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

211–220 of 221 posts

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

#211

Post by averageRoyalty »

fbdab103 wrote: post #31
averageRoyalty wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly went on in Florida? Sorry, I'm not across this.

Florida passed the "Don't Say Gay" bill, to which Disney publicly stood against. Since then, GOP led Florida government has decided that Disney is the enemy and has taken active measures to bludgeon them.

Thanks. That didn't really explain much - apparently the bill isn't about banning the word "gay" - but it gave me context to look it up.

For others who don't follow American drama, apparently it's legislation[1] passed banning discussion on sexual orientation or gender identity from kinder to grade 3 (I believe 5-9 years old range in the US educational system).

Apparently Disney opposed it and has some sort of significant resort there, so the government fired back by taking back ownership of the land that the resort is on, which they appeared to have unfettered control over to the extent of being their own unaccountable government[2].

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Parental_Rights_in_Edu...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Florida_Tourism_Oversi...

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

#212

Post by paulddraper »

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.

> They also used public domain works like Snow White and Cinderella

Let's mention that these stories were in public domain for literal centuries.

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

#213

Post by gamblor956 »

chimeracoder wrote: post #210
gamblor956 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 independen…

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.

Citation needed.

In the past decade there have been more than a dozen movies based on the same Germanic fairy tales that Disney has exploited. Disney didn't sue over any of them.

Disney didn't even sue over Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey, and that is based on the version of Winnie the Pooh that they actually own. (The original stories and characters are now in the public domain though.)

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

#214

Post by simondotau »

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 copyright terms of 10 years for all works, or for a tiny nominal fee (between $1 and $10) you can list the work on a register for a further 10 years, which you can do multiple times up to a maximum of 50 years. The idea is to strike a balance between giving creators time to monetise their works while also allowing abandoned/unlicensed works to fall into public domain reasonably quickly.

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

#215

Post by cvalka »

mod50ack wrote: post #109
bentley wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Previous copyright extensions were not constitutional amendments. Decreasing the length of new copyright terms could be done the same way, without any need for an amendment. Reducing the length of existing copyright terms might be considered an ex post facto law. Those are explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. The Constitution states that copyrights must be limited in length. Retroactively extending the duration…

> Reducing the length of existing copyright terms might be considered an ex post facto law. Those are explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. No, that is definitely not an ex post facto law. That's not even close to what the ex post facto law clause covers (dealing with punishments for actions that were kosher at the time they took place). There is an argument that shortening copyrights is prohibited by the taking…

The takings clause does not apply to copyright. Copyright is not private property. Courts are not stupid.

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

#216

Post by dkersten »

jpc0 wrote: post #204
dkersten wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 l…

The comment I responded to said eons to come. I’m perfectly ok with tying copyright expiry to death of the artist, plus a little extra for the immediate family. I don’t, however, think that someone should be entitled to free money just because their great grandparents or other ancestor was a successful artist, the same way I don’t agree that someone should be entitled to free money because their ancestors happened to start a bank or oil company or be a monarch or whatever.

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

#217

Post by ISL »

simondotau wrote: post #101
ISL wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might be careful about discerning which midnight applies.

Such nuance only matters if you end up in a courtroom, which you never would because it would be beyond absurd.

Absurd court cases exist.

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

#218

Post by ddingus »

goto11 wrote: post #118
ddingus wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had the Brothers Grimm taken the Disney view, there would have been no Disney, or at the least, a very different, far less compelling one.

The Grimm Brothers didn't write the stories, they collected and published folktales. In any case they would have been been out of copyright since Jacob Grimm died in 1863. Disney didn't mind paying for the rights if they wanted to use material still under copyright, like they did for Bambi or Dumbo or many others.

They did mind ceding rights, and that is where it all breaks down for a lot of people.

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

#219

Post by EvanAnderson »

8note wrote: post #74
bentley wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This makes much more sense with a patent than copyright. How do you trademark the exact shape of a Lego brick? On the other hand, trademarks tend to be some form of art, so copyright and trademarks make sense to coincide

> How do you trademark the exact shape of a Lego brick?

You can trademark a shape, actually. It's called Trade Dress[0], and The Lego Group uses it, too. The Minifig, for example, is registered[1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress

[1] https://trademarks.justia.com/865/37/n-86537461.html

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

#220

Post by jpc0 »

dkersten wrote: post #216
jpc0 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

The comment I responded to said eons to come. I’m perfectly ok with tying copyright expiry to death of the artist, plus a little extra for the immediate family. I don’t, however, think that someone should be entitled to free money just because their great grandparents or other ancestor was a successful artist, the same way I don’t agree that someone should be entitled to free money because their ancestors happened to…

I agree with this and that is what the current law defines.

That isn't what the entire comment thread is discussing though so I misinterpreted your comment. Apologies

Post reply on HN