PoolCleaningRobot said:
Entitled said:
The aspect of copyright that bothers me a lot more, is the way it equates vaguer ideas, and content types, with the product that is actually being created by someone.
Well technically you can't copyright vague ideas. An example would be when Naked Gun lampooned a photo of pregenant Demi Moore from an issue Vanity Fair. The photographer lost the lawsuit because you can't own the rights to something vague like a pose
Yes, that's what "Fair Use" is supposed to be for, I just feel that even the widest applied usages of that are ridiculously narrow compared to what a healthy culture should have.
If works like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, The Wide Sargasso Sea, Or Alan Moore's The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, would be written based on anything created after 1918, they would be treated as unpublishable "fanfiction" even in the best copyright systems, and
illegal to exist in the rest, persecuted by Cease and Desist letters.
Not bbecause they are artistically uniriginal pieces of theft and plagiarism (they are great creative works), but because of a handful of names they used, and situations that they have admittedly built from.
When at one time we are getting psyched up over the "canon", and "worldbuilding" that is entirely based on a corporation practicing their exclusive rights over a franchise, while at the same time bemoaning the abundance of "old safe IPs, all that we are talking about is just copyright law's strict