Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 26, 2024, 05:26:06 PMNope, not unless the American Project Guttenberg is breaking the law, ALL of REH's works published during his lifetime ARE in the public domain.

REH in Project Guttenberg

BUT, Conan, Like Tarzan, is under Trademark, so you can't use the name in the cover or the publicity without paying to the estate.

It's complicated. The first Conan stories were published in Weird Tales starting in 1932, and Howard died in 1936. If they are considered a work-for-hire, then by U.S. copyright law, they are under copyright for 95 years - and only start being released in 1927. However, some stories arguably lapsed into the public domain because they were not renewed, and some stories arguably were not works-for-hire, and thus fell into public domain 70 years after Howard's death (i.e. 2006).

In practice, the Howard estate lawyers are willing to go after many people, but not Project Gutenberg.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 26, 2024, 05:17:04 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 26, 2024, 09:19:01 AMThe original intent of copyright was to incentivize the creation of new works by protecting creators from piracy. This was only intended for a limited period of time, after which the work would enter public domain. The limited time was intended to incentivize the creation of further new works because creators couldn't coast on their first work and then give up.

Now copyright is so long that it is hurting the arts. Most work doesn't become popular or make any profit,

That's an issue with the work in question. For every Matrix theres a Jupiter Ascendant. For every Star Wars theres a Howard the Duck. Relaxing copyright law won't make a bad film popular. Letting someone make a terrible Star Wars film instead of Battle Beyond the Stars* won't improve the arts.

*Arguably an enjoyable bad film.

You're implying that continually extending copyright the way that Disney wants will produce more original material, but I think it's the exact opposite. Extending copyright gives Disney and other IP-owning corporations more incentive to keep pushing out shitty sequels, prequels, and reboots.

If we allow copyright to expire into the public domain in a reasonable time frame, then those 50+ year old franchises will have decreased value. That means corporations will have less incentive to do an umpteenth reboot. That's because they don't own exclusive rights to the ancient franchise, whereas if they can create a new franchise, they'll have exclusive rights and thus more profit.

As GeekyBugle noted, we don't actually see a boom in material when something goes into public domain. e.g. There was no boom in Tarzan material as it went public domain. Public domain frees up fans to create fan works, but mostly it settles into a steady-state of occasional new stuff for that franchise.

Quote from: jhkim on July 26, 2024, 08:50:19 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 26, 2024, 05:26:06 PMNope, not unless the American Project Guttenberg is breaking the law, ALL of REH's works published during his lifetime ARE in the public domain.

REH in Project Guttenberg

BUT, Conan, Like Tarzan, is under Trademark, so you can't use the name in the cover or the publicity without paying to the estate.

It's complicated. The first Conan stories were published in Weird Tales starting in 1932, and Howard died in 1936. If they are considered a work-for-hire, then by U.S. copyright law, they are under copyright for 95 years - and only start being released in 1927. However, some stories arguably lapsed into the public domain because they were not renewed, and some stories arguably were not works-for-hire, and thus fell into public domain 70 years after Howard's death (i.e. 2006).

In practice, the Howard estate lawyers are willing to go after many people, but not Project Gutenberg.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 26, 2024, 05:17:04 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 26, 2024, 09:19:01 AMThe original intent of copyright was to incentivize the creation of new works by protecting creators from piracy. This was only intended for a limited period of time, after which the work would enter public domain. The limited time was intended to incentivize the creation of further new works because creators couldn't coast on their first work and then give up.

Now copyright is so long that it is hurting the arts. Most work doesn't become popular or make any profit,

That's an issue with the work in question. For every Matrix theres a Jupiter Ascendant. For every Star Wars theres a Howard the Duck. Relaxing copyright law won't make a bad film popular. Letting someone make a terrible Star Wars film instead of Battle Beyond the Stars* won't improve the arts.

*Arguably an enjoyable bad film.

You're implying that continually extending copyright the way that Disney wants will produce more original material, but I think it's the exact opposite. Extending copyright gives Disney and other IP-owning corporations more incentive to keep pushing out shitty sequels, prequels, and reboots.

If we allow copyright to expire into the public domain in a reasonable time frame, then those 50+ year old franchises will have decreased value. That means corporations will have less incentive to do an umpteenth reboot. That's because they don't own exclusive rights to the ancient franchise, whereas if they can create a new franchise, they'll have exclusive rights and thus more profit.

