Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for discussion of the October 31st Jim on Film Column at <a href="News-ID180170.asp" target="_blank">http://LaughingPlace.com/News-ID180170.asp</a>.
Originally Posted By kamwb I was going to say that I entirely agree with your definition of Disney as a living company. But are the suits in control of the company the best ones to carry on Walt's vision? Maybe some obscure person in the public realm could do better. Some later day Walt. If they both produce products using things from Disney's vaults, let the public decide which is better. However, I haven't completely decided which side I'm on.
Originally Posted By jbponzi I have been following this case very closely over the past year or so. And am strongly in favor intellectual property extensions. Your article has added a condpet that I had not thought of and that is the "living company." Using Disney as an example, despite current management, they are still the caretakers of these properties. We may not like the all of the 2's that have been released recently, but they are a way at maintaining those properties. I would truly hate the idea of the studio releasing a sequel to Snow White. However, it may be necessary in order to demonstrate the property is still viable.
Originally Posted By Jim It has come to my attention that, because of trademark, other people would not be able to create products with Disney characters. Of course, with the lapse of copyright, it still opens doors. I will write more on this later in this post, but I wanted to make people aware of my factual error (sort of error . . . more on this later). Thanks for reading.
Originally Posted By narkspud I'm 100% in disagreement with Jim on this one. His point seems to be that only low-quality reissues of the material in question will be forthcoming if "Steamboat Willie" and other productions go into public domain. Not so. Look at "It's a Wonderful Life." Long before that court case dragged that feature back out of PD, there were very high quality laserdiscs available straight from the original negative, including a Criterion CAV box with a wonderful film historian commentary and a video interview with Frank Capra. The Fliescher feature "Gulliver's Travels" is in PD. So are "The Mad Doctor," "The Spirit of 43," "Minnie's Yoo Hoo," "Yankee Doodle Daffy," "Daffy and the Dinosaur," "The Case of the Missing Hare," "Corny Concerto," "Betty Boop's Musical Mountaineers," "Popeye Meets Ali Baba," and scads of other name brand classic cartoons--all the result of bookkeeping errors at the studios. The sky has not fallen as a result. Yes, there are lousy quality reissues out there, but that hasn't stopped the good ones either. There will always be a market for quality videos of marketable films, regardless of if they are copyright protected or not. As long as Disney has the negatives and takes care of them (ahem), they have nothing to fear on that score. Meanwhile, other worthwhile works sit in film cans rotting, unseen, because the copyright owners can't be bothered to mess with them but won't let anyone else touch them. Prints are out there, but can't be legally duplicated. Is it worth "losing" the protection on the few videos of mainstream interest in order to save hundreds of hours of other worthwhile material? Good gosh yes! Copyright protection was always intended to have limits. You can't keep extending them to eternity. Not even for Disney.
Originally Posted By Tannerman >> Once the individual creator has passed away, it only makes sense that his or her ideas would enter the public domain in order to ensure the exchange of those ideas. Therefore, all of Walt Disney's ideas should enter the public domain, right? Even though The Disney Company continues today? I think that there should be no exception for Disney in this matter. Let the copyrights ceise as the law allows... then, here's a concept... come up with something NEW!
Originally Posted By smoowilliams F.U.D. (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). Mr. Miles has written an excellent article using this technique. Public Domain Does Not Equal Shoddy, Shabby Merchandise As the author points out we are a capitalist society. Once a property moves into the public domain anything is possible. Lets imagine a few possibilities. Cheap DVDs made from a degraded print are imported from China and fill bins at the local big-box discounter. Busy moms buy several of the cheap disks looking forward to them being played over and over and over. Down the street at the Disney Store authentic Disney DVDs. The ads will say "You know it's quality if you see the Disney DVD label." The disks will be flying of the shelves in value added collectible sets and into the homes of true Disney fans. At the same time true home theater geeks are holding out for The Criterion Collection's boxed set of beautifully restored early Disney shorts with newly remixed Dolby Digital sound. The total Disney nuts will buy them all. At the same time a dot.com is devoted to archiving public domain films and making them available to the public over the Internet. Several thousand times a day Steamboat Willie is streamed over the wires to happy Disney fans all over the world. Warner Brothers Records releases Cher's new tribute to the early music of Disney, Do You Believe In Magic, with guest artists Red Hot Chili Peppers and Faith Hill. A small classical music label prepares a collection of Disney inspired classical pieces. A small company in the Midwest is making a fortune adapting Disney's stories for school productions. Parents all over the country sit misty-eyed in darkened multi-purpose rooms as their children act out scenes from Snow White, Bambi and Pinocchio in the yearly school play. Instead of one source for Disney product there are now more choices that fit different market needs. At the same time Disney is forced to compete against itself. No longer able to get by producing uninspired, direct-to-video landfill, Disney will make quality a selling point, inspired, prodded, kicked in the pants to once again reach new heights in the family entertainment industry. Imagination is something that belongs to all of us. Everyone can think up new things. And every sparkling idea can lead to even more.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger >>At the same time, it is not right that the same copyright laws should cover persons or companies that are deceased.