3 ms·

I'm really not sure it's much of a problem. Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain, and as far as I know, it's been fine. That might be why there have been so

I'm really not sure it's much of a problem. Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain, and as far as I know, it's been fine. That might be why there have been so many movies and shows based on the character recently. Imagine it's 2024 and the original Mickey Mouse cartoon just entered the public domain. How does this impact Disney? -Anyone could watch Steamboat Willie for free (assuming it's online somewhere). I don't see this harming Disney. -Another big studio like Warner could make a cartoon with the original Mickey. I doubt any of the big studios are even interested in doing so, but if they do, I don't think it will affect Disney's revenue. -Small studios and independent artists could use the original Mickey character. I think if anyone does this, it's more likely to help than hurt Disney, by boosting Mickey's profile. -Other manufacturers could make Mickey Mouse merchandise. This is probably the biggest direct harm to Disney, but I don't think it'll make much impact on their revenue. Some things people couldn't do: -Use the Mickey Mouse logo. It's protected by trademark. -Make a sequel or spin off of a modern Mickey Mouse product. Another studio couldn't just make Epic Mickey 2 since Epic Mickey (2010) is still protected. I'm not sure Disney makes much money off of Mickey compared to other properties like Star Wars, Marvel, Frozen, etc. Mickey's popularity seems to be waning. Apart from a few video games, he hasn't been in much recently. He has a TV show that did fine but isn't particularly popular. Okay, but what about other popular properties? The first Harry Potter book was published 24 years ago. What if it were in the public domain? -J. K. Rowling's net worth is estimated to be over a billion USD. She'll be okay. -People would still buy new books written by J. K. Rowling. -Only her earliest books would be in the public domain. In most jobs, you can't expect to work for a few years and be set for life. I'm not sure why it should be different for authors (and it usually isn't). If your book won't make enough money for you to retire after 20 years of sales, you'd either have to write another book, or get another job. That's already the case for the vast majority of authors. The trick to dealing with a 20 year copyright term is to keep making new works. Which is exactly what copyright was supposed to encourage.

OldTimeCoffee 5y ago
Sherlock Holmes is not in the public domain in full. Most of the things we think of as 'Sherlock Holmes' are from stories still in copyright. It's why you see Elementary as a property and Sherlock as modern day. Counterintuitively they had to come up with new ideas because the existing ideas are locked up with copyright. Couple of other issues. "Small studios and independent artists could use the original Mickey character" "Other manufacturers could make Mickey Mouse merchandise. This is probably the biggest direct harm to Disney, but I don't think it'll make much impact on their revenue." The reason you've seen them make Steamboat Willie LEGO and the current "old-style" Mickey Mouse cartoons is because they're setting up a copyright argument if someone tried. They're also setting up the same arguments that Sherlock Holmes uses which is that the elements of Mickey in Steamboat Willie have been used recently and are thus still locked up by copyright. You can distribute Steamboat Willie, but can not otherwise use the property. The Sherlock Holmes case is here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16324874357219278010&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=163248743572192... "Which is exactly what copyright was supposed to encourage." No, copyright is an exclusive distribution right. It's a government granted monopoly to provide protection to creative works. The history of copyright is pretty interesting in an of itself and starts with the printing press in the 1500s. Long story short, though, it's always been about commercial exploitation of a creative work. This was edited to correct some info.
- nearbuy 5y ago
  Yeah, not all Sherlock Holmes stories are in the public domain. As it says in the case you linked only 10 stories out of 56 plus 4 novels were still under copyright (now down to 6). The Doyle estate lost the case you're referring to and Klinger was allowed to publish his derivative stories. Disney could try to sue, but I don't think their case is any stronger than the Sherlock Holmes case if the defendant is only deriving material from the original Mickey cartoon.
  - OldTimeCoffee 5y ago
    Klinger was seeking declaratory judgement that he could use the non-protected elements. Doyle estate was saying he couldn't. It was agreed by both parties that he couldn't use elements contained in the 10 stories. From the case listed "And the claim is correct, for he acknowledges that those copyrights are valid and that the only copying he wants to include in his book is copying of the Holmes and Watson characters as they appear in the earlier stories and in the novels." Mickey Mouse will most certainly not be in the public domain anymore than he is now. Disney can also fall back on trademark law to take care of Disney's use as well.
    - nearbuy 5y ago
      I think we have the same understanding of the case then. We seem to have a different conclusion on derivative works based on the original Mickey Mouse once it enters the public domain. I agree with you that modern Mickey would still be under copyright. It's a bit of a moot point in my opinion, because I don't think anyone outside of Disney would even want to make more of 1928 Mickey. It's old. It's not popular. Maybe they'd use him for a cameo or for parody, but shows already do that anyway, regardless of the copyright [1]. [1] https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Mickey_Mouse https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Mickey_Mouse

OldTimeCoffee 5y ago

Sherlock Holmes is not in the public domain in full. Most of the things we think of as 'Sherlock Holmes' are from stories still in copyright. It's why you see Elementary as a property and Sherlock as modern day. Counterintuitively they had to come up with new ideas because the existing ideas are locked up with copyright. Couple of other issues. "Small studios and independent artists could use the original Mickey character" "Other manufacturers could make Mickey Mouse merchandise. This is probably the biggest direct harm to Disney, but I don't think it'll make much impact on their revenue." The reason you've seen them make Steamboat Willie LEGO and the current "old-style" Mickey Mouse cartoons is because they're setting up a copyright argument if someone tried. They're also setting up the same arguments that Sherlock Holmes uses which is that the elements of Mickey in Steamboat Willie have been used recently and are thus still locked up by copyright. You can distribute Steamboat Willie, but can not otherwise use the property. The Sherlock Holmes case is here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16324874357219278010&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=163248743572192... "Which is exactly what copyright was supposed to encourage." No, copyright is an exclusive distribution right. It's a government granted monopoly to provide protection to creative works. The history of copyright is pretty interesting in an of itself and starts with the printing press in the 1500s. Long story short, though, it's always been about commercial exploitation of a creative work. This was edited to correct some info.

nearbuy 5y ago
Yeah, not all Sherlock Holmes stories are in the public domain. As it says in the case you linked only 10 stories out of 56 plus 4 novels were still under copyright (now down to 6). The Doyle estate lost the case you're referring to and Klinger was allowed to publish his derivative stories. Disney could try to sue, but I don't think their case is any stronger than the Sherlock Holmes case if the defendant is only deriving material from the original Mickey cartoon.
- OldTimeCoffee 5y ago
  Klinger was seeking declaratory judgement that he could use the non-protected elements. Doyle estate was saying he couldn't. It was agreed by both parties that he couldn't use elements contained in the 10 stories. From the case listed "And the claim is correct, for he acknowledges that those copyrights are valid and that the only copying he wants to include in his book is copying of the Holmes and Watson characters as they appear in the earlier stories and in the novels." Mickey Mouse will most certainly not be in the public domain anymore than he is now. Disney can also fall back on trademark law to take care of Disney's use as well.
  - nearbuy 5y ago
    I think we have the same understanding of the case then. We seem to have a different conclusion on derivative works based on the original Mickey Mouse once it enters the public domain. I agree with you that modern Mickey would still be under copyright. It's a bit of a moot point in my opinion, because I don't think anyone outside of Disney would even want to make more of 1928 Mickey. It's old. It's not popular. Maybe they'd use him for a cameo or for parody, but shows already do that anyway, regardless of the copyright [1]. [1] https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Mickey_Mouse https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Mickey_Mouse