81–90 of 201 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a distinction between trademark and copyright, and the ability to imply a Disney source and to include Mickey in your work are not controlled in the same way. Using the 1928 Mouse in your work while making it clear your work doesn't originate with Disney wouldn't violate trademark law.
that would first of all take a lot of work to make it absolutely clear, a lot of work to use the mouse, and finally a lot of work to fight the lawsuits until it was established that you didn't violate and could do what you were doing. In short nobody but a crazy person or someone with a real deep artistic need that absolutely required that version of Mickey to work would ever pursue it.
And AFAIK they were not sued, despite being ever so slightly off brand for Disney.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To expand on this point a bit, Ars Technica has some articles on the copyright extension saga. In 2019, when works started going into the public domain again in the US, they published https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/a-whole-years-wo... ; in 2018, they published https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/hollywood-says-i... which had interviews saying that there were no plans for another copyright extensi…
Where it also gets tricky is the creation of additional Steamboat Willie content - if you want to create and publish new Steamboat Willie stuff, you'll have to be crystal clear that it's not coming from Disney. If it looks like it's coming from Disney, that's when they can step in.
Steamboat Willie is probably the single most famous work to fall into the public domain since Youtube started. It is (formerly) owned by one of the most famously aggressive company in protecting IP. Youtube itself is also owned by an entity that is on the other side of IP law than Disney, but definitely far less aggressive in pushing those claims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They established early copyright because publishers would just print copies of books and never pay the authors at all. The middlemen aren't going to do it voluntarily, and if they do, they'll be undercut by those that don't.
Authors can sell their own books even if someone else publishes it. Especially if it's published into the public domain.
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.
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.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wonderful_World_of_Micke...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do authors make a living by giving away all their work for free?
How much do you want for that comment? Someone who spends years perfecting a recipe has no similar protections, yet they've certainly done work. Their options for making money off of it comes from maybe associated works, or a restaurant, or hiding the recipe. Maybe authors will have to read works out loud? Create different types of value in a world where we will have AI generating stories en masse?
Not sure where you get the idea that comments can't be copyrighted. As far as I know, if they are original works of authorship in a tangible medium, and you don't agree to waive that right in the terms of service, you own the copyright. In other words, the usual tests of whether something can be copyrighted.
In any case, comparing comments, recipes, and books as though they were the same thing doesn't make sense to me. I'd like to hear the ways in which they are equivalent, and why authors of novels should be stripped of their current right to claim the sole right to make copies of their own work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To expand on this point a bit, Ars Technica has some articles on the copyright extension saga. In 2019, when works started going into the public domain again in the US, they published https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/a-whole-years-wo... ; in 2018, they published https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/hollywood-says-i... which had interviews saying that there were no plans for another copyright extensi…
Where it also gets tricky is the creation of additional Steamboat Willie content - if you want to create and publish new Steamboat Willie stuff, you'll have to be crystal clear that it's not coming from Disney. If it looks like it's coming from Disney, that's when they can step in.