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

Mickey, Disney, and the public domain: A 95-year love triangle

web.law.duke.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 221 posts

Re: Mickey, Disney, and the public domain: A 95-year love triangle

#121

Post by valleyer »

skrebbel wrote: post #119
ioblomov wrote: post #112

Surprised the article didn’t mention what for me (as a horror fan) was the most famous example of the public domain immediately benefiting the culture. Due to repeated edits requested by a demanding distributor, the final cut of Night of the Living Dead was released without a copyright notice. In 1968, unfortunately, this meant the work automatically went into the public domain. The film’s subsequent unexpected succe…

I’m confused that not adding a copyright notice automatically donates something to the public domain. This is not how I learned copyright works. I always believed that you own the copyright to everything you produce unless explicitly noted otherwise. A sister comment suggests that this was some feature (bug?) of US copyright law at the time, can anyone elaborate?

Automatic application of copyright law to creative works came about in the U.S. after it became a signatory to the Berne Convention, in 1988.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_Implementatio...

Re: Mickey, Disney, and the public domain: A 95-year love triangle

#122

Post by globular-toast »

andsoitis wrote: post #5

On the other hand, Disney itself is a talented and successful practitioner of building upon the public domain. In fact, the public domain is Disney’s bread and butter. Frozen was inspired by Hans Christian Andersen’s The Snow Queen. The Lion King draws from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Biblical stories, and possibly an epic poem about the founder of the Mali Empire.[3] Fantasia showcases public domain classical music, and “…

They're also not above taking stuff that isn't in the public domain, like Peter Pan (copyright owned by a children's hospital).

Re: Mickey, Disney, and the public domain: A 95-year love triangle

#123

Post by actionfromafar »

ndriscoll wrote: post #103
NolF wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably too short. It would live authors with very little bargaining power particularly if they become bigger in their writing carriers. Corporations would just have to wait 20 years and save themselves the exclusive rights and royalties. It should be looked form the frame of how long is appropriate to promote the creation of the arts etc. Realistically no author is thinking I won't create this art unless I get…

40 years seems like the highest defensible limit. This would mean if you created a work in your 20s, copyright would expire when you're eligible for social security. It's safe to say that if you haven't made money on your work within nearly 2 generations since its publication and before you become a pensioner, you're not going to. Or it's at least not going to drive you to create new works. Corporations can't wait ev…

I'm fine with 70 years post creation, it's 70 years post death which is too much IMHO.

Re: Mickey, Disney, and the public domain: A 95-year love triangle

#124

Post by coldtea »

dehrmann wrote: post #107

Disney has put so much effort into building Mickey Mouse as a brand that I don't mind all the protections they get. Plus, he's more of an icon than a character, so he's more likely to be an already-allowed stand-in for commentary on Disney (a la South Park) than people telling new stories with him.

>Disney has put so much effort into building Mickey Mouse as a brand that I don't mind all the protections they get.

The law wasn't meant to extend protections based on "effort", but based on time, - for reasons of enriching the public domain and general culture.

Also Disney isn't a person, it's a company, and as such it put zero effort. People working at Disney put the effort, including many people fired, discriminated, compensated badly, and generally fucked over by Disney.

Re: Mickey, Disney, and the public domain: A 95-year love triangle

#125

Post by [deleted] »

ioblomov wrote: post #112

Surprised the article didn’t mention what for me (as a horror fan) was the most famous example of the public domain immediately benefiting the culture. Due to repeated edits requested by a demanding distributor, the final cut of Night of the Living Dead was released without a copyright notice. In 1968, unfortunately, this meant the work automatically went into the public domain. The film’s subsequent unexpected succe…

[deleted]

Re: Mickey, Disney, and the public domain: A 95-year love triangle

#127

Post by HenryBemis »

pie_flavor wrote: post #126

It's incredibly ironic that under the copyright terms Disney has helped get enacted, several earlier films in particular Alice in Wonderland would have been infringement. Crossing a rope bridge and cutting it down behind you.

> Crossing a rope bridge and cutting it down behind you.

Heads they win. Tails you lose.

Re: Mickey, Disney, and the public domain: A 95-year love triangle

#128

Post by Sniffnoy »

ekianjo wrote: post #55
miningape wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically - no, the Kimba / Lion King controversy is fake (the Kimba movie often cited as the work copied was actually released 3 years after the Lion King). Check out YMS's review on this exact topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5B1mIfQuo4

Tezuka's work is much earlier than the Lion King. You have been misled

This is addressed in the video. Tezuka's work has very little in common with The Lion King. The bulk of the apparent similarity comes from the 1997 movie; if one ignores that there's very little.

Re: Mickey, Disney, and the public domain: A 95-year love triangle

#129

Post by HenryBemis »

8note wrote: post #74
bentley wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of thing has been attempted in the past. For example, after the Lego brick patents expired, Lego sued Mega Bloks (in Canada) claiming a trademark over the design of the brick. They lost the case, because the Supreme Court (of Canada) ruled you can’t double‐dip on IP protection by turning a functional (i.e., patentable) design into a trademark. Disney putting Steamboat Willie in their logo is unlikely to act…

This makes much more sense with a patent than copyright. How do you trademark the exact shape of a Lego brick? On the other hand, trademarks tend to be some form of art, so copyright and trademarks make sense to coincide

> How do you trademark the exact shape of a Lego brick?

..and the hundreds of differently shaped bricks that come with it.

Re: Mickey, Disney, and the public domain: A 95-year love triangle

#130

Post by hutzlibu »

wodenokoto wrote: post #116
jauntywundrkind wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At very best, I'd say Disney might possibly be a tiny bit excited that something from inside Castle Disney is entering the world & will become semi exciting on its own. Sure there'll be bad & ugly & awful things done with Steamboat Willie. But no press is bad press. And there's going to be some press about the things people do with the mouse.

Wasn't "Winnie The Pooh: Blood and Honey" a result of the characters entering public domain? I don't think it really did a lot to bring Winnie the Pooh to peoples mind, and I don't recall anything else based on Winnie coming out.

That movie ... seems messed up (but was a success, so more is coming). And the only other thing coming out I am aware of, is a Meme, leading to Winnie the Pooh being banned in china.
Post reply on HN