[TulliusCicero]

You seem to have missed what I said. I didn't say nobody gets money 25 years down the line, I said people don't write because of the profits they might get 25 years down the line.

Yes, Netflix might've been able to make The Witcher without paying him, and also random Youtubers, complete nobodies, would've been able to make derivative works as well. That's the whole point of expiring copyright.

Does that favor big corporations? Well, it also means anybody and everybody can make Mickey Mouse content, or use the popular Marvel and DC characters, etc. Do you think Disney is a fan of that idea?

So while corporations would take advantage of it, so would random people, including indie artists.

[zuminator]

I still have to disagree on both counts. First of all, plenty of writers write with at least the hope that their work will continue to generate residual income for the rest of their lives.

Second, no, even with the expiring copyright on Disney's earliest works, people can't just go out and make their own Mickey Mouse content, because there is trademark protection on Mickey Mouse and other major Disney IP, and that can be renewed indefinitely.[0] So even a quickly expiring copyright regime would still favor the deep-pocketed large corporations.

And you might say, well, the little author can trademark their work as well. But most won't. So all Disney and Warner would have to do is sit on the sidelines, trawl through the 25 year old fantasy section for interesting stories and characters that have not been trademarked, and just start use NG them without compensation. And what's worse, by introducing minimal changes to the characters (“Frobo Daggins“) they can then copyright and trademark their derivative works such that even the original author could not turn around and try to benefit from the resurgent popularity of their creation.

Not expecting to change your mind or anything, but I hope I have communicated my misgivings.

[0] https://blogs.luc.edu/ipbytes/2023/08/13/is-disney-losing-mi...