Comment by testdelacc1

Comment by testdelacc1 a day ago

3 replies

I like this system but it will make the rich richer. Disney will never have a problem paying the $100k or even $10M from something that is generating revenue. But the heirs of a mildly successful author won’t be able to, leaving those works to be harvested for free by Disney et al.

The current system, for all its faults, gives rich and poor the same benefits.

Keeping The Fellowship of the Ring by JRR Tolkien (published 1954) would have forced the Tolkien estate to pay $100k in 1982 on minimal revenues. Then $10M in 1996 in the hope that they would recoup it in a future film licensing agreement. Except no one would pay $10M+ to license it when they could just wait until 2010 to pay $0 and make it without any conditions being stipulated by the Tolkien estate.

So the Tolkien Estate would have let copyright lapse in 1996 and the eventual adaption would have grossed $900 million, of which they’d have seen $0. Followed by 2 more adaptations that grossed $1 billion each.

Edit: downvote if you want, but nothing I’ve said is inaccurate or incorrect.

martiuk a day ago

The idea of an exponential fee is a good one, in what universe does a _single_ Disney IP become worth over $1T?

  • testdelacc1 a day ago

    Did you mean to reply to someone else? I agreed with Disney paying more. My issue is with small time authors being unable to afford the fee and people wanting to license the content just waiting out each 14 year term out to see if the author will renew instead of simply licensing it. The example I gave is the Lord of the Rings.

    The proposed system doesn’t affect Disney that much, but it will negatively affect small timers.