What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014 • Hacker News Board

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#151

Post by chrismcb » Wed, Jan 01, 2014, 6:55 AM UTC

stinkytaco wrote: post #63

jessriedel wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're confused. Disney is free to make new Mickey Mouse movies, and those will be protected by copyright. Likewise, they can register Mickey Mouse as a trademark for certain business situations so no one is ever tricked into thinking a 3rd party product is endorsed by Disney. Buy what they absolutely shouldn't have is the ability to prevent other people from writing new Mickey stories, from watching 70 year…

While I agree with you in principle, some of the specifics I take issue with: 1. Writing new Mickey stories - This is an odd legal/moral area for me. It's not unreasonable for Disney to want to protect Mickey and if you wrote a Mickey story, it's possible that people could feel that a 3rd party product is endorsed by Disney. That could affect Disney's future business. Distributing Steamboat Willy on YouTube will not.…

Part of the problem is the character isn't exactly copyrighted. It is the reason why we just had a recent lawsuit about Sherlock Holmes. You are free to create a book or movie about Sherlock Holmes. Just don't use any of the info from the last few books in the series. I think that Disney should be able to protect Mickey in a trademarked way, and do it at a cost. But it is going to be more complicated than "you can't use the characters"

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#152

Post by chrismcb » Wed, Jan 01, 2014, 7:04 AM UTC

salient wrote: post #31

benihana wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm still not convinced any one entity deserves to keep a creation for so long under monopoly given by the society (some interesting discussions in 1869 [1] about this), but let's assume they do. I'd still like to see a system where you only get copyright for new works for 5 years. Then you have to pay $1,000 to renew it for another 5 years. And then the fee increases geometrically (and also adjusted to inflation), t…

5 years is WAY to short. Harry Potter was published in 97, and the film was released in 01. They paid a million dollars for the rights. In your world they would wait a year or two and do it for free. A recent study claimed there were few books on Amazon older than 25 years. So that sounds like a good length.I'm not sure what the length should be, BUT the current length which is longer than the average human life span, is too long.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#153

Post by chrismcb » Wed, Jan 01, 2014, 7:08 AM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #65

justin66 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? edit: so you were just restating what you already said. It wasn't persuasive the first time.

>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. The kids aren't the purchasers of the majority of entertainment products. If the kids had a choice between free River Kwai, and a $12 modern version of 3:10 to Yuma (or something funner), the $12 would become $2 in no time. Prices on new product would have to be lowered to comp…

Right, because movie ticket prices and dvd prices are going down in the face of free tv and cheap online streaming. Yes today's content has to compete with yesterday's content. But they do already. A new Robocop is coming out. I'm sure it will do just fine, even though you can find the original for cheap or free.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#154

Post by thaumasiotes » Wed, Jan 01, 2014, 9:45 AM UTC

chrismcb wrote: post #152

salient wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still not convinced any one entity deserves to keep a creation for so long under monopoly given by the society (some interesting discussions in 1869 [1] about this), but let's assume they do. I'd still like to see a system where you only get copyright for new works for 5 years. Then you have to pay $1,000 to renew it for another 5 years. And then the fee increases geometrically (and also adjusted to inflation), t…

5 years is WAY to short. Harry Potter was published in 97, and the film was released in 01. They paid a million dollars for the rights. In your world they would wait a year or two and do it for free. A recent study claimed there were few books on Amazon older than 25 years. So that sounds like a good length.I'm not sure what the length should be, BUT the current length which is longer than the average human life span…

> Harry Potter was published in 97, and the film was released in 01. They paid a million dollars for the rights. In your world they would wait a year or two and do it for free.

It's not obvious why that's a bad thing.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#155

Post by rurban » Wed, Jan 01, 2014, 3:53 PM UTC

chrismcb wrote: post #152

salient wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still not convinced any one entity deserves to keep a creation for so long under monopoly given by the society (some interesting discussions in 1869 [1] about this), but let's assume they do. I'd still like to see a system where you only get copyright for new works for 5 years. Then you have to pay $1,000 to renew it for another 5 years. And then the fee increases geometrically (and also adjusted to inflation), t…

5 years is WAY to short. Harry Potter was published in 97, and the film was released in 01. They paid a million dollars for the rights. In your world they would wait a year or two and do it for free. A recent study claimed there were few books on Amazon older than 25 years. So that sounds like a good length.I'm not sure what the length should be, BUT the current length which is longer than the average human life span…

Ok, so let's agree on 6 years.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#156

Post by rurban » Wed, Jan 01, 2014, 3:55 PM UTC

sentenza wrote: post #10

In the EU, we have lifetime plus 70 years. So the first released movie of the Marx Brothers, "Coacoanuts" (1929) will enter the public domain in 2048, since Groucho lived to be 87. System is broken. Please reboot.

