When will Mickey Mouse enter the public domain?
deseret.com
This iconic mouse is weeks away fromn being in the public domain Jan. 1, 2024, is the day when 'Steamboat Willie' enters the public domain
This iconic mouse is weeks away fromn being in the public domain Jan. 1, 2024, is the day when 'Steamboat Willie' enters the public domain
If Disney doesn't keep illegally extending the copyright dates, continuing to ruin the way copyrights are supposed to actually work, I will legitimately be surprised.
It's not illegal if you change the laws... 🙃
But if you change the laws via illegal means...
I'm pretty sure that Congress passing legislation concerning interstate trade is expressly permitted in the Constitution. You could make an argument for ethics, practicality, or economics. I don't think you can make a legality argument here.
The problem is that they're doing it legally.
I refuse to believe they are not bribing judges and lawmakers. Its not possible that Disney is doing this without doing anything illegal.
They might be doing that... but not possible? Come on dude. That's just a failure of imagination. There are plenty of legal ways to corrupt the government. Lobbying is the most common one, and very legal. Insisting that they're committing crimes without any evidence of it is just silly.
Lawful Evil
Even if they wanted, there is not much time left to change anything at this point
Not with that attitude...
[̲̅$̲̅(̲̅ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°̲̅)̲̅$̲̅]
need to revert it back to 20 years with one extension allowed.
*17 years
I actually like the 20year with extension. That gives authors 40 effing years to make money on it. If you could not in that time then boo hoo.
Mickey Mouse is no longer as relevant in Disney’s dominance anymore. They got bigger cash cows to milk.
Sure, but it is still the icon and mascot of disney.
That's why it's trademarked. Unlike a copyright, trademarks can last forever.
But from what I'm understanding third parties will be able to use it at will to some extent, right? Disney must have an interest in keeping something so representative under tight control, even if it's just the first version.
You can use the character without infringing the trademark. Part of the reason they scatter the hidden Mickey shape everywhere is because that's part of the branding.
A good example of using the character without infringing trademark is the "Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey" movie.
Thanks, it seems I had quite the wrong idea, I'll have to read up on the topic.
Even less so for the version in Steamboat Willy, which is all that would be released. Modern Mickey is not being released anytime soon.
(sigh) Just a little bit longer and I'll finally be able to release my Steamboat Willy tentacle hentai comic.
Where do I sign up
Title suggestion: Minnie and the Invasive Kraken
Even with the character in Public Domain, I doubt Disney would be particularly happy with anyone using it.
They can send cease and desist letter left and right, claiming that "the use of the mouse is fine, but the elements X, Y and Z were introduced in a later work of ours that's still protected", even if it's a plain lie.
Trying to take Disney to court is suicide.
The have enough money to hire half the lawyers in the world and make them come up with a lawsuit even if there's no basis for one. They can stretch the lawsuit process to last years, and yet the fees would be but a fraction of a fraction of a percent in their yearly spending. Almost any defendant, meanwhile, would be financially ruined by it, even if they end up winning.
Isn't that exactly what the law says? A popular example with that problem is Sherlock.
I'm not sure how court works, but can't you just take the cheapest defense possible? Even if it's just you showing up in court alone and pretending to be a lawyer.
Is the system really set up so that if you can't afford legal fees then you lose by default?
Trying to represent oneself in court is a pretty stupid thing to do, generally.
I am not a lawyer, I'm pretty you need to be able to defend yourself withing the legal system following all of its rules. You need to know the laws, their quirks, loopholes, etc. to construct your defense properly. Even if the case is complete nonsense, but you lack the knowledge to defend yourself, or the ability to use the knowledge you have coherently, you'll loose.
A neat paper a filed in accordance with all the rules, a paper that quotes actual laws and precedents, will, generally, beats oral argument backed by common sense. And that's in general! Let alone when you're going against Disney and their nigh infinite army of lawyers.
I find it insane that anyone should be allowed to use Mickey Mouse. Similarly, the 30s version of Superman is in public domain, soon, and that is similarly insane to me.
These are still Active properties closely tied with a company's marketing and image. We badly need to update our IP laws.
Companies last longer than a hundred years, now. It's silly we allow these things.
You do know that Disney made money from other people's works like the brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen right? Their works are in public domain
They made money off of their version of those works, yes. They're quite different from the originals.