<< Why? What other laws would you exempt corporations from? >>Ernest Hemingway, for example, has been dead for many years. He, the originator of his copyright, is no longer making money from his intellectual property. To constantly extend his copyright makes less sense. He is not benefiting from it; his estate is. His estate controls his works and makes lots of money from them, limiting the exchange of ideas. But he is dead. << So what? In 5 years, Eisner will no longer be at the helm of Disney - he will, effectively, be "dead". What is the difference between an estate controlling a copyright, and a company controlling a copyright? >>In addition to this, the motivation for creation is different. A company creates for profit. Yes, the individuals hired by the company are in it for the creation, but the paying company is formed for profit. << No, a corporation is created for the protection of the individuals and the investors. Usually those individuals that are creating the corporation are driven by the same creative impulses that (according to you, below) disqualify them from holding copyright in perpetuity (e. g. some guy named Walt). >>The individual creator (when that creator owns the copyright) creates for two purposes. One is to make money, but the other is to express ideas and to share the art. Once the individual creator has passed away, it only makes sense that his or her ideas would enter the public domain in order to ensure the exchange of those ideas. << So, you admit that an individual creates for money, but then discard it because he had a secondary purpose as well. So we can say that Stephen King writes books that should eventually become PD, but if he incorporates then he obviously has demonstrated his intent to write only for money (and not for the purpose of expressing an idea), and should be allowed to hold copyright indefinitely. >>We are a capitalist society. There is nothing wrong with owning property, intellectual or otherwise. If a person buys a chair, he or she has a right to keep that chair as long as he or she is living. If a company owns the chair, it also has the right to keep that chair as long as it is living. Intellectual property should be treated no differently. << Bingo! You so throughly *missed* hitting the nail on the head that your thumb must now be black and blue. If you buy a chair, you have a right to keep that chair. If I come and take it away from you, then you no longer have a chair. But if you make a movie and I copy it, do you not have a movie any more? This is one of the main pitfalls of considering intellectual property (IP) to be the same as regular property. The IP holders are trying to frame the debate as if it were the same as regular property, but the fact is that the two are completely different. Regular property exists as a limited resource. For one person to have it, another must do without. IP is nothing more than an idea. You can share an idea with someone and still have it. And this is the entire philosophy behind PD (public domain). By sharing an idea, you often times wind up with more than you started with. By sharing ideas, we are able to build on them and create newer, greater works. You quoted the U. S. Constitution in your article. Now go and read that clause again. Why is does copyright exist? To promote progress! So if it does not promot progress, copyright should not exist. But by keeping works from the PD, you end progress. Every work becomes a dead end. Companies will hoard works as long as they live, which is forever.
Originally Posted By Jim To address a few comments from here and elsewhere. First of all, as always, my credentials speak for themselves (in whatever way you want to interpret them). As a Disney fan, and more so, as an independent creator, this issue of copyight has interested me, and I have been actively pursuing information on it for some time. Yes, there are copies of various Disney shorts available; however, few are on quality recordings. And yes, STEAMBOAT WILLIE, as it has been released by Disney in the recent past is edited, but, besides the hope that the Treasures DVD release will be complete, my ideal law would require (as stated in my column) for companies to make works availble under the possibile loss of copyright. This would cover STEAMBOAT WILLIE. On the subject of Snow White t-shirts, Disney may own the trademark (which would prohibit such products), but since the work from which the trademark comes is public domain, I could easily see several things happening. 1. Images from the public domain film might be directly projected onto products (shirts, mugs, pencils, etc.). 2. Since the trademarked characters come from public domain works, there could be some legal attempt to blur these lines. After all, the movie will be public domain. 3. Companies may also have some legal chances to create characters which closely resemble those in the Disney film. This bridges into the subject of sequels. I could easily see this happening, even if the characters are trademarked. Even if the characters don't look exactly like the Disney characters, they will be singing the same songs, sounding the same, etc. Copyright prevents derivative works, so without it, the possibilities are endless. Many artists have already built off the creative platform set by Disney products. Rodgers and Hammerstein, for example, were heavily influenced by SNOW WHITE, but they did not rip it off either. Ripping off something, of course, is in the eye of the beholder, but that is what will most likely happen. What exactly the writers of the Constitution intended in those words, I'm not sure if it will ever be entirely clear. However, what they intended is completely irrelevant to what is written, which I think my interpretation is most accurate when looking at punctuation and style. For whatever reasons I write, look beyond the word Disney and the (intended) eye-catching title. I still feel strongly that my suggestion and logic behind them (a living entity vs. a dead entity) is sound. Please let me know if I have something wrong, and let the discussion continue! FUD-fully yours , Jim
Originally Posted By Jim I should also acknowledge that it could be said that Disney ripped-off the original story, but the Disney version has become, in many ways, the definitive version for our time. Anyone may use the original version, but for them to look specifically to the Disney characters and songs, I think it will be ripping-off.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger >>What exactly the writers of the Constitution intended in those words, I'm not sure if it will ever be entirely clear. However, what they intended is completely irrelevant to what is written, which I think my interpretation is most accurate when looking at punctuation and style. << Well, in that paragraph you said: >>What this means is that, in order to offer incentive for people to create and invent, Congress can offer copyrights and patents for a limited time, allowing people to make money from their creations. << Sounds reasonable. But then you proceed to propose an indefinite copyright, contrary to your interpretation. And the intent of the authors of the Constitution might be indicated by the copyright laws that they, themselves, passed in 1790: 14 years.
