131–140 of 165 posts
For those curious, this is mostly a result of Disney. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25...
Ironic that a company founded upon the reuse of public domain works is campaigning against more public domain works.
Am I the only one that thinks that we should almost certainly treat scientific research entirely differently than entertainment? Frankly, when I think about it objectively, I could care less if a novel is under copyright for a very long time - it's not like there's a lack of entertainment options for people, and that they will suffer because they have to pay something to read a book or see a movie. But scientific res…
Earlier 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consequently others can ignore laws and licenses clearly out of line with the reality around them. I often find that to be far more effective in living life than seeking squeaky clean legal alternatives. We really do only have one go around. I'll buy all the knock-off Mickey Mouse crap I want.
I think that both of these are important, and symbiotic tactics. Officially support the artists who are doing the right thing, and rip off the ones who aren't.
The government taxes every other kind of property, so why not IP? Additionally, keeping created works out of the public domain is essentially a tax on the public; this intellectual levy placed on everyone should be balanced by a reinvestment in favor of public interests.
If Disney wants to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain, they should pay a yearly fee to prevent it from becoming public property. They'd more than make up for it with the revenue they garner.
I think that this would also encourage less wasteful use of copyrighted properties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm talking about a world where the character is a trademark, a distinctive brand in and of itself and where the "creator" is no longer a living person, but a corporation that continues to create work with the characters. Steamboat Willy is a distinct piece of art. However, the characters in it have become brands unto themselves. The world of trademark and copyright are colliding in a new way here if Steamboat Willy…
The relevant case here is a recent decision regarding the Sherlock Holmes books published before 1923. The characters represented in those works (i.e. without later developments in still-copyrighted books) are in the public domain, and can be freely used in new stories. There's no reason to think that the same wouldn't apply to Micky and Donald. http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/27/sherlock-holmes...
For those curious, this is mostly a result of Disney. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25...
It's partly Disney (and the Gershwin estate) but the 56-year term was extended in 1976 to bring the US in line with the Berne Convention life-plus-50 term used in the rest of the world. The current life-plus-70 term originated in Germany, spread to the rest of the EU and then was adopted in the US for "harmonization" with Europe. Harmonization is not necessarily a bad thing. Pre-1976 US copyright law had some outrigh…
I'm not sure that is the reason why it was extended, but that was definitely the excuse they used. The reason I doubt their intentions is the fact that they made it retroactive instead of applying it to new works.
For those curious, this is mostly a result of Disney. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25...
What I find the most strange aspect of these discussions is: if people hate Disney, why do they want to freely use Mikey and its image? For people who like Disney, it is an advantage that the company is making money out of their creations -- so there will be much more of it. For people who hate Disney, there is no point in watching these movies. So, why getting concerned about this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you willing to put you interpretation of copyright to the test? Why don't you write a modern retelling of Cinderella based on Disney's version and see how far you get. Next try a remix between Cinderella, Harry Potter, and the leaked Windows source code and see what happens.
With a quick search I found 37 different film versions of Cinderella, I did not look at them individually to confirm, but it would be safe to say Disney did not create 37 versions of Cinderella. So a serious derivative work can be made that does not violate any Disney copyright, but I can certainly say I could create a zombie themed Cinderella that would fall under satire and not constitute a infringement. I should a…
I think part of the disconnect between your opinion of copyright law and some of the other commenters here is caused by the lawyer/hacker dichotomy. Hackers tend to view any involvement of the courts as a failure. For most non-wealthy people and most small businesses, the threat alone of legal action has a chilling effect.
An argument I make against long copyrights, especially for famous works, is that these stories and characters become woven into our popular culture. At some point, the public deserve to own their own culture, not megalithic corporations. Cinderella is the story it is because of the additions of different storytellers over time, like the godmother and glass slippers added in Perrault's Cendrillon.