[HN Gopher] Mickey's Copyright Adventure: Early Disney Toon Is S...
___________________________________________________________________
Mickey's Copyright Adventure: Early Disney Toon Is Set to Be Public
Property
Author : swinnipeg
Score : 73 points
Date : 2022-12-27 16:56 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| Apocryphon wrote:
| If Mickey is public domain soon, does that mean Oswald the Rabbit
| is already out and due for an epic reboot?!?
| gcanyon wrote:
| It's pedantic to say it, but copyright is not directly intended
| to help creators; its purpose is to enrich the public by
| inspiring creators to produce more. Helping creators
| profit/benefit from their work is a means to an end.
|
| Creative work benefits the public in at least two ways:
| primarily, by being itself. People like reading the original
| Harry Potter books. Copyright encourages that by allowing
| creators to sell their work: Rowling is rich.
|
| Secondarily, by inspiring other works. Fifty Shades of Grey
| started out as Twilight fan fiction. Art inspires more art.
| Copyright hinders this process.
|
| Based on the above, copyright should now be much shorter: on the
| order of a few years.
|
| In the past it took time to extract value from a work. Successful
| books had dozens of printings. Shipping books around the world
| was slow. Discovery of material to adapt into film took time.
| Note, this wasn't universally true: the Gone With the Wind film
| adaptation happened only three years after the book was
| published.
|
| But take for example the Lord of the Rings books. They were
| published in the UK in 1954 and 1955, but some sort of copyright
| issue/loophole caused them to be widely available in the U.S. in
| the 1960s, before authorized editions came out. When they did
| become available, authorized editions then had a note that
| included a phrase something along the lines of, "Those having a
| courtesy for living authors (at least), will purchase this
| edition (of the book) and no other."
|
| In any case, now with the internet and digital media, the
| majority of the value for most publications should be available
| within just a few years of release. As such, the balance between
| the time allotted for initial value production and the value as
| material to inspire other works should shift forward
| substantially.
|
| If I were setting copyright law, I'd probably make it something
| like 5 years automatically, with extensions available yearly
| after that by filing inexpensive paperwork, up to a maximum of
| 10(?) years.
| alexb_ wrote:
| I've heard the suggestion that copyright could be extended
| after 5 years by paying a dollar to renew, after 6 years by
| paying 2 dollars, 7 years by paying 4, 8 with 8, etc.
|
| If your copyright is so immensly valuable that it's worth
| paying to renew it, that's fine. The longer you keep something
| in copyright, the larger your harm to society becomes due to
| preventing legal fan works and derivatives from being made. The
| fee to renew would reflect that.
| II2II wrote:
| Other benefits of this approach: registration would make it
| much easier to identify works out of copyright and it would
| be much easier for the public to reclaim abandoned works.
| endisneigh wrote:
| seems like a good idea - what's the downside?
| ghaff wrote:
| One downside of any sort of copyright registration
| requirement (probably especially one requiring ongoing
| renewals) is that it benefits corporations at the expense
| of individual creatives. Disney's lawyers are not going to
| forget to renew and the revenues involved mean that any
| registration is likely trivial. Not so for an individual
| author or photographer.
|
| In fact, groups representing authors and photographers have
| opposed orphan works legislation in the past.
|
| The US used to require affirmative action to gain copyright
| protection but this was phased out to be consistent with
| most other countries.
| alexb_ wrote:
| > the revenues involved mean that any registration is
| likely trivial.
|
| Over time, this would exponentially not be the case
| ghaff wrote:
| Even if it's ultimately untenable for even corporations
| to pay you've made it impractical for most individuals
| far faster.
|
| Copyright applies from the moment of creation for all
| creative works in the US today. But registering, which as
| I understand makes it easier to collect damages, costs
| money (call it $100, the details are somewhat
| complicated). I probably wouldn't go through that for
| most things even today.
| coredog64 wrote:
| Not OP, but I would imagine that the USG isn't in a
| position to efficiently and effectively accept lots of
| small payments. Working from that premise, you'd probably
| optimize for taking advance payment for 8 years with some
| way to retroactively pay if your work is suddenly worth
| more than $20.
| wolpoli wrote:
| What constitutes 'work'. On one extreme, a studio spending
| millions making a movie is a single piece of work. On the
| other extreme, a photographer might take 100 photos in a
| day that it will want to offer for sales. The number won't
| work for the photographer.
| [deleted]
| nextlevelwizard wrote:
| I wouldn't want just anyone to be able to use my characters and
| setting for their grummy cashgrabs.
|
| I think reasonable copyright would be 10 years or lifetime of
| the author which ever occurs later. This way the author would
| be in charge of their characters while alive and their kids
| would still gain from works done in the later years
| ghaff wrote:
| One can simultaneously think that copyright terms are too
| long and that (almost certainly primarily) companies
| shouldn't be able to parachute in after a few years have
| passed and hoover up creative works and exploit them for
| free.
| Frondo wrote:
| Why (and I realize this is one of those questions that sounds
| snide, but I do not mean it so) should a creator's kids gain
| from a piece of art or work of music after a creator's death?
|
| Editing to clarify: I fully accept that copyright is a good
| thing to give incentives to people to make art and music and
| creative works, I just don't understand why that incentive
| should be transmissible to their kids, i.e. people who were
| presumably not involved in making it in the first place.