This is what I mean about our laws needing updating - time alone is not enough any more. We need to define levels of differentiation that are commercially acceptable. Right now, that essentially just includes parody, which clearly is not a thorough enough accounting of the many ways IP can be varied.
Why are you such a corpo boot licker? What exactly do we gain as a species by allowing companies to hoard IP of creators of which are long since dead?
Nek minnit you'll be telling me I can't put on a play from Shakespeare or recite Beowulf without paying some corporation a fee?
Seriously?
No actually I think plays should be free to use for amateurs, and only require licensing for paid performances, since we're talking reforms.
Also why are you being an asshole for no reason?
The point of patents and copyrights is to promote and reward creative artists and inventors, not create a permanent revenue stream for corporations. Walt Disney died in 1966 and he, his investors, his heirs, and even their heirs have all been handsomely rewarded.
Now let’s get Steamboat Mickey in Smash Bros.
Steamboat Mickey could be in Smash Bros if Nintendo wanted to license it, but IIRC Smash Bros is specifically only properties owned by Nintendo on purpose. Smash Bros is effectively free advertising for other Nintendo games, in addition to a fighter.
I don't see why Disney, rather than Walt himself, shouldnt own the copyright on Mickey Mouse.
Because the whole point of copyrights is to promote creativity. No one at Disney today had anything to do with creating Mickey Mouse. Why should they have the exclusive right to create derivative works? The people who are there seem perfectly capable of coming up with new characters. And the copyright expiring will push them to do so.
And besides, it’s not really about Mickey Mouse. It’s also about art, music, and literature. Beethoven’s heirs shouldn’t be getting a check every time an orchestra plays the 5th Symphony.
Because Mickey Mouse is a core brand to the company. It's literally referred to as the "House of Mouse"
Then Disney Inc will need to get creative and figure out a new way to brand itself. That's whe reason why copyright is limited, not eternal.
It very literally is not.
You do realize there's a metric ton of non-Nintendo characters in Smash, right? It's essentially a celebration of gaming as a whole. Mickey isn't a video game character though, that's why they used Sora. Same reason Goku and Superman aren't in Smash.
Mickey is kinda a video game character if you think about it.
He's been in games, but he's definitely not a 'video game character' in the way that Mario, Sonic, and Cloud Strife are.
Sorry it was just a joke. I didn't think I needed a /j, but I should know better. Poe's law.
Edit: just gonna leave this here as proof of Mickey's hardcore game roots...
Oh no, all the words are copyrighted!
Since when have Nintendo owned Final Fantasy? Or Metal Gear? It’s not only things they own.
Smash Bros is supposed to be a celebration of the gaming industry, not just Nintendo. Minecraft Steve/Alex and Banjo/Kazooie are Microsoft properties. Joker is owned by SEGA, and Persona 5 wasn't even on Switch until years after Joker was announced for Smash. Sephiroth and Cloud are Square Enix properties. Sora is a Disney property. There are way too many non-Nintendo characters in Smash for it to be "free advertising" for Nintendo.
You and I have very different Smash rosters. Glad to see Nintendo licensed some dudes
Snake and Sonic are in the base game.
Are you for real? The creators have been dead for decades. Apart from the discussion of who was actually creatively responsible for Disney's as significant characters. Copyright was invented to protect them, not to be a gravy train for their useless descendants or the faceless companies owning the right for some (often murky) reason.
This doesn't contain any reasoning behind why copyright shouldn't be that.
Temporary monopolies are the governments reward to encourage new works of art and inventions. The trade off is that it's temporary. By extending copyrights indefinitely it actually discourages new works to be created because they're competing with more creations than ever, and nothing can be built as a derivative work. Trademarks, which Disney still owns, are protected basically indefinitely.
You seem to have this confused. Mickey Mouse is not in any way a monopoly product the way, say, a pharmaceutical is.
Disclaimer: I've only really looked into copyright law from the perspective of a YouTube content creator
I don't see how extending copyrights indefinitely discourages new works from being made given that fair use is a thing. Assuming that fair use is protected, wouldn't having some limitations on how you use a given work encourage more creativity? The best example of this that I can think of is Raccacoonie in Everything, Everywhere, All At Once.
I'd honestly be fine with something as old as Steamboat Willie being freely available in the public domain, but I'm not sure I'd say the same thing for Mickey Mouse. It'd be cool to get some legal Mickey Mouse animations from small companies or online creators, but IMO, it wouldn't be great if Mickey Mouse content came from Warner Bros. Disney should be the only large company allowed to use Mickey Mouse as long as they still make quality content with him. The year or decade where Mickey Mouse isn't being actively worked on as a creative continuation of the original concept should be the time where everyone and anyone can adapt Mickey Mouse.
