these properties so special that they should be perpetually off limits for creators to use as they wish? How many kids these days have even heard of characters that have been all but abandoned such as Clarabelle Cow or Horace Horsecollar?

[Max Rockatansky]

Don't dig too much into any cartoon character on the internet.  Pretty much all of them have been corrupted one way or another regardless of copyright status.

[Molandfreak]

Don't dig too much into any cartoon character on the internet.  Pretty much all of them have been corrupted one way or another regardless of copyright status.

If you're letting a child under at least 13 have unfiltered, unsupervised, and unlimited internet access in the first place, you're doing something wrong.

[Molandfreak]

Honestly, I would think that going after a school for handing out copies of music or scripts instead of the originals is ridiculous, at least provided the school was just doing so to avoid damage and not to pay for fewer than they're using. 

Isn't that what every single school would claim they were doing, then?

As I mentioned before, any music that I had in high school or college that was copied always had either an unlimited download license or had enough original paper copies on hand to supply the students anyway. So it was mostly true in my case. If I had done the work to transform a work which wasn't in the public domain into a 7x5.5" marching format and the original composer got wind of it and didn't like it, well, they should have chosen a publisher who would make their sheet music readily-available in that format.

But then again, I grew up in the golden age of VHS and cassette tapes where people recorded and shared media with their friends all the time, all perfectly legal per the Supreme Court unless you were making and selling copies.  It was nice when fair use was still the norm and not the exception.

Me too.  Then again, it had to go to the Supreme Court first.

And unfortunately, it was most likely a fluke due to the technological limitations of the time. The copyright holders were still making boatloads of money on officially-licensed materials, recording movies on-air would leave all the commercial breaks in, and it was expensive (and time-consuming) to be able to record off another tape if you could figure out how to bypass the copyright protection or recorded off a Betamax tape.

This reminds me of the hypothetical scenario introduced in Technology Connection's CED series. Jump to 17:01 to get directly to the part I'm talking about, but the whole series is definitely worth the watch:

[DTComposer]

Would the Disney co. (renowned for tightly holding on to  and defending their copyrights) ever gotten as big as they did if there wasn't a healthy public domain?  Most of their most beloved works were adaptations of earlier works whose copyrights had (by their respective times at that time) already expired.

Mike

Very true, but their adaptations were/are intended to re-tell those tales in a way that honored the originals, and were designed for a family audience.

Compare that to "Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey" or this film, whose intent (especially with Blood and Honey) is to take characters recognized and beloved by millions of children (for Pooh, both the Disney and the original A.A. Milne versions) and put them in outrageously violent, sexual, and generally not-appropriate-for-children situations. It scratches some sort of itch for a lot of people (Rule 34 exists, after all).

I'd be all for shorter copyright terms, more like the 28 years that it was up to the 1960s, but not eliminating copyright protection entirely.

As I mentioned upthread, I am all for hefty protections on the IP itself (and paying to ensure those protections stay in place) - but I'm not in favor of paying royalties that the creators will never see (because they're dead). Mickey Mouse should never be in the public domain, because as soon as that happens, some child is going to search for him on YouTube or Google and find him dismembering Goofy or having intimate relations with Donald. It happens already, imagine how much there would be if it became legal to do so.

What a harsh, backwards take. Corporations should be allowed to renew a copyright that has existed since before their executives were even born in perpetuity because creatively-bankrupt assholes will appropriate the property in NSFW ways?

Search results for "Winnie the Pooh," "Mickey Mouse," and "Steamboat Willie" do not include any sort of content that isn't officially licensed. Meanwhile, a search for "Alice in Wonderland," a property that has been in the public domain since before Disney started to use it, mainly returns results connected to either the original book or the Disney films—nothing NSFW there.

What makes these properties so special that they should be perpetually off limits for creators to use as they wish? How many kids these days have even heard of characters that have been all but abandoned such as Clarabelle Cow or Horace Horsecollar?