| ghaff wrote:
| People pass lots of other things onto kids. Leaving aside
| debates about estate taxes etc., it's unclear that
| royalties from creative works should be uniquely
| disadvantaged.
| mometsi wrote:
| In this alternate future, HBO Time Warner maintains a force
| of elite counterassassins to protect their interest in George
| RR Martin's IP, the 10 year mark having long passed.
| Siira wrote:
| If you don't want other humans to remix information you have
| broadcasted, then don't broadcast in the first place. It's
| not like you haven't been using other people's ideas in your
| "original" work.
| ghaff wrote:
| So you are presumably OK with Disney, Sony, etc. grabbing a
| recent book and making a movie out of it without giving the
| original author a cent or any credit?
| II2II wrote:
| The issue, as it is presented in the article, is with how
| copyright law intermingles with trademark law. They noted that
| people will be able to distribute the original short. They also
| noted that any unique works that incorporate the iconic mouse
| (even in its original form) may run into litigation. Given
| Disney's financial interest in The Mouse, I suspect they were
| understating it.
|
| It is easy to oversimplify what is going on here if it is only
| viewed through the lens of copyright. While it would be easy to
| dismiss trademarking a character in most fictional works as
| doing an end-run around copyright law, The Mouse appears to
| have been a fairly consistent and identifiable part of Disney's
| image for decades. In the casual meaning of the word, it has
| been a trademark of the company. There is also a question of
| how the evolution of the character plays a role. As far as I
| can tell, Steamboat Willy is dead an Mickey took his place.
| Disney's trademarking of Steamboat Willy can be construed as an
| attempt to do an end-run around copyright law, but the visually
| similar Mickey has had a more enduring (and endearing) history.
|
| Or perhaps certain types of trademarks, in the legal sense,
| should have a limited duration as well. I don't know of many
| companies that have maintained an immutable corporate image
| across decades simply because it does not make sense. Culture
| changes, and companies should be adapting with the times.
| antiterra wrote:
| > As far as I can tell, Steamboat Willy is dead a Mickey took
| his place.
|
| The character in Steamboat Willie is Mickey Mouse. There's no
| one named Steamboat Willie in the animation. That said there
| have been several visual evolutions of the character given
| the same name, and Disney may claim newer versions are still
| copyrighted.
| redwall_hp wrote:
| Trademarks should be limited to providing identification for
| a business, not something that applies to products or
| cultural elements.
|
| You shouldn't be able to hold a trademark on "Star Wars" or
| "iPhone," but should be able to for LucasFilm or Apple. All
| product names should be effectively generic.
|
| Copyright and patents should just be straight up abolished,
| or at least severely scaled back and limited to 1-3 years.
| bushbaba wrote:
| So in your world when I go to the mall. I buy an iPhone
| from a cellphone store. Id have no confidence on it being
| the Apple iPhone.
| gradys wrote:
| Why would that be good?
| mjevans wrote:
| Trademarks are about consumer protection (first-most) and
| possibly also 'brand dilution'.
| swinnipeg wrote:
| https://archive.ph/vAnFb
| kthejoker2 wrote:
| Lol at the "time is money" screenshot from _Mickey 's Christmas
| Carol_, kudos to the graphics folks who found that gem for this
| article
| retrac wrote:
| Copyright in Canada for films is 75 years. So, Disney works
| before 1948 are public domain here. I can't seem to actually find
| any of them, though. I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure I'd
| be within my legal rights to take e.g. an original print of Bambi
| as released in 1942, scan it, and make it available online for
| Canadians. I'm also pretty sure I'd get sued anyway.
|
| Getting a copy of the original is also something of a challenge
| for this practically. (VHS and DVD releases are probably subject
| to a new copyright, remastering is often copyrightable.) If all
| extant accessible versions of a work are under copyright, then
| the work being in the public domain is only theoretical.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| AFAIK you don't need an original print. All versions that
| aren't materially different lack copyright and are free to
| distribute.
| Sunspark wrote:
| I would say caution is advised. I have seen it argued that
| one trick to prevent expiry is to re-record the audio with a
| new orchestra thus causing it to become a new production.
| kingbirdy wrote:
| A new score would certainly qualify as "materially
| different", to GPs point
| Sunspark wrote:
| Yes and no. You can still record the original music
| again, but with a brand new orchestra. Is it materially
| different then? From a legal standpoint? From an
| individual standpoint?
| [deleted]
| zarzavat wrote:
| The answer is yes. There is copyright for the score and
| copyright for the performance. New performance, new
| copyright.
| hackernewds wrote:
| The cautionary article by the New York times, clearly entangled
| as a media company with Disney as well, seems to be doing Disney
| a favor. As it will most likely appear as a top result for when
| the inevitable creative artists try to capitalize on this
| expiration of their copyright.
| somat wrote:
| Note that "Mickey: the character" does not suddenly become public
| domain, Mickey is a trademark of the Disney corporation, and
| trademarks do not expire. However some specific "Mickey: the
| film" will go into public domain.
|
| I am not a lawyer, but I suspect this means that is will be fine
| to redistribute specific early mickey films, however any remixes,
| or reuse of the content, you may find yourself violating Disney's
| mouse trademark. You would have to successfully argue that your
| use of Mickey came form a public domain source and does not exist
| in the same market as Disney's trademark... Good luck on that,
| you'll need it.
| slim wrote:
| Steam boat willie : the character _will_ become public domain.
| You are free to create new stories with steam boat willie as a
| character.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-27 23:01 UTC)