The balance between copyright and fair use.
-
Yeah, right. Like Mickey Mouse is ever going into the public domain.
Copyright only applies to particular works. If the Steamboat Willie entered the public domain, it'd mean you can distribute that work. It wouldn't give you rights to Fantasia despite that also containing Mickey Mouse…
-
https://twitter.com/arstechnica/status/703260736135503873
Disney CEO asks employees to chip in to pay copyright lobbyists
-
@tar said:
Yeah, right. Like Mickey Mouse is ever going into the public domain.
Copyright only applies to particular works. If the Steamboat Willie entered the public domain, it'd mean you can distribute that work. It wouldn't give you rights to Fantasia despite that also containing Mickey Mouse…
Yeah, but you also have to think about derivative works.
-
THE CHARACTER is the bit they want to protect. Anybody can use THE CHARACTER if Steamboat Asshole entered into the public domain.
They don't care about people making a ripoff of the Sorcerer's Apprentice, they care about going into a Barnes and Noble and seeing "Kama Sutra, Mickey Mouse Edition".
-
Anybody can use THE CHARACTER if Steamboat Asshole entered into the public domain.
No, because the character is also an actively defended trademark. If you start making products with the Mouse on it and selling them through Walmart without giving Disney their cut and getting their agreement, you better believe that Disney will sue you even though it would be very hard to say which existing work your product is a derivative of.
Trademarks and copyrights are different, but distinctive characters can be entangled in both.
-
Well then since you're Mr. Super Expert, I guess it's just a PUZZLING MYSTERY why Disney keeps extending copyright law, since according to Mr. Super Expert there should be no issues here.
-
Well then since you're Mr. Super Expert, I guess it's just a PUZZLING MYSTERY why Disney keeps extending copyright law, since according to Mr. Super Expert there should be no issues here.
Disney are super-protective and are mining that old stuff for fairly recent products. Just look at what they've done with Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, which predates Mickey…
-
they care about going into a Barnes and Noble and seeing "Kama Sutra, Mickey Mouse Edition".
That kind of stuff exists though, be it nowhere near that high-profile. As I've heard Disney doesn't do anything about it since they don't want to put a spotlight on it by starting a court case, even if they won.
-
No, because the character is also an actively defended trademark.
When the issue of copyright extension came up last, the thing everyone was saying was that the version of Mickey Mouse in Steamboat Willie would become public domain, not the whole character. So the modern form would still be protected, but not the older form.
-
Of course it exists, every kind of imaginable porn exists.
Man you people are great at missing the point.
-
Well then since you're Mr. Super Expert, I guess it's just a PUZZLING MYSTERY why Disney keeps extending copyright law, since according to Mr. Super Expert there should be no issues here.
Because they don't want just anybody to be able to distribute specific Mickey Mouse videos, those being their own works.
The character is protected separately.
If their copyright expired, then that video can be uploaded anywhere and copied anywhere without their control, but people cannot make a new video of Mickey Mouse.
-
I think you hit an interesting point; how many individual characters can a company trademark apply to and can you continuously expand a trademark with characters. Furthermore the need to continuously use the trademark would make some characters potentially ineligible at some point.
-
Furthermore the need to continuously use the trademark would make some characters potentially ineligible at some point.
Wonder why Disney sends it's videos into the vault?
Is that to increase demand, or is it to reduce the cost of production in order to keep using their trademarked characters. Produce the video only every 5 years, when a new wave of customers will be ready to buy.
Both is possible, isn't it?
-
My quick google-foo says you have to use a trademark within a 5-year period for it to not die out. Vaulting of works is probably 99% about driving up demand for a re-release. Disney seems pretty good at reusing core but non-prominent characters: Max Goof and P.J. Pete.
I can't recall seeing anyone from Rescuers or Rescuers Down Under in recent years but I don't take yearly trips to Disney Land/World so they may still get used. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
And fuck you
for ruining my shrug meme in preview.Edit: I bet The Black Cauldron is one of the few Disney will let lapse and pretend nothing ever happened.
-
-
I bet they wish they could retroactively remove their logo from this turkey:
Why Disney thought they needed/were competent to create their own 2001: A Space Odyssey, the world will never know.
-
2001: A Space Odyssey
Actually, space version of 20k leagues, which they also own their version of film.
I bought Black Hole for a couple of bucks... at Costco
It was entertaining, for what it was. I expected something worse than "The Blob" and I got it.
Oh, and...
