91–100 of 201 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Retroactive copyright extensions are changing the deal after it has been made, for the benefit of copyright holders and to the detriment of the public. This is unethical. That's why I get angry when copyright holders try to make ethical arguments against piracy.
When your property is representative of so many as Disney’s are due to shared exposure, it is hard to defend centralized control.
“US copyright law says the rights to characters can be held for 95 years.” 95 years ago was also about when the cinema and recording industries began. Since then, I’ll argue, all recorded entertainment and theatrical performances have become “fixed” into our culture similar to how Plato, the Bible, and Shakespeare became cultural touchstones due to literacy and the printing press. And now, as they enter the public do…
Is Mickey content good enough that we'll see continued interest? My encounters with Mickey (35 year old American) have been only through the movie Fantasia and I know he is a prominent mascot of Disney World. But the pull to Disney world is probably what, Star Wars or Pixar these days? I was recently thinking Star Wars and the Friends TV series could reach that permanent status. Mickey seems unlikely to me.
I think Disney stopped developing a lot of new content using Mickey because they knew he was going into the public domain and the ROI would not be as good as using new characters.
It's ironic that a cartoon that depicts musical improvisation is such a symbol of passively consumed culture.
I don't know that I would describe it as ironic. Throughout the ages, the entertainment that people enjoyed in their various cultures depicted all sorts of active things (including playing music, painting, killing the bad guy, etc.) while the audience sat back and enjoyed it passively (mostly; they laughed, got frightened, talked to each other, etc.).
Even architecture was developed to create the space for performance/audience. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/895/greek-theatre-archi...
“US copyright law says the rights to characters can be held for 95 years.” 95 years ago was also about when the cinema and recording industries began. Since then, I’ll argue, all recorded entertainment and theatrical performances have become “fixed” into our culture similar to how Plato, the Bible, and Shakespeare became cultural touchstones due to literacy and the printing press. And now, as they enter the public do…
Is Mickey content good enough that we'll see continued interest? My encounters with Mickey (35 year old American) have been only through the movie Fantasia and I know he is a prominent mascot of Disney World. But the pull to Disney world is probably what, Star Wars or Pixar these days? I was recently thinking Star Wars and the Friends TV series could reach that permanent status. Mickey seems unlikely to me.
Before people cheer too much, surprisingly works can retroactively be snatched back from the public domain and go back into copyrighted state. The prime example is the movie Metropolis . It became public domain in 1953 but copyright was restored in 1996 only to re-enter the public domain a year ago today.
> Before people cheer too much, surprisingly works can retroactively be snatched back from the public domain and go back into copyrighted state. The United States is decidedly not going to extend copyright terms. The US only very reluctantly pulled works out of the public domain after it joined the Berne Convention in 1989. The reason ''Metropolis'' was in the public domain was because it failed to comply with renewa…
Congress should have grown a spine and called their bluff rather than sell out the American public like that.
The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings enters the public domain in New Zealand, Egypt, and a couple other countries. Would have entered into the public domain in Canada had the government not signed a last-minute 20 year copyright extension act last year.
Retroactive copyright extensions are changing the deal after it has been made, for the benefit of copyright holders and to the detriment of the public. This is unethical. That's why I get angry when copyright holders try to make ethical arguments against piracy.
The problem is the Mexico is the most strict country (by law) in copyright terms, which is dead of last author plus 150 years and there is no fair use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Before people cheer too much, surprisingly works can retroactively be snatched back from the public domain and go back into copyrighted state. The United States is decidedly not going to extend copyright terms. The US only very reluctantly pulled works out of the public domain after it joined the Berne Convention in 1989. The reason ''Metropolis'' was in the public domain was because it failed to comply with renewa…
> Essentially, other countries threatened trade deals if the US made terms dependent on formalities for non-US works. So the law was changed and copyrights were restored. Congress should have grown a spine and called their bluff rather than sell out the American public like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm interested in how this would work in New Zealand. Could I publish a version of The Hobbit on amazon.co.nz? Would this be perfectly legal? If I instead published it on my own New Zealand based blog, maybe even hosted on a data center in NZ, but with no attempt to geo-fence it would that cause issues?
Countries that block pirate sites, like the UK, could block your site. They might also put political pressure on New Zealand to force you to manage the geofencing yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Plato, the Bible, and Shakespeare > inescapable part of our common heritage Indeed, but how? The three circles of Mickey Mouse is the semiotic emblem for everything that is shallow, plastic, maudlin and sentimental, self-obsessed, cynically capitalistic and exploitative. In British (army and construction worker culture) the phrase "Mickey Mouse" is used for anything that's an ineffectual toy or poorly manufactured.…
Many adults of a certain age will have very happy childhood memories of watching classic disney movies such as jungle book, cinderella, toy story, Lion King. Most creative companies would love to have the kind of love that disneys back catalog has. Alas this love does mean the easy ability to sell plastic toys for every film.
Guess my point is, sure and there's also this really massive negative sentiment out there attached to the corporate symbol - namely "Micky Mouse" who is semantically fused with Disney. Corporate symbols seem ripe for psychological splitting.
There's apparently a poster of Mickcy wearing gloves in full color from the same year Steamboat Willie came out (1928). Does this mean that full color gloved Mickcy is also in the public domain? https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mickey-mouse-poster_n_2149610
Disney has been preparing for this day.