The reason why I put a split between small and big is that the latter often seems corrupted by greed, whereas the former tends to do things out of passion. IMO, creatives deserve incredibly strong copyright protections with relatively little work because there's not much stopping someone else from simply stealing said content. This is especially rampant now on TikTok and Instagram. Large companies should get the same opportunity due to brand identities, but they should be under much more scrutiny to achieve the same level of protection, and they shouldn't be able to bully creatives.
I also see a lot of commenters mention how copyright should be limited to 20 years. I don't see this working out well in today's world because old stuff is brought up and popularized seemingly often. Niche videos from 2013 can easily go viral in 2033, and I think authors deserve some sort of reward for that.
That's a feature, not a bug. Humans have always built upon that which came before, that's why Robin Hood is a beloved story because each generation could do what they want with it, or King Arthur, or Shakespeare.
Nobody owns ideas, if you come up with something neat, sure have 20 years to try and make it successful, otherwise it's free real estate. Anything else is a perversion of human nature.
How is expanding "fair use" contrary to that goal? Creatives would be able to use Shakespeare or literally any copyrighted work as long as the derived work is transformative.
Ideas are easy to make. Implementing them is painful. Said pain should be rewarded, and Amazon shouldn't be able to find something just outside of the copyright window to copy and redistribute.
My issue with this is that after 20 years, some content farm could just copy a video, reupload it, then rake in all the profits. These farms already exist because copyright for small creators is rarely enforced. The creator literally gets nothing in this exchange, and creatives in general have way less incentive of making new works as a result.
I'm not talking about fair use, I'm talking about public domain; complete freedom to modify or redistribute.
Yes, by temporary monopoly
Why not? Project Gutenberg provides an incredible service (and LibriVox) which is based entirely on the concept of old works naturally falling into public domain. Imagine how absurd it would be if you still had to pay the publisher of Charles Dickens to read A Christmas Carol.
Do you see content farms making bank with public domain content now? This is a ridiculous scenario, you obviously have not thought out this issue and instead are just justifying your feelings on the matter. Old things belong to everybody, culture is meant to be shared.
That's a completely separate matter bud, go ahead and advocate for enforcing the law for small creators, I'm talking about what the limit for those protections should be.
I think copyright and patent laws need to die.
Google would take some high-schooler's work and profit off of it in that case. In today's world, said high-schooler would receive some compensation.
If you think that this is far-fetched, it literally happened just now with Beeper Mini. A high-schooler received a $400k payout because he had ownership of his work.
I find it insane that tvshows regularly show people watching 70+ year old tvshows. Nobody does that in real life. Doesn't feel authentic.
I find it insane that we've reused characters in stories for thousands of years, but just a century ago it suddenly became illegal until almost every character was old enough to be forgotten and culturally irrelevant.
Fan fiction of relatively new IPs should be sellable, imho, without having to beg a corporation for permission. Its stuff we've grown up on. Disney and others are literally holding our culture hostage and dictates terms.
Fan fiction being sellable would require significant changes to copyright. It seems like you're agreeing with me?
Idk what you mean by Disney "holding our culture hostage" - that seems weirdly hyperbolic.
That we've retold and improved stories for the most of human existence, suddenly we don't. Thats what I mean with holding culture hostage.
I agree there should be some protections for artists, but not a hundred years. It should be close enough that the media is still relevant to the generation that it was presented to. Yeah, it would take drastic changes, but we got ourselves into this, we should be able to turn it back.
In what way is this not happening?
Like, Avatar is the highest grossing movie of all time and is the exact same story as Fern Gully, retold in space.
If your idea of retelling and improving upon a story is to carefully create a similar-ish general plotline in a different setting that doesn't overlap enough to be sued by the previous author, for "retelling and improving"... You miss out.
How crazy it is that creators have to go out of their way to not name something that looks and act like a lightsaber, a lightsaber. For a century! Everyone knows what a lightsaber is. It is part of our culture now. But we cant re-use them as is in any creative work (except for parodies) without begging Disney to pay for the privilege to use it if we are well-known enough. Its silly.
"Larry... Shwarz..."
I feel.like you keep bringing up stifling creativity being a reason to not enforce copyright, but then you suggest that there is simply no room for creativity outside of established universes.
