Re: Copyright Extension

Martin Perlberger writes (concerning Larry Urbanski's contentions on who is backing the proposed copyright extension):
>
> Why wouldn't the motion picture studios pay for rights to extended
> copyrights underlying motion picture subjects as much as benefit?

     The answer here, I believe, lies in the asymmetrical positions of (1) people who use public domain material to create new works and (2) owners of copyrights on works that are coming near the end of their copyright lives. The feelings of the latter group are easy to understand: One has only to think of how Disney's management must feel about the prospect of Mickey Mouse's entering the public domain (although Disney's strong trademark rights might nevertheless allow them to retain substantial control over Mickey himself). The psychology affecting the former group, however, is more subtle. I doubt, for example, that very many film studios are making elaborate plans to create new films based on works about to enter the public domain. The public domain has rather a diffuse value to a broad segment of creative artists and scholars. The sum total of that value to society is very large--much larger, I believe, than the value to their current owners of Mickey Mouse and similar well known old works that have retained their value through the years--but few individuals or businesses feel the sting of extension as poignantly. The absence of a building block from the public domain, in short, is less noticeable to the author whose ox is gored--and to the general public, because the loss is in works NOT created that they can never know about--than is the falling into the public domain of a protected work that is still producing revenue.

> Why wouldn't song licensees, such as broadcasters, recording companies,
> have clout to defeat copyright extension?

     My guess here is that broadcasters and recording companies must in any event take out licenses from ASCAP and BMI, because much of their subject matter will be under copyright even without the extension. In theory these licenses should cost less to the extent a given station plays public domain music, but since there is no real market in operation in this field, these users may feel that extension is only a minor part of their problem. But it's a good question. I do not understand why such users of copyright-protected works have not taken a more active role in opposing the extension.

Dennis S. Karjala
Professor of Law
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona 85287
602-965-4010
602-965-2427 (fax)
dennis.karjala[_at_]asu.edu Received on Tue Mar 26 1996 - 17:19:54 GMT