As GeekyBugle noted, we don't actually see a boom in material when something goes into public domain. e.g. There was no boom in Tarzan material as it went public domain. Public domain frees up fans to create fan works, but mostly it settles into a steady-state of occasional new stuff for that franchise.

No, it's NOT complicated, es your own source proves it:

QuoteSince Robert E. Howard's Conan stories were published at a time when the date of publication was the marker (1932–1963), however, and any new owners failed to renew them to maintain the copyrights,[53] the exact copyright status of all of Howard's 'Conan' works is in question.[54] The majority of Howard's Conan fiction exist in at least two versions, subject to different copyright standards, namely 1) the original Weird Tales publications before or shortly after Howard's death, which are generally understood to be public domain and 2) restored versions based upon manuscripts which were unpublished during Howard's lifetime.[55]

BUT, unless you have the money to go to war with them then it's safer to stay away from the IP. Lawfare doesn't change the law, it just means it requires someone with deeper pockets than the estate to challenge them in court.

Quote from: jhkim on July 26, 2024, 08:50:19 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 26, 2024, 05:26:06 PMNope, not unless the American Project Guttenberg is breaking the law, ALL of REH's works published during his lifetime ARE in the public domain.

REH in Project Guttenberg

BUT, Conan, Like Tarzan, is under Trademark, so you can't use the name in the cover or the publicity without paying to the estate.

It's complicated. The first Conan stories were published in Weird Tales starting in 1932, and Howard died in 1936. If they are considered a work-for-hire, then by U.S. copyright law, they are under copyright for 95 years - and only start being released in 1927. However, some stories arguably lapsed into the public domain because they were not renewed, and some stories arguably were not works-for-hire, and thus fell into public domain 70 years after Howard's death (i.e. 2006).

In practice, the Howard estate lawyers are willing to go after many people, but not Project Gutenberg.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 26, 2024, 05:17:04 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 26, 2024, 09:19:01 AMThe original intent of copyright was to incentivize the creation of new works by protecting creators from piracy. This was only intended for a limited period of time, after which the work would enter public domain. The limited time was intended to incentivize the creation of further new works because creators couldn't coast on their first work and then give up.

Now copyright is so long that it is hurting the arts. Most work doesn't become popular or make any profit,

That's an issue with the work in question. For every Matrix theres a Jupiter Ascendant. For every Star Wars theres a Howard the Duck. Relaxing copyright law won't make a bad film popular. Letting someone make a terrible Star Wars film instead of Battle Beyond the Stars* won't improve the arts.

*Arguably an enjoyable bad film.

You're implying that continually extending copyright the way that Disney wants will produce more original material,

No, I'm not. My statement was that a bad film made from an existing IP or a new IP is still a bad film.

Quotebut I think it's the exact opposite. Extending copyright gives Disney and other IP-owning corporations more incentive to keep pushing out shitty sequels, prequels, and reboots.

If we allow copyright to expire into the public domain in a reasonable time frame, then those 50+ year old franchises will have decreased value. That means corporations will have less incentive to do an umpteenth reboot. That's because they don't own exclusive rights to the ancient franchise, whereas if they can create a new franchise, they'll have exclusive rights and thus more profit.

Unless their new franchise tanks and they take a loss.

To bring it back to the original post. The problem isn't copyright. The problem is a lot of "creatives" making modern films and TV are uncreative dolts who are mooching off of IP popularity. The solution is to fire all the dolts and get some real talent into the studio.

Changing the people in the writing room isn't going to solve the problems caused by copyright, like abandonware. Abandonware is a national security threat because it's not legal to maintain the software yourself. So there's been theft of classified documents, ransomware attacks on hospitals...

Also, you act like Hollywood never wrecked franchises before 2016. They've been wrecking franchises as long as there have been franchises. They've been screwing over creators ever since contracts have existed. Incompetence and greed are not limited to people of particular political leanings or to particular periods of time.