This really doesn't make any sense to me. I don't see how anyone benefits by a glut of terrible Star Wars fanfiction being published, throwing the entire canon into disarray, and fundamentally changing what the material is about.
Terrible Star Wars fan fiction is what we get anyway, just look at Disney's trilogy. Its already changed. Its creator(s) doesn't even have a say anymore. If anyone could make Star Wars, we could vote for the one taking it in the best direction with our wallets.
Theres of course a bit room outside of established universes, but why should we, when its the in-universe story that has occupied our minds for decades? Why re-invent everything for every story now when we once didn't have to? What gives modern people this permanent ownership of an idea that past people didn't? Why aren't we allowed to use Hobbits, but we use halflings which everyones know is just hobbits in all but name. Why can't we use Beholders and Illithids when its common knowledge what they are? What if Santa Claus was a copyrighted character belonging to Coca Cola? Or still belonged to the Dickens family so Coke never hired an artist to create the Santa Claus as we know today?
Also this obsession with "canon", its stories not actual events. Its fun to have a shared understanding of past fictional events, but obsessing too much over it isn't healthy for the fiction. But thats a different discussion.
The public must gain it's share of the revenue for allowing a private company to use public domain IP exclusively.
Hold a yearly auction to see who is granted rights to the property which is now the public's.
Pretty strongly disagree with the idea of a company's product just becoming the public's because a certain amount of time has passed.
I cannot even conceive of what the argument for this could possibly be.
Copyright was never meant to be used how it is today. It was specifically made to protect small creators from having big companies come in and rip them off. Companies were never meant to be the beneficiaries. But lot of lobbying plus corporations are people too bullshit changed that.
Copyright is meant to last roughly the lifetime of the artist, but organizations can live forever. And then nothing ever goes in the public domain, a shared culture dissolves in to nothingness.
This is why I think it needs to be updated.
I don't see how these two things relate to one another at all. We currently have a shared culture.
Disney themselves benefited from the public domain since they didn't invent the stories of Snow White, Cinderella, etc.
They didn't tell them as-written, either, so this is neither here nor there.
You don't have to remake steamboat willie frame-by-frame either.
the argument is that the people, and the political system the people put in place enabled the company to create and benefit off its creations.
"we live in a society" but unironically.
And you want to... Stop that?
I want to limit the amount of benefit they can reap.
Why?
Because people should get benefits rather than corporations?
How are the two at odds here? Disney has around a quarter million employees who currently benefit from copyrighted IPs.
Please explain how Disney being the only ones able to use an IP causes their employees to get a higher salary. Executives do not count, as they get paid obscene amounts as it is anyway.
It allows them to get a salary, and their salary negotiations are neither here nor there
Literally how it's worked forever, how do you think books and films become public domain? Blame the Romans.
"this is the way it's always been" is never an acceptable defense of anything
I'm confused, are you actually advocating for companies to retain control of their properties forever? Public domain exists for the benefit of all people, to keep knowledge and art open and available, and to allow future generations to build on existing work.
Sure not a huge deal for Mickey mouse because it's not as important as research work or whatever, BUT considering Disney was literally built on repacking public domain stories (Pinocchio / Snow White / Beauty and Beast directly taken from previous works, Lion King is basically Hamlet with animals), it's past time they contributed back.
I'm not sure how updating IP laws get in the way of this and no one seems able to article it for me.
And yes, I believe that any trademark characters/IPs should be protected forever. I don't see how letting me write and publish independent Doctor Who stories benefits anyone but me, while damaging the "real" Doctor Who universe.
Do you have a reason for the alternative view?
For me it's quite simple. The options are offering timed control over an IP, or have the wild west of no copywrite. We, as a society, decided we will protect an IP for said time to allow profit and encourage creation, before the public can go wild on it. Without copywrite protections, derivative works are available immediately.
Under this perpetual exclusive rights system/scenario you're proposing Disney straight up does not exist. Whichever company held the rights to the Brothers Grimm estate would have immediately cease and desisted Disney's Snow White. No Disney, no Mouse, end of story.
Now, that works out great for Current Day Media Giant - but what about tomorrow's creators, the next Disney that builds it's foundation on stories like Frozen or Moana? Shouldn't those future generations be provided similar access to their childhood fables? It starts with making Steamboat Willie available.
I don't understand why this shouldn't be perpetual if the IP is in use.
