# Copyright Laws, Disney, and 2018



## flint757 (May 16, 2015)

So in 2018 Copyright laws will be revisited her in the States led by Disney, same as in 1998. Some of the extension given in the Copyright Extension Act of 1998 will expire, of which includes Disney's Mickey Mouse. Considering at this very moment Disney and other large conglomerates are padding a winning team to get it passed as we speak I figure it's worthy of a discussion.



First some questions to think about:

Do you feel that copyrights should have to end at some point?

Do you feel the current length of the term is too long or short?

What do you think about media ending up in the public domain in general?



Now, Disney has been fighting for years to keep their beloved character Mickey Mouse out of the public domain and while it's perfectly understandable, as it is a very profitable character for them, I find their reasoning in the past to be rather unfounded. If I recall their claim was that the public domain would degrade their character due to derivatives of said character being made, but that seems rather silly when we consider what music, plays and books have entered the public domain decades ago (even century's) and I'd argue a lot of it hasn't degraded in value because of this fact.

I personally feel copyrights last too long. I feel like they should be returned to the pre-1976 level of 28 years. This gives the content creators incentive to continue making content and lets older material enter the public domain to be re-envisioned. This would also benefit some musicians. For instance, say a band got a raw deal on their record contract. Since in most cases the record label owns your albums if it enters the public domain it frees up the work to be sold under the authors own name and at their discretion. Obviously it can also be used for free, but I find that even when work is open source and/or public domain people still feel compelled to pitch in, especially when it's to the actual author.

That being said, I do feel that copyright laws are very important to avoid someone appropriating someone else's work and also allows for the individual to recoup funds, but as is it simply allows large corporations to simply abuse the system (nothing really new in the US government really). Right now I could post content on YouTube and a large corporation could send a take down notice. I then have to comply or challenge it in court. I don't know about you, but I'm a broke mofo so my only realistic option is taking the content down in this scenario, whether I'm in the wrong or not.


So What are your thoughts on the current copyright environment and what may arise in 2018? I know the UK rather recently changed their copyright laws to prevent bands like the Beatles from becoming public domain as well. Thoughts?




One last thing, this discussion has nothing to do with piracy so please do not add it to the conversation. Whether work is covered by a copyright or is entered in to the public domain has no real bearing on whether people are downloading content without permission.


----------



## Demiurge (May 16, 2015)

Interesting topic. I have no problem with renewal in perpetuity if there can be a substantial continuity of activity with, interest in, ownership of, and control of the property demonstrated. If no such continuity exists, public domain makes sense, but I don't think copyright should be wrested from an entity with the above-stated qualifications. 

I think that harms no one. Disney, as long as they exist, can claim Mickey. In the meantime Warner Bros can't have Mickey. If Disney ceases to exist... this is becoming a bad theoretical as I'm sure they will be our One World Government eventually... when we are invaded by the bug people from Florbiston-8 who inexplicably decide to adopt our concepts of copyright and discover a reel-to-reel of Steamboat Willy in the wreckage of our civilization, they should acknowledge it as public domain and not allow their Space Lawyers to attempt to claim it and benefit from it as the continuity is broken.


----------



## flint757 (May 16, 2015)

That does seem like an arguably fair proposition and also allows the author a potentially more lucrative option considering it does give their property more value to another individual if it were being sold. 

There is definitely an issue now where a company could close and their property disappears with it as well, or they just stop using the property all together while still holding the copyright (like Konami as an example). I was thinking about that the other day as, for example, Banjo Kazooie was bought by Microsoft and then they turned it into a racing game. Since they own the copyright no one can mess with the characters or the franchise despite them doing pretty much nothing with it. The developers who actually worked on the game are supposedly attempting now to make a game with a similar play style using a new story and characters, which is a bit disappointing IMO as the characters were pretty great. In the corporate world copyrights create a lot of red tape.

If copyrights were to actually continue into perpetuity (like Disney would probably prefer, despite a lot of what they've done not being all that original) then we also end up in a situation where things will eventually bottleneck. Where coming up with new ideas becomes impossible since you can't even reference other work. If we allow ideas to become off limits forever it's going to either clog up the legal system or stifle creativity (realistically probably both).

As far as making use of other individuals copyrights, like using someones music in your short film or game, I feel like there needs to be a usable system put in place. As is you just have to hope they call you back and give you permission, which in all likelihood they probably wont. With today's technology one would think there is a better way of going about it.



On a more public awareness note one of the things that really frustrates me about what Disney is doing, and other interest groups, is that they spend a lot of money backing candidates that will support specifically their interest. That in and of itself doesn't seem like much of a problem, but they'll back a candidate that supports their interest even if everything else about that politician is horrible for society as a whole. In this respect I wish businesses were simply not allowed to get involved in politics, but that's neither here nor there I suppose.