BLACK HOLE REMAKE WILL BE JUST AS “DARK, WEIRD AND VIOLENT”
-
The story was closer to Moby Dick IMO. But hey whatever.
I expected something worse than "The Blob" and I got it.
The original or remake?
-
-
If you create an X, I'm sorry, you shouldn't get paid for X for your ENTIRE LIFETIME than also have like 75 years of your ancestors also being paid for X.
Actually, that might work, because probably most of your ancestors would be dead by then.But you probably meant "descendants", which I agree is part of the problem. Copyright is supposed to be about encouraging people who make Good Stuff™ to continue to do so, but that justification makes no sense after the death of the original creator.
A larger problem is corporate creations. Any company will, if allowed, say "anything you create for us belongs to us" in the employment contracts. And to an extent this is reasonable, since the company is the one coordinating the efforts that cause the work to be made. You can't make Frozen at home in your spare time. And you could make the case that no company would do it if they weren't going to get the associated merchandising opportunities because they were undercut by people who ripped off the characters without having to fund the creative work. So some protection is reasonable.
But corporations don't have a limited lifespan like humans do. So we need to decide how long they need the protection for. But when the question comes up, strangely the large, successful corporations seem to be the ones with the contacts and the lobbying ability and the budget to get their ideas made into law. And their ideas tend to be along the lines of "forever seems pretty good".
I can't see a way to avoid this escalation. (I was going to discuss some ideas here, but basically it all wound up as "even if it was possible to get legislation passed which did this, which it isn't, it wouldn't matter because the big companies would find ways around it".)
-
But, why does this protection apply to ideas?
People make knockoffs all the time in physical merchandising. Trademark is what protects your company from your customer accidentally buying the knockoff brand. Obviously not everyone can make good content given the same ideas, so I see no problem with there being 500 Mickey Mouses, because Disney will make a better Mickey Mouse, supposedly. For example, Donald Duck and Howard the Duck are in no way similar even though they look similar. As long as someone draws Howard doesn't put Disney's name on it, then they should be able to draw any pantless duck they want.
I mean, have you seen fanart? These companies do not need protection from the satire and fanart out there. To me, the idea isn't the product. The production is the product.
So, yeah, copyright a work so that someone can't lie and said they made it. But the idea behind the work, doesn't need protection. Companies shouldn't have protection from competition, and that's exactly what the current overprotective copyright is giving them.
To me, redistributing a specific Mickey Mouse work, like steamboat, is like the knockoff cereal brand saying it is Kellog's, when it's not. However, protecting Mickey Mouse as an idea, is like letting Kellog's say no one can make corn puffed cereal. That's similar to a patent, and patents have much shorter lifespans.
-
I think it's ridiculous for an entertainment product to be protected longer than a PHYSICAL INVENTION THAT REQUIRES INVENTIVENESS.
-
entertainment
The entertainment industry has yet to figure out that they make money off of entertaining, not keeping other people from having ideas.
Merchandising makes more money anyway.
But they keep using FUD to keep us thinking that somehow they wouldn't be able to make money if some small company of fan artists are allowed to upload a youtube video. As if people would flock to the fan's videos instead of paying to watch Fantasia for the 100th time.
If I'm watching YouTube, it's because I don't have money to buy another entertainment product. You won't eek more money out of me.
-
-
thanks
-
I think it's ridiculous for an entertainment product to be protected longer than a PHYSICAL INVENTION THAT REQUIRES INVENTIVENESS.
I agree with you, for the most part. Entertainment products require inventiveness too (some more than others, just as with physical inventions) so I don't think that's necessarily the point. And in many cases the lifespan of an entertainment product may be longer (I'd buy a DVD of a movie from 1996 much more readily than the same year's shiny new inventions).But certainly the period for which it requires protection shouldn't be anywhere near as long as it is. I'd be happy for it to be cut down to something like 10 or 15 years. By that time if it's not hugely popular the owners have made pretty much whatever they're going to make from it, and if it is then they've certainly made enough to encourage them to keep producing, which is supposed to be the point.
I mean, have you seen fanart? These companies do not need protection from the satire and fanart out there.
I don't know, some of the fanart I've seen I think everybody needs protection from...
I see no problem with there being 500 Mickey Mouses, because Disney will make a better Mickey Mouse, supposedly.