"Misunderstood and somewhat outcast princess that develops special powers and saves her people" is hardly off-limits.
Implying there is no difference between derivative works and reimagining. Let me use another example- 100 years from now a creator has a great idea to release a story expanding Harry Potter to introduce a new school, idk.
Under your proposed system, this creator now needs to get a license, or build an entire off-brand wizarding world? You seem believe taking "inspiration" from public works is ok, while using or expanding the preexisting works is not. Meanwhile in reality all works are derivative of SOMETHING that came before it, and rights holders, while Potter is still under copywrite, will absolutely C&D my new movie "Jerry Plopter and the Warlock's Boulder", even though my story is "totally original" about Jerry's first year at Noxorth.
If you don't see the problem here I have to concluded you're either a trolling contrarian, or the type that votes to defund libraries.
Yes, absolutely. Same reason I don't think someone should "create" in Middle-Earth without licensing.
Seems like this would be happening more often if it were the case?
Why are you acting this way?
We agree on updating IP laws, but I think they should be curtailed rather than extended. You should not have the monopoly on an idea your entire life. If you can't milk a fortune from it in 50 years it wasn't that good an idea, so everyone else should be free to build on and improve it after that point.
And even if you absolutely kill it and your brand is still going strong decades later, that 50 years will cover anything new your did in that time. Plus it's not like people wouldn't know yours is the original even after the copyright expire; something entering public domain doesn't make it legal to claim you invented it if you didn't.
If you make something, it should be yours to disseminate as you wish. It's silly to suggest otherwise. You literally created it.
Copyright isn't just paying for an idea, its giving a complete monopoly over a concept. We came up with the idea of copyright to give creators a much easier way to profit off their creation (not having to compete after its created) to make sure innovation is very rewarded. That said, its still a government enforced monopoly, with all the issues that come with that, and with how much its been extended, its far past the point of encouraging innovation and instead just works to cement large companies in place, resting on their laurals rather than making anything new. Even when a copyright ends, the current copyright holder wouldn't lose the idea, they just no longer have a monopoly on it. Disney can and will keep making Micky Mouse content, and the mouse will probably keep being accociated with them for centuries to come unless someone makes something that dwarfs the impact of Disney's work with the character, in which case its best that it was released anyway.
I don't disagree with this necessarily (obviously, I think Mickey Mouse should belong to Disney forever) but this is why I recommend reform rather than throwing it out
Well, why should the government protect their monopoly? The original creator is dead, so he doesn't benifit from it. The cartoon is 95 years old, and I doubt Walt Disney factored in the profit his company would make 60+ after he died, when deciding to make the original animation. The only reason to let Disney maintain their monopoly on it is to allow a massive coorperation to get more money without doing any new work.
Except they do create new works using that same IP, quite regularly.
I think you're misunderstanding how copyright works. Losing the copyright doesn't mean they won't be able to make new works, nor does it mean those new works won't have copyright. Copyright is only lost on the original work, so while others can use Steamboat Willie, and that very specific version of Micky Mouse, Disney still owns modern updates to him. Either way, the end of that monopoly opens more avenues for newer authors to build on it, while again, doing nothing but reducing Disney's passive income for work their founder did a century ago. Its a more physical example, but along the same line of logic, if I cure cancer, it might make sense to give me time to get a head start on profiting from it (so I am rewarded for my work) but it would be ridiculous to say no one is else is allowed to use my cure for cancer or build on it for the next century or longer. Theres absolutely no reason not to allow the ideas to spread once the author has had plenty of time to make a profit.
No-one creates something from whole cloth. All ideas are based on things that came before them. Locking those ideas up indefinitely will stifle creativity and stagnate culture.
How? I don't see any evidence of this. Can you point some out?
As mentioned elsewhere
Hail corporate.
No.
Donald Duck’s copyright expires in 2029 and we’ll finally be able to walk around pantsless in a sailor hat/shirt without being harassed by Walt Disney’s widow.
Stop, I can only get so erect:
https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/2670120-chris-christie-donald-duck
Is that why the police keeps harassing me?
EXPECT legislative-shenanigans, people...
EITHER they'll extend copyright again,
XOR they'll just "conveniently" have copyright apply in court, even-though it doesn't apply on-paper.
Never believe a career-criminal, or Dark Triad entity, has changed, unless you see robust, consistent, years-long, actual, objective proof of that change having-happened.
Extraordinary-claims require extraordinary backing/evidence.
