The video focuses on Hollywood, but I thin the same applies to ALL sectors of the defunct entertainment industry with an unhealthy those of narcissism on top.

That's one take on it. Although, a lot people working in Hollywood don't really get to know what they are working on until they see the final result.

Most of the actors on Star Wars didn't realize what a big deal it was until they saw the end result on screen.

Iowahawk has a similar take on it:

You cannot view this attachment.

Quote from: Lurkndog on July 25, 2024, 10:41:38 AMThat's one take on it. Although, a lot people working in Hollywood don't really get to know what they are working on until they see the final result.

Most of the actors on Star Wars didn't realize what a big deal it was until they saw the end result on screen.

Iowahawk has a similar take on it:

You cannot view this attachment.

I'm not sure the video is talking about the actors tho, low level fuctards ARE low level.

IMHO the video is talking about the writers, directors and executives... Who do know what movie is being made, who don't know (anymore) what makes a good movie and are busy imitating good movies from the past without knowing what make them work and thus changing the core while maintaining the skin suit, the outer shell.

The only way to fix this problem is to reform copyright law. Right now it lasts for a century or longer depending on specifics. We need to reduce copyright term lengths so that these properties enter public domain while the fans are still alive and spry enough to remix them.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 25, 2024, 12:42:29 PMThe only way to fix this problem is to reform copyright law. Right now it lasts for a century or longer depending on specifics. We need to reduce copyright term lengths so that these properties enter public domain while the fans are still alive and spry enough to remix them.

Money my dude, where are the fans getting the millions needed to make a proper Star Wars movie?

Under the exact same copyright laws we used to get decent to good and sometimes excellent entertainment, for instance BtAS, now you can't find anything that gets even close to that.

More than a copyright issue it's an ideological one.

Now, Tarzan is in the public domain, where are the fan made movies, tv shows, comics or novels? Conan is in the same boat together with countless other properties.

Winnie the pooh got into public domain and what did we get? Horror.

A cheaper one, Sherlock Holmes, anything published before 1923 IS in the public domain, it's way cheaper to produce a movie about him, yet we get none, what about a novel? Nope, not happening.

Lot's of superheroes ARE in the public domain, yet we get nothing or we get it from an already established publisher, just like with REH and ERB, no fan made comics, tv shows, novels, nothing.

It takes lots of money and time.

Which is why the corporations are pushing to have AI regulated, so the regular guy can't use it to compete with them. And even that takes a lot of money (although much less than the regular way), because you need a very powerful computer to really run those tools.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 25, 2024, 01:59:14 PMMore than a copyright issue it's an ideological one.

Corpos don't want to adapt anything that isn't already guaranteed success and to which they have exclusive ownership. That's why they exploit only nostalgic properties now.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 25, 2024, 01:59:14 PMNow, Tarzan is in the public domain, where are the fan made movies, tv shows, comics or novels? Conan is in the same boat together with countless other properties.

The Burroughs Estate owns the trademarks.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 25, 2024, 01:59:14 PMA cheaper one, Sherlock Holmes, anything published before 1923 IS in the public domain, it's way cheaper to produce a movie about him, yet we get none, what about a novel? Nope, not happening.

There are a few, actually. Like this one: https://www.amazon.com/Echoes-Sherlock-Holmes-Stories-Inspired/dp/1681772256

There's tv shows like Elementary, which was made when they couldn't get the rights to the UK series Sherlock.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 25, 2024, 01:59:14 PMLot's of superheroes ARE in the public domain, yet we get nothing or we get it from an already established publisher, just like with REH and ERB, no fan made comics, tv shows, novels, nothing.

There are people making their own cinematic universes with public domain superheroes, like this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gJXg_k5yVU

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 25, 2024, 01:59:14 PMIt takes lots of money and time.

If you look for them then you will find a number of low budget indie works based on public domain works. But they're still hampered. The excessive copyright lengths result in works that weren't already hugely popular being doomed to fall into obscurity by the time they enter public domain. Almost nobody knows they exist and there's no financial incentive to adapt them.

