Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: Copyright tempest over `The Wind Done Gone' is outrag: Dan Gillmor on Technology: Weds April 25, 2001
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 06:35:41 -0400
D A N G I L L M O R O N T E C H N O L O G Y By Dan Gillmor, Mercury News Technology Columnist E-mail Dan at dgillmor () sjmercury com _____________________________ Copyright tempest over `The Wind Done Gone' is outrageous In the war raging over ``intellectual property,'' the news from the front hasn't been encouraging, as corporate interests slaughter the public good in case after case. But a lawsuit involving the work of a famous American author could help put at least one issue in front of a public that remains remarkably oblivious. On Friday, a federal judge blocked the publishing of a novel called ``The Wind Done Gone'' -- a retelling of the 1936 saga ``Gone With the Wind'' from the perspective of a slave, a half-sister of Scarlett O'Hara. The estate of Margaret Mitchell, the ``Gone With the Wind'' author, had sued on the grounds that the book violated copyright protections. The decision is outrageous enough in its utter contempt for artistic freedom. In particular, the judge didn't care that the book was a parody, a form of literature in which arguments of plagiarism normally don't succeed. But the case should never have come to court. That only happened because Congress has twisted tradition and law beyond all recognition, and a book that should have long since entered the public domain remains protected by copyright. In the Constitution, the Founding Fathers gave Congress the responsibility ``to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'' Note that the purpose of this clause was to promote progress in science and arts, and that those exclusive rights were to be for limited periods. In 1790, copyright terms lasted 14 years, with a 14-year renewal period. But in this century of big and powerful media companies, Congress has turned the idea of ``limited'' into something perversely long, with repeated extensions. The most recent lengthening, enacted in 1998 as the (no kidding) ``Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act,'' made the copyright term the life of the artist plus 70 years, up from life plus 50 years. That law also added two decades to the copyrights ``created'' by corporations, from 75 years to 95. When Mitchell wrote the book, the maximum term was 56 years, said Lawrence Lessig, professor of law at Stanford University. In other words, the copyright should have expired in 1992, and Scarlett O'Hara and her cohorts should have entered the public domain, where any author could do anything he or she pleased with the work. Keep in mind that the constitutional underpinning of the copyright law is two-fold. First, we need a public domain -- a public commons -- of ideas, inventions and cultural works for the betterment of society, hence the limited terms of copyrights (and patents). Second, we give creators of this material an incentive to do the creating. You can make an argument -- a poor one -- that authors, musicians and other creators of arts need longer copyright terms today to have the incentive to write their works. But Margaret Mitchell, who is dead, doesn't need any further incentive to write ``Gone With The Wind.'' Similarly, Walt Disney doesn't need any spur to create Mickey Mouse. And so on. This principle is at the heart of a legal case Lessig and several other lawyers are now arguing before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. It's called Eldred vs. Reno (http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvreno/). A three-judge panel of that court, flouting even recent legal precedent, ruled 2-1 that Congress had the power to extend copyright terms in this cavalier manner. Lessig and his colleagues, including Charles Nessen of Harvard University's Law School, have asked the full appeals court to reconsider. http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvreno/ They're arguing, essentially, that the Sonny Bono law is unconstitutional. If they lose, get used to the idea of indefinite copyright terms. The Walt Disney Co. has more clout with Congress than you do. Why is this so important? Cultural works and inventions don't spring from an utter vacuum. They are the product of other people's ideas and works. Practically every melodic theme in music comes from older works, for example. Snow White was in the public domain before Disney got around to using her to make money. Victor Hugo must be spinning in his grave at the way Disney has turned the Hunchback of Notre Dame into a ridiculous cartoon -- but Disney can do this, can create new ways to look at cultural icons, because the public domain exists. The rise of digital technologies makes it even more essential that we respect the public good, Lessig and his co-counsels argue in the Eldred case. Endless extensions of copyright turn all standard notions of the public domain into so much mush, at great peril to us all. Dan Gillmor's column appears each Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Visit Dan's online column, eJournal (weblog.mercurycenter.com/ejournal). E-mail dgillmor () sjmercury com; phone (408) 920-5016; fax (408) 920-5917. PGP fingerprint: FE68 46C9 80C9 BC6E 3DD0 BE57 AD49 1487 CEDC 5C14. mailto:dgillmor () sjmercury com _____________________________ Don't miss Dan Gillmor's news and views on his ejournal. http://weblog.mercurycenter.com/ejournal/
For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/
Current thread:
- IP: Copyright tempest over `The Wind Done Gone' is outrag: Dan Gillmor on Technology: Weds April 25, 2001 David Farber (Apr 26)