Personally, I fully support this "Willingham copyright". 20 years for the creators (I would have said 50, but I guess I'm greedy), and then a limited private run so that the creator can sell it and get a nice mature payment for it (again, would have gone 20 years on this, just to get the companies that are going to do a 10-movie saga plenty to salivate over), and then it's off to the public domain! Sounds perfect, to me!
My way would have kept it out of public hands for ~70 years, which feels about right to me. I don't know if I, personally, feel like content made in the 90's shouldn't profit the creator anymore. Whereas stuff from the 50's and before definitely feels like no one should be able to take ownership of it. If it stuck around that long, it's in the pop culture and belongs to all of us. "Mickey Mouse" isn't just a character, it's a touchstone for other content to riff on. That's kind of the whole point of public domain; that and reinvention.
All of that said, I guess "Ghostbusters" kind of has a similar pop culture weight so I'm happy to amend my numbers down toward Bill's. My main interest is in making sure creators get paid commensurate to the impact of their work (as opposed to the work they put in to make it), in such a way that they can make a living off any profitable endeavor for the duration of that project's viability. If 30 years works for that, then I'm completely for it!
I think 10-15 years of exclusivity, followed by 20 years of compulsory licensing before entering the public domain would be even more fair. That way, creators can get paid for longer, while further creativity is less stifled.
I would agree with your preference, especially because many artists have to retire off of their creations, and also disabled people are likely more represented in art. The woman who wrote Jonathan strange & mr norrell has severe chronic fatigue syndrome, obviously can’t work. By the presented logic she’s almost out of time for earnings, and she’s nowhere near old enough where that wouldn’t be significant.
My way would have kept it out of public hands for ~70 years, which feels about right to me. I don't know if I, personally, feel like content made in the 90's shouldn't profit the creator anymore. Whereas stuff from the 50's and before definitely feels like no one should be able to take ownership of it. If it stuck around that long, it's in the pop culture and belongs to all of us. "Mickey Mouse" isn't just a character, it's a touchstone for other content to riff on. That's kind of the whole point of public domain; that and reinvention.
All of that said, I guess "Ghostbusters" kind of has a similar pop culture weight so I'm happy to amend my numbers down toward Bill's. My main interest is in making sure creators get paid commensurate to the impact of their work (as opposed to the work they put in to make it), in such a way that they can make a living off any profitable endeavor for the duration of that project's viability. If 30 years works for that, then I'm completely for it!
Fantastic work here, Bill! Thank you!