4 ms·

that american congresspeople will once again be corrupted to extend it?

by bananapub 3y ago

plagiarist 3y ago
Precisely what will happen, except "once again" implies their corruption occurs in discrete events.
- tzs 3y ago
  There has only been one copyright extension that affected Mickey Mouse that Disney might have had a role in. That was the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act There was one other copyright extension that affected Mickey Mouse but that one, as far as I've been able to tell, Disney played no significant role in. That was the Copyright Act of 1976. I have little doubt that Disney was in favor of the 1976 Act, but so was almost everybody else. That's because the 1976 Act was a major rewrite of US copyright law to take into account the massive technological changes that had happened since the 1909 Act, and to make US copyright law more compatible with the Berne Convention so that the US could join (which happened later with the the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988).
josho 3y ago
Disney has prepared for this day. They aren’t fighting to extend copyright instead they’ve wrapped mickey with so many trademarks that their iconic brand will be protected. Besides, it’s only ‘steamboat Willy’ that enters the public domain which has little relevance to today’s Mickey Mouse.
- micromacrofoot 3y ago
  the speculation (in the very short article) is that Mickey without gloves is in the public domain in 2024, Mickey with gloves is 2025, and Mickey in color is 2035 due to how the character progressed 100 years ago
  - _Algernon_ 3y ago
    Is copyright based on the character or on a particular representation of the character? The latter seems utterly stupid to me, but wouldn't be a surprise given the stupidity of copyright law in general. I'd be curious if there is any precedent on this question.
    - btilly 3y ago
      The copyright is on your creative expression. There is a ton of precedent on the issue of how much expression and creativity is required to assert copyright. One of the key questions is whether it is plausible that someone just accidentally duplicated the same thing, or if it is the result of actual copying. Given how iconic Mickey Mouse is, I would be shocked if white gloves and the exact color scheme weren't copyrightable.
    - toast0 3y ago
      IANAL, but as I understand it, copyright covers things that are 'fixed in a tangible medium', which means the representation of the character, not the idea of the character. However, if you base your character on the ideas formed when you observed the representation of the other character, that's a derivative work. For someone like Mickey who has been in many works, if one of the works is out of copyright and you base a new work on that, that's fine (if we ignore trademark concerns). But if your derivative work happens to look a lot like an existing derivative work still under copyright, that's likely going to be seen as infringing the work under copyright. Independent creation is a valid defense for copyright infringemen, but isn't very credible in this case. Trademark has totally different issues. Which will be an issue for selling and advertising derivatives of works Disney uses as trademarks.

that american congresspeople will once again be corrupted to extend it?

plagiarist 3y ago

Precisely what will happen, except "once again" implies their corruption occurs in discrete events.

tzs 3y ago
There has only been one copyright extension that affected Mickey Mouse that Disney might have had a role in. That was the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act There was one other copyright extension that affected Mickey Mouse but that one, as far as I've been able to tell, Disney played no significant role in. That was the Copyright Act of 1976. I have little doubt that Disney was in favor of the 1976 Act, but so was almost everybody else. That's because the 1976 Act was a major rewrite of US copyright law to take into account the massive technological changes that had happened since the 1909 Act, and to make US copyright law more compatible with the Berne Convention so that the US could join (which happened later with the the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988).

josho 3y ago

Disney has prepared for this day. They aren’t fighting to extend copyright instead they’ve wrapped mickey with so many trademarks that their iconic brand will be protected. Besides, it’s only ‘steamboat Willy’ that enters the public domain which has little relevance to today’s Mickey Mouse.

micromacrofoot 3y ago
the speculation (in the very short article) is that Mickey without gloves is in the public domain in 2024, Mickey with gloves is 2025, and Mickey in color is 2035 due to how the character progressed 100 years ago
- _Algernon_ 3y ago
  Is copyright based on the character or on a particular representation of the character? The latter seems utterly stupid to me, but wouldn't be a surprise given the stupidity of copyright law in general. I'd be curious if there is any precedent on this question.
  - btilly 3y ago
    The copyright is on your creative expression. There is a ton of precedent on the issue of how much expression and creativity is required to assert copyright. One of the key questions is whether it is plausible that someone just accidentally duplicated the same thing, or if it is the result of actual copying. Given how iconic Mickey Mouse is, I would be shocked if white gloves and the exact color scheme weren't copyrightable.
  - toast0 3y ago
    IANAL, but as I understand it, copyright covers things that are 'fixed in a tangible medium', which means the representation of the character, not the idea of the character. However, if you base your character on the ideas formed when you observed the representation of the other character, that's a derivative work. For someone like Mickey who has been in many works, if one of the works is out of copyright and you base a new work on that, that's fine (if we ignore trademark concerns). But if your derivative work happens to look a lot like an existing derivative work still under copyright, that's likely going to be seen as infringing the work under copyright. Independent creation is a valid defense for copyright infringemen, but isn't very credible in this case. Trademark has totally different issues. Which will be an issue for selling and advertising derivatives of works Disney uses as trademarks.