Who owns Rudolph's nose?
creativelawcenter.com
creativelawcenter.com
> Apparently, that state of affairs didn’t sit well with those in charge at Montgomery Ward and the president of the company, Sewall Avery, gave May back the copyright in Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. The book was published on October 4, 1947.
Seems hard to believe it was truly that simple, I wonder what additional nuance there might be to it.
Though I have no idea where I'd even begin to research that besides random web searches.
It probably isn't a coincidence that a goodwill gesture was made in the context of a good corporate Christmas story already, around the generation of a new Christmas story. The company's story behind the story got better, while no doubt feeling like a genuine act of good by the decision maker.
What makes this a holly-jolly Christmas story for me is knowing that the heirs of someone who would have been an unknown author are still benefiting from copyright protection, properly registered and renewed,"
I'm sorry but this is perverse. It's bad enough that we pretend ordinary property should be heritable, much less intangible knowledge.
The current law is still extends the copyright of a work until a time after the author's death. So if one wished to hasten the expiration of those rights, the motivation still exists; although perhaps diminished by a 70 year wait.
Honestly, I find it difficult to understand why a fixed 40 year term isn’t long enough to benefit from copyright. Trademark is already indefinite, JK Rowling is hardly going to be meaningfully harmed if someone publishes a work based on the first Harry Potter book in 2037. Less wealthy authors generally need to keep working anyway. Publish a hit at 22 and perhaps it’s time to start saving for retirement just like everyone else.
Which are life imprisonment for murder. Not some magical "my children must be fed millions without ever working until 70 years after my death".
Seems a lot of risk and effort for a small chance of profit.
There are lots of tax laws that support this.
Do you think it is immoral for creative ip, ip in general, or even money?
Yet he did nothing about it, right up until he needed Rudolph's capabilities to further his own strategic interests.
Holly-jolly? Right, right.
It's completely absurd and rather "Scrooge-like" that there's a bureaucracy that has been micromanaging its use for half a century after the creator died, and will continue to do so for decades to come.