YMMV. I went on incognito mode and found Mickey flipping the bird, urinating on things, having sex with other Disney characters, getting stoned, etc.

FWIW, Clarabelle Cow has been a regular character on the recent Mickey cartoon shorts on Disney+, and was one of the characters on Disney night on "Dancing With the Stars" this week.

As a creative artist, I will always side against "creatively-bankrupt assholes." Always. Even if that means I (reluctantly) align with corporate interests.

If you're letting a child under at least 13 have unfiltered, unsupervised, and unlimited internet access in the first place, you're doing something wrong.

Children have always found a way to find inappropriate material - their father's Playboy collection, a dusty bottle of Manischewitz in the garage, a 3rd-generation VHS copy of "Faces of Death" - my mom found pot in my brother's bedroom and was furious until she realized he took it from their sock drawer. You will never be able to control everything they happen upon - but you don't have to make it any easier for them to do so.

[kkt]

Would the Disney co. (renowned for tightly holding on to  and defending their copyrights) ever gotten as big as they did if there wasn't a healthy public domain?  Most of their most beloved works were adaptations of earlier works whose copyrights had (by their respective times at that time) already expired.

Mike

Very true, but their adaptations were/are intended to re-tell those tales in a way that honored the originals, and were designed for a family audience.

Compare that to "Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey" or this film, whose intent (especially with Blood and Honey) is to take characters recognized and beloved by millions of children (for Pooh, both the Disney and the original A.A. Milne versions) and put them in outrageously violent, sexual, and generally not-appropriate-for-children situations. It scratches some sort of itch for a lot of people (Rule 34 exists, after all).

I'd be all for shorter copyright terms, more like the 28 years that it was up to the 1960s, but not eliminating copyright protection entirely.

As I mentioned upthread, I am all for hefty protections on the IP itself (and paying to ensure those protections stay in place) - but I'm not in favor of paying royalties that the creators will never see (because they're dead). Mickey Mouse should never be in the public domain, because as soon as that happens, some child is going to search for him on YouTube or Google and find him dismembering Goofy or having intimate relations with Donald. It happens already, imagine how much there would be if it became legal to do so.

I am not sure how much that would really hurt Disney or Mickey's reputation.  People know what they're looking for.  Shakespeare has been out of copyright for centuries yet his reputation hasn't been hurt by porn spoofs of A Midsummer Night's Dream or Twelfth Night.

[kkt]

Would the Disney co. (renowned for tightly holding on to  and defending their copyrights) ever gotten as big as they did if there wasn't a healthy public domain?  Most of their most beloved works were adaptations of earlier works whose copyrights had (by their respective times at that time) already expired.

Mike

Very true, but their adaptations were/are intended to re-tell those tales in a way that honored the originals, and were designed for a family audience.

Compare that to "Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey" or this film, whose intent (especially with Blood and Honey) is to take characters recognized and beloved by millions of children (for Pooh, both the Disney and the original A.A. Milne versions) and put them in outrageously violent, sexual, and generally not-appropriate-for-children situations. It scratches some sort of itch for a lot of people (Rule 34 exists, after all).

I'd be all for shorter copyright terms, more like the 28 years that it was up to the 1960s, but not eliminating copyright protection entirely.

As I mentioned upthread, I am all for hefty protections on the IP itself (and paying to ensure those protections stay in place) - but I'm not in favor of paying royalties that the creators will never see (because they're dead). Mickey Mouse should never be in the public domain, because as soon as that happens, some child is going to search for him on YouTube or Google and find him dismembering Goofy or having intimate relations with Donald. It happens already, imagine how much there would be if it became legal to do so.

What a harsh, backwards take. Corporations should be allowed to renew a copyright that has existed since before their executives were even born in perpetuity because creatively-bankrupt assholes will appropriate the property in NSFW ways?

Search results for "Winnie the Pooh," "Mickey Mouse," and "Steamboat Willie" do not include any sort of content that isn't officially licensed. Meanwhile, a search for "Alice in Wonderland," a property that has been in the public domain since before Disney started to use it, mainly returns results connected to either the original book or the Disney films—nothing NSFW there.

