-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
So is everything going public domain really a good thing?
- Thread starter Uzumaki Goku
- Start date
Awful, and there would be nothing to stop people making Star Wars films pandering reactively to culture war issues.
Some of the people making the movies might even donate to right wing political causes and governments.
Its happening alot woth china film, you have multiple movie on
sun wukong the monkey king from journey to the west
Di Renjie
A famous detective during the Tang and Zhou dynasty
Song Ci - THe first world's first forensic entomologist, during the Song dynasty
Or a fictional character, the archetype of the daosit that specialize in chinese zomobie
All 3 are "different" character with differnt name and origin, but base on the popuular 80/90 HK movie archetype of the daoist.
Bram Stoker I don't think ever copyrighted Dracula, so there wasn't anyone to get mad when it went public domain.
Sherlock Holmes was litigated a bunch of times by the Conan Doyle estate but they lost in court.
Star Wars probably isn't going to enter the public domain in your lifetime, so I wouldn't worry too much about that.
Like everyone is making Dracula and Zorro movies now?
You wouldn't get everyone making Star Wars movies because that's a self-solving problem. Lots of Star Wars movies means each individual Star Wars movie would be highly unlikely to be profitable, solving any saturation problem pretty quickly. Additionally, smaller companies wouldn't find a big audience and larger companies would generally want to put some kind of new spin on anything they made that was based on an existing public domain property. Both of those factors would disincentivise a Star Wars movie.
You might get a quick rush of Star Wars films shortly after it become public domain (as well as some companies re-releasing the original in various formats) but things like that would settle down quickly.
We only have to look to what's already in the public domain and how that's treated to see that. The most common ways they're used is low-cost zero-modification re-releases, totally new works incorporating elements a public domain work (like Castlevania incorporates Dracula), or reimaginings with significant differences from the original (like a lot of the Sherlock Holmes stuff from the past few decades, or most of the famous Disney animated films). In every one of those cases there's a clear benefit to those works being in the public domain.
Last edited:
I'm not seeing a problem with "but they'll make lots of movies"
Yeah they'll make a bunch of movies. Then they'll stop being profitable once people get sick of them and that's that.
Damn lol
It's gotta be the first issue. I mean, I don't really care about King Arthur, but there's nothing about the premise of Robin Hood (a thief stealing from the rich to give to the poor) that shouldn't work today.
Yeah they'll make a bunch of movies. Then they'll stop being profitable once people get sick of them and that's that.
Damn lol
It's gotta be the first issue. I mean, I don't really care about King Arthur, but there's nothing about the premise of Robin Hood (a thief stealing from the rich to give to the poor) that shouldn't work today.
So weird to see people worried about movies being made about public domain ip. If it's bad don't watch it, if it's good then who cares that they didn't spend millions on purchasing the exclusive rights?
Literally the only downside to stuff going into the public domain is that some rent-seeking corporation can't have exclusive rights to milk an IP in perpetuity.
Literally the only downside to stuff going into the public domain is that some rent-seeking corporation can't have exclusive rights to milk an IP in perpetuity.
I seen Mickey do some evil shit in South Park…. So I sort of agree
I heard from a friend that the story in the Star Trek TNG parody isn't terrible.
No. Dont think everything needs to just be some free for all. Then again I dont like reboot/makes/imaginings.
Sherlock Holmes' trademark owners still are rather litigious. It's why the recent Ace Attorney had "Herlock Sholmes". Capcom wanted to avoid any problems at all with them so avoided the name. Still, with the final book going public domain soon they will lose any space to cause problems.
Copyright is inherently a trade-off between incentivizing creative work by granting creators exclusive rights to profit from their work for a time, and allowing those works to enrich the shared culture beyond the control of the creator. Sure, public domain works can be diluted, debased, or just forgotten—but they can also be remixed and reimagined in ways that go far beyond what the original creator could have done, and that has value.
Copyright term is currently too long to be balancing that trade-off appropriately.
Copyright term is currently too long to be balancing that trade-off appropriately.
My stance on copyright is pretty simple, I think creators should be allowed a reasonable window to give them complete control over their products in order to profit from their work. Where I disagree with current copyright is how long that window is, I think we could do with shortening it a bit tbh.
As for your concerns, I think its a bit silly tbh. Anyone can produce a work with the character Sherlock Holmes but the quality of that work or content won't affect the public image of the character. But even if it did, would it even matter. If somebody makes Star Wars 69 and its shit, will that matter when the good films are still out there to watch?
As for your concerns, I think its a bit silly tbh. Anyone can produce a work with the character Sherlock Holmes but the quality of that work or content won't affect the public image of the character. But even if it did, would it even matter. If somebody makes Star Wars 69 and its shit, will that matter when the good films are still out there to watch?
I think it's good for stuff to go public domain but it's not going to be the big bonanza of freedom some people think it will be. Some characters and stories will benefit more than others. Like, for the comparatively near future, once you have flying Superman with Lois in public domain you can make a pretty great Supes film. I don't think the same is true for other comic characters since their gestation was so long. There's also not a ton you can do with the first few decades of Disney films other than share them freely, most of those characters are already public domain. Mickey Mouse is iconic but as a character there's not much to him besides the recognition.
How I envision universal public domain under socialism( and further moot under communism where there is no money)
Like if you publish a book and someone writes a sequal before you like people would know that that book isn't the original authors canon, I mean they have the internet to look it up.
Like if you publish a book and someone writes a sequal before you like people would know that that book isn't the original authors canon, I mean they have the internet to look it up.
Worth pointing out that huge chunks of the current population have yet to master the art of using Google to determine what time a business opens.
Though that might be moot if this socialist utopia also has fantastic public schooling.
This is my opinion and has been for a long time and I have even shared it here In one of these threads ( where it started a huge argument). The rights should remain with the creator unless they willingly and without being scammed sell/trade/transfer the rights and even then there should be a clause in case it becomes worth millions of dollars. And then upon death, no matter where the rights are, with creator, sold/traded/transfers, no matter value it should become public domain.
Watchmen, one of the most acclaimed and influential comics in the industry, originally intended to use largely forgotten gold and silver age characters from Charlton Comics. It was only because DC Comics, which recently purchased Charlton, axed the idea of using the actual characters, so Alan Moore made original characters based off the Charlton characters.
One of those influences, Peacemaker, has even been dusted off and currently has a well-regarded series on HBO Max from James Gunn and starring John Cena
Point is, you can't just write off old characters and stories just because they haven't been used in a long while or handled well by their exclusive caretakers. There is no telling who out there could breathe life into an old character or use them as inspiration for something totally new and groundbreaking. So it's not just the hottest IPs or most well maintained characters who would benefit from going public domain.
Last edited:
If public domain didn't exist, you wouldn't get stuff like Dracula in a bunch of stuff. Sure there is some trash Dracula things out there, but there is also a lot of good. Hell, Disney made part of their empire on public domain characters.
Of course it's a good thing. How is this even a question?
Oh no, imagine all those bootleg films on theaters not going through the rigorous quality control that gave us TRoS.
As opposed to right now? Caricatures (pornographic or otherwise) are protected under fair use.
This. Fair use is "bad" in the same way as unionizing is "bad": it isn't, you've just fallen for corporation propaganda.
I like all the different takes on Sherlock Holmes the more traditional stuff is cool and then when they try and shove it into modern or semi modern
Different authors takes on the works or whatever. Some of it's complete garbage but overall at least it gives lots and lots of content for a character I find interesting
Different authors takes on the works or whatever. Some of it's complete garbage but overall at least it gives lots and lots of content for a character I find interesting
