Web Publisher Goes to Supreme Court

[Guest MrRant]

Web Publisher Goes to Supreme Court

 

 

Personally I side with Disney. I don't think people should be able to use a character that THEY created and spend millions of dollars promoting because a copyright expired and they get to leech of them. I don't give a flying fuck about these "small music publishers" or churches who are hindered because they can't afford the royalty payments.

 

If I create something and you want to use it you best pay me my fucking money. I don't think copyrights should ever expire because I consider these people to be leeching of the creativity of Walt Disney and others.

 

Go create something yourselves motherfuckers and stop leeching off others.

 

And yes I support most of corporate America.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

As a Disney historian/fan type, I wonder who the company officially credits as creating Mickey Mouse? Most people associate Mickey with Walt, and the company's revisionist history (Disney is a lot like WWE in how they change the story of What Really Happened) tells people that Walt sketched Mickey on an airplane trip. However, I wouldn't be suprised if they officially recognize Ub Iwerks since he officially drew the first comics and animated skits. Still, Walt is considered the Producer for most of these early toons. =/

 

Also, since copyright law can hinge on when the creator died, Disney died in 66, while Iwerks died in 71.

 

Anyway, the Fab Five (Mickey, Minnie, Pluto, Donald, Goofy) are their biggest icons and the company has a history of fighting viciously to keep them. I certainly hope they put up more of a fight here than they have made so far to keep Winnie the Pooh, who generates more merchandise money but is nowhere near an icon for the company.

 

The day when Six Flags can have their own Guy In A Mickey Suit ripoff is the day I stop visiting Six Flags.

 

EDIT And now that I look at this a little harder (I don't know law as well as I know Disney. ) I see what is up for grabs isn't the Mickey name and likeness, but some early designs, or something. Oh well, I agree it should be theirs. No matter how bad off the company is right now, I wouldn't wish them to slowly lose ownership of their history like that.

[Guest MrRant]

Either way they created it so they should own it.

[Guest Eagan469]

This commentary explains the situation pretty damn good.

[Guest MrRant]

It still doesn't matter to me as they OWN it. Not you... not me... THEM.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

My mind shifts on this one a bit.

 

There's a lot of stuff we've never gotten to see because they were declared racist or hateful, and they never totally appear even in the so-called "uncensored" releases.

 

Mickey changed quite significantly in the 40s, starting with the Sorcerer's Apprentice short in Fantasia. Here's a timeline of sorts:

 

Old, 20s-era Mickey

Pre-Fantasia Mickey

Mickey from Fantasia onwards

 

We're talking about stuff from the first two eras here, and that's where a majority of the mothballed war-era stuff and other things are. They don't do anything with these Mickeys as far as I know, except some merchandising. And since he is a trademark and there's gray area, Disney could probably successfully sue anyone into submission who deicdes who decides to commercialize on this, for at least 10 years, maybe more.

 

So instead of "Well that sucks they ought to keep it," I'm now an indecisive "Well, it could go either way and I think I'll just watch and see what happens."

[Guest MrRant]

The do stuff with the old things. Have you seen the Collector Editions of Disney's? The ones in the tin cans that have old Mickey Mouse episodes and those Silly Symphonies? So they do use their older material.

 

There is also a lot of merchandise with older stuff as well.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

The do stuff with the old things.  Have you seen the Collector Editions of Disney's?  The ones in the tin cans that have old Mickey Mouse episodes and those Silly Symphonies?  So they do use their older material.

 

There is also a lot of merchandise with older stuff as well.

Yes, those tin can editions are one the "Uncensored" releases that really aren't.

 

I'm not talking about how they use these old cartoons, as they could just keep airing them on Disney Channel forever and ever, but what they would have to do is make something NEW with old Mickey. Mickey with the button-like eyes has been pretty much eschewed since Sorcerer's Apprentice. The only current Mickey cartoons they're making are the direct-to-video releases and the series "House of Mouse," and Old Mickey has not ressurrected on any of these shows.

 

This kind of stuff happens to Popeye and others too (in fact, I saw on Cartoon Network years ago a toon where Popeye beat up Bluto then commented "That shoulda' been Hitler.") The most they can do is hope they can twist the law's arm in their direction. And again, Old Mickey and New Mickey are still the same trademarked character, so any small entrepreneur using Steamboat Willie to advertise his business or something will likely be sued into submission.

 

I manage to remain a Disney fan even under the company's current leadership (and boy is that hard), but in all fairness, this happens (or will happen) to Warner, MGM, and others.

[Guest MrRant]

Its not just Disney but works from Hemmingway (sp) etc could become public domain for people to reprint and not pay royalties to the families of the authors.

[Guest LooseCannon]

Its not just Disney but works from Hemmingway (sp) etc could become public domain for people to reprint and not pay royalties to the families of the authors.

Of course. Similarly, Dostoevski's family doesn't get royalties for The Brothers Karamazov. Twains's family doesn't get royalties for his works. It's all public domain. Copyrights only last for so long. This is the way it has always been. There are innumerable composers, authors, and iventors whose works have become public domain, and can be reproduced by anyone without having to pay for it. That's the nature of copyright law. There's a conflict between creating an incentive to create and between society's interest in benefitting from creations. I remember reading an article about this a couple of years ago, and it's an interesting issue. The problem is that Disney is a corporation that continues survive. Perhaps that creates special circumstances, but honestly I'm not sure if Disney really has much of a legal argument.

