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

51–59 of 59 posts

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

#51

Post by lbotos »

gcanyon wrote: post #46
ghaff wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's an interesting question. Maybe copyright shouldn't be shorter, but the better answer is something like a mechanical license to cover a music composition. After the first publication, anyone can remix for a set fee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_license

This is how it works now.

If someone holds a copyright, you can license it from them if they so desire. The fee is determined by your legal team and theirs.

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

#52

Post by lbotos »

HelloNurse wrote: post #50

What is the Mickey Mouse trademark for, exactly? A character is not a product or service. If the trademark forbids anyone but Disney from making cartoons featuring Mickey Mouse, it is obviously an abuse and it should be revoked.

https://trademarks.justia.com/search?q=Mickey+Mouse

Here are US trademarks.

The trademark does not stop people from making a cartoon featuring Mickey Mouse, copyright does. We saw this with “Winnie the Pooh”. New horror movie can use the Pooh bear and friends, but can’t use the red shirt as that’s still copyrighted.

Trademark stops people from being able to use the name Mickey Mouse or the stylized type version they trademarked.

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

#53

Post by ghaff »

lbotos wrote: post #51
gcanyon wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting question. Maybe copyright shouldn't be shorter, but the better answer is something like a mechanical license to cover a music composition. After the first publication, anyone can remix for a set fee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_license

This is how it works now. If someone holds a copyright, you can license it from them if they so desire. The fee is determined by your legal team and theirs.

The difference is the (generally) required licensing and the set fee.

For example, as I understand it, a playwright can basically say "I don't let high schools or colleges stage my works." With respect to book adaptations, there were actually some issues with Sorkin's script for To Kill a Mockingbird because he made some changes in Atticus Finch's character development relative to the book.

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

#54

Post by gcanyon »

lbotos wrote: post #51
gcanyon wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting question. Maybe copyright shouldn't be shorter, but the better answer is something like a mechanical license to cover a music composition. After the first publication, anyone can remix for a set fee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_license

This is how it works now. If someone holds a copyright, you can license it from them if they so desire. The fee is determined by your legal team and theirs.

That's not how it works now, except for music. From the wikipedia article on mechanical licenses (the link I provided):

"Within copyright law within the United states, such mechanical licenses are compulsory; any party may obtain a license without permission of the license holder by paying a set license fee, that as of 2018, was set at 9.1 cents per composition or 1.75 cents per minute of composition, whichever is more, which are to go to the composition copyright holder."

Note "compulsory". There are a multitude of written and art works that are effectively copyright zombies: they are clearly within the term of copyright, but there is no clear owner to reach out to in order to license them. Hence generally out of fear of a lawsuit, they are dead as inspirations for other works.

Further, to your exact point, "if they so desire. The fee is determined by your legal team and theirs." If the author wants to be restrictive, their work will never be able to be inspirational to another work. Even if they are open to the idea, the concept that lawyers (probably) have to get involved reasonably has to diminish the number of works that are likely ever to be inspirational for other works by an enormous number.

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

#55

Post by gaganyaan »

ghaff wrote: post #36
Siira wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not OP, but I'd be fine with copyright being limited to exactly "must credit any works used that were created by other people".

But yes, abolishing copyright other than ensuring credit is given is the right move. The scenario you bring up wouldn't happen like you're thinking though. Disney or Sony would be free to make a movie using other people's art, but they'd have no legal means to enforce that people give them money to watch it, so behaving unethically would be a great way to not get any money from making it.

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

#56

Post by gs17 »

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 then LucasFilm would set up a subsidiary called "Star Wars: The Force Awakens LLC" and license the trademark to themselves to sell the generic "Movie" product, or whatever loophole works. Trademarks could be more restricted, but they serve a purpose to both consumers and brands.

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

#57

Post by nitwit005 »

gcanyon wrote: post #44
nitwit005 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. If you look at the history, the purpose is to enrich publishers, and everything else is simply to make the legislation more palatable. If there was truly concern about enriching the public do…

Sure, you can point out how it works in practice, but the concept of "for the public good" is in the literal description in the constitution.

Copyright laws rather obviously predate the US constitution.

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

#58

Post by gcanyon »

nitwit005 wrote: post #57
gcanyon wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, you can point out how it works in practice, but the concept of "for the public good" is in the literal description in the constitution.

Copyright laws rather obviously predate the US constitution.

While Mickey is a worldwide issue for Disney to deal with, the article is written from a U.S. perspective.

I'd be curious to know how other countries' laws justify copyright.

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

#59

Post by alexb_ »

tester457 wrote: post #40
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…

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.

That's exactly what I was implying
Post reply on HN