I have come to think that, in terms of copyright law, it would be rather beneficial to the creative ecosystem of society to introduce an amendment which creates a “use it or lose it” provision targeting unused intellectual property that nonetheless has social benefit in terms of archival or even remixing, iteration, or expansion.
We currently have an issue in society where companies will buy up creative properties and then let them rot, or run a season of an acquired television show and then cancel it, all so they can claim the purchase as a loss for tax purposes.
The way this would work is this: if an individual or corporate entity made $X amount from an intellectual property that they acquired by purchase of a company or of the property itself, there is a five to ten year clock that starts whenever a product or work is offered for sale under that intellectual property. At the end of that clock, if no further monetization has occurred and the owner can not prove that they are actively attempting further monetization at the end of that period, they then are considered to have abandoned their copyright and the intellectual property enters the public domain.
I would not extend this “use it or lose it” provisions to trademarks or branding, such as logos or corporate identities, except where that trademark is emblematic of and associated with the intellectual property in danger of expiration. For instance, Mickey Mouse as a trademark may expire, but Disney would not. This avoids the possibility of a corporate identity expiring and a less scrupulous actor trying to wear its face to gain unearned credibility or reputation.
In the alternative to an absolute loss of copyright, the prospective user of a dormant IP could apply to a neutral third party such as the Copyright Board of Canada for a non-exclusive license to create works based on the dormant IP. The applicant would have to prove that the owner of the IP has made no attempt to monetize the IP for X years in order to be heard. The onus would then shift to the IP owner who would then have to prove that they are currently investing effort into a new monetization use of the dormant IP or that they made such an effort in good faith more recently than the statutory threshold. If this is successful, the proceedings would be stayed and there would be a 12 month cooling off period before another attempt could be made. If the IP holder cannot prove substantial good faith attempts to monetize the property, then the non-exclusive license is granted.
This would sidestep existing international copyright treaties and also provide an opportunity to assess exemptions on a case by case basis.
AI usage note: This post was not written by generative AI, but Google Gemini was used to perform research and to refine concepts.