4 ms·

We need to create a sort of hybrid copyright and trademark that will solve the mickey mouse problem. So that a company can keep their actually used characters,

We need to create a sort of hybrid copyright and trademark that will solve the mickey mouse problem. So that a company can keep their actually used characters, but that unused stuff goes into the public domain after 25 years plus not being used in the past 5 years. Why bother? Is there a good reason in the public interest to keep Mickey out of the public domain, or is this a workaround to do as much in the public interest while submitting to the fact Disney has enough money to block the otherwise status quo ending of copyright. If the former, I'd suggest that you have a warped vision of how Disney's profitability is the public good, and secretly think you're lying. Or if it's the later, our democracy has some really fundamental problems and caving on this just makes them worse.

placeybordeaux 11y ago
It's not that the public should be concerned for Disney's profitability, but that it is much easier to simply split the cases and let Disney have a much smaller victory in just the space they desire rather than a larger victory that affects all of copyright.
- forgottenpass 11y ago
  I can get that. But that reasoning rests on an admission our democracy is incapable maintaining principles for no other reason than the power of corporate lobbying. (As you've already said the public shouldn't be concerned with Disney's profitability, so I'll assume that their lack profitability doesn't represent any threat to the nation.) If someone wants to argue that such a state of affairs is fine, OK. We can have that conversation. But I see it as a fundamental threat to the rule of law.
  - saint_fiasco 11y ago
    What's wrong with admitting that the system doesn't work? If it's true, then we should act in consequence instead of flipping out at the suggestion of palliative measures. It's like refusing to consider measures to mitigate harm caused by global warming because you don't want to "admit" that corporate interests make it very difficult to prevent global warming.
    - anigbrowl 11y ago
      Because it's not a simple binary. The system works well for some purposes and not for others, but we can't easily measure the costs and benefits. I don't like the copyright system at all, but as a creator I derive some benefits from it like being able to protect my own work while I figure out how to sell it. Thus I'm not supportive when some people (not necessarily you) take the position 'it's broken, so let's just abandon it completely' since that would reduce the potential future value of anything I've created and shown to anyone else to zero, which would create a huge economic problem. It's true that some kinds of creative work can't be adequately copied. People enjoy hearing musicians play and sing at live concerts, because something about the immediacy of the social experience is more enjoyable than just listening to a recording. Likewise, original works of painting and sculpture are almost impossible to truly duplicate. But this is not the case for some other works of art, like novels or movies. The costs of creation are as high as for any other kind of artistic work product, while the marginal costs of reproduction are very much lower, and if they become too disjunct the business model collapses. Nobody is going to spend millions of dollars making films if it'c clearly impossible to recoup that investment, for example, nor are authors likely to spend years sweating over novels. Libertarians like to say 'your failed business model is not my problem' but ignore the fact that the business model is not failing, because people around the world are in fact quite happy to pay money to read books and watch big-budget movies absent any external compulsion to do so. And if I want to make a better sci-fi movie than the forthcoming Star Wars picture, the principal obstacle is not a legal one but the enormous cost of hiring so many skilled craftspeople and resources to make something of equivalent artistic and technical quality. The only legal barrier is that I can't call it 'Star Wars' or reuse elements from existing Star Wars products outside of the narrow exceptions of the fair use doctrine like parody, critical or educational use etc.
drgath 11y ago
Forget the specificity of Micky Mouse, as that character just represents Disney's brand. Do you really think a company should lose their brand after X years? Disney doesn't care about Steamboat Willy, they care about people selling knock-off mouse ears, which comes with Willy entering the public domain. I was just listening to an NPR segment on how Elvis Presley's image has become tainted by cheap crap, and that inspired Frank Sinatra to ensure the same doesn't happen to him. His biggest fear was that his face would be sold on a coffee mug. Should anyone be able to do anything with Frank Sinatra's likeness now that he's passed? Should the estate of George Lucas be able to create new Star Wars movies in X years to compete with Disney's Star Wars movies in effort to undo everything they added to the universe "Because it wasn't George's vision", even though he sold off the rights? I know I'm throwing hypotheticals and edge cases out there, but I just want us to focus on the issue deeper than "What reason is there to keep Steamboat Willy out of the public domain?" There's no good reason. But there are tons of good reasons to ensure people can't profit off an active brand's image.
- forgottenpass 11y ago
  But there are tons of good reasons to ensure people can't profit off an active brand's image. So, should a brand get to control in perpetuity whatever they choose to associate with themselves? Should we extend trademark protections to whatever a brand wants to self-identify with, even if it falls outside the traditional scope of a mark? Basically, I'm getting to the question: should it be the brand's responsibility to choose a protectable mark, or should it be on society to accept a loss to the scope of public domain whenever a brand has a lack of foresight? (and/or arrogance they could keep getting laws written for themselves?)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Retra 11y ago
  The system for doing that is called trademark.
- sharemywin 11y ago
  Why should a company have control of "art" into infinity just because they make money on it. Kind of the tail wagging the dog. Copyright was giving someone limited "ownership" to something they created for a limited time so we could create jobs for artists. Think of all the derivative works that aren't created because they are blocked by copyright.

