Wapsi Square Forum

Get one of these and put a gun in it's hand...

“Beloved author Atsali Gilchrist's debut effort, the acclaimed If You Give a Whatsit What-For, was a resounding success with elder siblings the world over.”

Catawampus wrote:“Beloved author Atsali Gilchrist's debut effort, the acclaimed If You Give a Whatsit What-For, was a resounding success with elder siblings the world over.”

Sadly, she couldn't use that title - "If You Give a ..." is a trademark. (NOT copyrighted, BTW - which means it's trademarked as long as someone renews it, unlike copyright, which eventually expires.)

AnotherFairportfan wrote:

Catawampus wrote:“Beloved author Atsali Gilchrist's debut effort, the acclaimed If You Give a Whatsit What-For, was a resounding success with elder siblings the world over.”

Sadly, she couldn't use that title - "If You Give a ..." is a trademark. (NOT copyrighted, BTW - which means it's trademarked as long as someone renews it, unlike copyright, which eventually expires.)

Sadly, the copyright now lasts far longer than it ever should have. Thanks Disney.

Though it was nice to see th@t bite them in the ass for the wicked witch's design at the end of Oz the Great and Powerful.

Gyrrakavian wrote:Sadly, the copyright now lasts far longer than it ever should have. Thanks Disney.

Though it was nice to see th@t bite them in the ass for the wicked witch's design at the end of Oz the Great and Powerful.

It's just evidence that we have the best Congress that money can buy!

On the bright side, though, we can at least sing Happy Birthday without being shaken down for royalties.

Gyrrakavian wrote:

AnotherFairportfan wrote:

Catawampus wrote:“Beloved author Atsali Gilchrist's debut effort, the acclaimed If You Give a Whatsit What-For, was a resounding success with elder siblings the world over.”

Sadly, she couldn't use that title - "If You Give a ..." is a trademark. (NOT copyrighted, BTW - which means it's trademarked as long as someone renews it, unlike copyright, which eventually expires.)

Sadly, the copyright now lasts far longer than it ever should have. Thanks Disney.

Though it was nice to see th@t bite them in the ass for the wicked witch's design at the end of Oz the Great and Powerful.

That's not copyright. That's trademark/service mark.

Though the film is in copyright - however, that's not really Disney's doing - that's due to the US accepting the terms of the Berne Convention, and the corporation being accepted as the "author" of the work.

Speaking as the brother of a popular creator of Intellectual Property, i have to say that current copyright terms are a Good Thing in the case of works created by Real People, who have children and grandchildren they need to provide for.

Speaking as the brother of a popular creator of Intellectual Property, i have to say that current copyright terms are a Good Thing in the case of works created by Real People, who have children and grandchildren they need to provide for.

It can be overdone though... as the melancholy elephants reveal.

Warrl wrote:

Speaking as the brother of a popular creator of Intellectual Property, i have to say that current copyright terms are a Good Thing in the case of works created by Real People, who have children and grandchildren they need to provide for.

It can be overdone though... as the melancholy elephants reveal.

When did Spider write that? The mention of a "Copyright Office" that rejects applications for copyright is counterfactual, and has been for quite a long time.

The only reason to register a copyright these days is that if you don't, it's harder to prove that you created it and just when you did.

It used to be that if you didn't properly register your work, it wasn't copyrighted - which is why, for years, the original "Star Trek" episodes were Public Domain (though it was still illegal to create new material using the characters or settings - trademark vs. copyright again). These days, copyright automatically exists in a work from the moment of its completion, no registration required.

AnotherFairportfan wrote:

Warrl wrote:

Speaking as the brother of a popular creator of Intellectual Property, i have to say that current copyright terms are a Good Thing in the case of works created by Real People, who have children and grandchildren they need to provide for.

It can be overdone though... as the melancholy elephants reveal.

When did Spider write that?

Well, he mentions in the intro that it won a Hugo in 1983, so 1982-1983 for the original publication date would be a good estimate. He also mentions that it was two years before the first Macintosh was sold, which was in 1984, so again 1982 is indicated.

The mention of a "Copyright Office" that rejects applications for copyright is counterfactual, and has been for quite a long time.

You did notice that it's a fictional story? It's certainly plausible that a copyright office would work like a patent office, screening to avoid issuing new patents/copyrights on old material/technology, when all records are electronically searchable. We currently have no such system, it's up to copyright holders to police for plagiarism, but there's no reason the system couldn't exist in the future.

And if that is combined with excessively long copyrights, the only sane response is to publish Dvorak's tweets*.

* that particular bit of story runs 6-7 pages, link is to the first

Dave wrote:

Gyrrakavian wrote:Sadly, the copyright now lasts far longer than it ever should have. Thanks Disney.

Though it was nice to see th@t bite them in the ass for the wicked witch's design at the end of Oz the Great and Powerful.

It's just evidence that we have the best Congress that money can buy!

You know what? I don't think you've been getting your money's worth, in the last seven years...

lake_wrangler wrote:

Dave wrote:

Gyrrakavian wrote:Sadly, the copyright now lasts far longer than it ever should have. Thanks Disney.

Though it was nice to see th@t bite them in the ass for the wicked witch's design at the end of Oz the Great and Powerful.

It's just evidence that we have the best Congress that money can buy!

You know what? I don't think you've been getting your money's worth, in the last seven years...

Agreed.

Disney is one of the biggest proponents of coyriggt and trademark extension. It's why they support the TPP (tras Pacific Partnership)..

lake_wrangler wrote:

Dave wrote:

Gyrrakavian wrote:Sadly, the copyright now lasts far longer than it ever should have. Thanks Disney.

Though it was nice to see th@t bite them in the ass for the wicked witch's design at the end of Oz the Great and Powerful.

It's just evidence that we have the best Congress that money can buy!

You know what? I don't think you've been getting your money's worth, in the last seven years...

For which we are duly grateful . . .

--FrfeeFlier

lake_wrangler wrote:

Dave wrote:

Gyrrakavian wrote:Sadly, the copyright now lasts far longer than it ever should have. Thanks Disney.

Though it was nice to see th@t bite them in the ass for the wicked witch's design at the end of Oz the Great and Powerful.

It's just evidence that we have the best Congress that money can buy!

You know what? I don't think you've been getting your money's worth, in the last seven years...

Far longer than that. We've been paying twice what we ought to be paying, and Congress has still run up massive debt and other liabilities. Which THEY will never have to pay or suffer the consequences of not paying - WE will.