• rdyoung@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      153
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’ve seen others suggest that it gets surrendered to the public domain if they take the deduction. I’d be fine with that.

      • DarkGamer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Wouldn’t that also put the characters into public domain like Wile E Coyote? I can’t imagine they’d do that for a tax write-off.

        • chaogomu@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          It wouldn’t necessarily.

          Basically, you’d say that this one work is copyright free, but any characters appearing in it would still have copyright under other works.

          The practical effect is that you’d be able to download this movie, watch it, share it, cut up bits and pieces and use them elsewhere, but any original works based on the characters would not be allowed due to those characters still being covered from other works.

          • DarkGamer@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Well that would be different from how it works with Mickey Mouse and Sherlock Holmes, in both of those examples, some works involving the character are public domain and others are still under copyright. As such, people can do their own versions of Mickey mouse as long as it’s the steamboat Willie version of Mickey mouse but not Mickey mouse from more recent works. People can write their own versions of Sherlock Holmes stories as long as they don’t have the characteristics of Sherlock Holmes in later novels.

            I suspect the same would apply to Wile E. Coyote if this film went into the public domain, people could use the character as long as it’s the version of the character from this movie and not the version from the '60s cartoons.

    • FlumPHP@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yeah it’s a scam. They’ll claim they lost all the money that went into making the movie because no one would buy it for the price they wanted. If they’d sold it for the highest offer, they’d have lost less.

      How is that any different than burning down my own building and claiming it as a loss in my taxes?

      • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        No, you put your building up for sale at an absurd amount, then when nobody is willing to pay you what you want for it, then you burn it down!

        Totally different and completely sane.

    • Lojcs@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      But they could still take the tax write off if it doesn’t sell, and they miss the chance it might

      This feels like money laundering or something to me