Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger Take comfort, Kar2oonMan. I will absolutely bet a months pay that, if Steamboat Willie ever goes PD, the first company to try distributing anything other than a _very_ vanilla VHS or DVD of it will be sued into oblivion over the trademark. _If_ it ever goes PD. And, as you and I have discussed on another thread, Walt & co. knew, when they made the first cartoon, that there was a limit to copyright. If they had any reservation about it, they shouldn't have done it.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger narkspud: Wouldn't those two films have been covered by the Bono extension?
Originally Posted By narkspud I just checked. Answer: Nope. Those copyrights were long gone on January 1, 1978, so they didn't get reinstated. The old copyright law required copyrights to be renewed 28 years after the original copyright was secured. Disney didn't do that in these two cases. Here's a PDF file that gives the gory details of current copyright terms. <a href="http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ15a.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.loc.gov/copyright/c ircs/circ15a.pdf</a>
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger The Bono extension was retroactive. It actually did pull some works out of PD.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger >>It actually did pull some works out of PD.<< OK, so that situation was probably overstated. That's what I get for reading too much slashdot. I believe that Lessig's case is about works that were just about to expire.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger Found something on this site: <a href="http://www.law.asu.edu/HomePages/Karjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/what.html" target="_blank">http://www.law.asu.edu/HomePag es/Karjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/what.html</a> >>For completeness, there is one qualification that should be made. Section 303 of the 1976 Act brought under federal copyright protection previously unpublished works, including very old works (like letters of George Washington) that are in the public domain everywhere else in the world (because the life + 50 or even life + 70 year term has expired). (Is that harmonization--one of the false banners under which term extension was propounded?) It further provides that all of these old works will enter the public domain on Jan. 1, 2003, unless they are published prior to that date. (If they are published before 2003, they are protected under the extension bill until 2047, even those that are in the public domain everywhere else!)<<
Originally Posted By narkspud Those few cheapy companies that did make VHSs of the two Mickey Mouse cartoons in question made sure to include a declaration on the box that the pictures thereupon were "color-enhanced images from the actual public-domain cartoon." If they'd used a Mickey Mouse that wasn't demonstrably a frame grab, it would've been a trademark violation, and Disney's lawyers would've squished 'em into putty. Just the danger of running afoul of a legally protected Disney property makes these toons very difficult to deal with even under public domain protection. Which is another reason Disney wouldn't need to worry too much.
Originally Posted By narkspud >>>Section 303 of the 1976 Act brought under federal copyright protection previously unpublished works<<< The magic words there are "previously unpublished works." Published works such as Disney film productions are under the rules as stated in that pdf file.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger >>The magic words there are "previously unpublished works." Published works such as Disney film productions are under the rules as stated in that pdf file.<< Yup. But at least it makes my earlier statement ("It actually did pull some works out of PD") true. Vindication!
Originally Posted By Kuzcotopia So to recap, It seems the author doesn't understand quite a few things that he warns us about. 1: Just because a film passes into the public domain doesn't mean the characters likenesses do. (Mickey remains a trademark). 2:Films that go into Public Domain are often better preserved than in private hands. 3:Intellectual Property rights aren't like Physical Property rights, because there is no scarcity. But the real thing that Jim misses, and this is the big picture here, is the question of WHO owns culture. Who owns history? And when does culture become history, and shared? In law, there is the principle of the Common Wealth. This is something that belongs to us all, and is held in trust by the government. The air. Public lands. The collection in the Smithsonian. The radio spectrum. Our history. The Grand Canyon. The idea of holding all of those in trust is that the greater good is served when all of those things are open and public. When a company copyrights a work, they make a deal with the public. The government will lend its law enforcement to protect the property rights of the creator, and after a certain amount of time, the rights are relinquished to the public. By my tax dollars is Steamboat Willie protected from video pirates. But only up to a point. 75 years is more than enough time to pay for Steamboat Willie, you'd think that every incentive that caused Walt to create Steamboat Willie has been collected by now. Now, my tax dollars have kept it safe long enough, I would like to be able to watch it for free. Jim, Disney has truly gotten to you. You willingly hand over your rights to public domain, and you think that they belong to Disney. It is Disney that needs to argue why they should remove OUR rights to works that our tax dollars have protected these past 95 years.
