6 ms·

For those curious, this is mostly a result of Disney. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25/15-years-ago-congress-kept-mickey-mouse-out-

by kevando 13y ago

For those curious, this is mostly a result of Disney. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25/15-years-ago-congress-kept-mickey-mouse-out-of-the-public-domain-will-they-do-it-again/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25...

theandrewbailey 13y ago
Ironic that a company founded upon the reuse of public domain works is campaigning against more public domain works.
- njharman 13y ago
  It is too commonplace to be ironic. Incumbents in all industries (auto and utilities immediately spring to mind) have their lobbyists pass laws and regulations making it nigh impossible for new players (like they were themselves) to break into the market.
MWil 13y ago
My IP law professor once stopped class and shouted at someone wearing a polo with the disney logo, "Sir, are you trying to antagonize me?!"
- kbenson 13y ago
  Thanks for the laugh. I would pay a few bucks to see that play out.
  - ars_technician 13y ago
    It didn't happen, so all it takes is your imagination! :-)
    - MWil 13y ago
      What an odd comment. Where do you draw the line on what to believe on the internet, random stranger?
    - ryguytilidie 13y ago
      Interacted with you two days ago and your contribution there was ANOTHER brainless, complete shit one liner. Perhaps its time for you to look for another community?
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
benihana 13y ago
I can't really fault Disney for this. Mickey Mouse is one of the most recognizable symbols/brands on earth. The difference between Disney and McDonalds and Coca Cola is that there isn't an expectation we all get unfettered access to use the Golden Arches or the Coke logo. Disney is still making new IP with Mickey Mouse; why should they be expected to give up their rights to their most recognizable character that they're still making things for? So I'd say this isn't so much the result of Disney, as it is the result of bad legislation and possibly outdated expectations about intellectual property that hasn't been updated to reflect reality.
- salient 13y ago
  I'm still not convinced any one entity deserves to keep a creation for so long under monopoly given by the society (some interesting discussions in 1869 [1] about this), but let's assume they do. I'd still like to see a system where you only get copyright for new works for 5 years. Then you have to pay $1,000 to renew it for another 5 years. And then the fee increases geometrically (and also adjusted to inflation), to something like $1 million+ after 50+ years, because if the work is worth that much to you after so much time, then you should be able to pay for it, and it would also "give back" to the society that keeps granting you the monopoly for that work. Then the average lifetime of copyright monopolies should be around 15 years, which is actually about what it was when copyright laws were first created (the average would be dragged down a lot by people who wouldn't care about stuff they made in a week enough to pay $1,000 5 years later, but most of the "real works" that would be worth it, will probably have it for around 30 years or so. We see it with books that after 10 years most of them are basically dead, and nobody cares about them anymore (can't find that link right now, but some of you probably know what I'm referring to). There are some "Mickeys" here and there that are relevant 100 years later under copyright, but it's more like 1 in a million works. The rest is abandoned - but it still retains the copyright on it so nobody can re-use it to improve the culture of the society (even if it just means having a company like Google find all the old books and digitize them, something they've barely won, and is actually getting appealed right now). I think that's just wrong. [1] - http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130503/17414322946/discussions-abolition-patents-uk-france-germany-netherlands-1869.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130503/17414322946/discus...
bbanyc 13y ago
It's partly Disney (and the Gershwin estate) but the 56-year term was extended in 1976 to bring the US in line with the Berne Convention life-plus-50 term used in the rest of the world. The current life-plus-70 term originated in Germany, spread to the rest of the EU and then was adopted in the US for "harmonization" with Europe. Harmonization is not necessarily a bad thing. Pre-1976 US copyright law had some outright bizarre restrictions - a book could forfeit its copyright status if the publisher printed it outside North America and imported it - that we're better off having eliminated. But when everything has to be harmonized, it's rare for anyone to question why the policies we're harmonizing with are in place.
- jellicle 13y ago
  But who pushed for it in Germany, etc.? Oh, right: Disney and the rest of the copyright industry. "Harmonization" somehow always ratchets upwards, never downwards. No one said to Germany: don't ratchet your copyright term upwards, keep it harmonized. When in the next few years U.S. copyright suddenly "needs" to be extended another 20 years, no one is going to complain that this will break harmonization. The copyright industry does not care at all about harmonization, and you should not adopt their framing by talking about it. They are copyright maximalists, pure and simple.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - bbanyc 13y ago
    The Berne Convention (life-plus-50) was adopted in 1886 - before Walt Disney was born, before the first motion picture was made, when recorded sound was just a novelty. Publishing houses were small and there was no "copyright industry" at the time. For the most part, it was the authors themselves, most prominently Victor Hugo, lobbying for protection. Now I think even the Berne term is too long and the rights granted too expansive, but it wasn't just a naked power grab by the not-yet-existent Big Media. (The German 20-year extension was probably a naked power grab, but it happened in the 1960s and was well off the radar of English-language media companies. The descendants of some German author who died in the '20s are most likely to blame.)
bananacurve 13y ago
From the article you link to: "In 1993, the European Union added 20 years to the term of European copyrights. Under European law, American authors would only enjoy longer copyright terms in Europe if the United States followed Europe's lead and adopted "life plus 70" copyright terms."
coliveira 13y ago
What I find the most strange aspect of these discussions is: if people hate Disney, why do they want to freely use Mikey and its image? For people who like Disney, it is an advantage that the company is making money out of their creations -- so there will be much more of it. For people who hate Disney, there is no point in watching these movies. So, why getting concerned about this?
- YokoZar 13y ago
  Because Disney's political corruption is dragging in the entirety of all creative works with theirs. I may hate Disney for its actions, but that doesn't mean I have to hate singing Happy Birthday too.
- simbolit 13y ago
  w be Walt Disney, the Person d be Disney, the public company m be Mickey Mouse, the fictional character I can love w & m, but hate d. I can love w & d, but hate m. I can love d & m, but hate w. I can love d, but hate w & m. I can love m, but hate w & d. I can love w, but hate d & m. I can also be ambivalent to any of these, while hating/loving one or two of the other. tl;dr: "hating Disney" (whatever that means) has nothing to do with liking Mickey Mouse, or with wanting to use its image. it simply is not related at all.
- georgemcbay 13y ago
  In addition to what others already said, the nature of what "Disney" is can very quickly change due to aquisition. Like Marvel comics? Well, now you "like Disney". Like Pixar? Well, now you "like Disney", etc.
- gillianseed 13y ago
  Mickey is still trademarked, so unless I'm missing something you will not have the rights to do what you want with the 'Mickey' character, however you would have the right copy, translate, recreate in other mediums, the actual work which had fallen out of copyright, like for example 'Steamboat Willie' which Disney has repeatedly prevented from falling into public domain through lobbying for copyright extension. Of course Disney's intense lobbying in extending the copyright of their works looks even worse when you consider that they've made a vast amount of their fortune by adapting classic public domain works like Snowwhite, Cinderella, Pinocchio, Beauty and the Beast, Alice in Wonderland, Little Mermaid, Aladdin and The Jungle Book, the latter was released one year after Kipling's copyright had expired.