----------



## Explorer (May 17, 2015)

Something which hasn't been mentioned yet:

Disney still retains its characters as trademarks. No one can start selling Mickey Mouse Pudding Pops without Disney's permission. 

The only things which would no longer be protected goods would be the copyrighted works upon which the copyright had expired. In this case, the short animated film "Steamboat Willie" would be in the public domain. 

Since Disney owns the prints, and would own their own transfers of the film to a digital format, they would prevail in court if someone just made copies of Disney's conversion of "Steamboat Willie" on a DVD/Blu Ray. Disney could insert embed watermariking so that any copies derived from a Disney-sold disc could be identified. 

This is the same principle which protects the "Restored Metropolis" products being sold. A foundation spent money to restore the film and to insert the recently found footage. They own the copyright on the derivative work, even though the original work is in the public domain. 

Even if they hadn't added the rediscovered footage, the restoration work they did on the film allows them to copyright the derivative work as a new thing, based on the changes they made on the degraded work which was public domain. 

----

At this point, registered trademarks expire after 10 years, unless the trademark owner extends the trademark registration for another 10 years. There is no limit on how many times one can extend the trademark. 

----

With that said, I don't think there is a valid reason to keep innovations from eventually entering the public domain. The system works with regards to patents, giving creators the ability to profit from their creations, but still allowing others to build upon those innovations after a certain period of time. 

A minimum of 70 years beyond the lifetime of the creator, or 95 years after publication for works for hire, seems like it gives the original creator/controller more than a human lifetime to derive profit from a work, and the entirety of an average lifespan for any first-generation descendents of such a creator. 

I don't think there is a reasonable argument that it should run longer.


----------



## M3CHK1LLA (May 17, 2015)

if you created it...you should have full control of it even to the point of passing it down to your next generation of kin or in this case a company you started. if it creates income for them or yourself, that should not matter. it should belong to the creator and be passed along as they deem fit.

think about it in a musical context...the same thing should apply. if you write the music, it is yours to do what you will including selling it to others. then it becomes their property and should also be protected.


----------



## Rev2010 (May 19, 2015)

M3CHK1LLA said:


> if you created it...you should have full control of it even to the point of passing it down to your next generation of kin or in this case a company you started.



I completely agree with this. For what reason should something like Mickey Mouse become public domain? It was created by and is owned by Disney and Disney is still a functioning company, even as miserable and vile as they are. The only case where I do believe things should go public are patents - inventions, medicines, etc, and they DO go public eventually, with medicines becoming available to other companies way sooner than patent expiration. I believe medical companies have something like 10 years to sell their drug before it must be made available for generic production. Not going to bother to look it up now so that time frame might be off a bit. But the reason is pretty obvious, some patents and medicines greatly benefit society as a whole and are more important to humanity and outweigh the greed to keep them all to oneself forever. 


Rev.


----------



## flint757 (May 19, 2015)

Rev2010 said:


> I completely agree with this. For what reason should something like Mickey Mouse become public domain? It was created by and is owned by Disney and Disney is still a functioning company, even as miserable and vile as they are. The only case where I do believe things should go public are patents - inventions, medicines, etc, and they DO go public eventually, with medicines becoming available to other companies way sooner than patent expiration. I believe medical companies have something like 10 years to sell their drug before it must be made available for generic production. Not going to bother to look it up now so that time frame might be off a bit. But the reason is pretty obvious, some patents and medicines greatly benefit society as a whole and are more important to humanity and outweigh the greed to keep them all to oneself forever.
> 
> 
> Rev.



There are long-term viable reasons for copyrights ending. Biggest of which being that at some point if copyrights didn't end it would crush creative contents development as more and more things become essentially off limits or, in the case of big business, a potential legal nightmare to even attempt. With businesses this is even more sketchy as they can literally live on forever. Walt Disney died. Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse. If a company could buy or create something and hold on to it literally until the end of time then you have just given big business pretty much full control of most creative content years down the road as they slowly develop/collect it all (since businesses purchase copyrights all the time). That's irrelevant though as certain copyrights are supposed to end within I believe 50 years for businesses unless developed externally, then it's just the normal 2-3 lifetime terms. As far as Disney, the irony of their company is that the majority of their ideas are built on public domain stories from days of olde. To use those same stories you have to walk a tight rope as well, as Disney isn't above suing the .... out of people. 

I'm surprised you seem to see zero merit in the public domain, but at the same time I'm not as musicians tend to look at it from a highly personal perspective with their own ideas as a frame of reference.

In any case, this is about Disney extending copyright laws even further than they already are and they are already a bit ridiculous. We have some of the most stringent copyright laws in the world.

It seems a bit biased to be pro patent expiration yet be 100% against copyrights ever ending. I'd be curious to hear you elaborate.


