You can't be inspired by The Return of the King because of copy right laws? You will need to explain that. Now it is true you just can't take it and use because it belongs the estate of the man who wrote them but feel free to be inspired.
There's personal inspiration, and there's attempting to commercialize it. In a different part of the post, someone mentioned "modernizing" Jane Austen with such things as "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" (or whatever). Because RotK's copyright has been retroactively extended, you can't do anything similar despite the fact the man's been dead for almost 40 years.
Why Johnny Can't Read Any New Public Domain Books In The US: Because Nothing New Entered The P.D.
- 03/01/2012 11:33:34 PM
1789 Views
I find it difficult to see this as stealing rights from the public.
- 04/01/2012 11:15:35 AM
922 Views
Are you arguing for illegal use of legally protected works?
- 04/01/2012 09:34:18 PM
852 Views
No. I'm saying that keeping works in copyright doesn't stop them from being read, watched, etc.
- 04/01/2012 10:24:50 PM
860 Views
That's not the point, though.
- 05/01/2012 01:05:17 PM
906 Views
????
- 05/01/2012 03:22:58 PM
880 Views
Re: ????
- 05/01/2012 04:04:21 PM
920 Views
That isn't inspiration that wanting to use the popularity of the original to promote your work
- 05/01/2012 05:04:25 PM
879 Views
I don't get it.
- 04/01/2012 05:51:19 PM
1141 Views
You know those Jane Austen parodies? Only because Jane Austen is in the public domain.
- 04/01/2012 09:32:20 PM
948 Views
Parody is actually covered by the legal definition of fair use so doesn't break copyright.
- 04/01/2012 10:28:08 PM
927 Views
I'm fairly sure the Jane Austen parodies do in fact use actual paragraphs... no? *NM*
- 04/01/2012 10:31:32 PM
494 Views
The zombies one doesn't precisely. It's somewhat modernised. I've not read the others.
- 04/01/2012 10:32:59 PM
861 Views
Yes, they take tons of text from actual books. Contrast this with Ms. Rowling's reaction. *NM*
- 05/01/2012 07:01:46 PM
405 Views
If there's zero chance of needing a lawyer at some point, it's way more likely to actually happen.
- 04/01/2012 10:43:23 PM
950 Views
Answering you specifically
- 05/01/2012 04:57:33 PM
880 Views
Patents and copyrights aren't meant to last forever (shouldn't, anyway)
- 04/01/2012 10:33:30 PM
909 Views
I know they aren't. I don't necessarily agree that they shouldn't though.
- 05/01/2012 05:01:05 PM
824 Views
Re: I know they aren't. I don't necessarily agree that they shouldn't though.
- 06/01/2012 12:47:50 AM
843 Views
That is a very confusing article.
- 04/01/2012 10:19:22 PM
975 Views
Works published between 1923 and 1978 are different
- 04/01/2012 10:25:16 PM
901 Views
Do you think it is right that Disney can protect its movies?
- 05/01/2012 05:29:08 PM
852 Views
Ok, what has movies Disney done lately that were on par with its classics? *NM*
- 05/01/2012 07:44:20 PM
387 Views
And speaking of Disney's classics...
- 05/01/2012 10:06:16 PM
1007 Views
Until Disney discovered and copyrighted them, they obviouslty didn't exist. *NM*
- 06/01/2012 12:58:55 AM
422 Views
OK why is that even a point of argument?
- 06/01/2012 02:42:47 PM
854 Views
No incentive to make great new works if they can just keep re-releasing Lion King in 3D *NM*
- 06/01/2012 09:45:38 PM
469 Views
I'm a lot older than your five year old, but I'm not sure I disagree Tangled is better.
- 06/01/2012 11:12:32 PM
908 Views
Well, if corporations are now people, then maybe their copyright could be different? *shrug*
- 05/01/2012 07:57:38 PM
1002 Views
Re: Well, if corporations are now people, then maybe their copyright could be different? *shrug*
- 06/01/2012 01:18:04 AM
901 Views
Can you back that up?
- 06/01/2012 04:17:35 AM
1026 Views
Re: Can you back that up?
- 06/01/2012 06:02:01 PM
818 Views
Artist/Singers used to *always* be on tour in order to make a living.
- 06/01/2012 09:34:44 PM
1108 Views