4 ms·

Walt made movies using public domain works that were 40-50 years old. Today, the copyright term is pushing 110+ years, in part thanks to Disney. That means th

Walt made movies using public domain works that were 40-50 years old. Today, the copyright term is pushing 110+ years, in part thanks to Disney. That means the next Walt Disney has to pull from increasingly culturally irrelevant works that are 3, 4 generations old rather than one.

anigbrowl 11y ago
Well, Disney released Snow White in 1937, and the Brothers Grimm version had been published in 1812. So the story was 125 years old at the time Disney published the film, and the Disney film has been copyrighted for 78 years. Again I'm not endorsing Disney's copyright practices here but let's keep the discussion grounded in fact, shall we?
- aylons 11y ago
  Well, his comment isn't that all the stories, or even or that Snow White specifically, were 40-50 years old. There are examples that better fit his argument, and they are not hard to find(I used wikipedia): Pinocchio, released on 1940, was based on a novel from 1883, 57 years, then. Disney also tried to avoid Bambi copyright (book from 1923, movie released on 1942, 19 years difference), although the court did not uphold its public domain status. He surely could have referenced better, but I do believe you should have tried to interpret better his comment instead of nitpicking and being unnecessarily aggressive.
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    Fair enough, but I don't feel any obligation to make his argument for him, and the original claim that I first replied simply seems mistaken to me - and that's not me being uncharitable, because there are other people building new arguments on that incorrect understanding elsewhere in this thread. Frankly, I think part of the reason there has been so little progress in reverting to more sensible copyright terms is that many opponents of the current standard don't bother to fact-check their arguments, and so they damage their own credibility. Copyright is a political issue, because when we advocate shorter copyright terms we're arguing to reduce the scope of a property right. Inaccurate or hand-wavey arguments work against that end.
- rprospero 11y ago
  You're right about the age of Snow White, but things aren't always that rosy for Disney. When they made a film from Kipling's The Jungle Book, that book was 73 years old. If Walt (who took strong personal interest in the project) felt comfortable making money by adapting a work that old to a new medium, why shouldn't I feel comfortable adapting his even older older works? (Yes, this is a Tu Quoque argument)
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    Well, you should. I'm strongly in favor of rolling back the super-long copyright terms we have now eg to the longer of life-of-the-author or 50 years.

anigbrowl 11y ago

Well, Disney released Snow White in 1937, and the Brothers Grimm version had been published in 1812. So the story was 125 years old at the time Disney published the film, and the Disney film has been copyrighted for 78 years. Again I'm not endorsing Disney's copyright practices here but let's keep the discussion grounded in fact, shall we?

aylons 11y ago
Well, his comment isn't that all the stories, or even or that Snow White specifically, were 40-50 years old. There are examples that better fit his argument, and they are not hard to find(I used wikipedia): Pinocchio, released on 1940, was based on a novel from 1883, 57 years, then. Disney also tried to avoid Bambi copyright (book from 1923, movie released on 1942, 19 years difference), although the court did not uphold its public domain status. He surely could have referenced better, but I do believe you should have tried to interpret better his comment instead of nitpicking and being unnecessarily aggressive.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  Fair enough, but I don't feel any obligation to make his argument for him, and the original claim that I first replied simply seems mistaken to me - and that's not me being uncharitable, because there are other people building new arguments on that incorrect understanding elsewhere in this thread. Frankly, I think part of the reason there has been so little progress in reverting to more sensible copyright terms is that many opponents of the current standard don't bother to fact-check their arguments, and so they damage their own credibility. Copyright is a political issue, because when we advocate shorter copyright terms we're arguing to reduce the scope of a property right. Inaccurate or hand-wavey arguments work against that end.
rprospero 11y ago
You're right about the age of Snow White, but things aren't always that rosy for Disney. When they made a film from Kipling's The Jungle Book, that book was 73 years old. If Walt (who took strong personal interest in the project) felt comfortable making money by adapting a work that old to a new medium, why shouldn't I feel comfortable adapting his even older older works? (Yes, this is a Tu Quoque argument)
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  Well, you should. I'm strongly in favor of rolling back the super-long copyright terms we have now eg to the longer of life-of-the-author or 50 years.