But in my experience, the lefties are definitely the most hypocritical about it. Artists are largely left leaning for reasons (i.e. they're socialists and communists, favor abolishing private ownership), but they're in favor of perpetual copyright because they have irrational sentimental attachment to their art and don't want anyone else playing with their toybox. But when Anne Rice's vampire books are butchered by AMC, for example, these same lefties cheer about it. They mock Anne, mock her gay son (he's been quiet about the show because AMC screwed him over), and mock purist fans for valuing fidelity despite her and her work being a LGBT+ icon for decades.

Reducing copyright terms is a net good for society.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 27, 2024, 08:14:24 AMReducing copyright terms is a net good for society.

You've said this many times about several properties. I am curious, is your interest in this matter stemming from a producer side or an end-user/consumer side?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 27, 2024, 08:14:24 AMChanging the people in the writing room isn't going to solve the problems caused by copyright, like abandonware. Abandonware is a national security threat because it's not legal to maintain the software yourself. So there's been theft of classified documents, ransomware attacks on hospitals...

Abandonware in hospitals and similar...

You're aware that Linux exists right? That opensource software already exists for hospitals and that creating new software for linux is possible right?

Information theft isn't because of abandonware, it's because dolts are in charge, the same for ransomware.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 27, 2024, 08:14:24 AMAlso, you act like Hollywood never wrecked franchises before 2016. They've been wrecking franchises as long as there have been franchises. They've been screwing over creators ever since contracts have existed. Incompetence and greed are not limited to people of particular political leanings or to particular periods of time.

I remember Batman Forever and Batman & Robin, yes, but then the studio droped the IP and made no new movies for it for a long while, plus those were bad movies, not propaganda. Now they don't drop the IP or the p`ropaganda BECAUSE they are ideologically possessed and are being backed up by ideologically possessed Blackrock and similars with money from other people that might not agree with the propaganda.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 27, 2024, 08:14:24 AMBut in my experience, the lefties are definitely the most hypocritical about it. Artists are largely left leaning for reasons (i.e. they're socialists and communists, favor abolishing private ownership), but they're in favor of perpetual copyright because they have irrational sentimental attachment to their art and don't want anyone else playing with their toybox. But when Anne Rice's vampire books are butchered by AMC, for example, these same lefties cheer about it. They mock Anne, mock her gay son (he's been quiet about the show because AMC screwed him over), and mock purist fans for valuing fidelity despite her and her work being a LGBT+ icon for decades.

But it's not "their "art" ", it's a corporation owned IP. The Corporation has been either blindsided (chasing an inexistent audience), bought by Blackrock's money injections or is ruled by ideologically possessed individuals.

It's not about "art" it's about pushing The Message! tm.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 27, 2024, 08:14:24 AMReducing copyright terms is a net good for society.

Why is it that no fan made movie about public domain IPs makes it to theaters?

MONEY!

You need lots of it to make a movie, plus the talent. having passion for something doesn't mean you're going to make something good, as thousands of fan-fiction prove.

Let's say you get your wish and copyright is reduced or abolished...

What will happen then?

Trademark is still a thing, and it's what estates and corporations use and will continue to use to lawfare your fan product into oblivion.

Because not only you don't have the money to make a really good movie, you don't have deep enough pockets to fight them in court.

ERB's Tarzan, John Carter, Carson Napier are ALL in the public domain, together with all the works by REH published before his death, where are the GOOD fan made things about them?

Now, Lolbertarians insist that copyright shouldn't exist...

So, let's say they get their wish...

What will happen is that the next 50 Shades of Grey will never be published (which is a good thing IMHO if it was ONLY that one), because the moment the auther sends it's manuscript to a publisher she loses her rights, and because the moment she self-publish it and becomes popular some corporate asshole will use their money to out compete her.

Quote from: HappyDaze on July 27, 2024, 10:43:00 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 27, 2024, 08:14:24 AMReducing copyright terms is a net good for society.

You've said this many times about several properties. I am curious, is your interest in this matter stemming from a producer side or an end-user/consumer side?

Personally, there are multiple obscure ttrpgs that I like which were either canceled by corpos or lost to limbo for whatever reason. If these were public domain, then they would be much easier to disseminate and write new supplements for. The original writers could even get involved if they wanted.

While trademark would still exist, it would be quite easy to create retroclones without needing to replace huge swathes of the existing material. Trademark is used for commercial likenesses, not world building or game rules.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 27, 2024, 08:14:24 AMChanging the people in the writing room isn't going to solve the problems caused by copyright, like abandonware. Abandonware is a national security threat because it's not legal to maintain the software yourself. So there's been theft of classified documents, ransomware attacks on hospitals...