_ /\ _
They don't have to do any of those. They own most of the content pipe so anyone who wants to do their own spin on Mickey is going to be inherently limited on their publishing reach.
Plus with all the acquisitions they've made, the copyright to Mickey and other legacy characters is worth a much smaller portion of their empire.
And they still own the TM.
Basically I'm regurgitating a rather good video recently published by Corridor Crew so go here for more facts and fewer hacks: https://youtu.be/u2dIvUAd5QE?si=IK5wOEpSDOPyIwJz
I dont have kids so I can't speak to the ubiquity of Mickey Mouse - but was Mickey Mouse Funhouse or The Wonderful world of Mickey Mouse even that popular?
Frozen and Toy Story are their biggest sellers, it might not even be that bad for them to lose Mickey.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/u2dIvUAd5QE?si=IK5wOEpSDOPyIwJz
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I recall an article on Ars Technica, I think from 2017?, talking about how Disney and other big corpos weren't moving pieces to give copyright law yet another push into infinity. The main reasoning was that, unlike the previous times it did (the last one being early 90s), the resistance would be real and vocal, with a possible side effect being a lawmaker reaching the conclusion that "no piece of shit deserves or needs this much time protected by copyright", starting to work in reducing copyright protection
Keep in mind, folks, that we'll only have public access to Mickey and Minnie as they're displayed on Steamboat Willie. Any other versions are still no-go.
For now... That's just because he was the first iteration of the character. The others will also age into it as time goes on.
Isn't this why they pivoted to using Steamboat Willie in their pre-roll - to pull it under trademark as copyright expires?
Seems it'll still be illegal, just for different reasons.
I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if they manage to trademark the character, since the mouse is very iconic
I'd say you can count on it.
WTF is this shitty loophole? "Well, we changed his clothes, that's a whole new different character!" This makes no sense. Copyright should be abolished.
I disagree. That would just result in corporations like Disney ripping off independent artists.
But limit it to the artist's life time or perhaps 25 years.
IRC drug patents last only 20 years, and those often cost a lot of money to develop, research and bring to market.
Fucking thank you.
The whole "copyrights should be abolished" trope is regurgitated by people who have clearly never created anything in their life. For artists, musicians, and other content creators, copyright is vital to our lives.
If you think Disney is powerful now, imagine what Disney would be like if no other creators had any legal protection at all.
The problem is that copyright law is never used by the small artists to protect their work, it's only used by big corporations to put down the small artists, fuck with each other and find loop holes to abuse of it.
There's what it should be for and what it's actually used for.
You're approaching a relevant part (that big corporations have an overwhelming power advantage in this "negotiation"), but "small artists never use copyright law" is just wrong:
Without copyright law they couldn't even sell their content (or more accurately: they could sell it, but the big corp could simply copy it and sell it better/cheaper due to the economics of scale).
So without copyright the smaller artists would be even more boned than they are right now.
There should be real punishments for companies that do stuff like issue fraudulent DMCA takedowns.
That I can get behind!
Right now the law allows them to basically say, "oops, we kinda thought we owned that. Our bad." And walk away only to issue an identical takedown the next week.
I have a video series that gets a DMCA claim on the intro (that I made) every single time that I have to submit a counter claim. It's always overturned, but I have zero recourse to stop it from happening.
I know numerous small artists who use copyright to protect their work and get paid when people use their music in streams/videos, take down misuse of their graphic work, work with publishers to license their work, etc.
Copyright works fairly well for small creators.
Of course corporations abuse it like every other law. We don't say that home ownership should be abolished because landlords are shitty.
Tell me you're not an artist without telling me you're not an artist.
My friend, this is precisely the kind of thing I was alluding to in my previous post when I said "regurgitated by people who have clearly never created anything in their life." I promise you that as an artist I have used copyright law to protect my work, and so has just about every artist I know. I don't even know what you're imagining to make you say something so patently false.
It's funny how often that argument comes up in FOSS (Free and open source software) circles where people just claim copyright is fundamentally wrong, but at the same time complain when someone violates any FOSS license (all of which depend on copyright to be enforcable).
These two takes aren't incompatible. It is possible to want to abolish copyright, while wanting everyone to comply to existing rules while they aren't abolished yet.
Sure, but in most of these discussions the ones arguing for "getting rid of copyright" mostly just mean "stop big companies from owning everything". When mentioning that FOSS licenses depend on copyright to work it's usually some form of "we'd have to find a way to still make them work ...".