by kevando 13y ago

theandrewbailey 13y ago

Ironic that a company founded upon the reuse of public domain works is campaigning against more public domain works.

njharman 13y ago
It is too commonplace to be ironic. Incumbents in all industries (auto and utilities immediately spring to mind) have their lobbyists pass laws and regulations making it nigh impossible for new players (like they were themselves) to break into the market.

MWil 13y ago

My IP law professor once stopped class and shouted at someone wearing a polo with the disney logo, "Sir, are you trying to antagonize me?!"

kbenson 13y ago
Thanks for the laugh. I would pay a few bucks to see that play out.
- ars_technician 13y ago
  It didn't happen, so all it takes is your imagination! :-)
  - MWil 13y ago
    What an odd comment. Where do you draw the line on what to believe on the internet, random stranger?
  - ryguytilidie 13y ago
    Interacted with you two days ago and your contribution there was ANOTHER brainless, complete shit one liner. Perhaps its time for you to look for another community?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]

benihana 13y ago

I can't really fault Disney for this. Mickey Mouse is one of the most recognizable symbols/brands on earth. The difference between Disney and McDonalds and Coca Cola is that there isn't an expectation we all get unfettered access to use the Golden Arches or the Coke logo. Disney is still making new IP with Mickey Mouse; why should they be expected to give up their rights to their most recognizable character that they're still making things for? So I'd say this isn't so much the result of Disney, as it is the result of bad legislation and possibly outdated expectations about intellectual property that hasn't been updated to reflect reality.