Hmmm, I do see something of a problem with it. Let's take Barbie as an example, because I have two daughters and so this is something I'm familiar with. We have a shelf full of Barbie DVDs and we get all the new ones shortly after they come out (depending on the timing of release dates vs. birthdays and Christmas). There's an expectation that a Barbie DVD will be of a certain quality and express certain themes. If suddenly everyone can make their own Barbie DVDs and sell them as such, we may buy what we think is the latest official Barbie DVD and later find it to be someone's shoddy knockoff. But as you say:
@xaade said:Trademark is what protects your company from your customer accidentally buying the knockoff brand.
So I think that the specific works should be protected by copyright and the characters should be protected by trademarks.As far as fanart goes, I should mention that both my girls have a Doctor Who / Disney Princess mashup picture on their walls. (One's with Rapunzel and one's with Ariel.) But while I'm happy with this specific example, I struggle to find a legal justification that makes sense. I don't think in this case that the artist in question is doing anything that harms either franchise. But the difference between what they are doing and someone putting out their own knockoff versions that directly compete with the originals is not that large, and I definitely would have a problem with the latter.
-
I struggle to find a legal justification that makes sense
Fair use, doesn't undermine the economic value for the content owner.
-
By that time if it's not hugely popular the owners have made pretty much whatever they're going to make from it
Not the point.
made enough to encourage them to keep producing
That's the point.
It's obvious that there is currently enough incentive to keep people making entertainment products. Increasing the length of copyright would be nothing but a gift to media creators.
With the advent of digital distribution, the value of media will instantly become zero when copyright expires. In the hypothetical future when there is a steady flow of works entering the public domain, every single one of them will be available via torrent. I'm OK with this, and I hope my grandchildren get to live in this world.
-
I hope my grandchildren get to live in this world.
The great thing about the youngest of children is that they don't care about graphics or sound quality.
We spent the first year watching nothing but old cartoons from before everyone of them having some bizarre moral.
-
We spent the first year watching nothing but old cartoons from before everyone of them having some bizarre moral.
I like the old Felix the Cat cartoons where he frequently ends them by committing suicide.
Some of the early Looney Tunes have suicide jokes, too. Usually of the "well now I've seen everything! *kills self*" variety.
-
People today...
It's humorous, because a person committing suicide might use that excuse, even though it's obviously false.
Dark humor, but still humor.
-
@Scarlet_Manuka said:
By that time if it's not hugely popular the owners have made pretty much whatever they're going to make from it
Not the point.
Yes it is, because it follows that extending the period of protection will not meaningfully increase their incentive to produce. And therefore the period of protection should not be extended.Basically, what we're looking for is a point at which it's reasonable to say "if this work hasn't generated a sufficient incentive to keep producing by now, it's never going to." As I said previously, I would put this point at around 10-15 years.
-
@Scarlet_Manuka said:
I struggle to find a legal justification that makes sense
Fair use, doesn't undermine the economic value for the content owner.
OK, I'll accept that; it's a good start.The obvious question is then how we determine whether the economic value is in fact undermined. (To clarify, I'm not trying to
here; this is a separate issue which arises out of the earlier one.) I'm not going to buy fewer Doctor Who (or Disney Princess) DVDs because I bought those posters for my girls - but perhaps I will buy them fewer Doctor Who posters; they only have so much wall space, after all. So I think the sale of these posters probably does undermine the economic value of the original properties.Another example in my experience relates back to Frozen. Some time ago I saw, in a stall at our local shopping centre, the most awful piece of Frozen merchandise I have ever seen. It was a school bag or backpack with Anna and Elsa on it. At least, they were recognisably supposed to be Anna and Elsa. Possibly as seen in a carnival mirror after a tragic face-melting accident.
These... things... were for sale. Possibly some unfortunate person bought them (because they couldn't afford the real version, I presume). Does this damage the Frozen brand and reduce its economic value to Disney?
I don't think the second example should be allowed (I'm assuming that it was unlicensed, rather than actually licensed merchandise that went horribly wrong). But I don't see that what they're doing is much different to what the poster artist is doing, except that they're producing
instead of 
. (Obviously their motives are also different. But both are making money off it.)Is scale important? Should the poster artist be allowed to get away with what she does just because it's a small-scale operation? If demand for her posters grew so much that it started noticeably affecting sales of official licensed posters, would it then suddenly become wrong?
I mean, what I want is for the posters to be legal but the school bags not to be legal. But I suspect that this is not a logically consistent position.
-
I struggle to find a legal justification that makes sense
You have it backwards. People are naturally free to do things and you need justification to prevent them. If you can't find a justification for preventing something, then it should be allowed. The justification shouldn't be "if we prevent this, the producer will make more money", because that's one-sided. "You can't make money any more" is not harm, it's the intended long term scenario for copyright.