----------



## flint757 (May 19, 2015)

I should note that the original intent of copyright laws was to simply guarantee for a fixed amount of time that the creator was able to make money off of their ideas. The purpose was to encourage creative development by making sure someone couldn't swoop in and just start profiting off of someone else's work. What we have today goes way beyond that. Further, due to technology, change is quite rapid. In most cases if a business hasn't made any money off of their work in a decade they likely never will.

Believe it or not I'm very much pro copyright. I simply do not support the methods in which businesses use them and our system of law/litigation creates an environment that doesn't allow for the spirit of the law to prevail. When you can be taken to court by mere accusation it sort of hinders the little guy when combating giants like Disney, Sony, Warner, etc.


----------



## celticelk (May 19, 2015)

Rev2010 said:


> The only case where I do believe things should go public are patents - inventions, medicines, etc, and they DO go public eventually, with medicines becoming available to other companies way sooner than patent expiration. I believe medical companies have something like 10 years to sell their drug before it must be made available for generic production. Not going to bother to look it up now so that time frame might be off a bit. But the reason is pretty obvious, some patents and medicines greatly benefit society as a whole and are more important to humanity and outweigh the greed to keep them all to oneself forever.



Do you feel that way about scientific research in general, virtually all of which (except for the pre-1923 publications, or those published over the last 15 or so years in explicitly open-access journals) is covered under copyrights owned by the large corporations which publish the journals?


----------



## Rev2010 (May 19, 2015)

flint757 said:


> As far as Disney, the irony of their company is that the majority of their ideas are built on public domain stories from days of olde. To use those same stories you have to walk a tight rope as well, as Disney isn't above suing the .... out of people.
> 
> I'm surprised you seem to see zero merit in the public domain, but at the same time I'm not as musicians tend to look at it from a highly personal perspective with their own ideas as a frame of reference.



OK, you're talking two different points here. One is something like created characters such as Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck and the subsequent cartoon creations. Then you talk about the works based off existing stories like from the Grim Fairy Tales and such. They are two different things hence why I said, "even as miserable and vile as they are". I hate Disney for that exact reason, they'll try to sue people thinking they own things like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, etc when they don't own the stories themselves. They are pieces of garbage for some of the things they've done.

But that is separate from their own real self created works, and I honestly can't see why something like Mickey Mouse should become public property so long as it's passed down legally, in this case the corporation originally founded by Walt Disney. What's so hard to see about that?? Having Mickey as public domain doesn't benefit society and please explain how you think it stifles creativity?? No one says they own a sweeping copyright on any mouse imagery. Sure stuff that is so obviously similar, like DJ Dangermouse, will be sued... he OBVIOUSLY based his logo on the Mickey silhouette image and he was plain lying saying he didn't.[/QUOTE]

I do think the whole legal system is completely f'd up and is controlled by the wealthy. I do think fair use should cover a much wider basis - such as maybe we should primarily make it that if it's not financially affecting the owner of said work in any way then there's far less case to sue. I don't know, I don't have all the answers, but you asked for our opinion and I gave mine. Seems you're coming off a little defensive of your own view for a thread asking others their opinions 


Rev.


----------



## Rev2010 (May 19, 2015)

celticelk said:


> Do you feel that way about scientific research in general, virtually all of which (except for the pre-1923 publications, or those published over the last 15 or so years in explicitly open-access journals) is covered under copyrights owned by the large corporations which publish the journals?



I said I feel that inventions and medicines and such that are of great importance to humanity should have a time frame before becoming open to use by others. With medicine for example the company that funded the R&D and created a drug owns the exclusive right to the drug for a specified period of time before it becomes available for others to produce and sell at much more competitive prices. This exists because it costs a fortune for R&D and companies deserve the protection of their investment. But because it's of medical importance to people there's a finite amount of time they have that exclusivity.

If you're referring to something like say, a new technology for transportation... well I've never really thought at length about it but I'd guess I'd feel the same as medicinal rights, they should be granted exclusivity for a finite period of time.

Now, that's not to say that I think it should be 100% public domain. I honestly don't see why it wouldn't be fair for the creator or whomever/whatever inherited their legacy to be do some form of royalty. Then it's fair to everyone. You can use it and the inventor, or their still existent company or whatever, still gets a share.


Rev.


----------



## michblanch (May 20, 2015)

A Trademark protects names, terms and symbols that are used to identify the source of goods and/or services on the market. In other words, a trademark lets the consumer distinguish one company's offerings from another's. Trademarks include brand names such as "Coca-Cola" and images such as Nike's famous "swoosh." As the owner of a federally registered trademark, you can sue for trademark infringement in federal court and prevent the importation of foreign goods that display your trademark. 


A Copyright protects original creative works such as books, movies, songs, paintings, photographs, web content and choreography. As the owner of a federally registered copyright, you can control how your work is reproduced, distributed and presented publicly, and you can sue infringers in federal court and prevent others from importing infringing goods.



