5 ms·

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

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?
    - hnlmorg 5y ago
      > Patents last 20 years. Mickey Mouse has been copyrighted for nearly a century - more than most human lifetimes My point is that Mickey Mouse is a trademark. An Apple patent expiring doesn't allow people to using Apple logos. Likewise a Disney copyright expiring shouldn't allow people to use Mickey Mouse. The cartoons themselves and any characters that aren't still in regular use is fair game. > 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? I agree it sucks, but this is why we need to make sure we understand the difference between content and trademarks. eg anyone can make a movie about Thor since that folk story is public domain. And I agree the copyright on content like the Marvel Universe movies shouldn't be around 100 years (I forget the exact duration, but it's always being extended anyway -- which I also disagree with by the way). > The natural conclusion of your principle here is eternal corporate copyright. No, that's literally the exact opposite of what I'm saying!! I'm saying that the character "Mickey Mouse" should have different rules applied because he is more than just a creative figure. Because he is a trademark. And thus trademark rules should apply to him in addition to copyright rules. However any content with Mickey Mouse in should be public domain after a reasonable period and that period currently is not reasonable. Music has similar distinctions. A song will have different copyrights on it, for the performance, for the writing, possibly any artwork (eg album cover). > When would you be comfortable with Mickey Mouse (or anything else) going public domain? 200 years? 300? Should it ever? Personally I think 20 years is reasonable for the cartoons. For the mascot, he should be trademarked (and is), so as long as Disney are using his likeness.
michaelbrave 5y ago
Honestly I care less about Mickey and more about nearly everything else Disney has made where they took stories from the Public Domain, remixed them and then lock them down and sue anyone else whose remixes are too close to theirs. There should be extra limitations for those things that have originally come from the public domain perhaps, or a block on extensions at least.
- hnlmorg 5y ago
  I agree it is immoral how they've done that but in fairness we are still free to use those public domain stories as well. We just cannot use characters in the same likeness as those created by Disney. Which would be fair if it wasn't for the problem that Disney have managed to become the default version for those stories and how aggressively they defend their IPs. I've often commented that Disney are hugely hypocritical pushing for lengthened copyright periods and buying up intellectual property when they've built their fortune off public domain works. But such comments are usually replied with "companies don't care about hypocrisy" or something equally trite.
Levitz 5y ago
>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. There is a crucial difference between a voice and a character here. Characters (any creative work) are not created in a cultural vacuum. It's actually especially egregious with Disney too, since their business model to no small degree is grabbing a piece of popular culture and transforming it into a Disney product, the company we know today wouldn't be anywhere near what it is without public domain to begin with. Disney got content from it, it profited from it, and now it must , in my opinion, give back. There is hubris in the term "creator". Nobody is culturally a creator, merely a transformer.
- hnlmorg 5y ago
  > There is a crucial difference between a voice and a character here. Oh there will be loads of subtle differences. I wasn't claiming it to be a perfect comparison but rather than illustration of how IP is complicated and how a single piece of work might have multiple different strands of IP against it. > Characters (any creative work) are not created in a cultural vacuum. Nothing we create is done so in a cultural vacuum. So I agree with your statement but not really sure how it applies (or even adds anything) to the discussion. > It's actually especially egregious with Disney too, since their business model to no small degree is grabbing a piece of popular culture and transforming it into a Disney product, the company we know today wouldn't be anywhere near what it is without public domain to begin with. I made that same point too > Disney got content from it, it profited from it, and now it must , in my opinion, give back. Here is my issue. We cannot and should not make specific exceptions for specific companies because we do not like them. I fully agree there needs to be a copyright reform that works for consumers, but it should be applied equally for everyone and not have some rules for one company but Disney has a different set of rules "because they're bad". > There is hubris in the term "creator". Nobody is culturally a creator, merely a transformer. This is a philosophical point and one that would be fun to debate in the pub over a pint. However it doesn't add anything to this particular discussion.
freejazz 5y ago
You can have simultaneous copyrights and trademarks, they protect different aspects.
- hnlmorg 5y ago
  This is your 5th comment making the same accusation and the 5th time I've said I know there is a difference and wasn't trying to conflate copyright with trademarks. It's also the 5th time you've got muddled over what public domain means (since that was the actual language I used) and thus the 5th time that you've gotten confused over the topic. And worst of all, it's 5th time you've proceeded to lecture me about something that wasn't even in contention to begin with. I do acknowledge my opening post was pretty poorly written. It was rushed so I didn't really compose it properly, more just brain-farted some words into HN. Had I expected the conversation it would then generate I'd have spent more time on it. However that doesn't excuse the barrage patronising strawman arguments you've attacked me with. There's 2 or 3 replies from you just to my OP, never mind deeper in the thread.
freejazz 5y ago
"edit: getting downvoted but no explanation why people disagree. I'd love to hear why" Here's one reason: "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." Singers voices aren't copyrightable. They could be trademarked. You simply just mistake trademarks for copyrights.
- hnlmorg 5y ago
  > > "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." > Singers voices aren't copyrightable. They could be trademarked. That's my point ;) > You simply just mistake trademarks for copyrights. No, I'm not. I was talking about the public domain not copyright in that quote. You're the one conflating two things: If something is trademarked but not under copyright then it still isn't in the public domain. Though I will accept some blame because I could have made my post clearer.

