Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mickey’s Copyright Adventure: Early Disney Toon Is Set to Be Public Property

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 59 posts

Re: Mickey’s Copyright Adventure: Early Disney Toon Is Set to Be Public Property

#31

Post by Siira »

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #20
gcanyon wrote: post #6

It's pedantic to say it, but copyright is not directly intended to help creators; its purpose is to enrich the public by inspiring creators to produce more. Helping creators profit/benefit from their work is a means to an end. Creative work benefits the public in at least two ways: primarily, by being itself. People like reading the original Harry Potter books. Copyright encourages that by allowing creators to sell t…

I wouldn’t want just anyone to be able to use my characters and setting for their grummy cashgrabs. I think reasonable copyright would be 10 years or lifetime of the author which ever occurs later. This way the author would be in charge of their characters while alive and their kids would still gain from works done in the later years

If you don’t want other humans to remix information you have broadcasted, then don’t broadcast in the first place. It’s not like you haven’t been using other people’s ideas in your “original” work.

Re: Mickey’s Copyright Adventure: Early Disney Toon Is Set to Be Public Property

#32

Post by bushbaba »

redwall_hp wrote: post #19
II2II wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue, as it is presented in the article, is with how copyright law intermingles with trademark law. They noted that people will be able to distribute the original short. They also noted that any unique works that incorporate the iconic mouse (even in its original form) may run into litigation. Given Disney's financial interest in The Mouse, I suspect they were understating it. It is easy to oversimplify what is…

Trademarks should be limited to providing identification for a business, not something that applies to products or cultural elements. You shouldn't be able to hold a trademark on "Star Wars" or "iPhone," but should be able to for LucasFilm or Apple. All product names should be effectively generic. Copyright and patents should just be straight up abolished, or at least severely scaled back and limited to 1-3 years.

So in your world when I go to the mall. I buy an iPhone from a cellphone store. Id have no confidence on it being the Apple iPhone.

Re: Mickey’s Copyright Adventure: Early Disney Toon Is Set to Be Public Property

#33

Post by Frondo »

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #20
gcanyon wrote: post #6

It's pedantic to say it, but copyright is not directly intended to help creators; its purpose is to enrich the public by inspiring creators to produce more. Helping creators profit/benefit from their work is a means to an end. Creative work benefits the public in at least two ways: primarily, by being itself. People like reading the original Harry Potter books. Copyright encourages that by allowing creators to sell t…

I wouldn’t want just anyone to be able to use my characters and setting for their grummy cashgrabs. I think reasonable copyright would be 10 years or lifetime of the author which ever occurs later. This way the author would be in charge of their characters while alive and their kids would still gain from works done in the later years

Why (and I realize this is one of those questions that sounds snide, but I do not mean it so) should a creator's kids gain from a piece of art or work of music after a creator's death?

Editing to clarify: I fully accept that copyright is a good thing to give incentives to people to make art and music and creative works, I just don't understand why that incentive should be transmissible to their kids, i.e. people who were presumably not involved in making it in the first place.

Re: Mickey’s Copyright Adventure: Early Disney Toon Is Set to Be Public Property

#34

Post by slim »

somat wrote: post #13

Note that "Mickey: the character" does not suddenly become public domain, Mickey is a trademark of the Disney corporation, and trademarks do not expire. However some specific "Mickey: the film" will go into public domain. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect this means that is will be fine to redistribute specific early mickey films, however any remixes, or reuse of the content, you may find yourself violating Disney's m…

Steam boat willie : the character will become public domain. You are free to create new stories with steam boat willie as a character.

Re: Mickey’s Copyright Adventure: Early Disney Toon Is Set to Be Public Property

#35

Post by ghaff »

Frondo wrote: post #33
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t want just anyone to be able to use my characters and setting for their grummy cashgrabs. I think reasonable copyright would be 10 years or lifetime of the author which ever occurs later. This way the author would be in charge of their characters while alive and their kids would still gain from works done in the later years

Why (and I realize this is one of those questions that sounds snide, but I do not mean it so) should a creator's kids gain from a piece of art or work of music after a creator's death? Editing to clarify: I fully accept that copyright is a good thing to give incentives to people to make art and music and creative works, I just don't understand why that incentive should be transmissible to their kids, i.e. people who…

People pass lots of other things onto kids. Leaving aside debates about estate taxes etc., it's unclear that royalties from creative works should be uniquely disadvantaged.

