As old, silent films go, this is quite good.
In the past, this might mean a cheap DVD release. Not sure the signficance of public domain for movies these days.
41–50 of 201 posts
As old, silent films go, this is quite good.
In the past, this might mean a cheap DVD release. Not sure the signficance of public domain for movies these days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's none. But the validity of a copyright of a work is dependent on the place in which you're applying the law, not on the place where the author is from (except when applying the rule of the shorter term). Tons of works are in the public domain in one country, but not another.
The oldest still in effect copyright I know of is from 1611: the King James translation of the bible is still copyright of the crown in the UK. No other country recognizes that copyright.
High larious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They probably realized by now there is not much value left in that old version of Mickey. It's the newer self of Mickey (different looks and character) that brings in the money, but even that is becoming less relevant these days, I think? That's why they have bought so much IP which appeals to more people than Mickey Mouse.
Someone pointed out to me that Winnie the Pooh brings in more money than Mickey, and his copyright is just about the same timeframe. Everyone assumes The Mouse is what Disney is shitting bricks over and it's just as likely it's the silly ol' bear instead.
Public Domain Day 2024 Is Coming: Here's What to Know
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's been obvious for a few years that Disney wasn't going to pursue extending copyright anymore. It would have been politically difficult at any point in the last few years as the Senate does so little.
The timelessness of those old cartoons has waned considerably. GenX was already getting reruns of Disney and Looney Tunes cartoons that were aimed at Boomers. As the boomers are aging out, a lot of the slices of both domestic life and leisure time in these cartoons are something alien. Women in the kitchen? Hunting rabbits? And with a shotgun? Really? Itchy and Scratchy are Tom and Jerry ad absurdum. The Flintstones…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's none. But the validity of a copyright of a work is dependent on the place in which you're applying the law, not on the place where the author is from (except when applying the rule of the shorter term). Tons of works are in the public domain in one country, but not another.
The oldest still in effect copyright I know of is from 1611: the King James translation of the bible is still copyright of the crown in the UK. No other country recognizes that copyright.
A number of countries have copyright restrictions on things of national significance, etc., however, and then there's the concept of domaine public payant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's almost the most infuriating thing about their copyright grabs; it hardly even gets them anything of interest. They're not making any money on the actual Steamboat Willie movie. We're still a ways away from anything of even modest commercial interest from Disney entering the public domain, and even when Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs does finally come into public domain, I can't imagine it meaningfully affects…
> Meanwhile, to keep this at-best modestly interesting historical film locked up Well, it's not just the film, it's also everything in it, including (that design of) the characters themselves. When that enters the public domain, anyone can use (that design of) those characters for any purpose, including in their own works that have nothing to do with the Steamboat film. I can go make a platforming video game ala Cuph…
Consult a lawyer for exact details. there are things you can do with the characters after this expires, but the rules are very complex and I don't really understand them.
The mouse via Steamboat Willie is scheduled to enter public domain? Guess we can look forward to quite eventful three weeks before the end of the year, while Disney is frantically trying to prevent that outcome.
Disney spent the last decade or so growing their business (through large acquisitions) to where Mickey is now just small fraction of their worth. So they likely don't really care anymore. Plus it's only the old, old design of Mickey, not the current version they have been using for awhile that looks more normal to most people these days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone pointed out to me that Winnie the Pooh brings in more money than Mickey, and his copyright is just about the same timeframe. Everyone assumes The Mouse is what Disney is shitting bricks over and it's just as likely it's the silly ol' bear instead.
Pooh as a concept is already in the public domain. Disney's rendition of Pooh doesn't happen until I think sometime in the 1960's, so it'll be a while.
"The Passion of Joan of Arc directed by Carl Theodor Dreyer" As old, silent films go, this is quite good. In the past, this might mean a cheap DVD release. Not sure the signficance of public domain for movies these days.
I think for films, the restoration/HD prints will still belong to someone, and that's what people are interested in nowadays anyway.