What makes these properties so special that they should be perpetually off limits for creators to use as they wish? How many kids these days have even heard of characters that have been all but abandoned such as Clarabelle Cow or Horace Horsecollar?

I'm pretty sure there are porn spoofs of Alice in Wonderland, if not based on the Disney film then based on the out-of-copyright original book and illustrations.  There don't seem to be that many people who go looking for some funny rhymes and logic games and get the porn spoofs by accident.

[DTComposer]

Would the Disney co. (renowned for tightly holding on to  and defending their copyrights) ever gotten as big as they did if there wasn't a healthy public domain?  Most of their most beloved works were adaptations of earlier works whose copyrights had (by their respective times at that time) already expired.

Mike

Very true, but their adaptations were/are intended to re-tell those tales in a way that honored the originals, and were designed for a family audience.

Compare that to "Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey" or this film, whose intent (especially with Blood and Honey) is to take characters recognized and beloved by millions of children (for Pooh, both the Disney and the original A.A. Milne versions) and put them in outrageously violent, sexual, and generally not-appropriate-for-children situations. It scratches some sort of itch for a lot of people (Rule 34 exists, after all).

I'd be all for shorter copyright terms, more like the 28 years that it was up to the 1960s, but not eliminating copyright protection entirely.

As I mentioned upthread, I am all for hefty protections on the IP itself (and paying to ensure those protections stay in place) - but I'm not in favor of paying royalties that the creators will never see (because they're dead). Mickey Mouse should never be in the public domain, because as soon as that happens, some child is going to search for him on YouTube or Google and find him dismembering Goofy or having intimate relations with Donald. It happens already, imagine how much there would be if it became legal to do so.

I am not sure how much that would really hurt Disney or Mickey's reputation.  People know what they're looking for.  Shakespeare has been out of copyright for centuries yet his reputation hasn't been hurt by porn spoofs of A Midsummer Night's Dream or Twelfth Night.

It's a fair point, and I'll fully admit this topic gets my dander up. But Shakespeare wasn't written for children in the first place - his comedies are full of entendre and ribaldry, and I certainly wouldn't send my 10-year-old to see "Macbeth."

[Max Rockatansky]

There was a time when certain cartoon characters had a reputation for being associated with pornography.  I'm surprised the Sonic the Hedgehog series was able to disassociate from what fans were doing to the characters back in the Deviant Art heyday.  God forbid you try to look up FAQs for the Sonic Adventure games on the Dreamcast back then.

Then again modern search engines aren't as likely to populate random pornographic results nowadays.  Pretty much every piece of media has had a pornography parody at some point.

[Molandfreak]

If you're letting a child under at least 13 have unfiltered, unsupervised, and unlimited internet access in the first place, you're doing something wrong.

Children have always found a way to find inappropriate material - their father's Playboy collection, a dusty bottle of Manischewitz in the garage, a 3rd-generation VHS copy of "Faces of Death" - my mom found pot in my brother's bedroom and was furious until she realized he took it from their sock drawer. You will never be able to control everything they happen upon - but you don't have to make it any easier for them to do so.

There are ways to keep children from seeing NSFW materials without enforcing ruthless, draconian copyrights to materials created by folks who died many years ago.

[DTComposer]

If you're letting a child under at least 13 have unfiltered, unsupervised, and unlimited internet access in the first place, you're doing something wrong.

Children have always found a way to find inappropriate material - their father's Playboy collection, a dusty bottle of Manischewitz in the garage, a 3rd-generation VHS copy of "Faces of Death" - my mom found pot in my brother's bedroom and was furious until she realized he took it from their sock drawer. You will never be able to control everything they happen upon - but you don't have to make it any easier for them to do so.

There are ways to keep children from seeing NSFW materials without enforcing ruthless, draconian copyrights to materials created by folks who died many years ago.