In the EU had lifetime plus 30 years. The 70 years came from the US movie industry and was forced upon us.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#157

Post by darkarmani » Wed, Jan 01, 2014, 6:05 PM UTC

throwawaykf03 wrote: post #109

kriro wrote: post #88

The irony that Atlas Shrugged is on the list and massively protected by government IP law is deliciously sad. More interesting is that Tesla is part of the class of 2014 for 70 year countries :) 50 year countries get some nice additions (some real heavyweights): Robert Frost, Sylvia Plath, William Carlos Williams, Louis MacNeice, Jean Cocteau, C. S. Lewis, Aldous Huxley

Irony? Rand was a very strong proponent of IP rights. From a quick search: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.htm... http://hallingblog.com/ayn-rand-on-intellectual-property/com...

Wow. This is what passes for logic? Begging the question?

> As an objection to the patent laws, some people cite the fact that two inventors may work independently for years on the same invention, but one will beat the other to the patent office by an hour or a day and will acquire an exclusive monopoly, while the loser’s work will then be totally wasted. This type of objection is based on the error of equating the potential with the actual. The fact that a man might have been first, does not alter the fact that he wasn’t.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#158

Post by marcosdumay » Wed, Jan 01, 2014, 7:01 PM UTC

rurban wrote: post #156

sentenza wrote: post #10

In the EU, we have lifetime plus 70 years. So the first released movie of the Marx Brothers, "Coacoanuts" (1929) will enter the public domain in 2048, since Groucho lived to be 87. System is broken. Please reboot.

In the EU had lifetime plus 30 years. The 70 years came from the US movie industry and was forced upon us.

What's interesting is that US people claim their lifetime+70 years terms were forced onto them by Europe. I suspect there is some manipulation going on.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#159

Post by will_brown » Wed, Jan 01, 2014, 7:14 PM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #140

will_brown wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Perhaps Cinderella was a poor example due to its origins as a folk tale. Let's substitute Mickey Mouse for Cinderella in my example. Would I be able to write, publish, and profit from my own non-satirical Mickey Mouse stories if I clearly labeled them as not originating from Disney? What about 250 years from now? I think part of the disconnect between your opinion of copyright law and some of the other commenters her…

>Perhaps Cinderella was a poor example due to its origins as a folk tale.

I used Cinderella specifically, bc my understanding is the folk tale was very unlike (violent, gory, ect...) the Disney version tailored for children.

In general satire is a much easier and obvious legal analysis as well. Say for example South Park's episodes with Mickey (although more of a Trademark issue than copyright), more on point with copyright is South Park's Star Wars episodes. However, to answer your question, is it possible to make a non-satirical Mickey story that does not violate Disney Trademarks? The answer is yes, but admittedly much more difficult and likely to infringe than a satirical story.

>Hackers tend to view any involvement of the courts as a failure.

As a lawyer, I see lawsuits as a cost of doing business and inevitable for any successful enterprise. I would encourage all hackers, especially, to view lawsuits in the same light (e.g. I am not successful until I get sued). I say this because hackers particularly set out to disrupt established industries, take Uber or AirBnB as good examples, but even YC itself has been sued, that is not a failure that is the cost of success.

> At some point, the public deserve to own their own culture, not megalithic corporations.

This is simply where we disagree, I am not saying you are wrong by any means, because I do not think their is a right answer, your point is sincere and well reasoned. My counter, is that the free market decides. Moreover, if Mickey is not going to win in the market place because society wants to take the character and run with it open source style, well then Mickey will lose in favor of another cartoon Mouse created by an pro open source artist, but I would say the reason Mickey became a cultural icon is because of the tight control of the story and character vis-a-vis Disney ownership/investment. In contrast and in support of your position Japan has a thriving culture based open source character, where even iconic corporate mascots are adopted by the public and the public creates their own stories, comics, commercial products, virtual concerts, ect...

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#160

Post by aestra » Wed, Jan 01, 2014, 8:18 PM UTC

will_brown wrote: post #91

aestra wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't just about "stealing." Allowing works to enter the public domain actually encourages more works to be created. People are free to remake and remix works in the public domain. Think: A REAL lot of old Disney movies (Alice and Wonderland, Jungle Book, Pinocchio...) Pride and Prejudice with Zombies That Romeo and Juliet movie with Leonardo DiCaprio and guns. A Christmas Carol in play form (it lends itself reall…

Your post is very helpful because of the examples. Lets take the Disney example. Lets assume the non-disney original Snow White had a Copyright and was not in the public domain. That does not mean Disney's version violates the copyright, it is very likely there was enough change in Disney's version from the original that Disney would not be found to infringe. Pride and Prejudice with Zombies: Assuming the creator of…

You have no idea what you are talking about because you do not understand copyright law. It just doesn't work that way.

You can't make a new version of something and not have it be a copyright violation, even if it is significantly different from the original. I'll give you an example, the movie Blade Runner was an adaptation of Philip K. Dick's novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? The movie was very different from the book, but rights still hsd to be secured to use the source material and characters and money was paid. I can't even make a completely different movie and have Harry Potter come in my movie because J.K. Rowling, etc owns that character. The exception is for parody.

Plus the burden of proof is on the defendant in a copyright lawsuit - the copyright holder can still sue even if its fair use, now you gotta defend yourself in an expensive lawsuit.

Another example that just came of my head, the movie Apocalypse Now was an adaption of Joseph Conrad's novella Heart of Darkness however the setting was changed from The Congo to Vietnam.