So in the case of Disney, I'm assuming that they consider Mickey a Trademark. It is identifiable to their brand and is the one of many logos they use.


----------



## tedtan (May 20, 2015)

michblanch said:


> So in the case of Disney, I'm assuming that they consider Mickey a Trademark. It is identifiable to their brand and is the one of many logos they use.



This is correct. Disney has Mickey Mouse (and their other characters)trademarked, so they get to renew the mark every ten years (or whatever it is) indefinitely, but the works featuring Mickey are copyrighted, and will eventually become public domain.


----------



## flint757 (May 20, 2015)

Rev2010 said:


> OK, you're talking two different points here. One is something like created characters such as Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck and the subsequent cartoon creations. Then you talk about the works based off existing stories like from the Grim Fairy Tales and such. They are two different things hence why I said, "even as miserable and vile as they are". I hate Disney for that exact reason, they'll try to sue people thinking they own things like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, etc when they don't own the stories themselves. They are pieces of garbage for some of the things they've done.



It's a discussion about both, but the legislation would be targeted towards Mickey Mouse. It's important to note that it would be a sweeping legislation so it doesn't just affect Disney. It benefits, for better or worse, other businesses and individuals as well. 



Rev2010 said:


> But that is separate from their own real self created works, and I honestly can't see why something like Mickey Mouse should become public property so long as it's passed down legally, in this case the corporation originally founded by Walt Disney. What's so hard to see about that??



It's not nor did I say it was. I do think there should be distinctions made and legally there is to a degree. The issue in this specific case is that they're meddling with politics and law to extend rights they were never technically granted in the first place. Corporations, I believe, only get to keep copyrights for 50 years, while individuals it's life+75. I'm not 100% on how they work it out, but I wouldn't doubt there are loopholes where they can make it an individuals copyright to make it last quite a bit longer (contracting work as an example perhaps).



Rev2010 said:


> Having Mickey as public domain doesn't benefit society and please explain how you think it stifles creativity??



I didn't say this specific instance would. It's what extending copyrights would do for everything, including everything Disney and anyone else will do/has done. If it were just about Mickey I wouldn't honestly care. It's the big picture where my concerns lay. 



Rev2010 said:


> No one says they own a sweeping copyright on any mouse imagery. Sure stuff that is so obviously similar, like DJ Dangermouse, will be sued... he OBVIOUSLY based his logo on the Mickey silhouette image and he was plain lying saying he didn't.



I believe he got sued for trademark infringement, right? If that's the case it's irrelevant as they are ultimately separate things, but realistically it made zero sense to sue him either way. It did not cut into their profits and it definitely did not confuse consumers, both of which are the point of copyrights and trademarks.



Rev2010 said:


> I do think the whole legal system is completely f'd up and is controlled by the wealthy. I do think fair use should cover a much wider basis - such as maybe we should primarily make it that if it's not financially affecting the owner of said work in any way then there's far less case to sue.



This is pretty much where I stand as well. On the topic of Disney, they have even sued day cares for painting murals of Disney characters. That should have been laughed out of a courtroom IMO. 

snopes.com: Daycare Center Murals



Rev2010 said:


> I don't know, I don't have all the answers, but you asked for our opinion and I gave mine. Seems you're coming off a little defensive of your own view for a thread asking others their opinions
> 
> 
> Rev.



Not in the least.  

Of course I'm pro my own opinion as much as you are yours I'm sure. I didn't start this thread to just mediate. In any case, I was genuinely curious for you to expand on your opinions in regards to the questions I had asked you. 

To get to the heart of the question, why do you believe that patents, medicine, technology, etc. should be temporary while creative copyrights should last indefinitely? One could argue that there was more work, money and effort invested into the prior. It's also certainly financially more viable for the creators as well. Is it simply that you deem creative work to be unimportant? If so that's fine. It just helps me properly frame your position to know where your coming from.

If someone can be sued, and you believe it is justified, for a silhouette of a character then isn't it quite possible that if copyrights truly were indefinite that it really would stifle creative work? I'm not talking about just Mickey, but everything anyone has ever created. If we took all creative work combined, including even subtle similarities, then eventually there wouldn't be much left. You do seem to find the legal system in which copyrights are enforced, as well as many people who hold the lions share of copyrights, to be ineffective/corrupt so I just find your position interesting is all.


----------



## flint757 (May 20, 2015)

Rev2010 said:


> Now, that's not to say that I think it should be 100% public domain. I honestly don't see why it wouldn't be fair for the creator or whomever/whatever inherited their legacy to be do some form of royalty. Then it's fair to everyone. You can use it and the inventor, or their still existent company or whatever, still gets a share.
> 
> 
> Rev.



