Copyright is an issue. While, on the one hand, we have authors who can and should benefit from their creations, on the other hand, we have companies like Disney that have lobbied for decades to prevent cartoons from falling into the public domain and companies like Nintendo that use legislation to steal the monetization of YouTube channels that use 10-second snippets of any Nintendo material.
The truth is that there are now more flexible copyright models, such as Creative Commons, but nothing like what would be the original legislation on copyright, where you would have exclusivity over the use of the work for about 30 (thirty ) years and then it would enter the public domain. It would be a very reasonable time, in my opinion, since some classics of the games, for example, like Super Mario Bros and The Lost Vikings could already be used in works of fans, as well as other characters, like Batman, Constantine and the films of Star Wars. However, current legislation in virtually all countries allows works to remain in the private domain for decades after the author is dead and buried.
One of the most absurd examples is the Lord of the Rings saga: it's a saga published almost eighty years ago, but if you try to create something based on them, you can be sued by Warner Bros. That's because copyright legislation in most parts of the world is completely absurd. In Europe and Brazil, for example, copyrights continue to apply to the work for seventy years after the author's death. This means that, as Tolkien died in 1973, legally we will only be able to make works based on Lord of the Rings from the year 2043. In the United States the time is even longer: 95 years after the original publication (if the license is renewed). This means that in the United States no work published after the year 2027 that has had its copyright renewed can be used by anyone other than the copyright holder. This is complete nonsense.
In my view, thirty years is a pretty reasonable time to use a work before it falls into the public domain. It also won't hurt smaller authors as much as large corporations would have you believe: games and movies sold individually generate most of the profit during their first five to seven years, and books during their first fifteen years. So unless you write or produce some cult work that will only be acclaimed by your grandchildren, the impact on your bottom line is minimal.
There are some more radical people who even say that the complete end of copyright would be a better way out than that. Personally, I don't agree. Having exclusive use of a work for a certain time is a great attraction for new content writers, apart from the disincentive to plagiarism (the famous “copy and paste”).
But and you? What do you think about this? Leave it in the comments 😆😊
Monopoly is abhorrent to competition, so any argument that copyright incentivizes content creation is ludicrous. Plagiarism doesn't require people have a monopoly over works, you can plagiarize free stuff just the same. Licensing and monopoly are entirely and unequivocally only harmful to competition and creation, whether it be patents or a literary fiction. Plagiarism of someone's work would fall in the domain of Trademarks, where as everyone is entitled to place a certain quality of Authorship over their work and that good name is exclusive to themselves, not the same as exclusivity over the work, as trademarks are to guard againet Defamation and fraud.
Much more and numerous discussions here:
https://ecency.com/photography/@baah/re-davidallenjones-re-xposed-re-davidallenjones-re-xposed-let-s-talk-about-copyright-20180315t025559420z
I partially agree. If we are talking about a work whose author is known and recognized, like Stephen King, for example, everyone knows that he wrote it, and even if someone takes a less famous work and tries to take the credits, everyone will know what original author. What I meant by "plagiarism" was not modifying the original work, but copying the entire work and changing only the author's name, this I think is wrong for numerous reasons, mainly because, if the plagiarist was luckier than the original author , the original author will get little or no recognition while a guy who didn't even bother to write more than five lines will get all the credit and all the benefits that should belong to the original author. This is completely different from writing a new work using the same characters, the same world and certain elements characteristic of that universe
Indeed which is why it would constitute fraud and defamation. With that said, its very unlikely that the original author could suffer significant damages since it'll be unlikely they could get away with claiming they created something that another already published at an earlier date so such a discrepancy of an earlier publishing date will hopefully save the author his due credit, and I believe that would be all it's owed to them, anything else is based in copyright and the inherent licensure of ideas. There was a study regarding creating art to sell without any copyrights, in Germany I believe. They concluded that letting people reimburse the artist based entirely on what the " patrons " deemed fair and obviously without any constraints on reselling or reusing the work proved to be far more profitable for the artist.
** Your post has been upvoted (31.22 %) **
Curation Trail is Open!
Join Trail Here
Delegate more BP for bigger Upvote + Daily BLURT 😉
Delegate BP Here
Upvote
https://blurtblock.herokuapp.com/blurt/upvote
Thank you 🙂 @tomoyan