-
It's only there for them to recoup the cost of development, much like an invention.
-
These... things... were for sale. Possibly some unfortunate person bought them (because they couldn't afford the real version, I presume). Does this damage the Frozen brand and reduce its economic value to Disney?
You are starting with the assumption that the law should be crafted to allow Disney to extract maximum value. The intent of copyright was to allow them to extract enough value to give them incentive to go into business.
-
It's only there for them to recoup the cost of development, much like an invention.
Still not quite. It's intended to provide a stable, government backed carrot for going into the entertainment business. The carrot has to be big enough for the industry to be successful, not for each product to be successful.
-
You have it backwards. People are naturally free to do things and you need justification to prevent them.
I was talking within the context of copyright law, wherein we've already agreed that content creators should be allowed to control the use of their content for some amount of time (which should be much shorter than that currently enshrined in law). Both the examples I gave were infringing on relatively recent content at the time.The intent of copyright was to allow them to extract enough value to give them incentive to go into business.
Indeed, though it needs to be understood that (as with pharmaceuticals) this includes enough value to finance the development of failures as well, not just for a successful product to be reasonably profitable in its own right. Generally speaking we want the incentives to be high enough that someone new can enter the industry and get a comparable ROI off it to what they would be able to achieve in other industries.But if you're talking about restructuring the way in which these incentives are provided, that's a much broader discussion than the one I was trying to have, which was more about defining fair use under the current system or something close to the current system. I don't think I have anything much to contribute to that broader discussion (though that probably wouldn't stop me trying).
-
But if you're talking about restructuring the way in which these incentives are provided, that's a much broader discussion than the one I was trying to have, which was more about defining fair use under the current system or something close to the current system. I don't think I have anything much to contribute to that broader discussion (though that probably wouldn't stop me trying).
Fair use is about making sure that copyright law doesn't create thought crime (at least any more than intended). Copyright shouldn't stop people from talking about their experiences and shouldn't stop people from complaining about stuff. That's the root of the fair use exceptions, like reviews and use in classroom settings. Whether or not the producer loses money isn't the driver.
If someone reads a page of a programming book at a bookstore, they may learn the one thing that they may need to know about that topic and decide not to buy the book. The publisher and author lost a sale... yet no one would consider the fact that bookstore allow you to look inside the book for free as anything other than fair use.
-
It's because they know you'll more likely buy any book, if you are allowed to look inside books before buying them.
Most of the time, what you'd think would be losses of income, turn out wrong when statistics is applied.
Besides, the book store already bought the books. It's now their problem if they sale or don't sale. The author shouldn't care at this point.
-
If the bookstore sells all of the books it bought, though, then it'll generally keep buying more of them. So it is in the author's best interest to have the bookstore shelves get emptied out as quickly as possible.
-
Besides, the book store already bought the books. It's now their problem if they sale or don't sale. The author shouldn't care at this point.
You're talking about the same group of people who feel that copying a special group of ones and zeros, on your own media, is theft.
-
Ok, look.
If you say, "no one can look in these books".
And you sell 10 copies.
Then you say, "people can look in these books".
And you sell 20 copies, but some people looked without buying.
Which way do you make more money?
-
I'm not arguing with that part, perfectly logical it is. Just pointing out that "the author shouldn't care at this point" (whether the bookstore sells lots of the book or not) isn't really the case. On average, each lost sale to the bookstore is not exactly 1 lost sale to the author, but definitely more than 0.
-
On average, each lost sale to the bookstore is not exactly 1 lost sale to the author, but definitely more than 0.
But... it's not rational to worry about it, because it's not revenue that can be actualized.
What if the person looking was a homeless man with no money?
In no universe would he have bought the book.
-
I'm still not arguing with that. I'm arguing with your statement that authors shouldn't care whether bookstores sell their books or not, because the bookstores already bought the books and the authors already got paid.
-
I'm still not arguing with that. I'm arguing with your statement that authors shouldn't care whether bookstores sell their books or not, because the bookstores already bought the books and the authors already got paid.
Fine.
It's tangential though.
The point was that you can't actualize every sale that could have happened.
So it's better to simply find the scenarios that maximize sells, even if that means allowing people to view or copy for free.
I'm hoping that eventually we get away from trying to sell media, and focus entirely on services, events, and merchandise. Things that can't be digitally replaced.
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954 film) - Wikipedia
Black Hole remake will be just as “dark, weird and violent”
(In this usage, it's “eke”.)