That's a different subject.

QuoteAlso, you act like Hollywood never wrecked franchises before 2016. They've been wrecking franchises as long as there have been franchises. They've been screwing over creators ever since contracts have existed. Incompetence and greed are not limited to people of particular political leanings or to particular periods of time.

And incompetence and greed are not limited to corporations.
Even so, if hollywood wrecks a franchise, I stop watching. I stopped watching new Star Trek altogether, and I pick and choose what new Star Wars media I watch, leaning towards skipping stuff that seems bad.

QuoteReducing copyright terms is a net good for society.

I remain unconvinced.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 27, 2024, 12:36:36 PMLet's say you get your wish and copyright is reduced or abolished...

What will happen then?

Trademark is still a thing, and it's what estates and corporations use and will continue to use to lawfare your fan product into oblivion.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 27, 2024, 12:36:36 PMNow, Lolbertarians insist that copyright shouldn't exist...

So, let's say they get their wish...

What will happen is that the next 50 Shades of Grey will never be published (which is a good thing IMHO if it was ONLY that one), because the moment the auther sends it's manuscript to a publisher she loses her rights, and because the moment she self-publish it and becomes popular some corporate asshole will use their money to out compete her.

Neither BoxCrayonTales nor I are against copyright. We're against copyright lasting for 90+ years.

You dispute the specifics of Conan, but under current U.S. law, a story that is published in 1932 that is a "work-for-hire" would not end copyright until 2027. Regardless of whether Conan specifically was a work-for-hire, I think it's ridiculous that any works published in 1932 should still be copyrighted.

You say that lawfare will still exist, but that doesn't mean that the law is meaningless. Regardless of what the laws are, corporations will try to engage in lawfare -- but that doesn't mean that we should bow down to corporations and pass whatever laws they want. And let's be clear, corporations aren't trying to reduce copyright terms so that they can steal from authors. Corporations love extended copyright, and are constantly lobbying to try to extend copyright protections.

Quote from: jhkim on July 27, 2024, 06:57:54 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 27, 2024, 12:36:36 PMLet's say you get your wish and copyright is reduced or abolished...

What will happen then?

Trademark is still a thing, and it's what estates and corporations use and will continue to use to lawfare your fan product into oblivion.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 27, 2024, 12:36:36 PMNow, Lolbertarians insist that copyright shouldn't exist...

So, let's say they get their wish...

What will happen is that the next 50 Shades of Grey will never be published (which is a good thing IMHO if it was ONLY that one), because the moment the auther sends it's manuscript to a publisher she loses her rights, and because the moment she self-publish it and becomes popular some corporate asshole will use their money to out compete her.

Neither BoxCrayonTales nor I are against copyright. We're against copyright lasting for 90+ years.

You dispute the specifics of Conan, but under current U.S. law, a story that is published in 1932 that is a "work-for-hire" would not end copyright until 2027. Regardless of whether Conan specifically was a work-for-hire, I think it's ridiculous that any works published in 1932 should still be copyrighted.

You say that lawfare will still exist, but that doesn't mean that the law is meaningless. Regardless of what the laws are, corporations will try to engage in lawfare -- but that doesn't mean that we should bow down to corporations and pass whatever laws they want. And let's be clear, corporations aren't trying to reduce copyright terms so that they can steal from authors. Corporations love extended copyright, and are constantly lobbying to try to extend copyright protections.

"UNDER CURRENT US LAW"

Relevant because that wasn't the law back then, the copyright wasn't renewed, if the estate could they would C&D the American Project Guttenberg of sharing those works for free, but they don't.

You think it's because they are soooo generous?

Nope, it's because they can't and don't need to because they have trademarked the names, so you can't use them on the cover, publicity, title, etc.

So your project is dead in the water even if they don't sue you, because nobody will buy something they don't know, your product is dead.

I'm not going to go into the "let's reform the copyright law" argument because the thread isn't for that, but my position is that for human beings it should be eternal, something you can inherit to your descendants in perpetuity, because lolbertarians and commies hate that position and they pissed me off enough to come to that conclusion.