Re: Mickey’s Copyright Adventure: Early Disney Toon Is Set to Be Public Property

#36

Post by ghaff »

Siira wrote: post #31
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t want just anyone to be able to use my characters and setting for their grummy cashgrabs. I think reasonable copyright would be 10 years or lifetime of the author which ever occurs later. This way the author would be in charge of their characters while alive and their kids would still gain from works done in the later years

If you don’t want other humans to remix information you have broadcasted, then don’t broadcast in the first place. It’s not like you haven’t been using other people’s ideas in your “original” work.

So you are presumably OK with Disney, Sony, etc. grabbing a recent book and making a movie out of it without giving the original author a cent or any credit?

Re: Mickey’s Copyright Adventure: Early Disney Toon Is Set to Be Public Property

#37

Post by wolpoli »

endisneigh wrote: post #12
alexb_ wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard the suggestion that copyright could be extended after 5 years by paying a dollar to renew, after 6 years by paying 2 dollars, 7 years by paying 4, 8 with 8, etc. If your copyright is so immensly valuable that it's worth paying to renew it, that's fine. The longer you keep something in copyright, the larger your harm to society becomes due to preventing legal fan works and derivatives from being made. The f…

seems like a good idea - what's the downside?

What constitutes 'work'. On one extreme, a studio spending millions making a movie is a single piece of work. On the other extreme, a photographer might take 100 photos in a day that he/she offers for sales. The number won't work for the photographer.

Re: Mickey’s Copyright Adventure: Early Disney Toon Is Set to Be Public Property

#38

Post by m463 »

gcanyon wrote: post #6

It's pedantic to say it, but copyright is not directly intended to help creators; its purpose is to enrich the public by inspiring creators to produce more. Helping creators profit/benefit from their work is a means to an end. Creative work benefits the public in at least two ways: primarily, by being itself. People like reading the original Harry Potter books. Copyright encourages that by allowing creators to sell t…

I believe I read an article (by jerry pournelle?) where he was fine with copyright before 1976 - 28 years with a renewal for an additional 28 years. I believe the normal thing authors worked out was the publisher would get the first term, then the author could renew and get next 28 years.

That seems entirely reasonable to me.

Re: Mickey’s Copyright Adventure: Early Disney Toon Is Set to Be Public Property

#39

Post by toast0 »

somat wrote: post #13

Note that "Mickey: the character" does not suddenly become public domain, Mickey is a trademark of the Disney corporation, and trademarks do not expire. However some specific "Mickey: the film" will go into public domain. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect this means that is will be fine to redistribute specific early mickey films, however any remixes, or reuse of the content, you may find yourself violating Disney's m…

I'm not a lawyer either, if copyright is expired, you're free to make a derivative work. Although, you certainly have to be sure you don't derive from a derivative work whose copyright has not expired.

Trademark issues will be tricky, there is a concept of fair use in trademarks, and it seems to me, if you can sell a copy of the film, you must be able to use elements of the film to sell it. If you can create and distribute derivative works, you must be able to use elements of the works to sell them. But maybe we'll just have to have white boxes with 3rd party Mickey (as seen in Steamboat Willie) movies, and boring movie posters too. I expect to see a stream of lawsuits until clear rulings are available.

Re: Mickey’s Copyright Adventure: Early Disney Toon Is Set to Be Public Property

#40

Post by tester457 »

alexb_ wrote: post #7
gcanyon wrote: post #6

It's pedantic to say it, but copyright is not directly intended to help creators; its purpose is to enrich the public by inspiring creators to produce more. Helping creators profit/benefit from their work is a means to an end. Creative work benefits the public in at least two ways: primarily, by being itself. People like reading the original Harry Potter books. Copyright encourages that by allowing creators to sell t…

I've heard the suggestion that copyright could be extended after 5 years by paying a dollar to renew, after 6 years by paying 2 dollars, 7 years by paying 4, 8 with 8, etc. If your copyright is so immensly valuable that it's worth paying to renew it, that's fine. The longer you keep something in copyright, the larger your harm to society becomes due to preventing legal fan works and derivatives from being made. The f…

As long as the cost increase is exponential since companies like Disney can afford it, 9 years pay 16, 10 years pay 32, 20 years pay 32768, 30 years pay 16777216, etc.
Post reply on HN