J.Jasper wrote: > Greg Rapawy wrote: >> >> --- David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b at dd-b.net> wrote: >> [...] >>> Quite a lot of interesting literary work has come >>> out of the Sherlock Holmes universe, after the >>> estate no longer controlled it. A lot of >>> literature is heavily based on Shakespeare, and >>> couldn't be if he were still in copyright (consider >>> Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead). >>> I think we agreed earlier that it's important things >>> go into the pot, and the question is *when*. >> >> As an example of particular interest, the Paarfi >> romances might well infringe Dumas' copyright if >> Dumas' works were presently in copyright under modern >> American copyright law. (They wouldn't have under the >> law at the time Dumas wrote, both because foreign >> works were not then covered by American copyright and >> because infringement was then defined much more >> narrowly.) >> >> There might be a viable fair use defense, though. In >> recent years, courts have been broadening the fair use >> doctrine for what are referred to as "transformative" >> works -- works that create new art through the >> innovative use of old material, including but not >> limited to parody. For example, a federal court of >> appeals ultimately reversed the preliminary injunction >> against the publication of "The Wind Done Gone," a >> case which was widely covered in the press. >> >> I think a court could go either way on the question. > > These days, it mostly depends on who installed the judges. The > current government in the USA seems to be mostly interested in > extending copyright for as long as they're paid to do so. The current > administration seem to think it can extend any US law it likes > anywhere in the world and bully other nations into accepting the > change. > > In short, expect things to get worse. I do, and then I expect "Bloody Revolution'. Though I've got hopes of an 'Inteligence Revolution' which is not the same as what recently passed as the 'Imformation Revolution'