Reasons for Opposing the Extension of the Copyright Protection Period

2018/06/26

This is because the expiration of the copyright protection period allows for re-creation—that is, the freedom to create new works based on the original. For example, there are many movies, comics, animations, and TV series featuring Sherlock Holmes as the protagonist. The BBC TV series "Sherlock," which began in 2010 and starred Benedict Cumberbatch, was a masterpiece that added a modern flavor. The 2009 Hollywood film "Sherlock Holmes" was an action mystery that incorporated various new ideas while setting the stage at the end of the 19th century. In Japan, "Sherlock Hound," directed by Hayao Miyazaki, is considered a fine work known to those in the know among anime fans. These groups of works would likely never have seen the light of day if the rights holders of Sherlock Holmes had not given permission or had imposed specific demands on the content.

When the copyright protection period expires, other creators can inject new styles and ideas into a work, reviving a finished piece and providing the public with new creative output. Extending the protection period robs the public of such opportunities. In this sense, the issue of the copyright protection period is a matter that concerns many people.

So, what are the arguments of those who say the protection period should be extended? As I see it, there are two main arguments, but both seem weak. First, there is the opinion that creative activities are only possible if the creator's income is maintained and their livelihood is protected. This is a natural idea if the purpose of copyright is to protect the interests of the creator. However, the protection period occurs after the creator's death, and the creator no longer has a livelihood to protect. While there may be surviving family members, children will have reached adulthood after 20 years. It is hard to justify extending the protection period to more than 50 years after death for the sake of protecting the creator's livelihood.

Second, there is the opinion that extending the protection period is necessary as an incentive for creative activity. The idea is that if the protection period is extended, the income going to the bereaved family increases accordingly, which serves as encouragement for the creator at the present time and stimulates creative activity. However, very few works continue to generate income 50 years after the author's death, and extending the protection period hardly increases income at all. According to my estimates, in the case of books, the rate of increase in revenue obtained by extending the protection period is limited to 1–2% (1). In terms of royalty rates, it is only an increase from 10% to 10.2%, and it is hard to believe that an increase of this magnitude would serve as a stimulus for an author to write another book. Extending the protection period is almost meaningless as an incentive for creation.

The actual proponents of extending the protection period are not these individual creators, but American film companies. A famous example is Disney, which holds the copyright to Mickey Mouse and engages in lobbying activities whenever the copyright protection period is about to expire. Alternatively, it is various copyright organizations centered on industry groups. Since the job of a copyright organization is to expand copyright, they argue for the extension of the protection period almost automatically as part of their role. However, their views do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the individual creators who actually perform the creative work. In fact, when the extension of the copyright protection period was discussed at the Agency for Cultural Affairs in Japan around 2008, individual creators who opposed the extension formed a group and conducted an active opposition movement, leading to the extension being postponed. Because individual creators are also in a position to use the works of their predecessors for re-creation, many people emerge who oppose the extension.

Creation is something done by building upon the achievements of predecessors and developing them. If you think about it, old classical works that are not even subject to copyright have been re-created by many people. For example, the musical "West Side Story" is based on "Romeo and Juliet," and if you look only at the plot, it could be called close to a rip-off; however, it was because this was permitted that we were able to encounter a new "Romeo and Juliet" set in New York. If the copyright protection period expires, similar re-creations will occur everywhere. Classical works have not been diminished by re-creation; rather, they have become familiar to many people around the world and have contributed to the development of culture. Classical works and current works are the same, and it might be better to treat creative works as the common property of humanity after a certain period, allowing everyone to use them as nourishment for the next creation. Wouldn't that foster a richer culture? This is the reason for opposing the extension of the protection period.

(1) See Tatsuo Tanaka and Koichiro Hayashi, 2008, "Copyright Protection Period—Does Extension Promote Culture?", Keiso Shobo, p. 73.

*Affiliations and titles are those at the time of writing.