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

161–170 of 221 posts

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

#161

Post by stephen_g »

sharkski wrote: post #80

I plan on uploading a BD rip of Steamboat Willie to YouTube at midnight January 1st, 2024. I'm curious if a copyright strike will happen and if I can defeat it.

I wouldn't do it on an account with anything important in it, I think you're still likely to get striked.

There's little recourse for false claims, so they'll probably do it anyway, and since it's the claimant that gets to deny your appeals, there won't be much you can do unless you can create enough publicity about it on social media (although I guess doing that to get attention could be enough reason to do it!)

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

#162

Post by PoignardAzur »

gwd wrote: post #144
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.

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.

"Wait 16 years to make a movie for a franchise that's popular with children now" is a bold proposition.

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

#163

Post by majewsky »

gwd wrote: post #144
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.

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.

They most likely still would have done it. Books like this usually have a short shelf life in the public consciousness. Harry Potter being an exception to the rule is in large part based on the hugely successful long-running movie series.

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

#164

Post by bazoom42 »

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.

How about doing the same with other assets - land, real estate? After 20 years ownership reverts to the public.

You can enjoy your house for 20 years.

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

#165

Post by galangalalgol »

tptacek wrote: post #60
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's a term shorter than 1909, before Disney even existed. Seems pretty unlikely. The "life" stuff doesn't make any sense, either; it's always been a genuinely weird term.

In 1909 the US switched from a term of 28 years extensible by 14 if the author lived, to a term of 28 years extensible by 28 if the author lived. It didn't grow to life +50 until 1976.

Edit: I think the confusion may arise from the Berne convention. The US did sign, but not until 1988.

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

#166

Post by bazoom42 »

oblio wrote: post #158
bazoom42 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can make your own adaptions of Cinderella or The Snow Queen. Nothing is stopping you.

You just can’t use the exact character design of Anna and Elsa, but why would you want that anyway?

Certainly things more valuable to humanity (like land or real estate) is loced up in corporate vaults.

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

#167

Post by zinekeller »

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?

On the pre-Berne era, you are required to properly affix a copyright notice, but since that Night of the Living Dead was released without one it became outside of US copyright law (and automatically became in public domain).

In addition to the belated Berne Convention adaptation, the US also required registration of copyright, and to this day still "prefers" registration. (However the reality is that while modern work is still in copyright regardless of registration status, in case there's a legal suit the possible remedies are severely curtailed if it's not a registered work, so to this day it's still effectively mandatory. This... has been a grumbling of some countries since that Berne convention requires that there should not have formalities, and this seems to retain that formality system.)

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

#168

Post by PurpleRamen »

gwd wrote: post #144
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.

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.

The Idea is even worse. It's not uncommon for artists to work a long time for next to nothing, until someday they have a big breakthrough. 10, 20 years are nothing. And while newer works are usually then one bringing a breakthrough, making good money with early works is also happening often. Usually, artist grow in their own little niche, until they hit mainstream.

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

#169

Post by PurpleRamen »

PoignardAzur wrote: post #162
gwd wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Wait 16 years to make a movie for a franchise that's popular with children now " is a bold proposition.

That's actually very common in Hollywood. Wait if a work survives the test of time. And then reap on the now money-loaded customers and cash out from their reminiscence.

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

#170

Post by galangalalgol »

PurpleRamen wrote: post #169
PoignardAzur wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Wait 16 years to make a movie for a franchise that's popular with children now " is a bold proposition.

That's actually very common in Hollywood. Wait if a work survives the test of time. And then reap on the now money-loaded customers and cash out from their reminiscence.

Hollywood is already rebooting reboots of remakes of comic books vaguely based on historic events. Imagine if original copyright rules in the us applied (14 extensible by 14 for a living author). They could reboot anything before 1995 for free.
Post reply on HN