This is an ongoing problem with excessive copyright lengths. That and abandonware. Many vital industries rely on abandonware to run their infrastructure, which they cannot practically replace and cannot legally modify, resulting in various data breaches and ransomware attacks. It's a national security threat that's not gonna be fixed unless copyright law is reformed.

George Lucas wasn't hampered by copyright law when he tried to make Flash Gordon. When he couldn't get the rights, he made his own version of Flash Gordon, with Jedi and Death Stars.
Steven Spielberg wasn't hampered by copyright law when he made E.T. The Extraterrestrial.

Copyright law is a non-issue, and the arguments over it are usually made by people who lack imagination, creativity and talent.  We already have a bunch of hacks making a mess of current franchises. I don't see how expanding the pool of idiots would improve an IP.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 25, 2024, 04:46:07 PMGeorge Lucas wasn't hampered by copyright law when he tried to make Flash Gordon. When he couldn't get the rights, he made his own version of Flash Gordon, with Jedi and Death Stars.
Steven Spielberg wasn't hampered by copyright law when he made E.T. The Extraterrestrial.

Copyright law is a non-issue, and the arguments over it are usually made by people who lack imagination, creativity and talent.  We already have a bunch of hacks making a mess of current franchises. I don't see how expanding the pool of idiots would improve an IP.

Tell that to the creators who lost control of their work to apathetic corpos. If they or any other creative person could just use their creativity to make a replacement, then why haven't they?

Some IPs are so detailed and idiosyncratic that's it's not technically feasible to make a replacement that doesn't risk copyright infringement. You'll never know if it does infringe unless you get a C&D, and at that point all the work you did is wasted.

And if you do put in the work, there is a lot of work to do. Beyond just making the work, which can be a huge endeavor, you also need to advertise and so on. For most people, it's just not worth it.

Like, I have a ton of ideas for settings based on stuff I liked that are simple enough that I don't need to worry about copyright infringement. But working on just one setting is a huge endeavor and it's a crapshoot as to whether I'd get an audience.

Storytelling is an iterative process. For thousands of years humans have retold stories they heard from others. Then in the last 100 years somebody said "no, you can't do that anymore, this company owns that story for a century!" This is ridiculous and it's harming our cultural heritage. I'm all for compensating creators for their work, but locking stories in a vault until all but the most popular are forgotten is ridiculous.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 25, 2024, 06:07:12 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 25, 2024, 04:46:07 PMGeorge Lucas wasn't hampered by copyright law when he tried to make Flash Gordon. When he couldn't get the rights, he made his own version of Flash Gordon, with Jedi and Death Stars.
Steven Spielberg wasn't hampered by copyright law when he made E.T. The Extraterrestrial.

Copyright law is a non-issue, and the arguments over it are usually made by people who lack imagination, creativity and talent.  We already have a bunch of hacks making a mess of current franchises. I don't see how expanding the pool of idiots would improve an IP.

Tell that to the creators who lost control of their work to apathetic corpos. If they or any other creative person could just use their creativity to make a replacement, then why haven't they?

Star Trek wouldn't exist without Parmount. Babylon 5 wouldn't exist without Warner Brothers. Etc, etc. These corporations dump money into making these shows, they deserve to get some return on their investment. The money gotta come from somewhere. I agree that creators should have more consideration and also get reasonable treatment regarding profit and ownership. That's something to be hammered out at the contract stage.
As to why they haven't made anything else new, you'd have to ask them. Lucas and Spielberg made a ton of films. Labyrinth, Jaws, etc, etc. Some original, some adaptations. Some creators seem to be one hit wonders.

QuoteSome IPs are so detailed and idiosyncratic that's it's not technically feasible to make a replacement that doesn't risk copyright infringement. You'll never know if it does infringe unless you get a C&D, and at that point all the work you did is wasted.

Lawyers gonna lawyer. I agree that IPs shouldn't be so broad as to be condusive to lawfare to crush other similar content, but also the creator should be able to profit from their creation without worrying that someone will just steal their lunch. A fine line to walk.

QuoteAnd if you do put in the work, there is a lot of work to do. Beyond just making the work, which can be a huge endeavor, you also need to advertise and so on. For most people, it's just not worth it.

