8 ms·
This only highlights how the intention of copyright as put forth by the framers has been distorted through the lens of business. Book publishers thought librari
by burnte 11y ago
This only highlights how the intention of copyright as put forth by the framers has been distorted through the lens of business. Book publishers thought libraries might be a threat to the "modern" publishing industry in the 1800s, just like the movie studios thought home video would kill movies. They were incorrect on both counts, however with the ease and low cost of digital copies, there actually IS a great deal of money to be made without actually doing more work by perpetuating the endless copyright. Given how money focused politicians are, and how much influence business plays with them, its not a difficult argument to make, especially when the argument is money versus the betterment of society and future creativity. One is easily measured now, the other is not easily measured, and only pays off on the scale of decades.
Disney took public domain stories, and made billions by creating their own versions, and now seek to prevent others from doing the same. The estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (who died 85 years ago this month) found only partial relief in the extension of the money machine, with stories and characters before 1923 now in the public domain, and stories after 1923 still under copyright 92 years later! Sherlock has become a huge influence not just in other creative works, but derivative works such as TV shows and movies that pay no royalty to the Doyle estate. Doyle himself was influence by other authors, such as Poe, as well as real people.
The intent of copyright was to give limited protection to the creators of creative works, because while society as a whole benefits from the arts, it can only occur if there is a benefit to the creators. So we gave them a limited monopoly, just like patents, to enjoy the fruits of their labors before they became part of society as a whole. Few artists want to create works that only a select few can enjoy, however the financial interest is in doing just that. Just as software patents threaten our industry (and patent abuse on the whole threatens many industries), copyright abuse threatens the enrichment of society as a whole. We do not own our children, we only raise them for a while and unleash them into the world. The same is true with art. That is the way it was meant to be.
- effie 11y ago> Disney took public domain stories, and made billions by creating their own versions, and now seek to prevent others from doing the same. Could you please give an example? Is Sherlock Holmes a character groundlessly appropriated by Disney?
- linksbro 11y agoThis article outlines 50 movies inspired/pulled from public domain works. After the list, it also outlines Disney's involvement in the extension of the copyright term. http://www.forbes.com/sites/derekkhanna/2014/02/03/50-disney-movies-based-on-the-public-domain/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/derekkhanna/2014/02/03/50-disney... For more details, see the CTEA (aka "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
- briholt 11y agoSnow White
- jdmichal 11y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_animated_films_based_on_fairy_tales#Feature_films_based_on_fairy_tales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_animated_films_...
- cl4rk3 11y agoPlease read this (with tongue firmly planted in cheek) for all the example you need: http://www.gulawweekly.org/features/2012/4/3/congress-takes-grimm-fairy-tales-out-of-the-public-domain.html http://www.gulawweekly.org/features/2012/4/3/congress-takes-...
- flexie 11y agoThe Little Mermaid, Sleeping Beauty, Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella, The Ugly Duckling, Three Little Pigs, Snow White, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Beauty and the Beast, Alladin, The Princess and the Frog, Frozen. And many, many more.
- rayiner 11y agoVery few of those would be copyright infringement were the stories not in the public domain.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
- harshreality 11y agoIn an ironic twist, Sherlock Holmes (the core stories by Sir ACD) is no longer under copyright in the UK. It's the USA where the last few stories (in Casebook) are still under copyright.
- yuhong 11y agoTo be honest, all that Disney wanted to protect was one work, they just did it the wrong way. Do you know why?
- burnte 11y agoI promise you the claims was to protect Steamboat Willie (which isn't even commercially exploited by Disney) but the goal was to protect Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, etc. they could still have protect the name under trademark, the argument about the film itself was just nostalgic subterfuge.
- yuhong 11y agoI was thinking of Mickey Mouse.
- quadrangle 11y agoSteamboat Willie was the first appearance of Mickey Mouse, and it was itself a direct rip-off of Steamboat Bill, a live-acted non-public-domain film.
- delinka 11y agos/rip-off/parody/, no?
- kahirsch 11y agoNo, it was not a rip-off. There are hardly any similarities between the two films. Steamboat Bill, Jr https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjl2Fj-_Hg0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjl2Fj-_Hg0 Steamboat Willie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBgghnQF6E4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBgghnQF6E4
- quadrangle 11y agoI meant "inspired by" or something of that ilk. The point is that culture is derivative and Steamboat Willie wouldn't have existed without Steamboat Bill. Everything is a remix. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcvd5JZkUXY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcvd5JZkUXY
- anigbrowl 11y agoDisney took public domain stories, and made billions by creating their own versions, and now seek to prevent others from doing the same. Well no. You could go out tomorrow and make your own movie of Snow white, or Beauty and the Beast or some other public domain story, and many people have. What Disney work so hard to do is prevent its particular versions of various from falling into the public domain. Now I think they're missing a trick insofar as they would still be able to sell Official Disney Versions even if their famous animated movies went into the public domain tomorrow, because they have the best marketing operation on the planet (so kids would demand 'the real one') and they could keep adding more content (eg additional 'making of' documentaries and so other extra features that serious fans of a film will pay to watch). I'm in broad agreement with you, I just want to be clear that when Disney makes a film out of a folk tale or so it is not claiming property rights over the source material, just the firm's own rendering of it.
- andrepd 11y agoWhat I think he meant, at least if I understood correctly, is that Disney stories and characters from the 30s and 40s, like Mickey Mouse et al, should themselves by all rights be public domain by now, like Snow White or Cinderella were, so that other artists could be inspired by them and create their own derivative works.
- anigbrowl 11y agoSurely, but I'm not disagreeing about that, a fact which seems to have escaped all the downvoters.
- dredmorbius 11y agoMy read is that your argument about the characters Disney appropriated misses the point about those it's created. A curious asymmetry of sharing, etc., etc. Or, in other words, your post above is a strawman / red herring (though a frequently encountered one).
- 11y ago