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?
  - hnlmorg 5y ago
    > Patents last 20 years. Mickey Mouse has been copyrighted for nearly a century - more than most human lifetimes My point is that Mickey Mouse is a trademark. An Apple patent expiring doesn't allow people to using Apple logos. Likewise a Disney copyright expiring shouldn't allow people to use Mickey Mouse. The cartoons themselves and any characters that aren't still in regular use is fair game. > 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? I agree it sucks, but this is why we need to make sure we understand the difference between content and trademarks. eg anyone can make a movie about Thor since that folk story is public domain. And I agree the copyright on content like the Marvel Universe movies shouldn't be around 100 years (I forget the exact duration, but it's always being extended anyway -- which I also disagree with by the way). > The natural conclusion of your principle here is eternal corporate copyright. No, that's literally the exact opposite of what I'm saying!! I'm saying that the character "Mickey Mouse" should have different rules applied because he is more than just a creative figure. Because he is a trademark. And thus trademark rules should apply to him in addition to copyright rules. However any content with Mickey Mouse in should be public domain after a reasonable period and that period currently is not reasonable. Music has similar distinctions. A song will have different copyrights on it, for the performance, for the writing, possibly any artwork (eg album cover). > When would you be comfortable with Mickey Mouse (or anything else) going public domain? 200 years? 300? Should it ever? Personally I think 20 years is reasonable for the cartoons. For the mascot, he should be trademarked (and is), so as long as Disney are using his likeness.

michaelbrave 5y ago

Honestly I care less about Mickey and more about nearly everything else Disney has made where they took stories from the Public Domain, remixed them and then lock them down and sue anyone else whose remixes are too close to theirs. There should be extra limitations for those things that have originally come from the public domain perhaps, or a block on extensions at least.

hnlmorg 5y ago
I agree it is immoral how they've done that but in fairness we are still free to use those public domain stories as well. We just cannot use characters in the same likeness as those created by Disney. Which would be fair if it wasn't for the problem that Disney have managed to become the default version for those stories and how aggressively they defend their IPs. I've often commented that Disney are hugely hypocritical pushing for lengthened copyright periods and buying up intellectual property when they've built their fortune off public domain works. But such comments are usually replied with "companies don't care about hypocrisy" or something equally trite.

Levitz 5y ago

>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. There is a crucial difference between a voice and a character here. Characters (any creative work) are not created in a cultural vacuum. It's actually especially egregious with Disney too, since their business model to no small degree is grabbing a piece of popular culture and transforming it into a Disney product, the company we know today wouldn't be anywhere near what it is without public domain to begin with. Disney got content from it, it profited from it, and now it must , in my opinion, give back. There is hubris in the term "creator". Nobody is culturally a creator, merely a transformer.

hnlmorg 5y ago
> There is a crucial difference between a voice and a character here. Oh there will be loads of subtle differences. I wasn't claiming it to be a perfect comparison but rather than illustration of how IP is complicated and how a single piece of work might have multiple different strands of IP against it. > Characters (any creative work) are not created in a cultural vacuum. Nothing we create is done so in a cultural vacuum. So I agree with your statement but not really sure how it applies (or even adds anything) to the discussion. > It's actually especially egregious with Disney too, since their business model to no small degree is grabbing a piece of popular culture and transforming it into a Disney product, the company we know today wouldn't be anywhere near what it is without public domain to begin with. I made that same point too > Disney got content from it, it profited from it, and now it must , in my opinion, give back. Here is my issue. We cannot and should not make specific exceptions for specific companies because we do not like them. I fully agree there needs to be a copyright reform that works for consumers, but it should be applied equally for everyone and not have some rules for one company but Disney has a different set of rules "because they're bad". > There is hubris in the term "creator". Nobody is culturally a creator, merely a transformer. This is a philosophical point and one that would be fun to debate in the pub over a pint. However it doesn't add anything to this particular discussion.

freejazz 5y ago

You can have simultaneous copyrights and trademarks, they protect different aspects.

hnlmorg 5y ago
This is your 5th comment making the same accusation and the 5th time I've said I know there is a difference and wasn't trying to conflate copyright with trademarks. It's also the 5th time you've got muddled over what public domain means (since that was the actual language I used) and thus the 5th time that you've gotten confused over the topic. And worst of all, it's 5th time you've proceeded to lecture me about something that wasn't even in contention to begin with. I do acknowledge my opening post was pretty poorly written. It was rushed so I didn't really compose it properly, more just brain-farted some words into HN. Had I expected the conversation it would then generate I'd have spent more time on it. However that doesn't excuse the barrage patronising strawman arguments you've attacked me with. There's 2 or 3 replies from you just to my OP, never mind deeper in the thread.

freejazz 5y ago

"edit: getting downvoted but no explanation why people disagree. I'd love to hear why" Here's one reason: "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." Singers voices aren't copyrightable. They could be trademarked. You simply just mistake trademarks for copyrights.

hnlmorg 5y ago
> > "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." > Singers voices aren't copyrightable. They could be trademarked. That's my point ;) > You simply just mistake trademarks for copyrights. No, I'm not. I was talking about the public domain not copyright in that quote. You're the one conflating two things: If something is trademarked but not under copyright then it still isn't in the public domain. Though I will accept some blame because I could have made my post clearer.