Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sherlock lives in public domain, US court rules

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 54 posts

Re: Sherlock lives in public domain, US court rules

#11

Post by mattmanser »

Shivetya wrote: post #9
seren wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this ruling will create a precedent that will make it harder to justify, that Sherlock Holmes entered the domain public and Mickey Mouse should not, although I am pretty sure that Walt Disney's lawyers are already carefully preparing their argument for the next few hundred years of protection extension.

I am actually not for Mickey entering public domain, he is still representative of a very active and well known company. There are certain characters in the Disney domain that would be wholly out of place anywhere else. Whereas book characters from long dead authors are a whole different matter. While I think estates should be able to protect the rights of the estate for a period of time the fact that no new content…

Then you don't understand why copyright was created.

It's not there to give forever and ever protection. It's there to allow you to get some money before society, which made your product worth something in the first place, can incorporate it into culture where it belonged in the first place.

Disney themselves love using other people stories constantly, but no-one can use theirs for extreme amounts of time because they've distorted the meaning of copyright.

There's no good reason for someone else's ideas to be protected, it doesn't benefit society at all. Copyright should be 10-15 years, not this ridiculous century.

Apart from America as it exports the stuff, so, surprise, surprise, they've bullied the rest of the world into making stupidly long copyrights so that everything created in the last century is languishing in untouchable hell so a few big brands can continue making money off things that should be public domain.

Re: Sherlock lives in public domain, US court rules

#13

Post by simonh »

vidarh wrote: post #5
seren wrote: post #2

Fortunately, the estate appeal was rejected. If adding any new (short) story can make a character "more rounded", it is basically a very cheap way to extend the copyrights ad vitam aeternam .

The cynic in me things that this idea is probably the reason why Disney have been so aggressive about using their oldest characters in the last few years. E.g. Steamboat Willy in opening sequences, and the short film before Frozen. Even if they fail to extend the original copyrights, there are other potential "loopholes" to making it harder to reuse these characters: The more Disney uses variations of them, the bigge…

> The more Disney uses variations of them, the bigger the minefield becomes in terms of sticking to the depictions that enters/have entered public domain.

That's a two-edged sword. If someone else produces material featuring Steamboat Willy which does not violate recent usage, it could seriously curtail Disney's future ability to use the character as well.

Re: Sherlock lives in public domain, US court rules

#14

Post by hackiavelli »

Shivetya wrote: post #9
seren wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this ruling will create a precedent that will make it harder to justify, that Sherlock Holmes entered the domain public and Mickey Mouse should not, although I am pretty sure that Walt Disney's lawyers are already carefully preparing their argument for the next few hundred years of protection extension.

I am actually not for Mickey entering public domain, he is still representative of a very active and well known company. There are certain characters in the Disney domain that would be wholly out of place anywhere else. Whereas book characters from long dead authors are a whole different matter. While I think estates should be able to protect the rights of the estate for a period of time the fact that no new content…

I believe existing IP law already covers this. Disney still maintains exclusivity over Mickey as one of their trademarks (and will forever). It's the Steamboat Willie shorts themselves that would be going into the public domain when the copyright expires.

Re: Sherlock lives in public domain, US court rules

#15

Post by seren »

Shivetya wrote: post #9
seren wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this ruling will create a precedent that will make it harder to justify, that Sherlock Holmes entered the domain public and Mickey Mouse should not, although I am pretty sure that Walt Disney's lawyers are already carefully preparing their argument for the next few hundred years of protection extension.

I am actually not for Mickey entering public domain, he is still representative of a very active and well known company. There are certain characters in the Disney domain that would be wholly out of place anywhere else. Whereas book characters from long dead authors are a whole different matter. While I think estates should be able to protect the rights of the estate for a period of time the fact that no new content…

I don't really care either for Mickey Mouse specifically.

But somehow, I think it is impoverishing what's is added to global culture, and in the long term is self-defeating.

Look at the very bottom of this article, the graph about available books by decade. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25...

The Twentieth Century has a big hole in the middle, because copyright holders tend to stop publishing what is not profitable enough, but do not release their rights just in case, something could put the book back at the forefront.

In the long run, if Mickey Mouse remains the sole property of Walt Disney, it will disappear with the company, while something entering the public domain has much more chance of being revivified. You just have to look to the Sherlock serie. Again, I don't really care for Mickey Mouse specifically. After all, we can't remember everything and some thing will be forgotten in a century or two. But since the law is the same for everyone, there are plenty of works from the 1940's or 1950's that are languishing unpublished, and could have be made available, especially now with the rise of e-books.

