Copyrights, Bloody Copyrights!!

[perc2100]

8 hours ago, OldCorpsGuy said:

This is where most people filing copyright complaints are short sighted. They are using your music in the Olympics. They are going to post what the music is. What does “free advertising and exposure” mean to you? 

Lol; "free advertising and exposure" won't pay the bills for a creator's work.  You know, most professional composers pay the bills with their day job of composing music, and anyone wanting to use another's creative art 100% should have to go through all of the necessary legal channels to do so.

[perc2100]

5 hours ago, KVG_DC said:

In addition to the 'creating is work' argument, my understanding of how copyright laws work is "if you don't defend it, you effectively don't have it."  So, say they don't defend their rights to the license for the olympics because 'hey millions of people world wide will be hearing my name associated with my creative composition!'  Then some corporation hocks it for a project and makes a ton of money using it.  You sue the corporation and the court determination is ... "tough luck kid, you didn't defend your copyright before that."   So SOME form of licensing needs to be there so artists can control the decision, and ideally the fee, for their work in different situations, but where lawyers are involved, fees go up.

This is true, and there are a myriad of real life cases regarding this in US copyright history:
* George Romero's classic film, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, essentially established the 'zombie rules' used half a century later in non-related movies and TV.  It was a critical hit, and is held as a 'gold standard' as far as do-it-yourself horror films.  Unfortunately, he and his partners totally forgot to file the US copyright claim and the film is essentially in the public domain and has been since day 1: there are a TON of different home movie releases of the film where Romero earns $0 from them.

* DC Comics established a character named 'Captain Marvel' way BITD.  But they stopped using it, so Marvel Comics established their own Captain Marvel (technically several different versions of Captain Marvel, or...er...Captain Mar-vell in some cases).  At first DC didn't fight Marvel, and it didn't matter anyway because it was too late: "use it or lose it" so to speak.  But DC was able to salvage their character, he just typically goes under the name Shazam nowadays.

* Just recently comic book writer/creator Robert Kirkman (The Walking Dead; Invincible; among others) had a comic 20+ years ago called 'Capes.'  Another comic writer wanted to use that as a title to their own comic story, but Kirkman beat 'em to the punch.  Capes was a story about a world where Superheroes were run by a for-profit corporation, Superheroes were paid a salary, etc.  It only ran for three issues, and Kirkman kind of folded some of those ideas into his much more successful (and better written) Invincible book.  He realized recently that Capes had been out of print for awhile, so he reprinted/potentially rebooted the series: partially because he and a partner have ideas on how to continue the story, but also because with the comic out of print he didn't want to lose the rights to the characters or the title 'Capes.'

[Jeff Ream]

On 2/5/2026 at 9:28 AM, OldCorpsGuy said:

This is where most people filing copyright complaints are short sighted. They are using your music in the Olympics. They are going to post what the music is. What does “free advertising and exposure” mean to you? 

loss of immediate revenue. because not only do you have NBC ( they have the Olympics right), you also have every other country broadcasting it that has to $$ up

[Jeff Ream]

On 2/5/2026 at 10:39 AM, Lance said:

The people who need to understand this never will.  

For IP creators who still hold rights to their own work, you don't get to tell them what to do with it.  You may like the idea of your work featured in the Olympics for free, but everybody is not you.  Composers like Maslanka were probably offered very attractive financial compensation for the use of their work, but it wasn't what he wanted to see done with his IP.  Creative types can be fiercely protective of their labors of love.  

When it comes to corporations seeking out copyright violations, remember that somebody created an IP and CHOSE to sell it to another entity, whether it be a corporation or whatever else.  That entity gets to choose who can use it and for what price.  Period.  

Remember Phantom and the 08 DVD's...after the initial batch, the copyright holder didn't like part of it and pulled their permission. boom future editions didn't have the full championship show.

[kevingamin]

6 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

Remember Phantom and the 08 DVD's...after the initial batch, the copyright holder didn't like part of it and pulled their permission. boom future editions didn't have the full championship show.

I got lucky and received one of those original batch sets for Christmas that year.

[perc2100]

7 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

loss of immediate revenue. because not only do you have NBC ( they have the Olympics right), you also have every other country broadcasting it that has to $$ up

Seriously; anyone trying to argue "creatives should let their work be used for free by the billion dollar multi-media corporation and all other international billion dollar networks" is a fool.  Exposure doesn't pay any bills

[Jeff Ream]

18 hours ago, kevingamin said:

I got lucky and received one of those original batch sets for Christmas that year.

same. i ordered the day it was able to be ordered

[Jeff Ream]

17 hours ago, perc2100 said:

Seriously; anyone trying to argue "creatives should let their work be used for free by the billion dollar multi-media corporation and all other international billion dollar networks" is a fool.  Exposure doesn't pay any bills

look at all of the music Bloo has exposed us too the last few years....quick....how many people went running to buy the original works.

 

 

i'll wait.

[Slingerland]

35 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

look at all of the music Bloo has exposed us too the last few years....quick....how many people went running to buy the original works.

 

 

i'll wait.

That is generally true for the activity as a whole over the decades - it has nothing to do with whether rights clearances should be sought and obtained. There are some creators who might be thrilled for the exposure and negotiate low cost or no cost deals, but that's really up to them. There are others who might not want their work trivialized or chopped up in the style that most corps do these days, and it's equally their right to decide against granting rights to their work.

Edited February 7 by Slingerland

[perc2100]

On 2/6/2026 at 2:59 PM, perc2100 said:

Seriously; anyone trying to argue "creatives should let their work be used for free by the billion dollar multi-media corporation and all other international billion dollar networks" is a fool.  Exposure doesn't pay any bills

Kind of comically, every performer that appears on the Super Bowl Half Time performance gets SAG union scale: around $1500 or so.  Apple Music pays the production costs (which is in the millions), but the actual performers get next to nothing.  So for those keeping track at home, the largest non-profit on earth (NFL) and the most wealthy company on earth (Apple) still work on a "forget the pay: it's good exposure!" when it comes to artists performing at the Super Bowl.  Now, of course, Bad Bunny doesn't need any exposure at this point in his career, which is the same for anyone that performs at the Super Bowl (though traditionally there's a substantial spike in streaming and music downloads immediately following a SB performance).  But it's amusing and kinda sad that even the mega-billions corporations still work the "do it for exposure!" nonsense that every bar owner and concert promoter pushes onto up-and-coming musicians