I know nothing on the subject, but would it be possibly for Disney (or any other creator for that matter) to start a Mickey Mouse company, with Mickey as the logo and mascot, that sells Mickey Mouse paraphernalia and protect the characters as a trademark?
What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014
21–30 of 165 posts
Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
> plagiarism rather than unauthorized copying Isn't that the definition of plagiarism?
Plagiarism is passing someone else's work off as your own. Unauthorized copying is just providing a work for others to consume without claiming credit for it, but without having a legal right to do so. Plagiarism doesn't really relate to authorization at all. If you have permission from someone to put your name on their work, that doesn't change the fact that you are lying, which can have consequences of its own (esp…
Yep. The way I used to explain it to my students was this:
Distributing "Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare": not plagiarism or copyright violation.
Distributing "Romeo and Juliet by Turing Machine": plagiarism, but not copyright violation.
Distributing "The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien": Copyright violation, but not plagiarism.
Distributing "The Lord of the Rings by Turing Machine": both plagiarism and copyright violation.
Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014
#23If this stuff did start to enter the public domain after 28+28 years, the modern entertainment industry would be screwed because they would have to compete with it. Rationally, they'd rather it burned than free.
Burned? Blah. The Cat in the Hat, Atlas Shrugged and probably others from that list are still popular. The books are still being printed and sold, not being hidden away from society.
I didn't say that anything had been burned. I said that rather than have it go into the public domain, publishers would rather it be burned, because it competes with their catalog.
Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014
#24For those curious, this is mostly a result of Disney. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25...
I can't really fault Disney for this. Mickey Mouse is one of the most recognizable symbols/brands on earth. The difference between Disney and McDonalds and Coca Cola is that there isn't an expectation we all get unfettered access to use the Golden Arches or the Coke logo. Disney is still making new IP with Mickey Mouse; why should they be expected to give up their rights to their most recognizable character that they're still making things for?
So I'd say this isn't so much the result of Disney, as it is the result of bad legislation and possibly outdated expectations about intellectual property that hasn't been updated to reflect reality.
Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014
#25If this stuff did start to enter the public domain after 28+28 years, the modern entertainment industry would be screwed because they would have to compete with it. Rationally, they'd rather it burned than free.
There's some interesting stuff on that list but I don't think it'd be competition to anything. I like the idea that the kids would be watching Bridge on the River Kwai instead of the latest recruitment video but it doesn't seem likely. Of course, the studios would lose the long-tail revenue from controlling movies like Bridge on the River Kwai (or licensing the movie rights to things like the old version of 3:10 to Y…
The kids aren't the purchasers of the majority of entertainment products. If the kids had a choice between free River Kwai, and $12 modern version of 3:10 to Yuma (or something funner), the $12 would become $2 in no time.
Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's some interesting stuff on that list but I don't think it'd be competition to anything. I like the idea that the kids would be watching Bridge on the River Kwai instead of the latest recruitment video but it doesn't seem likely. Of course, the studios would lose the long-tail revenue from controlling movies like Bridge on the River Kwai (or licensing the movie rights to things like the old version of 3:10 to Y…
At this point, it's mostly about preservation. Kwai is one of a zillion war movies produced more than 40 years ago; unlike the bridge, that movie will forever endure, but so many of its contemporaries will disappear -- a fate entirely avoidable in this age of long-tail hyper-specialized scholarly studies, unlimited data capacity and worldwide p2p redundancy. Art will be lost because of unbridled greed, and this is th…
It's a weird feeling when you know that some of the torrents you are seeding may make you the only source of distribution of that work in the world at that moment. Gives you a sense of responsibility if it's good.
Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014
#27I know nothing on the subject, but would it be possibly for Disney (or any other creator for that matter) to start a Mickey Mouse company, with Mickey as the logo and mascot, that sells Mickey Mouse paraphernalia and protect the characters as a trademark?
Yes, but trademark protection wouldn't prevent people from using or selling the older works, at least not in general.
From http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/trademark.html :
> Twentieth Century Fox was the producer of a World War II video series that was no longer protected by copyright. When a competitor used it, Fox sued — not for copyright infringement (because they couldn’t), but for trademark infringment. They lost. See Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. et al., 540 US 806 (2003), which you can read here: ( http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/support-files/dastar.pdf ).
Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014
#28I know nothing on the subject, but would it be possibly for Disney (or any other creator for that matter) to start a Mickey Mouse company, with Mickey as the logo and mascot, that sells Mickey Mouse paraphernalia and protect the characters as a trademark?
A trademark grants very different protections, though, and they'd be hard-pressed to claim a full animated short as a trademark.
Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014
#29There's something really ironic about Atlas Shrugged being on that list.
Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014
#30I do not see a problem with indefinite copyright protections.
One of the assumptions is that everything being equal the same works would exist if it were not for copyright protections. However, I would argue without the extended copyright protections, most of these [future] classic works would not exist, simply because publishers/studios would not invest in the creation/distribution of the works initially. In other words, copyright protections encourages the creation of works.
The OP takes an opposing stance, suggesting if copyright protections existed historically it would have stifled the creation of many classic works. This may be the case in certain instances, but to make that argument one must have an in depth understand of what constitutes copyright infringement in a legal sense - including all defenses to infringement (i.e. derivative work, fair use, educational/news worthy use, ect...)- and make the argument on a case by case basis. Very few people have any idea of what constitutes copyright infringement - and even among legal scholars, practitioners and judges there is disagreement.
All I know is if you have ever created anything and had it stolen you understand the need for legal protection. Plus it would suck to live in a world where I am financially rewarding thieves because I can not distinguish if a work was original or a knockoff. Finally, legal protection is just that protection, there is nothing stopping copyright owners from giving away their works for free, in other words voluntarily releasing their work(s) to the public domain.