Originally Posted By Jim The saying could be taken as 1) To create incentives for creating, we'll protect their right. OR 2) To allow the exchange of ideas, we'll limit their right. Thanks for the 14-year info. I guess we passed that short time frame a while ago. But that time frame still doesn't speak to which interpretation. Thanks for the info!
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger >>The saying could be taken as 1) To create incentives for creating, we'll protect their right. OR 2) To allow the exchange of ideas, we'll limit their right. << It is definitely the first interpretation. Had Congress not had the power to grant copyright, everyone would be able to copy anything. The Supreme Court has stated: "The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this _incentive_, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good." [underscores added] The word "incentive" occurs repeatedly in court decisions involving copyright.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger Oh, and I'll point out my own error: Copyright applies to an _expression_ of an idea, not to the idea itself (which can be, in many cases, covered by a patent).
Originally Posted By Jim If the top interpretation is correct, then my interpretation (which favors the extension of copyright) could be correct because it places the purpose of the law in creating an incentive (copyright) in order for people to make money, meaning that copyrights could be extended. I am starting to more clearly see the opposing side of my view, but I'm still clinging to my original interpretation. Thanks!
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger >>If the top interpretation is correct, then my interpretation (which favors the extension of copyright) could be correct because it places the purpose of the law in creating an incentive (copyright) in order for people to make money, meaning that copyrights could be extended. << Oh, you've won that one. Copyright has been extended several times already. But then it shoots a hole in the Bono extension. In what way does a retroactive extension (on works that have _already_ been created) provide any incentive to the authors to create new works? But I'll point you back to the Supreme Court statement that "...the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good." In other words, money is not the real goal of copyright, the public good is. Financial benefit to the author is a means to an end, not the end itself. Metaphorically, it's the carrot that makes the mule walk, but we don't want the mule to walk just so we can watch it chase a carrot. In his recent arguments to the Supremes, Lessig demonstrated that copyright is now effectively 100% perpetual due to the Bono extension. (I don't know what logic he used for it, only that this was one of his arguments.)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I guess I don't see how placing Mickey Mouse images into the public domain fosters cretivity. Want to create a cartoon singing and dancing mouse? By all means, do it. Be creative. Invent an all-new character of your own. Make millions from it. Build your own studio from it, build a theme park around it. Just use your own mouse, not someone else's. Using classic cartoon characters from the past simply allows someone else to make money off it, and is no guarantee that their use won't tarnish the Disney brand name. Would you like to see a Steamboat Willie X-rated website? Is that creative? Is that okay?
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger >>I guess I don't see how placing Mickey Mouse images into the public domain fosters cretivity. Want to create a cartoon singing and dancing mouse? By all means, do it. Be creative. Invent an all-new character of your own. Make millions from it. Build your own studio from it, build a theme park around it. Just use your own mouse, not someone else's. << Just don't use 3 circles to do it. (Ignoring the trademark issues) So, by the logical extension, Disney should have used some other story than one about a princess and 7 dwarves?
Originally Posted By narkspud And I'll point out once again, there ARE already two Mickey Mouse cartoons in Public Domain. "The Mad Doctor" and "Minnie's Yoo Hoo." They've been PD for several years after Disney neglected to file for the extension. There have been a few cheapo, poorly duplicated VHS tapes of them and that's all. No flurry of Mickey Mouse knockoffs. This is not going to be a problem.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Is there an actual author/publisher associated with Snow White and the 7 Dwarves? Or is it a folk tale passed through the generations? If so, Disney, or any other company would pay for the rights to the story. Besides, their characters were designed by them, not lifted from the pages of a book. They added original songs to the story. I look at Peter Pan, or Pooh, or Mary Poppins. They paid for the rights to use those characters and stories. And if the argument is that they couldn't have afforded to pay for the rights to Snow White back then, well, I think the Disney boys would have created their own story. They were creative guys. I have trouble with the idea of something that is still in use (Mickey Mouse) being arbitrarily given away to whoever wants to use it.