Originally Posted By terwyn The continuous extensions of the copyright law is turning the original concept of copyright protection on it's ear. The intent of the copyright law was actually indended to protect individual from theft of creative ideas. The idea that copyrights would be granted to artificial entities was not intended or even dreamt of back then. As others have said that an exclusive license for use of intellectual property was to insure that its' creator would enjoy the rewards and recoup the "blood, sweat and tears" of the creation process for a finite time. Corporations are not individuals and can potentially exist for 100's of years. Granting psudo-individuals perpetual rights to the efforts of individuals is unfair and potentially determental to the creative process by locking away creative content. Corporations being seemingly able to exist in one form or another forever could just keep hiring talent and creating new and novel intellectual properties indefinitely, having an unfair advantages over single individuals in the ability to compete. Look at Microsoft, "Darth Gates" used his dominance of the OS software to nearly corner the market on personal computing and crushing innovative individuals daring to compete. All things being equal the Mac OS or Linnx is superior to Windows OS, but cannot compete because of Microsoft's dominance. Is anyone here willing to give Darth Gates exclusive rights to command the pc industry for 75 or 750 years? Another example is how Disney is attempting to push its corp. weight around in the licensing of Peter Pan and especially in the Pooh characters. I think at least a bare majority here thinks that Disney is the bully in these cases, using their vast financial resources to intimidate scores of other lessors on knuckling under to Disney's views of the contracts. On a one to one basis, Disney would not have the same ability to dictate to individuals the terms of their contracts. If it wasn't the huge revenues that the heirs of the original US & Canada lessors have from the proceeds paid by Disney they wouldn't have been able to get their day in court. By strengthing the individual's clout under copyright law over corporations would actually foster creativity. Look at even Uncle Walt's experience. He lost both the "Alice in Cartoonland" and "Oswalt the Rabbit" to more powerful movie distributors. Who knows what he could have done with those properties given the copyright of those creations? Copyrights and patents should be no more than the (natural)life of the inventor, plus 20 years for the benefit of his/her heirs.
Originally Posted By Kuzcotopia Terwyn wrote. "Copyrights and patents should be no more than the (natural)life of the inventor, plus 20 years for the benefit of his/her heirs." Terwyn, Currently patents last 20 years from registration date. I would not extend that to life + 20 unless you would like to see the economy come to a standstill! Reading the rest of your post, I think that's a mis-statement. I think you agree with me that this stuff needs to be freed up. Imagine if all the books and films out there became public domain after only 20 years after the creator. Anyone could make a movie of Hemingway books. Anyone could use the Happy Birthday song without paying Warner Music a royalty. Anyone could mount a production of Porgy and Bess, even, for the first time, white people. (The Gershwins estate preclude non-african americans from performing in Porgy and Bess. Color-blind casting was not a concept then.) Oh, for a freer society.
Originally Posted By Jim <<So to recap, It seems the author doesn't understand quite a few things that he warns us about. 1: Just because a film passes into the public domain doesn't mean the characters likenesses do. (Mickey remains a trademark).>> Read my post above. "Screen-Grabs" from the public domain works could be sold. <<2:Films that go into Public Domain are often better preserved than in private hands.>> This is OPINION. It is my opinion that this is not the case. My proposed law (which is my ideal) would provide that all old works be made available to the public. <<3:Intellectual Property rights aren't like Physical Property rights, because there is no scarcity.>> Bu they are, nevertheless, property. <<But the real thing that Jim misses, and this is the big picture here, is the question of WHO owns culture. Who owns history? And when does culture become history and shared?>> The question is who SHOULD own culture? Who has the RIGHT to own it. If a living entity created it, in my view, then that entity has a right to own it. Some of these other arguments share some incorrect assumptions. 1. Derivative works are the only way of creating something new. Yes, there is nothing new under the sun, but that doesn't mean that new works are derivative. 2. The only way to adapt a work (or create a derivation) is if the work in PD. As someone posted above, there are many great works that have been made with permission from the copyright owner. Examples: MY FAIR LADY from PYGMAILION, SMALLVILLE from SUPERMAN, A-Teen's first album (which was remakes of ABBA songs). As a writer, I would love to adapt other stories for plays or whatever; however, because I can't, I am forced to create something completely original. 3. Art can only inspire work if it is derivational. This is wrong. I have been inspired in my various artistic endeavors from HUNDREDS of different sources--Lucille Ball, Rodgers and Hammerstein, Paul Gordon, Catherine Marshall, etc.--but I LEARN from them to create something new. I DO NOT copy. 4. Just because you want something to be, doesn't mean it is right. Yes, I do want Disney (and all companies for that matter) to have rights to what they do . . . but that is no different from NOT wanting Disney to maintain rights. The only difference is in the support offered for reasons. Wanting to get FANTASIA on the Internet is not a reason for WHY this should happen. Just some thoughts . . .
