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

151–160 of 221 posts

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

#151

Post by Dwedit »

gnopgnip wrote: post #102
sircastor wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to remember that none of these laws give you permission to do anything. The only thing the law does is give a judge, or a panel of judges, or a jury, a set of guidelines to evaluate whether or not you violated that law and can be fined or punished. If you use it in a way that violates copyright, or in a way that a lawyer responsible for the IP thinks violates copyright then you can hire a lawyer to try…

In Lenz v. Universal the courts found that the rights holder does need to consider fair use, and if they do not before sending a DMCA takedown they are liable

There's only one thing required in a DMCA takedown, and that is the claim that the person issuing the takedown is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder. That's it. No requirement to consider fair use, or even any requirement that the allegedly infringed work is correctly identified.

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

#152

Post by [deleted] »

zinekeller wrote: post #115
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…

> unfortunately, this meant the work automatically went into the public domain To clarify, only in the US (and a few others not following the Berne convention). Night of the Living Dead is still in copyright for 95%-ish of the world (unlike some people insisting that "It's Public Domain worldwide." because sadly that doesn't how copyright works.) This is of course more complicated (rule of shorter term may be applied…

[deleted]

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

#153

Post by tialaramex »

Mindwipe wrote: post #149
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…

> they were obligated to match the EU's by international treaty

Nope.

"We have to align to the more generous terms in territory X" is almost always one rationale offered for expansions, everywhere. There is no such treaty requirement. What the US is obligated to do by treaty is give everybody else's copyrights the same benefits their own get in their country.

The reason this rationale is used is that it's cover to grow copyright indefinitely because you insist on "aligning" only with other people's more favourable terms, but of course in the process you also uprate the places where your terms were already most favourable, thus ensuring other countries with the same practice will likewise re-align, so this ping-pongs forever.

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

#154

Post by GuB-42 »

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.

And I suspect they really preferred to pay.

Using public domain stories enabled others to easily produce cheap knockoffs legally, and they did. So, for instance you you had direct-to-video, cheaply made versions of "Cinderella" which were an attempt to trick unsuspecting buyers who really wanted the Disney version.

When some work is still under copyright, that makes is a higher bar for knockoff producers than for Disney. Disney has more money, more and better lawyers, and is known for the quality of its work, which makes it in a better position to negotiate the rights.

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

#156

Post by bazoom42 »

oblio wrote: post #142
bazoom42 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probabably not - do you think they should?

Have you seen the post I was replying to?

You mean the comment written by me? This is a very tedious way of arguing - if you have a point, why dont you make it?

You think Disney IP should be free for all to use? Just remember this would go both ways - Disney could take the work of any independent author or artist and use freely without crediting.

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

#157

Post by rhdunn »

globular-toast wrote: post #122
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).

That's only in the UK where the children's hospital has perpetual copyright to the first peter pan book/play (I'm not sure about the other works in the series). Outside of the UK it is no longer under copyright. Performances/etc. of it in the UK require royalty payments to the children's hospital. Presumably performances/etc. of derivative works (such as the Disney film) require the same.

The same applies to the King James Bible where the UK Crown (and Cambridge Press) hold the copyright to it, where you can't publish that text without permission.

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

#158

Post by oblio »

bazoom42 wrote: post #156
oblio wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen the post I was replying to?

You mean the comment written by me? This is a very tedious way of arguing - if you have a point, why dont you make it? You think Disney IP should be free for all to use? Just remember this would go both ways - Disney could take the work of any independent author or artist and use freely without crediting.

My point is that the Disney empire was built on public domain works.

At least the older stuff should become public domain.

They're trying to have their cake and eat it.

It's not normal or sane or good for society that things created 70+ years ago are still locked up in a corporate vault.

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

#159

Post by PoignardAzur »

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.

I don't think being astute has anything to do with it.

Even now, book adaptations into movies, series, etc happen all the time. Even Disney still lets various companies (including freaking Warner Bros) make video games of its various IPs.

The dynamic here isn't about being astute, it's about well-positioned for a given market. If Disney thought a Frozen show was a good idea, they'd produce it themselves (like they did for Tangled and various others). For markets where they don't have / don't want to have an internal talent pool (RIP LucasArts), they rent the license.

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

#160

Post by zozbot234 »

hutzlibu wrote: post #130
wodenokoto wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ironically, the meme is based on the Disney-specific Winnie the Pooh that's very much covered by copyright.
Post reply on HN