> 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 compar

> 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.