the Propertization of Copyright" (September 2002), University of
Chicago Law School, James M. Olin Program in Law and Economics,
Working Paper No. 159. </para></footnote>
+<indexterm><primary>General Film Company</primary></indexterm>
</para>
</blockquote>
<para>
</para>
<para>
This is an exception within the law of copyright. When John Grisham
-writes a novel, a publisher is free to publish that novel only if Grisham
-gives the publisher permission. Grisham, in turn, is free to charge
- whatever
-he wants for that permission. The price to publish Grisham is
-thus set by Grisham, and copyright law ordinarily says you have no
-permission to use Grisham's work except with permission of Grisham.
+writes a novel, a publisher is free to publish that novel only if
+Grisham gives the publisher permission. Grisham, in turn, is free to
+charge whatever he wants for that permission. The price to publish
+Grisham is thus set by Grisham, and copyright law ordinarily says you
+have no permission to use Grisham's work except with permission of
+Grisham.
+<indexterm><primary>Grisham, John</primary></indexterm>
</para>
-<indexterm><primary>Beatles</primary></indexterm>
<para>
But the law governing recordings gives recording artists less. And
-thus, in effect, the law subsidizes the recording industry through a kind
-of piracy—by giving recording artists a weaker right than it otherwise
-gives creative authors. The Beatles have less control over their creative
-work than Grisham does. And the beneficiaries of this less control are
-the recording industry and the public. The recording industry gets
-something of value for less than it otherwise would pay; the public gets
-access to a much wider range of musical creativity. Indeed, Congress
-was quite explicit about its reasons for granting this right. Its fear was
-the monopoly power of rights holders, and that that power would
- stifle
-
follow-on creativity.<footnote><para>
+thus, in effect, the law subsidizes the recording industry through a
+kind of piracy—by giving recording artists a weaker right than
+it otherwise gives creative authors. The Beatles have less control
+over their creative work than Grisham does. And the beneficiaries of
+this less control are the recording industry and the public. The
+recording industry gets something of value for less than it otherwise
+would pay; the public gets access to a much wider range of musical
+creativity. Indeed, Congress was quite explicit about its reasons for
+granting this right. Its fear was the monopoly power of rights
+holders, and that that power would stifle follow-on
+creativity.<footnote><para>
<!-- f10 -->
Copyright Law Revision: Hearings on S. 2499, S. 2900, H.R. 243, and
H.R. 11794 Before the ( Joint) Committee on Patents, 60th Cong., 1st
in Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act, E. Fulton Brylawski and
Abe Goldman, eds. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976).
</para></footnote>
+<indexterm><primary>Beatles</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<para>
While the recording industry has been quite coy about this recently,
on a tiny television set in the corner of the room. How could it hurt?
Groening was happy to have it in the film, but he told Else to contact
Gracie Films, the company that produces the program.
+<indexterm><primary>Gracie Films</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<para>
Gracie Films was okay with it, too, but they, like Groening, wanted
Else called Fox and told them about the clip in the corner of the one
room shot of the film. Matt Groening had already given permission,
Else said. He was just confirming the permission with Fox.
+<indexterm><primary>Gracie Films</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<para>
Then, as Else told me, "two things happened. First we discovered
Brief of Amici Dr. Seuss Enterprise et al., Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537
U.S. (2003) (No. 01-618), 19.
</para></footnote>
-That was also the motive of
-the Gershwin estate, which defended its "protection" of the work of
-George Gershwin. They refuse, for example, to license Porgy and Bess
-
to anyone who refuses to use African Americans in the cast.<footnote><para>
+That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate, which defended its
+"protection" of the work of George Gershwin. They refuse, for example,
+to license Porgy and Bess to anyone who refuses to use African
+Americans in the cast.<footnote><para>
<!-- f15. -->
Dinitia Smith, "Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey
Mouse Joins the Fray," New York Times, 28 March 1998, B7.
</para></footnote>
That's
-
<!-- PAGE BREAK 241 -->
their view of how this part of American culture should be controlled,
and they wanted this law to help them effect that control.
+<indexterm><primary>Gershwin, George</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<para>
This argument made clear a theme that is rarely noticed in this
of content ("content conducers," as attorney Mia Garlick calls them)
who help build the public domain and, by their work, demonstrate the
importance of the public domain to other creativity.
+<indexterm><primary>Garlick, Mia</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<para>
The aim is not to fight the "All Rights Reserved" sorts. The aim is to
to run for the same term as the underlying copyright. The derivative
right could be important in inducing creativity; it is not important long
after the creative work is done.
+<indexterm><primary>Grisham, John</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<para>
Scope: Likewise should the scope of derivative rights be narrowed.
projects / text-free-culture-lessig.git / blobdiff