Dr. Suess died in 1991. Do we really want a society where the estate of a long dead artist can sue people who /obviously/ do an homage to Seuss? Fistful of Dollars is a total ripoff of Yojimbo, should that not have been made?

The other problem is that copyright enforcement is unevenly applied. The artists of the book may well lose because the Seuss estate has millions and can afford the best lawyers. Meanwhile look what a Disney contractor, and by extension Disney itself did, and the French artist who did this work recently and who is still alive has zero chance of winning:

https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/unnamed_colorcorrected-2.jpeg?quality=75&strip=all&w=700

Disney ripoff (resized).jpeg

I make money from selling my own copyrighted works, so I am a big fan of copyright. But I have a huge problem with people making money from an artist’s work decades after the artist died who had F all to do with the production of the work.

Copyright is meant to create a window of exclusivity so the creator(s) can benefit from their labor. Not to create effectively infinite revenue streams for trust funds or corporations.

As an artist I assure you that we need the ability to borrow, steal and copy the works of the greats that came before us. As a businessman I offer a similar assurance that this has to happen after a work has had a good long run of sales.

We need a fair middle ground. That’s what copyright was when it was enacted.

Now I haven’t really seen the book in question so it’s hard to say, but it looks like a legit parody of a Seuss book using Star Trek characters. If the target market is adults, it also doesn’t seem to be threatening book sales of the original. It’s clearly not a counterfeit.

If you’re doing a parody, you /want/ to mimic the style closely. That is part of the point. It wouldn’t work as a parody if the pictures weren’t extremely similar. Weird Al tries to make the songs sound exactly the same, he just changes the words.

We should apply sanity to copyright. With respect to pinball, it seems reasonable to extend copyright on any pinball part for twenty or thirty, maybe even fifty years, but only as long as the manufacturer or current license holder makes that part available to the public for purchase at a reasonable price. It makes sense that if a part is being made by a licensee, anything substantially similar should carry a license fee during that period of protection, too.

We should not allow ancient dragons to sit atop hoards of intellectual property and breathe fire in the form of lawsuits.

What line of business are you in?

Are you speculating or do you have proof to back up this claim? I haven’t done any forensic work to compare the original with the parody. Perhaps they were cut and pasted. If they literally were, that does change things.

But last time I looked, the sneeches weren’t wearing Star Trek uniforms in the original. That lends credence to the artist being capable of mimicking the original close enough to fool most people.

Yeah, I saw that. That isn’t a cut and paste. Look closely.

I'm not sure you understand what plagiarism is, which incidentally has no legal meaning.

Parody can be really hard to determine, and we have no standard for mashups which are relatively new. However, the words of the book, and therefore the whole spirit of it, are utterly different. The audience is totally different. The art is wildly different in some places, and the words are vastly different on the only examples I've seen. I see what they were going for.

Of course, I don't even know if this book is a parody or not. It sure seems like it is, and the artist contends that it is, and that's at least been partially supported by a judge in court. But I haven't read it, nor have any of you, because it isn't available.

But I don't see this as any different than using music samples to create a new song.

It’ll never happen. Our dear leaders will keep extending copyright infinitely.

I deeply and sincerely hope that it doesn’t get extended again, but I fear that Disney has only grown in power and influence since the last time around.

Google up Fair Use, there are some very good primers out there.

Yeah, I wish I got paid for every use of my art too. As an artist you have to tolerate it - it comes with the territory. But I’ve also read a lot of studies that show copying increases your chance of selling your work. That’s because the challenge is still all about being seen, assuming you do quality work.

And most of the music copying and sharing back in the day had to do with the fact that music was stupidly expensive and there were no easy ways to stream or buy digital. Generally people would rather pay with time or money. If it’s too hard or expensive, they’ll find another way.

Sorry to hear that your lyrics and guitar licks were stolen. Have you talked to a copyright lawyer? Some of them will take cases with no money from you.

There’s always been lousy music. Over time only the hits get played, so it gives the impression that music is getting worse.

Also we have vastly more new music to choose from now, therefore more lousy music.

Ideas are 0.00000001% of what it takes to bring a product to market. The general rule about an idea is that you should shout it from the rooftops and try to see if people might buy it, and gain valuable feedback in the process. It’s the height of arrogance to think someone creative and passionate enough to do a great job on a product would rather use someone else’s idea than their own. Copycats also produce inferior work.

