8 ms·

This is what I don't understand. To me, it seems a bit more complicated to me than a simple 'copyright expiration'. As far as I understand copyright, it stops

This is what I don't understand. To me, it seems a bit more complicated to me than a simple 'copyright expiration'. As far as I understand copyright, it stops anyone copying the exact same original image/music/video. Derivative works have always been allowed, but it's generally a Trademark that stops the derivative works dead in their tracks, as far as I understand. Also, is there a statute of limitations on Trademark? ie Can Disney keep up their TM on Mickey, stopping anyone else from using it? So all I think this really means is that the original videos are now in the public domain.

elliekelly 8y ago
Yes, you are indeed correct. It means the original videos can be posted on YouTube and Disney can't request them be taken down. It doesn't mean you or I can take the Mickey Mouse character and make our own Mickey Mouse cartoons. Edit: To add a trademark is valid as long as it's in use.
- riskable 8y ago
  No. This is not true. Derivative works are a thing. If that were true Disney would never have been able to make their derivatives of Pinocchio or Snow White. After Steamboat Willie expires you bloody damned well can make your own Mickey Mouse cartoon, comics, dolls, or whatever as long as you're not claiming to be Disney or using an exact copy of one of their later derivatives.
  - elliekelly 8y ago
    Derivative works of expired copyrights, yes. Disney doesn't own the plot to Snow White and never has because the Snow White story is in the public domain. Movies in the public domain can be reproduced in full or in part (as you mention, an exact copy) and the plot/storylines can be copied but Disney has a solid trademark claim on their characters. And that trademark claim continues indefinitely so long as Disney continues to use those characters in the marketplace. If you make a cartoon using Mickey Mouse will reasonable consumers falsely attribute that cartoon to Disney? Yes. That cartoon would likely cause confusion in the market place. Mickey Mouse is inextricably linked to Disney in the consumer's mind. You cannot use the Mickey Mouse character even if you never claim to be Disney. Further, I would argue that you cannot use the character even if you explicitly state you are not Disney because Disney's primary consumers are children and even with a disclaimer the mere use of the mark would likely cause consumer confusion.
    - caf 8y ago
      Further, I would argue that you cannot use the character even if you explicitly state you are not Disney because Disney's primary consumers are children and even with a disclaimer the mere use of the mark would likely cause consumer confusion. Ahh, but were I opposing counsel I would argue that the children young enough to be unable to read and comprehend the clear disclaimer that this is not a Disney production are also too young to have made the purchasing decision and therefore cannot be considered a market participant / consumer.
      - elliekelly 8y ago
        I would welcome you as opposing counsel because I would mop the floor with you. It's well-established that children can be and are consumers. In fact, both the FTC and CPSC have special regulations applicable to advertising and products for consumers under the age 12. Could you be convinced to take over for opposing counsel on my current docket? I would be most appreciative.
        caf 8y ago
        We're not talking about under age 12 here though, we're talking about under age 5. And furthermore it is not convincing unless you find a precedent involving toddlers as consumers specifically in a trademark / passing-off case.
    - zozbot123 8y ago
      Doesn't "Steamboat Willie" predate even the 'Mickey Mouse' name, anyway? I think it would be quite feasible to make a derivative work of SW that still had so many deliberate changes compared to what people associate with the present-day Mickey Mouse trademark, that no one, not even a young child, would be expected to conflate the work with Disney's products. This is one thing that would not be possible if SW failed to enter the public domain. Of course, things would become more interesting-- and perhaps more challenging-- as later stuff started entering the public domain as well; just as with "Sherlock Holmes", many features of Mickey's character were slowly accreted over time.
- jonhohle 8y ago
  It certainly doesn’t mean they can’t request that it be taken down (there are plenty of examples of companies requesting take downs for things they don’t have the copyright to, or infringed on the copyright themselves, only to turn around and request take down). It also doesn’t prevent deals between Disney and YouTube to prevent public domain works which Disney doesn’t want uploaded from being taken down (e.g. the first sale doctrine allows me to sell DVDs I own, but Amazon restricts DVD selling to only sellers with distribution/wholesaling agreements).
  - elliekelly 8y ago
    Pedantic. They can't use the force of law to remove the videos. But you knew exactly what I meant.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pjc50 8y ago
> Derivative works have always been allowed Other way round - copyright has always covered derivative works, that's how the GPL operates. And why you need to clear every sample you use in a music track.
- apocalypstyx 8y ago
  I've never understood why I see so many posters on HN (and in other tech-related circles) who seem to think derivative works have no legal encumbrances.
  - warent 8y ago
    Probably just taking for granted (understandably so) the fact that so much of what we develop with has extremely flexible/forgiving licensing
- cmroanirgo 8y ago
  That's what I meant: Derivative works have been allowed under copyright laws within the boundaries of Fair Use.
  - adrianmonk 8y ago
    It's clear that's what you mean. But derivative works are covered under the copyright of the original. Not just exact versions. That's why I can't go out and record a cover version of a Beatles song without paying to license it. It would be a derivative work, and not covered under fair use. Weird Al probably can, though, because parody is fair use.
    - tialaramex 8y ago
      Weird Al could claim parody fair use for a few tracks like Smells Like Nirvana which are actually parodying the thing used, but (a) that only covers a handful of his works and more importantly (b) he never does this for recordings, fair use is an affirmative defence. You have to wait until you get sued, then raise it and maybe if you have good lawyers that works. Even for Weird Al that's not a fun risk. For something like, say, Amish Paradise or Tacky the new work is not a parody of the work it derives from, it had nothing to say about that work except "Ha, this is funny if you change the words". So it would probably never be fair use. Instead Weird Al gets legal OK to use the work. Yes, all those artists, or their labels actually think Weird Al is funny, or at least they'll take the money.