"Ruthless, draconian" feels a bit hyperbolic to me. And to reiterate - I am uninterested in seeing those folks who died many years ago (or their estates) continuing to make money from their creations.

Intent is important. Take Weird Al, for example. Under current law, he doesn't need permission to do his parodies. But he asks the artists' permission anyhow, but he respects their artistic integrity. The artist has a say in the derivative use of their work.

On the other side, Bill Watterson famously does not allow any merchandise for Calvin and Hobbes outside of the books - so the only Calvin and Hobbes merch you can get is Calvin urinating on something - totally allowed, because it's "fair use" - but do you think Watterson's happy about it?

What about companies like Video Brinquedo, producers of films like "What's Up: Balloon to the Rescue" (2009, the same year as "Up"), "The Little Panda Fighter" (2008, the same year as "Kung Fu Panda"), and "Ratatoing" (2007, the same year as "Ratatouille")? Their goal is to confuse people into renting/buying amazingly cheap knockoffs of Disney/Pixar/DreamWorks movies. Is that OK? Would it be OK if they just waited 25 years instead?

I freely admit there's grey area and room for interpretation in all of this - just like art itself. But I'm for protecting the creative work of artists, first and foremost.

[Molandfreak]

Intent is important. Take Weird Al, for example. Under current law, he doesn't need permission to do his parodies. But he asks the artists' permission anyhow, but he respects their artistic integrity. The artist has a say in the derivative use of their work.

Actually, Weird Al does need permission for most of his released work. "Smells Like Nirvana" is a notable exception, because the terms of fair use don't apply unless there is some sort of commentary about the original property within the transformation. It's not enough for the work to be humorous. Otherwise, who would stop George Harrison from claiming that "My Sweet Lord" was intended to be a humorous reworking of "He's So Fine" by the Chiffons?

[DTComposer]

Intent is important. Take Weird Al, for example. Under current law, he doesn't need permission to do his parodies. But he asks the artists' permission anyhow, but he respects their artistic integrity. The artist has a say in the derivative use of their work.

Actually, Weird Al does need permission for most of his released work. "Smells Like Nirvana" is a notable exception, because the terms of fair use don't apply unless there is some sort of commentary about the original property within the transformation. It's not enough for the work to be humorous. Otherwise, who would stop George Harrison from claiming that "My Sweet Lord" was intended to be a humorous reworking of "He's So Fine" by the Chiffons?

He does not need permission:

Legally, "Weird Al" Yankovic does not need permission to parody songs, thanks to the "fair use" doctrine in U.S. copyright law. However, he always seeks permission out of respect for the original artists and to maintain good relationships.

Al does get permission from the original writers of the songs that he parodies. While the law supports his ability to parody without permission, he feels it's important to maintain the relationships that he's built with artists and writers over the years. Plus, Al wants to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of the royalties.

[Roadgeekteen]

Intent is important. Take Weird Al, for example. Under current law, he doesn't need permission to do his parodies. But he asks the artists' permission anyhow, but he respects their artistic integrity. The artist has a say in the derivative use of their work.

Actually, Weird Al does need permission for most of his released work. "Smells Like Nirvana" is a notable exception, because the terms of fair use don't apply unless there is some sort of commentary about the original property within the transformation. It's not enough for the work to be humorous. Otherwise, who would stop George Harrison from claiming that "My Sweet Lord" was intended to be a humorous reworking of "He's So Fine" by the Chiffons?

I'm not sure. I know he doesn't do parodies without permission, but I feel like there is a wide range of applications that can be taken from his parodies. I think a lot of it is that he personally chooses not to do parodies without permission.

[Molandfreak]

Seeking legal advice from Google AI, Esq.

[Scott5114]

So playwrights should all be unpaid?
I think there is something wrong with that.

If the school pays for a 24-role play, and makes 24 photocopies of the script so the originals aren't damaged by the 24 high school students in the play, that is entirely fair in my eyes.

If the director at School A makes photocopies to give to the director at School B so that School B does not have to pay, that is not fair.