That's essentially how patents work before they expire as I understand it. Pending on the subject not sure how I feel about royalties indefinitely, but it's a fair position to take nonetheless.



michblanch said:


> So in the case of Disney, I'm assuming that they consider Mickey a Trademark. It is identifiable to their brand and is the one of many logos they use.



They're not in any danger of losing their trademark as far as I'm aware. They're in danger of the early episodes of Mickey Mouse ending up in the public domain, which opens up opportunities for derivative work to be created based on those particular episodes. The footage would also enter the public domain, but they're well within their abilities to still sell it or use it (Explorer's explanation was quite good). Considering they've trademarked all of their characters as well it'd still be dangerous territory given how sue happy Disney has always been. If their efforts fail I still likely wouldn't go out and create something Mickey related as I'd still probably get challenged in court (but mostly because I have no interest ).


---


It may not conform to my ideal, but I could 100% back up individuals having perpetual control over their material. I just find it dubious to extend that right to corporations, given what sort of revenue streams they work with. If arguing over copyrights was less common, harder or more balanced I'd probably feel differently on the subject. As is it's essentially whomever has the most money wins the case (in general). If this were not the case my opinion would be very different, but they are not completely separate issues as they go quite hand-in-hand.


----------



## celticelk (May 20, 2015)

Rev2010 said:


> I said I feel that inventions and medicines and such that are of great importance to humanity should have a time frame before becoming open to use by others. With medicine for example the company that funded the R&D and created a drug owns the exclusive right to the drug for a specified period of time before it becomes available for others to produce and sell at much more competitive prices. This exists because it costs a fortune for R&D and companies deserve the protection of their investment. But because it's of medical importance to people there's a finite amount of time they have that exclusivity.
> 
> If you're referring to something like say, a new technology for transportation... well I've never really thought at length about it but I'd guess I'd feel the same as medicinal rights, they should be granted exclusivity for a finite period of time.
> 
> Now, that's not to say that I think it should be 100% public domain. I honestly don't see why it wouldn't be fair for the creator or whomever/whatever inherited their legacy to be do some form of royalty. Then it's fair to everyone. You can use it and the inventor, or their still existent company or whatever, still gets a share.



All of your examples refer to inventions, which are covered by patent, not copyright. My question was specifically about the copyright status of articles in scientific journals. These articles might describe research that could lead to future inventions, but very often they do not.


----------



## tedtan (May 20, 2015)

If the copyright to an article is assigned to the publisher prior to publication, it doesn't affect the actual research, only the article itself. So the author benefits from publication via "publish or parish" constraints and any other consideration they are able to negotiate for, but they also still have the option to pursue other avenues of gaining exposure for their work, be it via additional articles in other journals, patenting the invention and licensing it to a manufacturer, releasing their work via creative commons license, etc.

Because of this, I'm not sure it directly relates to a person or corporation monetizing it's own creation, and I don't see the practice as anywhere near as restrictive as Disney is with allowing others to use Mickey Mouse (to use the example already given).


----------



## Rev2010 (May 20, 2015)

flint757 said:


> If someone can be sued, and you believe it is justified, for a silhouette of a character then isn't it quite possible that if copyrights truly were indefinite that it really would stifle creative work?



No, I don't think that was justified at all and even stated in my second response that perhaps fair use should be expanded in such a way that use is allowed so long as it doesn't financially take away from the originator/company that owns the copyright. I just said he was lying that he didn't base his logo off MM cause he clearly did. But I mean, if there's no financial affect then why is it a big issue for someone else to make a derivative work? 

I still don't honestly see why an entire work should just be public domain after a certain period of time, again unless it has some dramatic affect for the betterment of humanity - but as already addressed that is in regard to patents rather than copyrights. So I guess it's a completely different discussion. 

I think perhaps the topic is being a bit swayed in a sense. There IS a big difference between owning a copyright and being due a royalty or exclusive ownership in a marketplace and bullying a daycare owner for painting Disney characters on a wall. That's plain absurd strong-arm tactics that really have no basis as they don't negatively affect the copyright owner at all. Matter of fact, they probably help the copyright owner by bringing on more business as the kids are more exposed to their brand and wanting to watch the cartoons and have toys and such.

Not sure, where we're going with this. TLDR; I have no qualms with exclusive copyright ownership but don't believe it should be so stringently controlled as to be able to sue others for derivative works that have no negative impact on the creator or owner of the work and also feel fair use should be more widely expanded so that others can make derivative works, that one again, do not negatively or financially affective the owner of the copyright.


Rev.


----------



## Explorer (May 20, 2015)

Rev2010 said:


> I still don't honestly see why an entire work should just be public domain after a certain period of time, again unless it has some dramatic affect for the betterment of humanity - but as already addressed that is in regard to patents rather than copyrights. So I guess it's a completely different discussion.



