191–200 of 221 posts
So Mickey expired. But how does it work for creations by Disney? Will they expire on an ongoing basis? By creation I mean: - The actual drawings - The animations - The story lines
Disney will still C&D and sue anyone that uses Mickey in a way they disapprove of and 99% will fold because otherwise Disney will bankrupt them with the legal process.
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.
I think it just depends on the pricing the copyright holder wants. If you can pay a few bucks and get exclusive rights, it's totally a win. If you have to mortgage your business to get the rights, it's a much harder decision.
I think a reasonable compromise would be, by default a copyright lasts 10 years, but they can extend it another 10 or 20 years(or maybe even until their death), if they pay a fee of some sort, perhaps yearly, so the copyright will expire as soon as it doesn't make sense to pay the fee anymore.
This lets the long-term copyright winners continue to win for most of their lifetime, if they cut the people(the govt) in on some of that return. While most things that don't need long term copyright get dumped into public domain to help invigorate and make more awesome new ideas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it went the other way around. Corrupt US industries first pushed those conventions and then pressured US legislature to "synchronize" with them. It's all a big pile of corrupt BS that tries to bypass normal lawmaking, so pushing back against it should be only natural.
I'm not familiar with the background here, so I just checked on Wikipedia. It says "After the United States' accession to the Berne convention, a number of copyright owners successfully lobbied the U.S. Congress for another extension of the term of copyright, to provide for the same term of protection that exists in Europe." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#:... ) This would seem to indica…
> The Senate Report gave the official reasons for passing copyright extension laws [...] to ensure adequate copyright protection for American works in foreign nations
... it also notes:
> The report also included minority opinions by Herb Kohl and Hank Brown, who believed that the term extensions were a financial windfall to current owners of copyrighted material at the expense of the public's use of the material.
And who supported the bill and lobbied for it?
> Since 1990, The Walt Disney Company had lobbied for copyright extension. The legislation delayed the entry into the public domain of the earliest Mickey Mouse cartoons, leading detractors to the nickname "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act".
> In addition to Disney, California congresswoman Mary Bono (Sonny Bono's widow and Congressional successor), and the estate of composer George Gershwin supported the act. Mary Bono, speaking on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, said: "Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. ... As you know, there is also [then-MPAA president] Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress."
> Other parties that lobbied in favor of the Bono Act were Time Warner, Universal, Viacom, the major professional sports leagues (NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB), and the family of slain singer Selena Quintanilla-Pérez.
So, primarily American corporations and individuals looking for a "financial windfall", including Sonny Bono himself who would have liked the act to completely violate the US constitution and make copyright last forever.
What you don't see on this list are any European organisations asking the USA to match their own copyright durations.
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.
If I recall correctly, it will and there’s nothing you can do about it. This came up recently on HN. Someone tried to post something that is definitely in the public domain as of this year, got a strike, and was asking how they’re supposed to appeal but was told the system is designed to be abused. It implicitly favors copyright holders even when it shouldn’t. There’s no built-in fairness, and to be honest I’m postin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Except you forgot about competition within the movie making industry. They could very easily end up competing against each other by making 2 or 3 movies of the same thing, which lowers their overall return, and is a bad deal for everyone. I think it just depends on the pricing the copyright holder wants. If you can pay a few bucks and get exclusive rights, it's totally a win. If you have to mortgage your business to…
Public domain is not new. They already have this situation now, and usually avoid this, probably for exact this reason.
> This lets the long-term copyright winners continue to win for most of their lifetime
Seems not very reasonable to support the rich and paywall the poor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Corridor Crew just did a good legal analysis on this a couple weeks ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2dIvUAd5QE&t=533s Basically the Disney brand has gotten so huge and diversified that a public domain Mickey isn't an existential threat to their business anymore. Terrifying in its own right, but at least we might see an end to the endless copyright extension. Interesting times ahead!
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.
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.
I don't know where the limits of Steamboat Willie end, but I bet an awful lot of people are going to read headlines like "Disney about to lose Mickey Mouse copyright" and find themselves in very hot water very quickly.
I don't even really know why Disney bothered to go to such lengths for a short film that makes them no money. But I suspect it saves the legal department money compared to giving a lot of very expensive lessons on the difference between copyright and trademark.
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.
I don't understand. According to Wikipedia, Disney bought the rights to Alice in Wonderland and the illustrations from the publisher in 1938, 13 years before the movie came out.