Like, I have a ton of ideas for settings based on stuff I liked that are simple enough that I don't need to worry about copyright infringement. But working on just one setting is a huge endeavor and it's a crapshoot as to whether I'd get an audience.

That is a risk every creator faces if they want to profit off their creation. Star Wars could have cratered and made everything 20th Century Fox and Lucas put into the film a waste of time and money. But Lucas wanted to make that damn film, and he put in the time and effort and (someone else's) money and took that chance. Talk is cheap. Everyone has ideas. Can you actually make something out of that idea? Strazynski spent years of his life working on cartoons and network shows to get to the point where he could create Babylon 5. Anything worth doing is rarely easy.

QuoteStorytelling is an iterative process. For thousands of years humans have retold stories they heard from others. Then in the last 100 years somebody said "no, you can't do that anymore, this company owns that story for a century!" This is ridiculous and it's harming our cultural heritage. I'm all for compensating creators for their work, but locking stories in a vault until all but the most popular are forgotten is ridiculous.

Like I said, I really don't care. While the details about copyright law can and should be up for scrutiny, the general idea that they should be relaxed so someone can tell stories specifically about Mickey Mouse is a non issue when people come up with original IP all the time. And it sounds a lot like lazy, unimaginative people just want to ride on the coattails of success instead of putting in the effort to make their own thing.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 25, 2024, 07:16:58 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 25, 2024, 06:07:12 PMStorytelling is an iterative process. For thousands of years humans have retold stories they heard from others. Then in the last 100 years somebody said "no, you can't do that anymore, this company owns that story for a century!" This is ridiculous and it's harming our cultural heritage. I'm all for compensating creators for their work, but locking stories in a vault until all but the most popular are forgotten is ridiculous.

Like I said, I really don't care. While the details about copyright law can and should be up for scrutiny, the general idea that they should be relaxed so someone can tell stories specifically about Mickey Mouse is a non issue when people come up with original IP all the time. And it sounds a lot like lazy, unimaginative people just want to ride on the coattails of success instead of putting in the effort to make their own thing.

I disagree about imagination and effort. Relating this to RPGs a bit -- I frequently run RPGs set in established properties like Middle Earth, Star Wars, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc. Doing these is usually *more* work than creating my own whole-cloth setting, because I'm trying to research and be true to the setting, and create stuff that fits it.

I *could* create an unrelated setting with Azuha and Cadians and Trainu (i.e. original creations) instead, but I think it's interesting and challenging to create within an established setting.

As BoxCrayonTales says, this is how myth has generally worked, and how Shakespeare worked. People would tell their own versions of existing stories. Copyright does go back centuries - but it was established only for copying of whole books. The concept of copyrighting a character like Sherlock Holmes is a modern invention.

Quote from: jhkim on July 26, 2024, 12:50:15 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 25, 2024, 07:16:58 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 25, 2024, 06:07:12 PMStorytelling is an iterative process. For thousands of years humans have retold stories they heard from others. Then in the last 100 years somebody said "no, you can't do that anymore, this company owns that story for a century!" This is ridiculous and it's harming our cultural heritage. I'm all for compensating creators for their work, but locking stories in a vault until all but the most popular are forgotten is ridiculous.

Like I said, I really don't care. While the details about copyright law can and should be up for scrutiny, the general idea that they should be relaxed so someone can tell stories specifically about Mickey Mouse is a non issue when people come up with original IP all the time. And it sounds a lot like lazy, unimaginative people just want to ride on the coattails of success instead of putting in the effort to make their own thing.

I disagree about imagination and effort. Relating this to RPGs a bit -- I frequently run RPGs set in established properties like Middle Earth, Star Wars, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc. Doing these is usually *more* work than creating my own whole-cloth setting, because I'm trying to research and be true to the setting, and create stuff that fits it.

I'm specifically criticizing people who want to make money off of an established IP, and want to do it without the constraints of copyright law. My contention is that if they want to make Star Wars money, they can make their own characters and settings, just like the original creators did.

Hell, considering the "quality" of current stories set in franchise IP, I would relish some new stories, new settings and new characters.