For corporations it shouldn't last that long, maybe 25 years or whatever the term a patent has, this is IMHO time enough for the corporation to profit from their IP, but this is useless wankery unless you also reform trademark law regarding cultural IPs.

Which means thay if I create the next big thing and a corporation wants to buy it from me they can but they'll have ONLY 20-25 years to profit from it.

But if I don't sell it then I and my descendants can profit from it forever. Without pleading the question show me why it should be different than if I buy a piece of land, a business, etc?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 27, 2024, 09:22:55 PMBut if I don't sell it then I and my descendants can profit from it forever. Without pleading the question show me why it should be different than if I buy a piece of land, a business, etc?

Because it would cause a huge clusterfuck? Intellectual property isn't a limited resource, it can be infinitely copied easily. It's not ownership as such, it's a restriction on free speech. It makes no sense to treat it the same way as physical limited property. Can you imagine how much of a clusterfuck we'd have now if mythology was copyrighted?

It also doesn't fix the problem with your idiot descendants fucking your work over, as we've seen with Lord of the Rings and Dune. The families of the authors own it and they're driving it into the ground. Rings of Power, the Dune sequels, it's all garbage. Your proposal would make things infinitely worse.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 29, 2024, 11:52:01 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 27, 2024, 09:22:55 PMBut if I don't sell it then I and my descendants can profit from it forever. Without pleading the question show me why it should be different than if I buy a piece of land, a business, etc?

Because it would cause a huge clusterfuck? Intellectual property isn't a limited resource, it can be infinitely copied easily. It's not ownership as such, it's a restriction on free speech. It makes no sense to treat it the same way as physical limited property. Can you imagine how much of a clusterfuck we'd have now if mythology was copyrighted?

It also doesn't fix the problem with your idiot descendants fucking your work over, as we've seen with Lord of the Rings and Dune. The families of the authors own it and they're driving it into the ground. Rings of Power, the Dune sequels, it's all garbage. Your proposal would make things infinitely worse.

Mythology is mythology (in part) BECAUSE we don't KNOW who wrote it, else it would be just a story.

Why is it a crime to perfectly imitate the style of centuries ago dead artists? The artist is long dead.

You confuse the idea with the execution:

Let's make a chair is an idea, the actual chair is the execution of said idea.

Let's write a novel about XYZ in ZYX genre is the idea, the actual novel is the execution of said idea, the way the author organized the words, the words he choose, those are all part of the execution of the idea.

Nothing is stopping you from writing a different novel about XYZ in ZYX genre, the same idea, different execution ergo different product.

My heirs have the God given right to do with their inheritance whatever the fuck they want, it's now theirs.

Let's say an architect builds himself a house in a "new" architectural style, then said architect becomes famous, decades or centuries after he dies his work is considered Art.

He left the original house to his son, should the government have the right to strip from the architect's heirs of the right to do whatever they wanted with said house? Even to demolish it?

It's Art, why is it different from a novel?

Let's say the heirs of a now famous writer find an unpublished novel... Are they obligated to publish it? What if they decide to never do so? What if they decide (for whatever reason) to burn it?

Are they committing a crime against who?

I might lament the burning of the house/novel/whatever but do I have the right to prevent them from doing so?

You constantly lament that geeks have a very strong emotional attachment to IPs, yet you seem to have an emotional attachment equal or bigger, you seem to think you have the right to said IP.

To the detriment of the corporations that own those IPs, many geeks have lost all emotional connection to them, with each new product they vomit those numbers grow.

Instead of demanding they give away said IPs we need to create new ones. Those of us who can't create them should help promote them.

Disney hasn't ruined MY copies of the Star Wars movies, or the EU, or my comics. It's theirs to do as they please, on the other hand my money is mine to do as I please, so just as I don't have a right to the IP they don't have a right to my money.

I might still criticize or point and laugh at the new grey goo they vomit but there's exactly ZERO emotional attachment.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 29, 2024, 12:38:08 PMInstead of demanding they give away said IPs we need to create new ones. Those of us who can't create them should help promote them.

We can do both. It's not an either/or scenario. If a franchise has been around for decades and thoroughly driven into the ground, then I'm not interested. But it's a lot easier to create new IPs if we have past material to drawn from. Ideas aren't created in a vacuum. Every creative is inspired by the works that they've read/watched.

