4 ms·

Fortunately, the estate appeal was rejected. If adding any new (short) story can make a character "more rounded", it is basically a very cheap way to extend the

by seren 12y ago

Fortunately, the estate appeal was rejected. If adding any new (short) story can make a character "more rounded", it is basically a very cheap way to extend the copyrights ad vitam aeternam.

vidarh 12y ago
The cynic in me things that this idea is probably the reason why Disney have been so aggressive about using their oldest characters in the last few years. E.g. Steamboat Willy in opening sequences, and the short film before Frozen. Even if they fail to extend the original copyrights, there are other potential "loopholes" to making it harder to reuse these characters: The more Disney uses variations of them, the bigger the minefield becomes in terms of sticking to the depictions that enters/have entered public domain. And they may also be going for making it harder to make any use of some of the imagery without running into trademark law as well. In this case, the author "only" had to deal with the threats and the small minefield of avoiding character aspects revealed in the last 10 Sherlock stories, and so presumably had a reasonably simple task. Perhaps the Arthur Conan Doyle estate now wishes they'd pursued a more aggressive licensing strategy aimed at creating a bigger minefield..
- seren 12y ago
  But this ruling will create a precedent that will make it harder to justify, that Sherlock Holmes entered the domain public and Mickey Mouse should not, although I am pretty sure that Walt Disney's lawyers are already carefully preparing their argument for the next few hundred years of protection extension.
  - Shivetya 12y ago
    I am actually not for Mickey entering public domain, he is still representative of a very active and well known company. There are certain characters in the Disney domain that would be wholly out of place anywhere else. Whereas book characters from long dead authors are a whole different matter. While I think estates should be able to protect the rights of the estate for a period of time the fact that no new content can be created by the author should discount extending the protection. Now interesting cases do arise where direct descendant or designated authors do keep stories and characters progressing, Dune and Pern come to mind. So where the association is very strong with an active entitle I say let them keep it, where there are degrees of separation, like book examples, then perhaps one generation?
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
      The Matrix should be in the public domain. Copyright should last 5 years, plus another 5 years if it's made available to the public without DRM.
    - mattmanser 12y ago
      Then you don't understand why copyright was created. It's not there to give forever and ever protection. It's there to allow you to get some money before society, which made your product worth something in the first place, can incorporate it into culture where it belonged in the first place. Disney themselves love using other people stories constantly, but no-one can use theirs for extreme amounts of time because they've distorted the meaning of copyright. There's no good reason for someone else's ideas to be protected, it doesn't benefit society at all. Copyright should be 10-15 years, not this ridiculous century. Apart from America as it exports the stuff, so, surprise, surprise, they've bullied the rest of the world into making stupidly long copyrights so that everything created in the last century is languishing in untouchable hell so a few big brands can continue making money off things that should be public domain.
      - philh 12y ago
        > Then you don't understand why copyright was created. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean that they don't understand the issue. Your post would have worked just as well without this line.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - rayiner 12y ago
        That may have been why copyright was created, but over time, the justification has evolved, at least in Europe, into one based on the moral rights of the author. My personal opinion is that copyright should never expire. Think about it: you can have an indefinite government granted monopoly over land, something you didn't create, something that existed before you and will exist after you, but you have weaker protections over something you brought to life? Something that would not exist without you? To me, the moral case for indefinite copyright protection is stronger than the one for indefinite land ownership.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- simonh 12y ago
  > The more Disney uses variations of them, the bigger the minefield becomes in terms of sticking to the depictions that enters/have entered public domain. That's a two-edged sword. If someone else produces material featuring Steamboat Willy which does not violate recent usage, it could seriously curtail Disney's future ability to use the character as well.
  - jerf 12y ago
    Copyright law would not prevent us from creating derivatives of Steamboat Willie, but trademark law probably would. We could still sell Steamboat Willie on those dirt-cheap DVDs, though, as-is. For what that's worth... it's really of primarily historical interest, I doubt modern audiences will find that much to be terribly entertained by in it. I don't have a problem with this. While it's not likely to any of the tastes of anybody reading this sentence, since Mickey Mouse right now is mostly being used to entertain those too young to read, he's still actively producing things. (And while Mickey Mouse Clubhouse is hardly a masterpiece for adults.... there's much worse out there to have to listen to ad infinitum.) The offensive thing about infinite copyright extension is locking up things that the creators are done with, and have been for decades, but won't let anyone else do anything either, thus essentially killing the cultural artifact in question.

