"Thinking about book copyright which (I think) is currently at 75 years after death or first publication. I don't think I would be happy for that to be reduced.
(Assuming I'm right) The Lord of the Rings will go out of copyright in 2048: 41 years time. I strongly suspect that Tolkien will remain quite warm (if not hot) property then. At which point all and sundry would be able to do what they wanted. I'm not convinced that would be a good thing; we've seen the dumb merchandising that came on the back of the Jackson films."
This is a two-edged sword. Copyright on LotR lasting another 41 years seems to me to be absurd. The Tolkien Estate having control of the copyrights limits the flow of dross, but it also limits the flow of good stuff. Why should people whose only relation to the work is a blood relationship to the actual creator have a complete veto over how it is developed? You assume that they will only be producing worthwhile new products, but why should this be so? And why is a flow of dross a bad thing - you can always ignore what you don't like.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-17 11:06 am (UTC)(Assuming I'm right) The Lord of the Rings will go out of copyright in 2048: 41 years time. I strongly suspect that Tolkien will remain quite warm (if not hot) property then. At which point all and sundry would be able to do what they wanted. I'm not convinced that would be a good thing; we've seen the dumb merchandising that came on the back of the Jackson films."
This is a two-edged sword. Copyright on LotR lasting another 41 years seems to me to be absurd. The Tolkien Estate having control of the copyrights limits the flow of dross, but it also limits the flow of good stuff. Why should people whose only relation to the work is a blood relationship to the actual creator have a complete veto over how it is developed? You assume that they will only be producing worthwhile new products, but why should this be so? And why is a flow of dross a bad thing - you can always ignore what you don't like.