Re: Sherlock lives in public domain, US court rules

#16

Post by philh »

mattmanser wrote: post #11
Shivetya wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am actually not for Mickey entering public domain, he is still representative of a very active and well known company. There are certain characters in the Disney domain that would be wholly out of place anywhere else. Whereas book characters from long dead authors are a whole different matter. While I think estates should be able to protect the rights of the estate for a period of time the fact that no new content…

Then you don't understand why copyright was created. It's not there to give forever and ever protection. It's there to allow you to get some money before society, which made your product worth something in the first place, can incorporate it into culture where it belonged in the first place. Disney themselves love using other people stories constantly, but no-one can use theirs for extreme amounts of time because the…

> Then you don't understand why copyright was created.

Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean that they don't understand the issue. Your post would have worked just as well without this line.

Re: Sherlock lives in public domain, US court rules

#17

Post by rayiner »

mattmanser wrote: post #11
Shivetya wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am actually not for Mickey entering public domain, he is still representative of a very active and well known company. There are certain characters in the Disney domain that would be wholly out of place anywhere else. Whereas book characters from long dead authors are a whole different matter. While I think estates should be able to protect the rights of the estate for a period of time the fact that no new content…

Then you don't understand why copyright was created. It's not there to give forever and ever protection. It's there to allow you to get some money before society, which made your product worth something in the first place, can incorporate it into culture where it belonged in the first place. Disney themselves love using other people stories constantly, but no-one can use theirs for extreme amounts of time because the…

That may have been why copyright was created, but over time, the justification has evolved, at least in Europe, into one based on the moral rights of the author.

My personal opinion is that copyright should never expire. Think about it: you can have an indefinite government granted monopoly over land, something you didn't create, something that existed before you and will exist after you, but you have weaker protections over something you brought to life? Something that would not exist without you? To me, the moral case for indefinite copyright protection is stronger than the one for indefinite land ownership.

Re: Sherlock lives in public domain, US court rules

#18

Post by ben0x539 »

BerislavLopac wrote: post #4

The problem with such cases is that -- as far as I'm aware (IANAL) -- concepts like characters, inventions (e.g. hyperdrive) etc are not covered by any of the existing laws that handle creative monopolies (i.e. what is generally known, incorrectly, as "intellectual property"). Copyright covers the specific fixed representations (e.g. words on paper) and not ideas and concepts, while other laws like patents or tradema…

I've googled this a bunch out of curiosity before and everybody, including a bunch of courts, seems to argue that fleshed-out fictional characters are in fact covered by copyright even with the serial numbers filed off. IANAL either, obviously.

I mean, you'd be drowning in published, unauthorized fanfic of Batman and Harry Potter and whatnot otherwise.

Re: Sherlock lives in public domain, US court rules

#19

Post by bitJericho »

rayiner wrote: post #17
mattmanser wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you don't understand why copyright was created. It's not there to give forever and ever protection. It's there to allow you to get some money before society, which made your product worth something in the first place, can incorporate it into culture where it belonged in the first place. Disney themselves love using other people stories constantly, but no-one can use theirs for extreme amounts of time because the…

That may have been why copyright was created, but over time, the justification has evolved, at least in Europe, into one based on the moral rights of the author. My personal opinion is that copyright should never expire. Think about it: you can have an indefinite government granted monopoly over land, something you didn't create, something that existed before you and will exist after you, but you have weaker protecti…

Disney wouldn't be here today as we know if if that were the case back when they were creating their feature-length cartoons.

Re: Sherlock lives in public domain, US court rules

#20

Post by maratd »

rayiner wrote: post #17
mattmanser wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you don't understand why copyright was created. It's not there to give forever and ever protection. It's there to allow you to get some money before society, which made your product worth something in the first place, can incorporate it into culture where it belonged in the first place. Disney themselves love using other people stories constantly, but no-one can use theirs for extreme amounts of time because the…

That may have been why copyright was created, but over time, the justification has evolved, at least in Europe, into one based on the moral rights of the author. My personal opinion is that copyright should never expire. Think about it: you can have an indefinite government granted monopoly over land, something you didn't create, something that existed before you and will exist after you, but you have weaker protecti…

You're conflating tangible with the intangible. Land ownership stems from natural law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Animals are territorial and that's really the end of that.

However, the idea of owning an idea ... that's a legal construct and a very recent one at that. The idea of owning an idea would be entirely foreign to someone a thousand years ago.

And the idea that you have a moral claim on owning an idea is just patently absurd, for a very simple reason.

You have no means of proving one way or another that you were the first person to have that very thought. It is entirely possible someone else had it long before you. What claim to ownership can you have? Because you commercialized the idea first?

Most countries are moving to a "first to file" system to simplify bureaucracy, so now your moral claim is contingent not even on your business acumen, but on your ability to quickly fill out a form.

Post reply on HN