That’s a straw man. Nobody is saying that here.

Do you also think that The Magnificent Seven was a ripoff?

Questions usually include a question mark, don’t they? Where’s the question in what you wrote? I don’t see it.

I repeat that nobody here is making an argument that a repro Bally apron is a parody, except you.

Please tell me you aren’t arguing that a trade secret is the same as an idea. Because they’re not the same. At all.

Taking the moral high ground based purely on unrealistic profit expectations has ruined many industries.

As an artist in a free market, I am entitled to what people are willing to pay for my work. Period.

If I set the price too high, people will find other ways. There’s a reason why PIN2DMD was created, and poor man’s stadium lighting.

Case in point: nobody cares about sharing music anymore because streaming it is cheap enough.

This isn’t my position. This is reality. Ignore it at your peril. Bitching about it is futile.

Would you elaborate? This seems orthogonal to what we were talking about. Or at the very least, if as you state all good ideas come from someone else, it would be a very bad idea to have unlimited copyright, woudln’t it?

I can’t find a compelling argument for unlimited protection of a copyrighted work, nor have you presented one here.

Art cannot be fixed and static. Unlimited copyright stifles innovation and expression.

I’m finding it hard to understand your question with the double negatives. What are you asking?

Black markets don’t appear in a vacuum. They appear when the price of something is artificially high. The makers of a product can charge what they want. If they charge too much, I guarantee people will pop up to fulfill demand at a lower price point. A wise businessperson sets the price low enough to discourage copycats and high enough to make a profit. That’s usually 8 to 20 percent, tops.

Debating the rightness or wrongness of black markets is futile. Trying to legislate against this kind of behavior is futile. Setting the price to something reasonable is the only way to curtail black markets.

Regarding unobtainium PARTS for products that have not been sold for decades, if a copyright holder refuses to make a part available at a fair price (e.g. COGS + SG&A plus a reasonable profit), what is your problem with someone else making a replacement part?

Back that up with something concrete, or it's simply a wild and unsubstantiated claim.

Please indicate where I indicated that I personally felt entitled to steal. Otherwise you're opening yourself to slander. Let's keep this civil. I am an artist and entrepreneur, and I am strongly for copyright.

This is not a trend among younger people. Black markets are as old as trade itself. Don't fool yourself.

No, you are fundamentally confused. Intellectual property is nothing like a liquid asset at all. It cannot be easily bought, sold or transferred. IP carries special protections and restrictions that liquid assets do not.

Your analogies are tortured to say the least. Copyright owners do not have absolute rights, they are tightly controlled by.... wait for it... copyright law!

A slightly better analogy for protecting IP is a department store. They know there will always be some shoplifting and factor it into their pricing. They take reasonable steps to protect against shoplifting, but at some point the cost outweighs the benefit.

Violations of copyright are not like trademark violations, where every violation must be vigorously defended. You won't lose your copyright if someone publishes fan art using your creations.

History has shown this not to be the case for black markets, for which I was arguing will appear no matter what we may want to believe.

See, you're conflating things again. Can you not see a difference between selling a product that is not being sold, and making a counterfeit?

It looks like a parody, and at least one judge agrees.

The right to make a parody exists in copyright law, no matter how much you don't understand how or why.

Our copyright system needs to be adjusted to accommodate things that were never envisioned at outset. Mashups, parts for long-dead products, abandonware, 3d printing, server-based games going offline... the list is long.

It also needs to be returned to the original intent: limited protection in the market to encourage innovation and then it goes into the public domain for the good of all. Instead, greed and entitlement has undermined this intent.

I asked you to substantiate your claim that "China" was waiting to manufacture and sell old pinball machines. You failed to do so.

I don't think we're even having the same conversation here.

You made an untrue claim that IP was the same as a liquid asset. They are vastly different. Feel free to make reasonable arguments otherwise.

One always needs more experience, and I certainly wouldn't be called as a subject matter expert on copyright law. However, I have sold and bought IP. I made money from my IP in my teens and have done so for many decades, thanks to copyright law. I've retained copyright lawyers. I think I know enough on the subject to speak about it.

Again with the straw man argument.

You don't have to ask my permission to create parodies of my work, that's the beauty of copyright law. But since you asked, go for it. I won't stop you. If you try to sell my work or violate the license terms, I will sue you back to the stone age. Just sayin'

What are you talking about WRT charities?