by seren 12y ago

Fortunately, the estate appeal was rejected. If adding any new (short) story can make a character "more rounded", it is basically a very cheap way to extend the copyrights ad vitam aeternam.

vidarh 12y ago

The cynic in me things that this idea is probably the reason why Disney have been so aggressive about using their oldest characters in the last few years. E.g. Steamboat Willy in opening sequences, and the short film before Frozen. Even if they fail to extend the original copyrights, there are other potential "loopholes" to making it harder to reuse these characters: The more Disney uses variations of them, the bigger the minefield becomes in terms of sticking to the depictions that enters/have entered public domain. And they may also be going for making it harder to make any use of some of the imagery without running into trademark law as well. In this case, the author "only" had to deal with the threats and the small minefield of avoiding character aspects revealed in the last 10 Sherlock stories, and so presumably had a reasonably simple task. Perhaps the Arthur Conan Doyle estate now wishes they'd pursued a more aggressive licensing strategy aimed at creating a bigger minefield..

seren 12y ago
But this ruling will create a precedent that will make it harder to justify, that Sherlock Holmes entered the domain public and Mickey Mouse should not, although I am pretty sure that Walt Disney's lawyers are already carefully preparing their argument for the next few hundred years of protection extension.
- Shivetya 12y ago
  I am actually not for Mickey entering public domain, he is still representative of a very active and well known company. There are certain characters in the Disney domain that would be wholly out of place anywhere else. Whereas book characters from long dead authors are a whole different matter. While I think estates should be able to protect the rights of the estate for a period of time the fact that no new content can be created by the author should discount extending the protection. Now interesting cases do arise where direct descendant or designated authors do keep stories and characters progressing, Dune and Pern come to mind. So where the association is very strong with an active entitle I say let them keep it, where there are degrees of separation, like book examples, then perhaps one generation?
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
    The Matrix should be in the public domain. Copyright should last 5 years, plus another 5 years if it's made available to the public without DRM.
  - mattmanser 12y ago
    Then you don't understand why copyright was created. It's not there to give forever and ever protection. It's there to allow you to get some money before society, which made your product worth something in the first place, can incorporate it into culture where it belonged in the first place. Disney themselves love using other people stories constantly, but no-one can use theirs for extreme amounts of time because they've distorted the meaning of copyright. There's no good reason for someone else's ideas to be protected, it doesn't benefit society at all. Copyright should be 10-15 years, not this ridiculous century. Apart from America as it exports the stuff, so, surprise, surprise, they've bullied the rest of the world into making stupidly long copyrights so that everything created in the last century is languishing in untouchable hell so a few big brands can continue making money off things that should be public domain.
    - philh 12y ago
      > Then you don't understand why copyright was created. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean that they don't understand the issue. Your post would have worked just as well without this line.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
    - rayiner 12y ago
      That may have been why copyright was created, but over time, the justification has evolved, at least in Europe, into one based on the moral rights of the author. My personal opinion is that copyright should never expire. Think about it: you can have an indefinite government granted monopoly over land, something you didn't create, something that existed before you and will exist after you, but you have weaker protections over something you brought to life? Something that would not exist without you? To me, the moral case for indefinite copyright protection is stronger than the one for indefinite land ownership.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
simonh 12y ago
> The more Disney uses variations of them, the bigger the minefield becomes in terms of sticking to the depictions that enters/have entered public domain. That's a two-edged sword. If someone else produces material featuring Steamboat Willy which does not violate recent usage, it could seriously curtail Disney's future ability to use the character as well.
- jerf 12y ago
  Copyright law would not prevent us from creating derivatives of Steamboat Willie, but trademark law probably would. We could still sell Steamboat Willie on those dirt-cheap DVDs, though, as-is. For what that's worth... it's really of primarily historical interest, I doubt modern audiences will find that much to be terribly entertained by in it. I don't have a problem with this. While it's not likely to any of the tastes of anybody reading this sentence, since Mickey Mouse right now is mostly being used to entertain those too young to read, he's still actively producing things. (And while Mickey Mouse Clubhouse is hardly a masterpiece for adults.... there's much worse out there to have to listen to ad infinitum.) The offensive thing about infinite copyright extension is locking up things that the creators are done with, and have been for decades, but won't let anyone else do anything either, thus essentially killing the cultural artifact in question.