placeybordeaux 11y ago

It's not that the public should be concerned for Disney's profitability, but that it is much easier to simply split the cases and let Disney have a much smaller victory in just the space they desire rather than a larger victory that affects all of copyright.

forgottenpass 11y ago
I can get that. But that reasoning rests on an admission our democracy is incapable maintaining principles for no other reason than the power of corporate lobbying. (As you've already said the public shouldn't be concerned with Disney's profitability, so I'll assume that their lack profitability doesn't represent any threat to the nation.) If someone wants to argue that such a state of affairs is fine, OK. We can have that conversation. But I see it as a fundamental threat to the rule of law.
- saint_fiasco 11y ago
  What's wrong with admitting that the system doesn't work? If it's true, then we should act in consequence instead of flipping out at the suggestion of palliative measures. It's like refusing to consider measures to mitigate harm caused by global warming because you don't want to "admit" that corporate interests make it very difficult to prevent global warming.
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    Because it's not a simple binary. The system works well for some purposes and not for others, but we can't easily measure the costs and benefits. I don't like the copyright system at all, but as a creator I derive some benefits from it like being able to protect my own work while I figure out how to sell it. Thus I'm not supportive when some people (not necessarily you) take the position 'it's broken, so let's just abandon it completely' since that would reduce the potential future value of anything I've created and shown to anyone else to zero, which would create a huge economic problem. It's true that some kinds of creative work can't be adequately copied. People enjoy hearing musicians play and sing at live concerts, because something about the immediacy of the social experience is more enjoyable than just listening to a recording. Likewise, original works of painting and sculpture are almost impossible to truly duplicate. But this is not the case for some other works of art, like novels or movies. The costs of creation are as high as for any other kind of artistic work product, while the marginal costs of reproduction are very much lower, and if they become too disjunct the business model collapses. Nobody is going to spend millions of dollars making films if it'c clearly impossible to recoup that investment, for example, nor are authors likely to spend years sweating over novels. Libertarians like to say 'your failed business model is not my problem' but ignore the fact that the business model is not failing, because people around the world are in fact quite happy to pay money to read books and watch big-budget movies absent any external compulsion to do so. And if I want to make a better sci-fi movie than the forthcoming Star Wars picture, the principal obstacle is not a legal one but the enormous cost of hiring so many skilled craftspeople and resources to make something of equivalent artistic and technical quality. The only legal barrier is that I can't call it 'Star Wars' or reuse elements from existing Star Wars products outside of the narrow exceptions of the fair use doctrine like parody, critical or educational use etc.

drgath 11y ago

Forget the specificity of Micky Mouse, as that character just represents Disney's brand. Do you really think a company should lose their brand after X years? Disney doesn't care about Steamboat Willy, they care about people selling knock-off mouse ears, which comes with Willy entering the public domain. I was just listening to an NPR segment on how Elvis Presley's image has become tainted by cheap crap, and that inspired Frank Sinatra to ensure the same doesn't happen to him. His biggest fear was that his face would be sold on a coffee mug. Should anyone be able to do anything with Frank Sinatra's likeness now that he's passed? Should the estate of George Lucas be able to create new Star Wars movies in X years to compete with Disney's Star Wars movies in effort to undo everything they added to the universe "Because it wasn't George's vision", even though he sold off the rights? I know I'm throwing hypotheticals and edge cases out there, but I just want us to focus on the issue deeper than "What reason is there to keep Steamboat Willy out of the public domain?" There's no good reason. But there are tons of good reasons to ensure people can't profit off an active brand's image.

forgottenpass 11y ago
But there are tons of good reasons to ensure people can't profit off an active brand's image. So, should a brand get to control in perpetuity whatever they choose to associate with themselves? Should we extend trademark protections to whatever a brand wants to self-identify with, even if it falls outside the traditional scope of a mark? Basically, I'm getting to the question: should it be the brand's responsibility to choose a protectable mark, or should it be on society to accept a loss to the scope of public domain whenever a brand has a lack of foresight? (and/or arrogance they could keep getting laws written for themselves?)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Retra 11y ago
The system for doing that is called trademark.
sharemywin 11y ago
Why should a company have control of "art" into infinity just because they make money on it. Kind of the tail wagging the dog. Copyright was giving someone limited "ownership" to something they created for a limited time so we could create jobs for artists. Think of all the derivative works that aren't created because they are blocked by copyright.