elliekelly 8y ago

Yes, you are indeed correct. It means the original videos can be posted on YouTube and Disney can't request them be taken down. It doesn't mean you or I can take the Mickey Mouse character and make our own Mickey Mouse cartoons. Edit: To add a trademark is valid as long as it's in use.

riskable 8y ago
No. This is not true. Derivative works are a thing. If that were true Disney would never have been able to make their derivatives of Pinocchio or Snow White. After Steamboat Willie expires you bloody damned well can make your own Mickey Mouse cartoon, comics, dolls, or whatever as long as you're not claiming to be Disney or using an exact copy of one of their later derivatives.
- elliekelly 8y ago
  Derivative works of expired copyrights, yes. Disney doesn't own the plot to Snow White and never has because the Snow White story is in the public domain. Movies in the public domain can be reproduced in full or in part (as you mention, an exact copy) and the plot/storylines can be copied but Disney has a solid trademark claim on their characters. And that trademark claim continues indefinitely so long as Disney continues to use those characters in the marketplace. If you make a cartoon using Mickey Mouse will reasonable consumers falsely attribute that cartoon to Disney? Yes. That cartoon would likely cause confusion in the market place. Mickey Mouse is inextricably linked to Disney in the consumer's mind. You cannot use the Mickey Mouse character even if you never claim to be Disney. Further, I would argue that you cannot use the character even if you explicitly state you are not Disney because Disney's primary consumers are children and even with a disclaimer the mere use of the mark would likely cause consumer confusion.
  - caf 8y ago
    Further, I would argue that you cannot use the character even if you explicitly state you are not Disney because Disney's primary consumers are children and even with a disclaimer the mere use of the mark would likely cause consumer confusion. Ahh, but were I opposing counsel I would argue that the children young enough to be unable to read and comprehend the clear disclaimer that this is not a Disney production are also too young to have made the purchasing decision and therefore cannot be considered a market participant / consumer.
    - elliekelly 8y ago
      I would welcome you as opposing counsel because I would mop the floor with you. It's well-established that children can be and are consumers. In fact, both the FTC and CPSC have special regulations applicable to advertising and products for consumers under the age 12. Could you be convinced to take over for opposing counsel on my current docket? I would be most appreciative.
      - caf 8y ago
        We're not talking about under age 12 here though, we're talking about under age 5. And furthermore it is not convincing unless you find a precedent involving toddlers as consumers specifically in a trademark / passing-off case.
  - zozbot123 8y ago
    Doesn't "Steamboat Willie" predate even the 'Mickey Mouse' name, anyway? I think it would be quite feasible to make a derivative work of SW that still had so many deliberate changes compared to what people associate with the present-day Mickey Mouse trademark, that no one, not even a young child, would be expected to conflate the work with Disney's products. This is one thing that would not be possible if SW failed to enter the public domain. Of course, things would become more interesting-- and perhaps more challenging-- as later stuff started entering the public domain as well; just as with "Sherlock Holmes", many features of Mickey's character were slowly accreted over time.
jonhohle 8y ago
It certainly doesn’t mean they can’t request that it be taken down (there are plenty of examples of companies requesting take downs for things they don’t have the copyright to, or infringed on the copyright themselves, only to turn around and request take down). It also doesn’t prevent deals between Disney and YouTube to prevent public domain works which Disney doesn’t want uploaded from being taken down (e.g. the first sale doctrine allows me to sell DVDs I own, but Amazon restricts DVD selling to only sellers with distribution/wholesaling agreements).
- elliekelly 8y ago
  Pedantic. They can't use the force of law to remove the videos. But you knew exactly what I meant.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

pjc50 8y ago

> Derivative works have always been allowed Other way round - copyright has always covered derivative works, that's how the GPL operates. And why you need to clear every sample you use in a music track.

apocalypstyx 8y ago
I've never understood why I see so many posters on HN (and in other tech-related circles) who seem to think derivative works have no legal encumbrances.
- warent 8y ago
  Probably just taking for granted (understandably so) the fact that so much of what we develop with has extremely flexible/forgiving licensing
cmroanirgo 8y ago
That's what I meant: Derivative works have been allowed under copyright laws within the boundaries of Fair Use.
- adrianmonk 8y ago
  It's clear that's what you mean. But derivative works are covered under the copyright of the original. Not just exact versions. That's why I can't go out and record a cover version of a Beatles song without paying to license it. It would be a derivative work, and not covered under fair use. Weird Al probably can, though, because parody is fair use.
  - tialaramex 8y ago
    Weird Al could claim parody fair use for a few tracks like Smells Like Nirvana which are actually parodying the thing used, but (a) that only covers a handful of his works and more importantly (b) he never does this for recordings, fair use is an affirmative defence. You have to wait until you get sued, then raise it and maybe if you have good lawyers that works. Even for Weird Al that's not a fun risk. For something like, say, Amish Paradise or Tacky the new work is not a parody of the work it derives from, it had nothing to say about that work except "Ha, this is funny if you change the words". So it would probably never be fair use. Instead Weird Al gets legal OK to use the work. Yes, all those artists, or their labels actually think Weird Al is funny, or at least they'll take the money.