QuoteAs BoxCrayonTales says, this is how myth has generally worked, and how Shakespeare worked. People would tell their own versions of existing stories. Copyright does go back centuries - but it was established only for copying of whole books. The concept of copyrighting a character like Sherlock Holmes is a modern invention.

No one is stopping you from telling your friends a story about Superman. If you want to publish it and make money off it, you have to deal with copyright law. Shit, that's where 50 Shades of Grey came from.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 26, 2024, 03:09:42 AMNo one is stopping you from telling your friends a story about Superman. If you want to publish it and make money off it, you have to deal with copyright law. Shit, that's where 50 Shades of Grey came from.

But it's okay to use Hercules, Tarzan, Conan, Sherlock, Dracula, etc. because they're already beyond the arbitrary cutoff point for copyright terms? What kind of sense does that make?

The 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, so copyrighting serves no other purpose than to ensure it is lost to obscurity. Big corporations aren't interested in taking anything from the public domain that isn't already hugely popular, and even then public domain material is generally considered poison because anyone can use it. That's why you don't see big singular franchises built around those public domain figures I mentioned. Popular copyrighted works are doomed to be driven into the ground by the creator's family or apathetic corpos that don't get what made it great. Copyright terms longer than a couple decades is a lose-lose scenario for the arts.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 25, 2024, 01:59:14 PMfor instance BtAS, now you can't find anything that gets even close to that.

Even that took a nose dive in quality in its final season.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 26, 2024, 09:19:01 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 26, 2024, 03:09:42 AMNo one is stopping you from telling your friends a story about Superman. If you want to publish it and make money off it, you have to deal with copyright law. Shit, that's where 50 Shades of Grey came from.

But it's okay to use Hercules, Tarzan, Conan, Sherlock, Dracula, etc. because they're already beyond the arbitrary cutoff point for copyright terms? What kind of sense does that make?

Because certain IP were created before modern copyright law. The authors are dead and there's no one to claim the copyright in the modern structure. Makes perfect sense.

QuoteThe 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.

Quoteso copyrighting serves no other purpose than to ensure it is lost to obscurity. Big corporations aren't interested in taking anything from the public domain that isn't already hugely popular, and even then public domain material is generally considered poison because anyone can use it. That's why you don't see big singular franchises built around those public domain figures I mentioned. Popular copyrighted works are doomed to be driven into the ground by the creator's family or apathetic corpos that don't get what made it great. Copyright terms longer than a couple decades is a lose-lose scenario for the arts.

There have been many sucessful films made from public domain IP. Legend of Tarzan and Bram Stoker's Dracula, off the top of my head. Conan AFAICT is still under copyright.

You can't replace talent with a popular IP. It doesn't matter if it's Disney or indie film guy pissing on Star Wars. It's still covered with piss. And indie film guy has the option to make his own space opera flick and do it better.

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

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 26, 2024, 09:19:01 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 26, 2024, 03:09:42 AMNo one is stopping you from telling your friends a story about Superman. If you want to publish it and make money off it, you have to deal with copyright law. Shit, that's where 50 Shades of Grey came from.

But it's okay to use Hercules, Tarzan, Conan, Sherlock, Dracula, etc. because they're already beyond the arbitrary cutoff point for copyright terms? What kind of sense does that make?

Because certain IP were created before modern copyright law. The authors are dead and there's no one to claim the copyright in the modern structure. Makes perfect sense.

QuoteThe 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.

Quoteso copyrighting serves no other purpose than to ensure it is lost to obscurity. Big corporations aren't interested in taking anything from the public domain that isn't already hugely popular, and even then public domain material is generally considered poison because anyone can use it. That's why you don't see big singular franchises built around those public domain figures I mentioned. Popular copyrighted works are doomed to be driven into the ground by the creator's family or apathetic corpos that don't get what made it great. Copyright terms longer than a couple decades is a lose-lose scenario for the arts.

There have been many sucessful films made from public domain IP. Legend of Tarzan and Bram Stoker's Dracula, off the top of my head. Conan AFAICT is still under copyright.

You can't replace talent with a popular IP. It doesn't matter if it's Disney or indie film guy pissing on Star Wars. It's still covered with piss. And indie film guy has the option to make his own space opera flick and do it better.

Nope, 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.