Some creative works might become the building blocks of future cultural developments. Whether you're talking about "The Grapes of Wrath" being one of those elements, just like the tales of the Brothers Grimm or of Hans Christian Anderson, or about the melody and lyrics for "Happy Birthday," there are some things which become enduring parts of a shared culture. 

I personally don't think a culture benefits by locking up the ability to utilize those elements more than a century down the line, but it might be possible to convince me. 

What would have been the benefits to *not* have works like La Gioconda (Mona Lisa/Monna Lisa/The Portrait of Lisa Gherardini) in the public domain?

Is there a benefit to never having this photo of a moment in American history (reproduced here under fair use) revert to the public domain?







I'm just curious as to whether there is a "betterment of humanity" argument to be made on the infinite copyright side. I personally think that a open and shared culture is a benefit, and *I'm curious as to how *not* having a shared and open culture is more beneficial to a society. *


----------



## Rev2010 (May 20, 2015)

Explorer said:


> I personally don't think a culture benefits by locking up the ability to utilize those elements more than a century down the line, but it might be possible to convince me.



I guess I could see that. But how do we determine the timeline and to what extent? Should people not be allowed to build an empire based on their works? Again, I can't see why we can't have a society where the copyright owner can continue to own or sell a copyright with someone retaining ownership but still allowing others to use a work creatively in a way that doesn't interfere with the owners monetary gain from the work. As I said, I don't have the answers but my feeling is there has to be some acceptable middle ground. I guess the problem with the situation today is corporations. There was no Mozart corporation so his works are public domain. He'll my rerecent CD release has artworks from long dead painters who's paintings are now public domain. If they were still copyright though I would've either used something else public domain, since I can't paint or draw, or would've paid someone for artwork to be made for us. Either way it's not a big detriment to me hence my position. I still haven't heard a great argument as to why something like Mickey Mouse should be public domain. I'm quite open minded so if anyone can give a great example I'm all ears. Perhaps I'll see things in a different light. 


Rev.


----------



## flint757 (May 20, 2015)

For Mickey Mouse, other than the petty suits, there really isn't one. Mickey is just the reason for why they're trying to get copyright laws updated. For the most part I'm more speaking of the ramification of the 1976 Copyright act, the 1998 Copyright Extension act and the likely 2018 Copyright updates that I have no doubt will pass despite my misgivings. If Disney has there way then they will have successfully lengthened and/or further restricted copyright laws and they're already extremely stringent.

It's also a matter of a collective aspect. Mickey Mouse isn't the only thing copyrighted and many things still retain/will gain copyrights in the future. It's what effect this might have on society as a whole that I feel is negative. In that respect I feel like most things should eventually end up in the public domain, but my opinion of Mickey is mostly neutral on the subject.


----------



## flint757 (May 20, 2015)

Copyrights have a fairly big impact on education as I understand it. To perform and/or charge for a play that is still under copyright you have to first get permission and if the copyright holder wishes you have to pay them some sort of royalty. It being under copyright also means you cannot alter the script. That's a bit more on the literal side as while not getting permission, paying royalties and/or altering the script _can_ land you in hot water I imagine most could get away with it. Most schools aren't willing to take those sort of risks though which leads to the copyrighted generations essentially not learning any of today's culture in the classroom.


----------



## Explorer (May 20, 2015)

Rev2010 said:


> I guess I could see that. But how do we determine the timeline and to what extent? Should people not be allowed to build an empire based on their works?
> 
> 
> > In that first section, there is nothing stopping someone from building an empire based on their own works, or even selling it to someone else or leaving it to their kids. As the creator, they own those rights for their lifetime and a lifetime beyond that.
> ...


----------



## Explorer (May 20, 2015)

By the way, this topic makes me hopeful that musicians might be able to count on support from SS.org members for the right to make money from their original works. 

It was horrible a few years ago when members would argue about the right to pirate, and I felt bad when Keith Merrow posted about piracy and how he couldn't earn enough off an initial digital release of "Awaken the Stone King" (due to wholesale piracy) in order to do a physical release. 

Thanks to SS.org members for possibly turning away from that entitled philosophy.


----------



## flint757 (May 20, 2015)

Actually, anything created before the 1976 act was covered only by a much shorter duration (compared to work created after at least). In the 1976 and 1998 act they simply extended it further for work made after 1922. The 1928 work was supposed to expire in the early 2000's. I was mistaken about it being in 2018, but they only have a few years to get something in writing before there isn't enough time to get legislation passed (2023 apparently). According to the article below the 1998 act extend corporate work to ~100 years essentially as well.