 

But before bemoaning too much, it's society as a whole, through copyright law, that confers this benefit upon the creator in the first place. There is no fundamental right to not have your creations appropriated by others. It's the law that has protected Disney's creations all these years. Removing that construct after a certain number of years has been a longstanding tradition.

[Guest MrRant]

I think personally to me that it is stealing from someone's hard work to profit for yourself without any repayment to the creator. People should HAVE to pay to use someone else's creation or what is the point of creating only to have some steal it and make money of your hard work?

[Guest LooseCannon]

I understand your point of view. Which is why we hand out copyrights in the first place. But it shouldn't be forgotten that it is a benefit created by society, and society retains the authority to remove that benefit. Many of Disney's copyrights expired four years ago and were extended by Congress. I imagine that is constitutional to do, but it's clear that it would be unconstitutional to extend these copyrights into perpetuity. By the way, it's my understanding that many of Disney's copyrights would continue to be protected as long as Disney remains in business, as they're corporate symbols or something. One of the articles also made a good point about Disney's using stories from the public domain such as Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty.

[Guest MrRant]

I see both sides point of view and others outside of Disney have used fairy tales for other works and it would get messy after awhile. However I think that perhaps we need a way for people/corporation every say 25-50 years to renew a copyright on a character etc either through a process or a hearing where a judge could say you haven't done anything with it for 43 years so its going public or if they forget or choose not to then they can no longer use it. But not just say well your Dad wrote a book 70 years ago and while it still is selling we are taking away the royalties. I could see if the book sold nothing for the past 50 years but the things these people are talking about are things that probably could make money.

[Guest LooseCannon]

I see both sides point of view and others outside of Disney have used fairy tales for other works and it would get messy after awhile.  However I think that perhaps we need a way for people/corporation every say 25-50 years to renew a copyright on a character etc either through a process or a hearing where a judge could say you haven't done anything with it for 43 years so its going public or if they forget or choose not to then they can no longer use it.  But not just say well your Dad wrote a book 70 years ago and while it still is selling we are taking away the royalties.  I could see if the book sold nothing for the past 50 years but the things these people are talking about are things that probably could make money.

Your idea seems reasonable in the case of Disney and other similar cases. But you're being entirely too kind to people who are already fortuitously earning royalties solely because they're the heir to someone who actually bothered to do something productive. Tom Stoppard's play Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are Dead would probably never have been written if he had to fork over royalties to Shakespeare's heirs for appropriating characters from Hamlet. It seems to me at a certain point the cost benefit analysis points toward allowing works to become part of the public domain.

[Guest MrRant]

That's where it would get messy. If they were to do it it would have to be a new admentment (sp) that would have to be added that would be on a going forward basis.

[Guest LooseCannon]

Well what about 400 years from now, when someone wants to create something based off of one of today's great works, but they can't because the heirs refuse to sell permission? That's why I don't like that part of your idea even on a going forward basis. I definitely like the due process like hearings for special circumstances though. I just don't think that a work's continued profitability is special circumstances in and of itself.

[Guest MrRant]

Well you could be taking away the only source of income for a family ( a lazy fucking family) and if the heirs decide that they don't want the money to license the works then they lose out.

[Guest LooseCannon]

To the first point, I say boo-hoo. The law is such that one can anticipate what is going to happen and should be able to prepare accordingly. As long as there is notice, there is nothing for the family to complain about.

 

To the second point, it's not the heirs that lose out. If they don't want the money or they can't agree on a price or whatever for whatever reason, They'd be getting exactly what they wanted. It's the rest of the world that would lose out on new art and innovations and improvements on old technology.

[Guest MrRant]

Improvements on technology I think we are moving into something different because those are patents that are different from copyrights IIRC.

[Guest LooseCannon]

True. I forgot we were talking about copyrights on so called "cultural works." The point remains though, as far as appropriating old artistic works to create something new and meaningful.

 

With that I have to be off to bed, but I'll be back tomorrow to continue whatever we may have left to discuss.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I thought I'd just walk in at this point and mention that Disney has bombarded us with typically crappy sequels and the like to keep copyright in effect.

 

This is why we got a direct-to-video sequel to Lady & The Tramp or a movie like Return to Neverland, even though the original films ended happily and was satisfactory for a number of decades.

 

Not totally directly related to this, but an observation.

[Guest DrTom]

Copyright law has been greatly expanded since it was first introduced. Originally, the law favored the public, as copyrights had a shorter term and were difficult to renew before the material lapsed into public domain. Content creators pushed to have the laws changed, and they've changed several times. Now, content creators want ever more power because of the threats of piracy. Even publishers are getting in on this, with the fear of e-book piracy and their shameful denunciation of librarians as something akin to terrorists. This is one of many steps to infringe the public's right to fair use and public domain material in the name of curbing piracy.

 

IMO, copyright laws have been skewed in the favor of the creators. There obviously has to be incentive for creating without people stealing your work, but copyright laws were never meant to be wielded like a sledgehammer. Copyrights obtained by individuals should expire a few years after they die. Corporations should have to prove conclusively that they still benefit from the material, and that having it lapse into the public domain would cause them significant loss. The burden of proof should be on them, not the presumption of guilt that hangs over the populace.