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

141–150 of 221 posts

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

#141

Post by wslh »

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.

> You try to get the rights for a TV show based on Frozen

I think it is ridiculous to think it might happen. It is like asking Apple to sell you M3 chips. They will use it on their own devices in the same way that Disney could make that TV show end-to-end for years, if not a lifetime. Think in the Star Wars brand.

Simultaneously they partner with Lego and other companies for franchising.

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

#142

Post by oblio »

bazoom42 wrote: post #139
oblio wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Have you seen the post I was replying to?

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

#143

Post by oblio »

wslh wrote: post #141
oblio wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> You try to get the rights for a TV show based on Frozen I think it is ridiculous to think it might happen. It is like asking Apple to sell you M3 chips. They will use it on their own devices in the same way that Disney could make that TV show end-to-end for years, if not a lifetime. Think in the Star Wars brand. Simultaneously they partner with Lego and other companies for franchising.

As I replied to the sibling comment, have you seen the post I was replying to?

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

#144

Post by gwd »

kelnos wrote: post #67
galangalalgol wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we go back to death +50 then? Tolkien would be public domain next year. In Canada it was close but they switched to +70 last year.

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.

I get the idea, but I think that's way too short. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone came out in 1997; imagine if instead of paying Rowling for the royalties to make the movie in 2001, the studios had just waited until 2017 and done it without her permission, paying her not a penny.

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

#145

Post by dkersten »

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..

> but something tells me that Beatles, Iron Maiden, Michael Jackson, Sinatra, will echo for eons..

Sure, but should a corporation continue to make huge profits from these artist who will be long dead?

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

#147

Post by wslh »

oblio wrote: post #143
wslh wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You try to get the rights for a TV show based on Frozen I think it is ridiculous to think it might happen. It is like asking Apple to sell you M3 chips. They will use it on their own devices in the same way that Disney could make that TV show end-to-end for years, if not a lifetime. Think in the Star Wars brand. Simultaneously they partner with Lego and other companies for franchising.

As I replied to the sibling comment, have you seen the post I was replying to?

Could you please expand about your point? You are copying the same message to other commenters.

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

#148

Post by chx »

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.

> Disney will probably not sell those rights to you at any price.

While I understand where you are coming from, it's obvious they would. They are a public company, responsible to the shareholders, yadda, yadda. It's another question whether it would make economical sense to pay such a price which would likely run into the tens of billions.

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

#149

Post by Mindwipe »

sparrowInHand wrote: post #146

Unfair compromise suggestion: Exempt Disney from the law and shrink the public domain? Acknowledge reality and create competition for those who are beyond the law, instead of them destroying the law for all?

The idea that the current lengths of copyright law are anything to do with Disney is a nice fiction but it's not true.

The US has the copyright terms they have is because they were obligated to match the EU's by international treaty (where copyright is, in most cases, the end of the year 70 years after the author dies). The EU adopted that term to harmonise it's copyright with that of Germany.

Disney certainly didn't object to a copyright extension in the US, but they weren't the driving force behind it, trade deals with the EU were, and the EU is not going to allow the US to reduce their term in a million years (and nor are the many other international signatories who have harmonised their term at a similar period since).

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

#150

Post by bloak »

bentley wrote: post #28
EvanAnderson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen a lot of speculation that they've been slowly pivoting Steamboat Willie in preparation to use trademark litigation where copyright will no longer be effective.

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…

And Philips tried to use trademark law after their patent on triple-headed rotary shavers expired, and they failed: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/jun/19/marketingandpr...
Post reply on HN