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

131–140 of 221 posts

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

#131

Post by HenryBemis »

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…

> There's not much mainstream demand for Sum 41 anymore.

Perhaps not for Sum 41. But how about Beatles? Elvis? Michael Jackson? Metallica?

I don't know if people will still be listening to Swift and Eilish in 50 years from now, but something tells me that Beatles, Iron Maiden, Michael Jackson, Sinatra, will echo for eons..

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

#132

Post by finnjohnsen2 »

sircastor wrote: post #48
candiddevmike wrote: post #7

Was there a copyright reason for Disney changing their opening logo sequence to the steamboat willy thing? Some kind of "it's now our trademark" claim?

I think it was intended as an indicator of the source. In the mid 2000s, Pixar was beginning to represent Disney animation, and as a result Disney Animation Studios started to take a backseat in the eyes of the public (and the eyes of Disney management). Having some successful pictures (Wreck-it Ralph, Frozen, Big Hero 6, etc.) meant owning the brand and indicating to audiences the source - and hopefully encouraging…

I like this. We tend to automatically assume the worst in these big high profile companies.

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

#133

Post by benj111 »

NolF wrote: post #75
kelnos wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't go far enough. Copyright terms should be on the order of 20 years or so, and should have nothing to do with whether or not the creator is still alive.

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…

>It should be looked form the frame of how long is appropriate to promote the creation of the arts etc

I agree, I don't see how 20 years isn't long enough from that pov.

What company is going to wait 20 years before signing a book deal, film deal, etc.

Further. This still ignores the fact that there's value to having the original creator attached. You don't want the author of the book trashing your new film, you want them promoting it.

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

#134

Post by egeozcan »

finnjohnsen2 wrote: post #132
sircastor wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it was intended as an indicator of the source. In the mid 2000s, Pixar was beginning to represent Disney animation, and as a result Disney Animation Studios started to take a backseat in the eyes of the public (and the eyes of Disney management). Having some successful pictures (Wreck-it Ralph, Frozen, Big Hero 6, etc.) meant owning the brand and indicating to audiences the source - and hopefully encouraging…

I like this. We tend to automatically assume the worst in these big high profile companies.

I do that a lot, and sometimes even consciously, because, if I may be bold, large companies have a lot of people, and among so many people there's surely some evil masterminds.

I'm saying this of course with a tongue in cheek but that doesn't mean it's completely false.

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

#135

Post by bazoom42 »

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.

This isn’t some clever gotcha.

Disney didn’t mind paying for the rights to adapt copyrighted material, like they did for Bambi, Dumbo, Peter Pan etc.

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

#136

Post by oblio »

bazoom42 wrote: post #135
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.

This isn’t some clever gotcha. Disney didn’t mind paying for the rights to adapt copyrighted material, like they did for Bambi, Dumbo, Peter Pan etc.

> Disney didn’t mind paying for the rights to adapt copyrighted material, like they did for Bambi, Dumbo, Peter Pan etc.

Because the copyright holders at the time were much smaller and less astute.

You try to get the rights for a TV show based on Frozen. Disney will probably not sell those rights to you at any price.

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

#137

Post by bentley »

justsomehnguy wrote: post #111
bentley wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, Bridgeman v. Corel ruled that faithful copies of public domain works don’t gain copyright protection for being copies of an original. To be copyrighted requires some sort of creative spark, and that spark was entirely contained in the original work; none was introduced in the copying process. Whether this applies to a Blu‐Ray rip, I will not attempt to discern.

The classical music pieces are old. The recordings of the classical music pieces are under the copyright. There was a good article about there at [probably] TorrentFreaks.

Typically the copyright of the recordings derives from the copyright of the performance, and only indirectly from that of the original classical piece. Most recordings are copyrighted, but that’s because recording technology only became hugely prevalent during existing copyright terms.

Looking at it another way, an uncreative recording of a classical performance will be copyrighted for a period of time, but after it expires, a recording of the recording won’t add any further copyright. It’s a bit like how a photograph of a public domain painting is uncopyrightable, but a new painting based on the painting might be copyrightable.

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

#138

Post by dotancohen »

HenryBemis wrote: post #131
ndriscoll wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> There's not much mainstream demand for Sum 41 anymore. Perhaps not for Sum 41. But how about Beatles? Elvis? Michael Jackson? Metallica? I don't know if people will still be listening to Swift and Eilish in 50 years from now, but something tells me that Beatles, Iron Maiden, Michael Jackson, Sinatra, will echo for eons..

A simple, naive solution I've seen proposed would enable copyright extension on an exponential fee scale.

This has the nice side effect of wildly-successful works disproportionately funding the copyright offices, thus enabling theoretically lower fees for newcomers.

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

#139

Post by bazoom42 »

oblio wrote: post #136
bazoom42 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t some clever gotcha. Disney didn’t mind paying for the rights to adapt copyrighted material, like they did for Bambi, Dumbo, Peter Pan etc.

> Disney didn’t mind paying for the rights to adapt copyrighted material, like they did for Bambi, Dumbo, Peter Pan etc. Because the copyright holders at the time were much smaller and less astute. You try to get the rights for a TV show based on Frozen. Disney will probably not sell those rights to you at any price.

Probabably not - do you think they should?

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

#140

Post by Qwertious »

tptacek wrote: post #86
ronsor wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point, I think the only way copyright terms could be reduced is a Constitutional amendment (not going to happen).

No. Copyright is enabled by the main text of the Constitution, not an amendment; the specific terms are simply acts of congress. The one tricky thing you'd run into --- besides the fact that there isn't public support for a radical change in copyright --- is treaty obligations. But, like, we can just break treaties.

>But, like, we can just break treaties.

The USA might get away with it, but smaller countries likely can't.

Post reply on HN