salient 13y ago
I'm still not convinced any one entity deserves to keep a creation for so long under monopoly given by the society (some interesting discussions in 1869 [1] about this), but let's assume they do. I'd still like to see a system where you only get copyright for new works for 5 years. Then you have to pay $1,000 to renew it for another 5 years. And then the fee increases geometrically (and also adjusted to inflation), to something like $1 million+ after 50+ years, because if the work is worth that much to you after so much time, then you should be able to pay for it, and it would also "give back" to the society that keeps granting you the monopoly for that work. Then the average lifetime of copyright monopolies should be around 15 years, which is actually about what it was when copyright laws were first created (the average would be dragged down a lot by people who wouldn't care about stuff they made in a week enough to pay $1,000 5 years later, but most of the "real works" that would be worth it, will probably have it for around 30 years or so. We see it with books that after 10 years most of them are basically dead, and nobody cares about them anymore (can't find that link right now, but some of you probably know what I'm referring to). There are some "Mickeys" here and there that are relevant 100 years later under copyright, but it's more like 1 in a million works. The rest is abandoned - but it still retains the copyright on it so nobody can re-use it to improve the culture of the society (even if it just means having a company like Google find all the old books and digitize them, something they've barely won, and is actually getting appealed right now). I think that's just wrong. [1] - http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130503/17414322946/discussions-abolition-patents-uk-france-germany-netherlands-1869.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130503/17414322946/discus...

bbanyc 13y ago

It's partly Disney (and the Gershwin estate) but the 56-year term was extended in 1976 to bring the US in line with the Berne Convention life-plus-50 term used in the rest of the world. The current life-plus-70 term originated in Germany, spread to the rest of the EU and then was adopted in the US for "harmonization" with Europe. Harmonization is not necessarily a bad thing. Pre-1976 US copyright law had some outright bizarre restrictions - a book could forfeit its copyright status if the publisher printed it outside North America and imported it - that we're better off having eliminated. But when everything has to be harmonized, it's rare for anyone to question why the policies we're harmonizing with are in place.

jellicle 13y ago
But who pushed for it in Germany, etc.? Oh, right: Disney and the rest of the copyright industry. "Harmonization" somehow always ratchets upwards, never downwards. No one said to Germany: don't ratchet your copyright term upwards, keep it harmonized. When in the next few years U.S. copyright suddenly "needs" to be extended another 20 years, no one is going to complain that this will break harmonization. The copyright industry does not care at all about harmonization, and you should not adopt their framing by talking about it. They are copyright maximalists, pure and simple.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- bbanyc 13y ago
  The Berne Convention (life-plus-50) was adopted in 1886 - before Walt Disney was born, before the first motion picture was made, when recorded sound was just a novelty. Publishing houses were small and there was no "copyright industry" at the time. For the most part, it was the authors themselves, most prominently Victor Hugo, lobbying for protection. Now I think even the Berne term is too long and the rights granted too expansive, but it wasn't just a naked power grab by the not-yet-existent Big Media. (The German 20-year extension was probably a naked power grab, but it happened in the 1960s and was well off the radar of English-language media companies. The descendants of some German author who died in the '20s are most likely to blame.)

bananacurve 13y ago

From the article you link to: "In 1993, the European Union added 20 years to the term of European copyrights. Under European law, American authors would only enjoy longer copyright terms in Europe if the United States followed Europe's lead and adopted "life plus 70" copyright terms."

coliveira 13y ago

What I find the most strange aspect of these discussions is: if people hate Disney, why do they want to freely use Mikey and its image? For people who like Disney, it is an advantage that the company is making money out of their creations -- so there will be much more of it. For people who hate Disney, there is no point in watching these movies. So, why getting concerned about this?

YokoZar 13y ago
Because Disney's political corruption is dragging in the entirety of all creative works with theirs. I may hate Disney for its actions, but that doesn't mean I have to hate singing Happy Birthday too.
simbolit 13y ago
w be Walt Disney, the Person d be Disney, the public company m be Mickey Mouse, the fictional character I can love w & m, but hate d. I can love w & d, but hate m. I can love d & m, but hate w. I can love d, but hate w & m. I can love m, but hate w & d. I can love w, but hate d & m. I can also be ambivalent to any of these, while hating/loving one or two of the other. tl;dr: "hating Disney" (whatever that means) has nothing to do with liking Mickey Mouse, or with wanting to use its image. it simply is not related at all.
georgemcbay 13y ago
In addition to what others already said, the nature of what "Disney" is can very quickly change due to aquisition. Like Marvel comics? Well, now you "like Disney". Like Pixar? Well, now you "like Disney", etc.
gillianseed 13y ago
Mickey is still trademarked, so unless I'm missing something you will not have the rights to do what you want with the 'Mickey' character, however you would have the right copy, translate, recreate in other mediums, the actual work which had fallen out of copyright, like for example 'Steamboat Willie' which Disney has repeatedly prevented from falling into public domain through lobbying for copyright extension. Of course Disney's intense lobbying in extending the copyright of their works looks even worse when you consider that they've made a vast amount of their fortune by adapting classic public domain works like Snowwhite, Cinderella, Pinocchio, Beauty and the Beast, Alice in Wonderland, Little Mermaid, Aladdin and The Jungle Book, the latter was released one year after Kipling's copyright had expired.