Easy. Just make open source mandatory.
"Easy." You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Laws are made up. Really all it takes is public will.
Right but this is a child's solution to an adult problem, as you point out
You say Disney would be better without copyright at the same time we see Disney spending billions on lobby to make copyright almost eternal.
To think that Disney would be happy if every artist could create, enhance and improve a Marvel version for themselves
???
That's not what I said at all.
Did you reply to the wrong person?
You say Disney would be better without copyright at the same time we see Disney spending billions on lobby to make copyright almost eternal.
Wow. That's not what I said at all. You quoted me and you still got what I said wrong.
It's because this entire take is just from the "corporations bad" crowd and that's literally as far as they take their thought process.
Any serious look at copyright and IP laws shows they badly need updating, across the spectrum.
IMO copyright as a concept makes sense, but it's duration should be significantly shortened. In todays short-lived world most works lose the majority of their financial value after a few years (let's say ~10) anyways. So to allow artists to benefit from their creations while still allowing remixing or reasonably recent content I'd say some sane compromise is necessary.
Either that or massively expand (and codify) what qualifies as fair use: let anyone reinterpret anything, but don't allow verbatim copying.
Current copyright law is ridiculously long. Life +70 years in many countries. So my grandfather's books who passed away last year, will be locked up until most of his great grandchildren are in their 80's or older.
It should be moved to a flat 45 years, the expected career length of a working person.
Easy problem to solve: abolish corporations.
Simple solutions are not the same thing as easy solutions.
War bad? Simple solution: End wars.
they already do
Disney would find a way to dig up walt and reanimate him.
....or assassinate artists to steal their work.
Public domain can get weird. The works of Mozart are obviously public domain. But if I record myself performing some of them, that recording is copyrighted. It doesn't stop you from doing the same, which would also be copyrighted. Now let's say I add a few of my own touches to my performance- which would be a derivative work. You cannot copy those in your own performance without my permission. In effect, it's the changes themselves that are copyrighted.
Once I've made my recording, you can face an uphill battle to prove that you either didn't know about mine, or that it was so obvious that it wasn't creative.
All of this ignores trademark law, which is related but distinct.
Completely agree, not just copyrights but patents too.
Open environments are way more productive and creative then lock stuff for decades.
Patents were invented to make things more open. Before patents, companies and people relied on trade secrets. They would go out of their way to hide how everything worked. At least with a patent things needed to be in the open and eventually became public domain.
Source?
The idea of copyright and patents is to ensure that you can get compensated for your own work. There’s no point in creating a unique idea when Disney can just copy it and take all the money for themselves.
There are flaws with how copyright and patents are implemented, but that doesn’t mean they’re fundamentally broken. The alternative would be much worse.
You should look at how creative commons works. It's the best alternative imo
CC is a great alternative for some cases, but far from all. Most artists want to protect their work, and CC don’t help with that.
How much Creative Commons media do you consume?
I find copyright and patents very different, at least in the U.S. I support copyright, but not patents. Patents are used to stifle creativity and generate lawsuits.
Example, I designed something and was urged to patent it. It combines hardware, electronics, and in some iterations software as well. I released it copyleft instead. People make it in their garage, cottage industry sells it, a multinational profits from it.
The current designs are much better than my original. If I had patented it it might stagnate, or I could litigate and try to prevent innovation.
Look at Linux and open source projects as a whole, like Lemmy, or how 3D printer community flourished after some 80s patents lost their validity and so on...
They are the ones who most profit from this CR and patent scheme, if they would profit from open projects they would lobby in that direction not the other way around
The cynic in me would argue Capitalism is the problem here.
So sounds like we should be arguing to abolish the need for employment to survive instead of defending the status quo.
Who would make the stuff that you buy and consume?
I guarantee that on January 1st there will be a ton of Mickey videos on the internet and it will be glorious
And I guarantee that the majority of it will simply copy todays Mickey Mouse as opposed to the one in steamboat Willie.
But that version isn't entering the public domain any time soon.
That will be funny
I'm shocked no legislation has been created to increase copyright even longer, but I guess there's still time. Maybe with non-disney mickey mouse works out there, their lawyers will argue that it is damaging and thus a new law should be passed retroactively.
Over Walt’s cold dead body.
…
uhhhhh… wait, hang on I didn’t mean that
I didn't see here the obvious answer: never.
Now I can finally colorize the one cartoon that counts.
When I say so.