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger >> <<2:Films that go into Public Domain are often better preserved than in private hands.>> This is OPINION. It is my opinion that this is not the case. My proposed law (which is my ideal) would provide that all old works be made available to the public. << No, your proposed law would only make works available if a company failed to continue capitalize on it. Bought your copy of "Song of the South" at the video store recently, right? Oh, wait! It's not there, is it? No one can get their hands on it, because Disney is still making money on it by building log flumes with characters lining the sides. And they are making pins with the characters on them. Or maybe the characters make cameos in films like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit". >> <<3:Intellectual Property rights aren't like Physical Property rights, because there is no scarcity.>> Bu they are, nevertheless, property. << They are property only in the loosest sense of the term. 1) You can share it and still have it. 2) Once shared, you can't necessarily get it back. "Please remove all copies of 'Happy Birthday' from your brain". 3) If it's property, then it should be subject to property tax. I've yet to see any government agency (at least in the U. S.) propose such a thing. (But I'd _love_ to see Disney's reaction to that proposal The actual term "intellectual property" appears not to have existed at the time the Constitution was drafted. >> <<But the real thing that Jim misses, and this is the big picture here, is the question of WHO owns culture. Who owns history? And when does culture become history and shared?>> The question is who SHOULD own culture? Who has the RIGHT to own it. << In my view, and I'm thinking that many share it, an author has a right to control his contribution to culture for a limited time. After that, his contribution must be released. This is the price an author pays for the culture that allowed him to create his works in the first place. But the ultimate answer is that no one should own culture. >> If a living entity created it, in my view, then that entity has a right to own it. << Please define "living entity". A person? A corporation? The executor (which may be a legal firm) of an estate? The heirs of an estate? A computer? An ape? >> Some of these other arguments share some incorrect assumptions. 1. Derivative works are the only way of creating something new. 2. The only way to adapt a work (or create a derivation) is if the work in PD. 3. Art can only inspire work if it is derivational. << I don't think anyone here has said any of those, although some statements may seem close. >> 4. Just because you want something to be, doesn't mean it is right. Yes, I do want Disney (and all companies for that matter) to have rights to what they do . . . but that is no different from NOT wanting Disney to maintain rights. The only difference is in the support offered for reasons. Wanting to get FANTASIA on the Internet is not a reason for WHY this should happen. << Well, what you are proposing is amending the Constitution. What many of us propose is that we like it the way it is. What you are proposing is also something that has never been attempted in the history of the world - to give a handful of "immortal" entities perpetual control of every facet of our culture - music, literature, and art. Not only are these entities immortal, but they aren't human, and can't be expected to act with any more judgment than machines. (And before/if you answer that last point: would you like your driving habits judged by a computer?) To reword Kuzcotopia's point: Copyright is a contract with society. We agree to allow you a temporary monopoly over your work in return for you spending the time creating it. Everyone agrees to that at the time of creating the work. What's wrong with demanding that Disney (and everyone else) live up to the terms of that contract?
Originally Posted By Jim Sorry CT, I haven't been ignoring your post, just a little busy. I hope I touch on all your points. The idea of my proposed law was, among other things, to also keep ideas circulating. If these works weren't made available, then the company would lose copyright. What this means is if the time came and Disney did not make an unedited version of SONG OF THE SOUTH available, then it would become public domain. A living entity in this case would be a company/organization/whatever that is STILL producing new work. The organizations running various estates of deceased creators are NOT sources of new artistic material. it wouldn't be changing the Constitution (which has happened before) but interpreting it. This happens all the time and has through history. The Constitution never says anything about abortion, for example, but according to Supreme Court judges who ruled during R v. W, it does. For others, it doesn't. It's all about who's butt is in those seats at the time a case is presented. Most corporations don't own everything. For example, a song may be copyrighted by Sony, but the music is often owned by individuals. Publishers publish books, but usually, individuals own the rights. I think it all comes down to that interpretation of property.