This sums it up fairly well:

How Mickey Mouse Keeps Changing Copyright Law - Art Law Journal

In regards to the use of Mickey if the 1928 work were to enter the public domain, I thought trademarks only protected essentially identities and products/services. If Steamboat Willie were to enter the public domain I do believe it opens the door for someone to for instance make a cartoon derived from that film without violating a trademark. If a trademark can permanently lock up work from use there'd be no point in having the copyright. I could be wrong on this point though, as the legal aspect of copyrights and trademarks is quite complicated IMO; however, everything I've read points to this being true. Obviously Disney has the upper hand as they can just force you into litigation, whether you're doing anything wrong or not.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (May 21, 2015)




----------



## Rev2010 (May 21, 2015)

^^^ Still not won over by that video. Just sounds like a bunch of entitled uber liberal idealess artists that want free access to someone else's intellectual property.

They say in the video that no one living can ever write a new Darth Vader origin story as a result but a quick check on Amazon shows *DOZENS* of Star Wars story books written by various authors. There are also various Star Trek books by individual authors. Copyrights do allow licensing you know. It doesn't mean no one on Earth can touch someone else's works. Matter of fact, since it's been mentioned, let's talk about music. You can cover and reproduce other artists songs and such you just have to get a mechanical license then pay the royalty percentage when you sell copies of the song.

Funny too that it's been mentioned that having copyrights owned for long periods or indefinitely stifles creativity. Isn't it the opposite in some way? Do we need more reboots and rehashes of the same stories and same characters rather than writing something new and original? Seems the other way around to me.

But in the end yes I do agree with you guys that an indefinite copyright is ridiculous. How long should a copyright allowed to be owned or how many times passed to another? I don't know. I don't have the answer to that, I'm an IT tech not an intellectual property expert. So again, yes I agree with you guys that at some point copyright ownership should cease, I just don't have a definitive opinion on time lengths and such.


Rev.


----------



## asher (May 21, 2015)

Rev2010 said:


> They say in the video that no one living can ever write a new Darth Vader origin story as a result but a quick check on Amazon shows *DOZENS* of Star Wars story books written by various authors.



Which A) don't write a new Darth Vader origin story, and B) while licensed liberally aren't considered canon by the license holders, especially where they intersect with a film.


----------



## Rev2010 (May 21, 2015)

asher said:


> Which A) don't write a new Darth Vader origin story



Because they *can't* or because just no one has bothered to?


Rev.


----------



## flint757 (May 21, 2015)

Rev2010 said:


> But in the end yes I do agree with you guys that an indefinite copyright is ridiculous. How long should a copyright allowed to be owned or how many times passed to another? I don't know. I don't have the answer to that, I'm an IT tech not an intellectual property expert. So again, yes I agree with you guys that at some point copyright ownership should cease, I just don't have a definitive opinion on time lengths and such.
> 
> 
> Rev.



And on all of that we pretty much agree. I said it stifles creativity when it lasts a ridiculous amount of time or never ends, not that it stifles creativity in general. My personal opinion is that the current length is too long and the larger companies are attempting to make it even longer which I'm 100% against, hence the initiation of this thread.


----------



## tedtan (May 21, 2015)

Rev2010 said:


> Funny too that it's been mentioned that having copyrights owned for long periods or indefinitely stifles creativity. Isn't it the opposite in some way? Do we need more reboots and rehashes of the same stories and same characters rather than writing something new and original? Seems the other way around to me.



I think this depends on the situation. 

Having the copyright and other IP laws in effect be long enough to recoup the expenses incurred in developing the work and to also earn profit from those works created thereunder definitely encourages individuals and small companies to innovate and create new works.

However, large companies like Disney are much more likely to rest on their laurels, at least in part, by protecting their past works and buying out existing works rather than putting that same time, effort and money into developing new works. And the longer the copyright/IP right period is, the more this behavior is encouraged. (This is not to say that Disney and other large companies are not developing new works at all, just that their attention and monies are divided rather than focused on innovating).

So I would suggest that shorter copyright periods encourage innovation in large businesses while longer periods can encourage innovation in smaller businesses and individuals since they don't have the money and staff attorneys to take the same approach as the larger businesses.

But you guys are right - the difficulty is in determining where those sweet spots lie for individuals/small businesses and for large corporations. (And I do favor shorter periods for large businesses, though I don't have an exact definition for large businesses at this point).


----------



## flint757 (May 21, 2015)

Yeah, defining a large business is difficult. I worked for a company that was worth over 10 million dollars, but it was definitely not a large business by any stretch. We had minimal staff and loads of bills to pay. The only one that benefited from the companies market value was the owner, after he sold it. 

I imagine what's already been copyrighted can't be undone though. I don't think the term can be shortened, only lengthened, but I could be mistaken. I imagine it'd be grandfathered. I just sincerely hope they don't succeed in making it even longer, but given the current political environment and the fact that they've succeeded before leads me to assume whatever is proposed will likely pass. Disney in particular has an entire division devoted to political campaign funding so they can pretty much choose who essentially signs it into law.


