5 ms·

This perpetual copyright extension fails to take into account the public's investment and contribution to keeping characters such as Mickey Mouse relevant. It r

by xfz 5y ago

This perpetual copyright extension fails to take into account the public's investment and contribution to keeping characters such as Mickey Mouse relevant. It really should be public property by now. Another example although, thankfully sanity eventually prevailed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You

judge2020 5y ago
> the public's investment and contribution to keeping characters such as Mickey Mouse relevant Such as?
- laumars 5y ago
  Why is this greyed out? It’s a fair question and not clear to me either what the OP is referring to
- LocalH 5y ago
  Fandom, ensuring the works stay in the public consciousness. If it weren't for the fans who have enjoyed Mickey Mouse over the years, he wouldn't be relevant at all. Imagine if Mickey had been a total flop. We'd be lucky if any Mickey Mouse stuff survived. This is not hyperbole, there are tons of lost media franchises today because they weren't popular and nobody cared to preserve them.
hnlmorg 5y ago
I think it is unreasonable to ask for iconic characters like Mickey Mouse, who still see regular content, to fall into public domain because they've become more analogous to a trademark (Mickey Mouse might even be trademarked?). However original media like the 1920s Mickey Mouse cartoon "Steamboat Willie", absolutely should. I look at like how a song might be in public domain but that doesn't mean the singers voice is. Likewise for actors vs TV shows. edit: getting downvoted but no explanation why people disagree. I'd love to hear why edit 2: there seems to be some confusion about my statement above. I don't like nor agree with how Disney 'steal' public domain stories. I don't like nor agree with how Disney extend copyright. However there is a difference between published works (like the 1920s cartoon exampled above) and a mascot that is a trademark and still in common use (like Mickey Mouse). And that is the only point I'm arguing. You can just assume I'd agree to all the other points about how "Disney is evil" etc because I've made those exact same points myself in other conversations in the past (eg https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26805071 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26805071)
- dtech 5y ago
  Mickey Mouse already is a trademark. So even in public domain you already can't make a cartoon mouse and call him Mickey Mouse. > I think it is unreasonable to ask for iconic characters like Mickey Mouse, who still see regular content Why not? Maybe it will encourage creativity and corporations will be forced to create new things. Copyright's only base for existence is encouraging creating creative works after all. Note that you can't use elements still under copyright, e.g. his modern appearance won't be public domain once Steamboat Willie enters it.
  - hnlmorg 5y ago
    > Why not? Maybe it will encourage creativity and corporations will be forced to create new things. Because Mickey Mouse is an icon, a mascot, a trademark, and one that is in active use in new media. So there is some sense in companies protecting that asset. Which is what is happening if these types of characters are covered under trademark law (I wasn't sure if that was the case when I made my earlier post). I might dislike Disney as an org but I also don't think it's fair to say it's "creative" for other people to use that asset but not "creative" for Disney to reuse it. You're setting different standards for different people. > Copyright's only base for existence is encouraging creating creative works after all. Copyright is an English invention and the purpose of it has evolved multiple times over the years. Originally it was intended to prevent scandalous pamphlets rather than promoting creative works. Later it was used like patents where authors could recover the costs of publishing before those stories became free for the masses. It wasn't created to encourage creating creative works because people used to do that long before the printing press, eg by passing stories down by word of mouth. > Note that you can't use elements still under copyright, e.g. his modern appearance won't be public domain once Steamboat Willie enters it. Indeed. But I was responding to the OPs point about how they believed copyright should behave rather than how it currently does.
    - larsiusprime 5y ago
      Patents last 20 years. Mickey Mouse has been copyrighted for nearly a century - more than most human lifetimes - how long is “fair” for a government granted monopoly to one of the worlds richest corporations? Especially one busily buying up IP after IP that it did not originally create? The natural conclusion of your principle here is eternal corporate copyright. When would you be comfortable with Mickey Mouse (or anything else) going public domain? 200 years? 300? Should it ever?

by xfz 5y ago

judge2020 5y ago

> the public's investment and contribution to keeping characters such as Mickey Mouse relevant Such as?

laumars 5y ago
Why is this greyed out? It’s a fair question and not clear to me either what the OP is referring to
LocalH 5y ago
Fandom, ensuring the works stay in the public consciousness. If it weren't for the fans who have enjoyed Mickey Mouse over the years, he wouldn't be relevant at all. Imagine if Mickey had been a total flop. We'd be lucky if any Mickey Mouse stuff survived. This is not hyperbole, there are tons of lost media franchises today because they weren't popular and nobody cared to preserve them.

hnlmorg 5y ago

I think it is unreasonable to ask for iconic characters like Mickey Mouse, who still see regular content, to fall into public domain because they've become more analogous to a trademark (Mickey Mouse might even be trademarked?). However original media like the 1920s Mickey Mouse cartoon "Steamboat Willie", absolutely should. I look at like how a song might be in public domain but that doesn't mean the singers voice is. Likewise for actors vs TV shows. edit: getting downvoted but no explanation why people disagree. I'd love to hear why edit 2: there seems to be some confusion about my statement above. I don't like nor agree with how Disney 'steal' public domain stories. I don't like nor agree with how Disney extend copyright. However there is a difference between published works (like the 1920s cartoon exampled above) and a mascot that is a trademark and still in common use (like Mickey Mouse). And that is the only point I'm arguing. You can just assume I'd agree to all the other points about how "Disney is evil" etc because I've made those exact same points myself in other conversations in the past (eg https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26805071 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26805071)

dtech 5y ago
Mickey Mouse already is a trademark. So even in public domain you already can't make a cartoon mouse and call him Mickey Mouse. > I think it is unreasonable to ask for iconic characters like Mickey Mouse, who still see regular content Why not? Maybe it will encourage creativity and corporations will be forced to create new things. Copyright's only base for existence is encouraging creating creative works after all. Note that you can't use elements still under copyright, e.g. his modern appearance won't be public domain once Steamboat Willie enters it.
- hnlmorg 5y ago
  > Why not? Maybe it will encourage creativity and corporations will be forced to create new things. Because Mickey Mouse is an icon, a mascot, a trademark, and one that is in active use in new media. So there is some sense in companies protecting that asset. Which is what is happening if these types of characters are covered under trademark law (I wasn't sure if that was the case when I made my earlier post). I might dislike Disney as an org but I also don't think it's fair to say it's "creative" for other people to use that asset but not "creative" for Disney to reuse it. You're setting different standards for different people. > Copyright's only base for existence is encouraging creating creative works after all. Copyright is an English invention and the purpose of it has evolved multiple times over the years. Originally it was intended to prevent scandalous pamphlets rather than promoting creative works. Later it was used like patents where authors could recover the costs of publishing before those stories became free for the masses. It wasn't created to encourage creating creative works because people used to do that long before the printing press, eg by passing stories down by word of mouth. > Note that you can't use elements still under copyright, e.g. his modern appearance won't be public domain once Steamboat Willie enters it. Indeed. But I was responding to the OPs point about how they believed copyright should behave rather than how it currently does.
  - larsiusprime 5y ago
    Patents last 20 years. Mickey Mouse has been copyrighted for nearly a century - more than most human lifetimes - how long is “fair” for a government granted monopoly to one of the worlds richest corporations? Especially one busily buying up IP after IP that it did not originally create? The natural conclusion of your principle here is eternal corporate copyright. When would you be comfortable with Mickey Mouse (or anything else) going public domain? 200 years? 300? Should it ever?