[plopz]

The only part that feels weird about a shorter duration like that is tv/movie adaptations of books. The game of thrones show came out 15 years after the first book, does that mean they would have been able to make it without licensing it from the author?

[ronsor]

It does mean that, and I think that's just something that would have to be accepted. Disney's empire is built on adaptations of public domain stories, after all.

[echelon]

Disney is about to be faced with a landscape where anybody can make Pixar films from home. They're in for a world of hurt in the new regime where thought moves faster than IP.

Film studios only existed because (1) distribution used to be hard and (2) films were financially and logistically difficult to make. Netflix and YouTube slayed the first challenge, and now GenAI will fell the latter and give indie directors the same kind of platform that indie game and indie music folks currently have: true one person studios.

[furyofantares]

Hm, also at 10 years out how likely is the author to be able to convince someone to do a TV adaptation, knowing that by the time they're done someone else will be able to release their own versions (sans royalty even)?

[seabass-labrax]

Apparently the TV series Game of Thrones cost just under $600m to produce[1], and George R. R. Martin earnt something like $100m from royalties as its original author[2]. Although access to the author for advice and publicity must be valuable, that is nonetheless a very large proportion of the profits that I'm sure many studios would rather not have to share!

[1]: https://movies.stackexchange.com/a/100996

[2]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6182197

[ronsor]

Many things are only popular for a relatively short period of time. If someone wants to wait until the copyright period is over to do an adaptation, the source material may no longer be that popular, and the adaptation, even without having paid a single royalty, will be unprofitable.

[echelon]

This is a remarkably salient point.

It can take a long time for certain works to find their wings or true market potential, especially books and music.

Some examples of music: "Take On Me", "Running Up That Hill", "Bohemian Rhapsody", or even bands, like Neutral Milk Hotel

[jhbadger]

You may have a point with a cult band like Neutral Milk Hotel, but songs like Take On Me and Running Up That Hill were incredibly popular when they were new -- it's just that both got a second wave of popularity decades later when they were used on soundtracks of films/shows.

[gosub100]

> does that mean they would have been able to make it without licensing it from the author?

yes and it's possible someone could have done it even better, had they not been required to convince investors to purchase copyright. GoT was a masterpiece, don't get me wrong, but it's a fallacy to think it couldn't have been better, or that other book adaptations could have been as good or better, without copyright being in the way.

It's a minor issue in the grand scheme, but my pet peeve is with "synch licenses" (not sure if that's even the right term), but where sitcoms can't go to home video because of stupid disputes about shitty songs that happened to be included. Did anyone watch "Married With Children" because of Frank Sinatra's song "Love and Marriage" in the intro? It's a catchy song, and I'm sure it lured people in who might have otherwise changed the channel, so yes it has value. But it should only be a tiny fraction of the royalties for a full performance of the song. doubly so for home video releases. Would anyone buy even 1 season of MWC just to hear the Sinatra song? I say no. And therefore should not be required to pay any royalties.

I am watching "Murphy Brown" reruns from pirateflix because apparently it never went to home video because of license disputes about the 60's soul songs in the intro. They add character to the show, for sure. But they're not why I watch the show. I watch it for the story and the acting. In this case, actors (who worked extremely hard over 10 seasons of that show!) are being wrongfully deprived of royalties because record execs can't be reasonable about how much 10 seconds of a 60 -year-old song is worth.

[plopz]

Yeah, thats a big problem with shows that work really well with the music, like Scrubs. I'm glad we have piracy to be able to keep the original works with the intended tracks intact.

[thisislife2]

That can be fixed by limiting copyright to a certain duration per medium. You write a book - you have copyright on paper based books for 15 years. You publish it as Ebooks for desktop and mobile devices - get 15 years on that medium. Convert to visuals on Television &/or Films - 15 years on that medium. Virtual reality - another 15 years and so on ...

[johnmaguire]

Are you suggesting that if you release only a book, anyone could take the story and produce a film based on it, because you didn't publish a film?