Mickey, Disney, and the public domain: A 95-year love triangle • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by gamblor956 » Mon, Dec 18, 2023, 6:48 PM UTC

visarga wrote: post #187

karaterobot wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They also used public domain works like Snow White and Cinderella but now are working actively to stop other works from reaching public domain.

Just to be clear: Disney is trying to stop their own unique creations from becoming public domain while they are still acting using those creations.

The public domain works like Snow White and Cinderella were hundreds of years old when Disney made their versions, and they have no issues with others making their own versions of these fairy tales (because there is only one "Disney's Snow White").

And Disney is perfectly fine with paying for the rights to IP to adapt into films, as with Alice in Wonderland, the MCU, etc.

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

#202

Post by WorldMaker » Mon, Dec 18, 2023, 6:55 PM UTC

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…

Also it can be seen as Disney Feature Animation wanting to celebrate a 95th year anniversary of sorts [1]. Sure the anniversary means a lot now to the public domain, but don't forget that it is also still a big anniversary for the company itself and can be a fun reminder of how far the company has come and all the things they've done over that span of years [2].

[1] DFA itself as a division of the company hasn't existed continuously in that 95-year period, of course. It was shutdown by Eisner for a while in favor of cheaper (and mostly outsourced overseas) Disney Television Animation and various dalliances with Pixar.

[2] Including the years that Disney thought it didn't need an active Disney Feature Animation department. The Steamboat Willie logo does also feel a bit like an internal political statement in that respect, too, because it kind of also says "this company was founded on Feature Animation".

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

#203

Post by gamblor956 » Mon, Dec 18, 2023, 7:11 PM UTC

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.

Very few of Disney's were "smaller and less astute."

Disney bought the rights to Peter Pan from Paramount Pictures in 1938. At the time, Disney was a small fraction of the size of Paramount Pictures.

The original author of Bambi sold the motion picture rights to his film in 1936 for $1000 USD to a film producer...Disney was not the purchaser. Disney bought those rights from the producer for an undisclosed amount.

Disney bought the rights to Dumbo for $1000 plus royalties on the book sales. (At the time Dumbo was a very simple, very short story intended as promotional content for a new type of book called a "roll-a-book". It sold very few copies, and would have been a historical footnote if not for the unexpected success of the film.)

Disney bought the rights to Winnie the Pooh and paid royalties to the Milne family for decades, before shelling out $350 million to buy the entire rights in 2001. (Disney originally paid $1000 for the merchandising rights to the merchandising rights holder, it's not clear how much they paid for the film rights but given that the Pooh books were a huge commercial success, estimates are somewhere between $100k and $1million in 195x dollars.)

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

#204

Post by jpc0 » Mon, Dec 18, 2023, 8:15 PM UTC

dkersten wrote: post #145

HenryBemis wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Or the estate, read families, of these artists?

Not all copyright is owned or even licensed to organisations.

It really is a bad feel if you created something, then 20 years later someone releases the exact thing you created and make millions and you don't get a cent of that money.

Also many people after retirement age probably need the income from royalties a little bit more than when they were in their prime, not less.

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

#205

Post by gnopgnip » Mon, Dec 18, 2023, 8:23 PM UTC

Dwedit wrote: post #151

gnopgnip wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In Lenz v. Universal the courts found otherwise, that fair use is an authorized use and a rights holder is liable for damages if they fail to consider it.

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

#206

Post by zie » Mon, Dec 18, 2023, 8:47 PM UTC

PurpleRamen wrote: post #196

zie wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. 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 r…

I agree public domain is not new, and they do have this problem today. It's generally 1st mover advantage that wins and the rest give up the project, since they know they probably can't beat them to market and get good market share. That's not always the case though.

If you are poor, then there is zero reason to renew the copyright, you clearly aren't making any money off of it. I view it as a tax on the copyright, it could even be implemented that way, say 10% of your take rate or something.

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

#207

Post by freejazz » Mon, Dec 18, 2023, 9:08 PM UTC

phantom784 wrote: post #182

PurpleRamen wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already do that now, even for less stuff from less than 20, 30 years. They reboot, remake, continue anything for whatever reason. Money is relevant, but by far not the biggest hurdle to prevent them. The permissions of the right holders and the influence of the creators are more important IMHO. For example, Netflix just now announced a reboot of One Piece Anime, a series running for 25 years. The creator is stil…

Perhaps trademark law could help? E.g. Netflix can make their One Piece reboot without permission, but it has to be named in a way that makes it clear it's not licensed from the original creator.

Trademark doesn't protect individual works, it protects a brand.

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

#208

Post by tptacek » Mon, Dec 18, 2023, 9:17 PM UTC

tacocataco wrote: post #190

tptacek wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's less time than the copyright terms at the time of the founders.

I was under the impression copyright was 14 years back then. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790

It was 14+14.

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

#209

Post by bmulcahy » Mon, Dec 18, 2023, 9:21 PM UTC

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.

It's no more ironic than a basketball player who just increased his score by putting a ball through a hoop trying to prevent his opponent from doing the same.

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

#210

Post by chimeracoder » Mon, Dec 18, 2023, 9:39 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #201

visarga wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also used public domain works like Snow White and Cinderella but now are working actively to stop other works from reaching public domain.

Just to be clear: Disney is trying to stop their own unique creations from becoming public domain while they are still acting using those creations. The public domain works like Snow White and Cinderella were hundreds of years old when Disney made their versions, and they have no issues with others making their own versions of these fairy tales (because there is only one "Disney's Snow White"). And Disney is perfectl…

> The public domain works like Snow White and Cinderella were hundreds of years old when Disney made their versions, and they have no issues with others making their own versions of these fairy tales (because there is only one "Disney's Snow White").

Actually, Disney is incredibly aggressive legally when it comes to other people trying to use Germanic fairy tales in their own works, even if it's completely independent from Disney and there's no risk of confusion.

They've been able to shut down a lot of stuff that's almost certainly legal under the law, simply because nobody is able to take on a protracted legal fight with the megacorp.