----------



## asher (May 21, 2015)

Rev2010 said:


> Because they *can't* or because just no one has bothered to?
> 
> 
> Rev.



You were using the existence of tons of EU books as inherently a counter point, which it's not. I don't know the licensing agreements and such.


.... though because I still have much Star Wars dork still latent in me (it was a huge thing for me as a kid, OK?), I have done some research. Looks like that was actually true:



> TOTAL FILM: "The Star Wars universe has expanded far beyond the movies. How much leeway do the game makers and novel writers have?"
> LUCAS: "They have their own kind of world. There's three pillars of Star Wars. I'll probably get in trouble for this but it's OK! There's three pillars: the father, the son and the holy ghost. I'm the father, Howard Roffman [president of Lucas Licensing] is the son and the holy ghost is the fans, this kind of ethereal world of people coming up with all kinds of different ideas and histories. Now these three different pillars don't always match, but the movies and TV shows are all under my control and they are consistent within themselves. Howard tries to be consistent but sometimes he goes off on tangents and it's hard to hold him back. He once said to me that there are two Star Trek universes: there's the TV show and then there's all the spin-offs. He said that these were completely different and didn't have anything to do with each other. So I said, "OK, go ahead." In the early days I told them that they couldn't do anything about how Darth Vader was born, for obvious reasons, but otherwise I pretty much let them do whatever they wanted. They created this whole amazing universe that goes on for millions of years!"


----------



## tedtan (May 21, 2015)

Yeah, I think a lot of the small to mid size businesses are still innovating, even a lot of them doing $50-100 million per year in revenue, maybe more. So I think my definition would require at least $100 million per year in revenue, and probably more.

A lot of the companies that primarily buy existing IP instead of innovating are quite a bit larger still: Disney, Honeywell, Siemens, General Electric, Mitsubishi, et. al. are all several orders of magnitude larger than we're talking about here (tens to hundreds of billions annually). So at least the largest (and most politically influential) are easily identified.


----------



## flint757 (May 22, 2015)

Why Coca-Cola Will Never Patent Its Formula | Pellegrino and Associates

While not copyright related it's somewhat relevant, and at the very least interesting.

In some respects I think people put a bit too much stock in legal protections, aside from preventing literal direct copies and product confusion via trademark violations. When you consider the number of soda alternatives people still buy in droves Coca Cola and they don't even have it patented. As they aptly point out as well, even if a company were able to mimic it exactly people would still buy Coca Cola. This obviously doesn't apply to individuals or small companies, but it definitely applies to the giants. Think about what movies people choose to see in theaters. I know for myself that I see Disney and Disney/Pixar films because I typically enjoy them. If someone were to make a Disney-like film that would still likely be the case.

More of an interesting thought I was having on my way to work than an actual statement or point.


----------



## Rev2010 (May 22, 2015)

flint757 said:


> Why Coca-Cola Will Never Patent Its Formula | Pellegrino and Associates



Coca-Cola likely wouldn't be approved for a patent on their recipe since it's a simple culmination of ingredients that aren't created in a completely new way (ie. in a new form of laboratory process). That is why such recipes are most commonly trade secrets, like KFC's fried chicken herbs and spices recipe. Recipes are also not copyrightable, only a work itself such as a recipe book is copyrightable but not the recipe itself. 

**EDIT - as a side note... ever since looking up those darn Star Wars books on Amazon now all I get is Star Wars books ads on every webpage I go to  Doh, just realized I had AdBlock disabled 


Rev.


----------



## asher (May 22, 2015)




----------



## flint757 (May 22, 2015)

If they could have I doubt they would be able to today anyhow since it was developed such a long time ago, but my knowledge of patent law is even worse than my knowledge of trademark/copyright law. So much goes into it and a lot of it is so subjectively decided by officials in courtrooms and the patent office that even if you had a concrete idea of the process it can still turn out quite different than one might expect. 

Honestly, given what kind of crap the patent office has approved over the last century I wouldn't be surprised if they could get it successfully patented, although I agree it's highly unlikely. It wouldn't be in their best interest either way though.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (May 23, 2015)

Rev2010 said:


> ^^^ Still not won over by that video. Just sounds like a bunch of entitled uber liberal idealess artists that want free access to someone else's intellectual property.
> 
> ...
> 
> But in the end yes I do agree with you guys that an indefinite copyright is ridiculous. How long should a copyright allowed to be owned or how many times passed to another? I don't know. I don't have the answer to that, I'm an IT tech not an intellectual property expert. So again, yes I agree with you guys that at some point copyright ownership should cease, I just don't have a definitive opinion on time lengths and such.


I'm NOT claiming to agree with everything in that video, but he's brings up many good points and probably states them much more clearly than I could've-and in a broad sense I agree with him, and you.
Copyright should not be infinite.


----------

