Copyright: Forever Less One Day

Why isn't the original video available on YouTube anymore?

DFTBA

lol

Patrick and Rachel

Wow, this video is 12 years into its own copyright

BrutusTheCat

Listening to Grey bag on the prequels, it's weird since now they seem slightly better by comparison to ep 7-9 (at least for me and probably enough people to make this at least a valid comment even if it isn't universally true).

Stephen Tures

https://www.patreon.com/posts/grey-rewatches-96102312?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copyLink&utm_campaign=postshare_fan&utm_content=join_link

I think in the scenario where an original creator of their family sells the IP to a non-familial entity then there can be time limits on how long they can solely posses it before having to sell the general rights to somebody else or make it public domain.

Wyatt Claypool

A bit crude but I tend to agree with Razorfist over how the public domain often ruins properties and does not contribute to greater product quality or creativity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV1DxpXllC8&ab_channel=TheRageaholic Also I think it would have been good to recognize that even if Disney could not get his original properties through public domain if there was a family inheritor of those properties who hadn't voided their hold on the intellectual property he could have just licensed the properties from them. It probably would not have even cost that much seeing as those old properties are only as notable as they are today because of Disney. In fact that is what happened to the 1939 Wizard of Oz movie. Metro-Goldwyn purchased the film rights from Frank Baum's estate and when plans fell through Disney then purchased the rights. Disney wasn't exactly the world's biggest studio in 1938-39 and saw no issue licensing the ability to make an Oz film. Oz was still a massive property back then. IP at the end of the day is all about being able to control the use of your intellectual property. Intellectual property would not exist without your creation of it. Even JK Rowling is an interesting example as she has allowed for a lot of Harry Potter content to be made by others with her supervision. Of course, she wants to profit off of her own IP but the fact she also wants oversight on Harry Potter movies, theme parks, etc, also shows she cares about the brand integrity in the long run. She doesn't just want to crank out new editions of her old books over and over again and prevent new material from being made.

Wyatt Claypool

I would love a series of Grey revisiting his old videos and talking about them. Sort of like the directors commentary videos but add on how his views have changed.

Sodernaut

On the one hand, it feels like, "well then just make something new, how much could the world be missing if all you're gonna do is repeat someone else's work". But on the other hand, extending it seven decades past the death of the author is clearly specifically targeted to particular companies who are just trying to be money-grubbing. I'm not opposed to a healthy copyright length for a work. Even if it's not about money, if I do make something I love I don't wanna necessarily turn around and see five years later someone else is trying to cash in on the shock value of "this thing people like but I made the main character racist." But well past the life of the author is preposterous and greedy.

Mac

Not the vault! I've always loved this video as one of those that significantly shaped my view on copyright. I'd love to see Grey do an updated video with Mickey now being somewhat in the public domain

enchantedsleeper