Also, most people are shallow and refuse to commit to new IPs if it doesn't contain recognizable material or isn't sufficiently old. That's why fanfiction is so common, possibly even more common than original fiction. A lot of people want to create but aren't creative enough to make new things, refuse to make new things, or cynically recycle recognizable IPs because they know nobody will read their original work.

I can understand that viewpoint because I've done the same thing. Even when I write fanfiction for really old IPs that aren't relevant to most people, I still get more engagement than if I write original fiction. Even if I just name drop Miskatonic University in a story that otherwise isn't a mythos story but just as an easter egg reference, I get way more views than if I don't. People are just shallow like that. The original fiction that gets the most views is, unsurprisingly, erotic fiction. The more fetishistic, like using catgirls or whatever, the more views you get.

Creating and maintaining franchises is hard. Getting successful is a matter of luck and craftsmanship. Mostly, I don't even want to create genuinely new stuff. Most of my ideas are for rescuing ideas from other now dead franchises, ones that were canceled before they got driven into the ground like the ones that survived. Old rpgs, old video games, old books... why go to the effort of sanitizing my work to avoiding infringing on the copyright of this abandonware when all I really want to do is use that abandonware? There's only so many ideas and I'm just not in the mood to create wholly original franchises most of the time. The most original stuff I've ever come up with are genre pastiches, like urban fantasy.

I think franchises like Star Wars and Marvel can just go die in a fire. It's obscure franchises like the old TSR rpgs or European RTS games like Earth 21xx or Armies of Exigo that I think deserve a second chance. Copyright law creates a huge problem with survivorship bias because the reasons why any given work might not get a second print run are not easily boiled down to "it just wasn't good."

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 29, 2024, 01:20:24 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 29, 2024, 12:38:08 PMInstead of demanding they give away said IPs we need to create new ones. Those of us who can't create them should help promote them.

We can do both. It's not an either/or scenario. If a franchise has been around for decades and thoroughly driven into the ground, then I'm not interested. But it's a lot easier to create new IPs if we have past material to drawn from. Ideas aren't created in a vacuum. Every creative is inspired by the works that they've read/watched.

Also, most people are shallow and refuse to commit to new IPs if it doesn't contain recognizable material or isn't sufficiently old. That's why fanfiction is so common, possibly even more common than original fiction. A lot of people want to create but aren't creative enough to make new things, refuse to make new things, or cynically recycle recognizable IPs because they know nobody will read their original work.

I can understand that viewpoint because I've done the same thing. Even when I write fanfiction for really old IPs that aren't relevant to most people, I still get more engagement than if I write original fiction. Even if I just name drop Miskatonic University in a story that otherwise isn't a mythos story but just as an easter egg reference, I get way more views than if I don't. People are just shallow like that. The original fiction that gets the most views is, unsurprisingly, erotic fiction. The more fetishistic, like using catgirls or whatever, the more views you get.

Creating and maintaining franchises is hard. Getting successful is a matter of luck and craftsmanship. Mostly, I don't even want to create genuinely new stuff. Most of my ideas are for rescuing ideas from other now dead franchises, ones that were canceled before they got driven into the ground like the ones that survived. Old rpgs, old video games, old books... why go to the effort of sanitizing my work to avoiding infringing on the copyright of this abandonware when all I really want to do is use that abandonware? There's only so many ideas and I'm just not in the mood to create wholly original franchises most of the time. The most original stuff I've ever come up with are genre pastiches, like urban fantasy.

I think franchises like Star Wars and Marvel can just go die in a fire. It's obscure franchises like the old TSR rpgs or European RTS games like Earth 21xx or Armies of Exigo that I think deserve a second chance. Copyright law creates a huge problem with survivorship bias because the reasons why any given work might not get a second print run are not easily boiled down to "it just wasn't good."

Which isn't creating new IPs, it's using already existing ones.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 29, 2024, 01:27:17 PMWhich isn't creating new IPs, it's using already existing ones.

There's only so many ideas to go around and it's human nature to recycle ideas when telling new stories. We don't tell stories in a vacuum, we can't. Can you think of a truly original IP that doesn't draw inspiration from previous stories? Can you think of a replacement for Star Wars that doesn't draw upon the extensive history of scifi? That can't be readily compared to the many scifi stories that already exist?