Looking forward to seeing Mickey Mouse in the public domain in a few years?
Considering how powerful Disney is, I am not hopeful that it will happen.
Ironic considering Disney is famous for making films based on other people's stories.
Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules
31–40 of 120 posts
Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm guessing we'll be seeing another one of these before then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
Is there a sensible way to extend copyright on "active" IP that is still being used in new content, while allowing copyright to expire on "dormant" IP that has been left untouched for years? I don't think it's unreasonable for Disney to still hold copyright on Mickey Mouse (that might be the nostalgia talking), but there are plenty of creations from much more recent times that have long overstayed their welcome in th…
I think all copyright is treated legally the same, regardless of how much it's used now. That's one of my big problems with current copyright systems.
Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're distinction is a semantic one. pavpanchekha could have easily framed his observation as Sir Doyle "creating" aspects of Watson's character.
No, the whole point was the distinction between "discovering" and "inventing", a distinction which would not exist if "discovering" was replaced with "creating".
You're not a Platonist, are you?
Regardless, it would be plausible to imagine a character conceived of by an author, who has curious behaviors in early stories, the motivation for which is only revealed in a much later story. This would be an example of a process of "discovery" about a character, but this discovery is happening in the form of revelations in the text rather than by the act of the author.
If you wanted to make the analogy more precise, you could imagine a character created with peculiar traits, and the author later realizes a single explanation for those traits which they had not originally conceived, which they then write into a story. In these two cases, the effect on the reader might be identical, but in one essential information about the character was held back and in one it was developed later.
All of this is a little academic, though, since none of the information about Holmes & Watson in the post-1923 stories has a material effect on their characters, as ACD's estate attempted to argue.
Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules
#34I am fascinated by the nuance that went into this decision. The argument by the Doyle estate intrigues me: they claim that the characters themselves (as a sort of platonic form) were not fully developed until Doyle stopped writing. For example, they would argue that in every story, Watson had once played rugby, though this fact wasn't published until a later story. Thus this aspect of Watson's character is still prot…
That's an interesting argument, but I guess it fell flat because the work itself is subject to copyright, and someone else can now "invent" a Watson that never played rugby.
Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is there a sensible way to extend copyright on "active" IP that is still being used in new content, while allowing copyright to expire on "dormant" IP that has been left untouched for years? Periodic -- say, every 7 years -- renewals with exponentially increasing costs to renew.
Why bother with exponentially increasing costs? Even a token fee would ensure that copyright expires on abandoned/orphaned works.
> Why bother with exponentially increasing costs? Even a token fee would ensure that copyright expires on abandoned/orphaned works.
A token fee would do that for abandoned works, but it wouldn't do it for works which weren't being actively used but which the owner also didn't want others to use -- an escalating fee would be better than a token fee to discourage such buried works.
Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disney holds a trademark on Mickey Mouse in perpetuity, so your nostalgia is covered. I'd be happy with a copyright system where the fee is $5 for the first year of government-protected monopoly, $10, for the second, $20 for the third, and on and on at the rate of $5*2^n for as long as they like. Note that at the fifteen-year mark, the renewal fee for another year of copyright enforcement would be over $30 million, w…
Did you mean 5$, 25$, 125$,... ?
I think he meant $5 * 2^n
Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules
#37I'm in favor of IP laws, including copyright, but with the idea of creating incentives for people to create. Putting Sherlock Holmes in the public domain is probably not going to have much effect on Arthur Conan-Doyle's writing output, though, so it's probably a good thing at this point.
I'm not sure I understand why characters themselves are copyrighted. I get why its bad to just copy someone else's work, but if I go to the effort to write my own book about the same character, who cares? The world isn't worse off for fan fiction.
Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules
#38I am glad to read this. I have been following the Free Sherlock website for some time. It can be found here:
Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a sensible way to extend copyright on "active" IP that is still being used in new content, while allowing copyright to expire on "dormant" IP that has been left untouched for years? I don't think it's unreasonable for Disney to still hold copyright on Mickey Mouse (that might be the nostalgia talking), but there are plenty of creations from much more recent times that have long overstayed their welcome in th…
Disney holds a trademark on Mickey Mouse in perpetuity, so your nostalgia is covered. I'd be happy with a copyright system where the fee is $5 for the first year of government-protected monopoly, $10, for the second, $20 for the third, and on and on at the rate of $5*2^n for as long as they like. Note that at the fifteen-year mark, the renewal fee for another year of copyright enforcement would be over $30 million, w…
This. Whenever people talk about Mickey Mouse entering the public domain like it's the end of the world, I point to the Fleischer Studio Superman Cartoons that were made in the 1940s. Those cartoons are in the public domain and people may copy or sell them as much as they want.
However, since DC Comics still holds a trademark on Superman, you can't use Superman for anything else. In fact, when I bought a VHS tape of the Superman cartoons back in the 90s, the manufacturer was careful to use an actual Public Domain image of Superman on the box. If they created a new image, the Superman trademark would have applied.
Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering how powerful Disney is, I am not hopeful that it will happen.
Ironic considering Disney is famous for making films based on other people's stories.
Did you know that Disney is asserting their trademark on Snow White? They believe that they're the only studio allowed to make a film of the Snow White story, even though the Snow White fairy tale is in the public domain?