Question: just how far has copyright gone? I've given up my idea of using song lyrics as titles for my book. What I'd have to go through to get permission is time better spent on research and writing.
A related thought has occurred to me, however. I'm planning on calling one chapter "The Plural of Apocalypse", with full credit to ME and Jane Espenson of course (A New Man - Season 4). Is this fair use - or do I need permission here too? Not quite so big a pain, cause ME is an ongoing concern - so no tracking concerns. The worst they can say is no. But, I hope a four word quote from a 40+ minute television script does not require permission, or royalties.
TB, honestly? I don't know. It's not something I've had to deal with, since what I wanted to use was individual lines from Millay's poems as chapter headers, and her estate, down the line, is famous for blanket refusal to use anything except the full poems (I believe Jill Balcon, Cecil Day-Lewis' widow, is equally fierce about usage of her husband's work).
That's one of those things where I'd ping the writers and ask, either what their policy on fair use is, or whether they'd waive it and let you use it.
How would you get in contact with the writers? Is there a SooperSekrit "Really, I'm not just a fan trying to bother you, I've got a legitimate question" way of access?
There are permissions specialist who, as part of their job, track down who holds what permission and where that person is. They can make top dollar, and if you've ever tried to clear something with the estate of Frida Kahlo, you understand why. (Let us say there was foot-dragging and procrastination south of the border, and it was the permissions specialist who called up and bothered them every day till they got the signed forms out the door.) When it's really bad, and nobody knows who the copyright holder is, you can go to specialist lawyers, who crawl through crap like probate research.
Copyright law, last I checked, was such that works published in 1923 are free and clear; but works published in 1924 will remains under copyright for another, what, another 15 years. (It was a blanket extension.) You know why 1924, and why the extension 5 years ago? Walt Disney.
Steamboat Willie, and thus copyright ownership (but not trademark, which I think lasts forever) on the character of Mickey Mouse, was about to age out of copyright. Realistically, it's trademark that matters, because it's all about the image/likeness, but let it not be said that a corporation would let go of something it owned. So, huge lobby in Congress, and poof! The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act.
The first copyright law was 7 years from the date of publication. (And even when it's counted as life-of-author+, it's perforce "counted life-of-author or publication date, whichever is later", to avoid the very circumstance Deb describes above.) We're now up to about 100 years of copyright protection, and in 15 years, I bet Disney will be lobbying to make it 150.
Spider Robinson wrote a short story about copyright in perpetuity. I can't remember the title. In the story, the wife of a famous song writer is lobbying against the idea, which surprises people. She points out that her husband realized his most famous song was built off a lullaby he'd heard as a child, and if works were copyrighted forever, then there was a good chance that the flow of ideas would eventually be choked off.
Nutty's correct on all counts - 1924 was the big divisive year, thanks to Der Maus. The big profitable estates and corps are really big on the "mine forever! mine! MINE!" school of copyright enforcement.
And when you use the IP word - "intellectual property" - cans of worms the size of Cthulu get opened.
The permission specialists are one way to go. It's a lot easier if you have an agent or publisher for your work already; as harrowing as trying to track down the niece of the second cousin twice removed/legatee of Millay's estate was (we were on publishing deadline, and she just stayed invisible for way longer than was comfortable), it would have been far worse without the official letterhead of Pan UK to back it up.
The big profitable estates and corps are really big on the "mine forever! mine! MINE!" school of copyright enforcement.
I always wondered where WB got that aspect of Daffy Duck's character.
I always wondered where WB got that aspect of Daffy Duck's character.
Heh. I seem to remember a small TV documentary on the history of the Warner Brothers cartoons, and the literaly loonytoons who came up with my favourite cartoon critters ever, and there was a lot of deep, deep digging at the Disney boys.
That whole copyright thing - bringing this even more firmly back on topic - is a lynchpin in Kavalier and Klay, as well.
God, that was good.(But now, stupid me, I'm wrestling with Infinite Jest which is making me feel like a cartoon of a blonde woman. But there are assassins in wheelchairs in it.)
But there are assassins in wheelchairs in it.
Dude, what's not to love?
