Disney wins copyright

Glasgow

Well-Known Member
It's good for Disney, but bad for all of those other companies trying to make a buck. If it was Microsoft that just won a big case no one would care .. :animwink:
 

sigsegv

New Member
Well, it's good for Disney, but bad for sanity and fairness in copyright law. The length of these protections is getting longer and longer and the only reason is entertainment companies (such as Disney) buying off the US Congress. I'm willing to bet that by the time this current 20 year extension is about to wind down, these companies will be buying more Congresscritters.

Disney's more than happy to use stuff in the public domain, but not at all willing to contribute to it themselves. :fork:

-sig
 

sigsegv

New Member
Originally posted by MajinBuu
The link is broken.. at least it is for me. What was it that Disney won?
There was a challenge before the Supreme Court of the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act (not sure if the name is quite right), which extended the term of copyright coverage by 20 more years.

Mind you, this is not just for newly produced stuff, but stuff that's already out there. It'd be one thing if it was only for newly produced material, but it's not. It's not like Walt Disney is going to come back from the dead and not create Mickey Mouse because his rights to MM are not extended by 20 years.

The purpose of copyright/patent law was to grant, *for a limited time*, a monopoly over creative/scientific works. There's a sort of agreement between the creator, who brings some thing into existance, and the public, who brings fame/value (to others) to that thing. Something that's created that's kept hidden from the world cannot become popular or be of any value. Once it becomes known to the public, then either of both can follow.

If Walt were to have scribbled Mickey (or Mortimer?) on that train trip back from New York, then told nobody, how valuable would Mickey Mouse be these days? It's because the world loved Mickey that it because valuable.

When Walt created Mickey, he had a certain expectation of how long he'd be able to have rights over Mickey. (Well, maybe he didn't know explicitly -- though it's possible he did what with the Oswald fiasco -- how long his copyright would last, but he could have found out. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for not following it.) It must have been good for him since he did release Mickey to the world and he did copyright him. At this point, Walt had entered into a implicit contract (between him and the public), accepting that he had complete control over Mickey and his likenesses (less certain fair use exceptions, which to get even further off-topic, the Walt Disney Company is also currently fighting) for X amount of time. After X amount of time, Walt agreed (implicitly) that his copyright would expire and Mickey would go into the public domain.

You see, the belief was that people don't create in a vacuum; they "stand on the shoulders of giants." Even Walt himself (and the company) used old public domain material to build their own fame. The idea was that eventually, this new stuff would become part of the public domain and some new Walt Disney would pick it up, tweak it their way, and make some new classic. A big creative "circle of life" so-to-speak.

Now, with companies continually buying extensions to copyright terms, this isn't happening. Copyrighted material is staying copywritten and not returning to the public domain to seed new creative works. The system is being short-circuited and one party (the copyright holders -- sadly, usually not the creators) is not upholding their obligation to the other (the public).

:brick:

Anyway, that's enough ranting from me.

-sig
 

dreamer

New Member
Originally posted by sigsegv
Well, it's good for Disney, but bad for sanity and fairness in copyright law. The length of these protections is getting longer and longer and the only reason is entertainment companies (such as Disney) buying off the US Congress. I'm willing to bet that by the time this current 20 year extension is about to wind down, these companies will be buying more Congresscritters.

Disney's more than happy to use stuff in the public domain, but not at all willing to contribute to it themselves. :fork:

-sig



What's a fair time to own something one creates? Why is it any different that owning a piece f property? Personally, I don't see why there whould be any expiration at all. I could see why people that don't create anything would see it differently, though.
 

sigsegv

New Member
Originally posted by dreamer
What's a fair time to own something one creates? Why is it any different that owning a piece f property? Personally, I don't see why there whould be any expiration at all. I could see why people that don't create anything would see it differently, though.

Ack... this is probably already pretty off-topic, but what the heck... :)

I think what you ask is a fair question. I also think that it's overlooking what you, the creator, get when you do release something to the public. If you just want control of some creation, then don't make it public. There you go, you (and your estate) have full rights to your creation in perpetuity.

OTOH, if you want to try to get value out of your creation, say, by selling it, then you have to release it to the public and market it to some degree. The interest the public gives back to you determines the value of your creation. This is what you're getting back from the public, but the price of this value creation is that you agree to put your creation in the public domain after X number of years.

The general concept is that your creations are built on or influenced by previous creations and future creations will be influenced by or build on yours. Can you imagine if our current copyright system existed hundreds of years ago the way it is today? There would be no "Snow White," no "Cinderella." Heck, quite a few disney movies wouldn't exist, especially the earlier ones, and quite possibly, the Walt Disney Company wouldn't exist either because all the fairy tales and fables they borrowed and tweaked would be owned by companies and the fledgling WDC wouldn't be able to afford the rights. :(

Copyright law is supposed to strike a balance between encouraging people to create stuff and make it public, while at the same time, encouraging innovation on the designs and creations of others.

I'm hacking this whole thing up horribly. There's a professor at Stanford, Lawrence Lessig -- the guy who brought this copyright case to the Supreme Court -- who puts this into many better words than I can. If you're interested in this topic, please check out lessig.org.

-sig
 

Sherm00

New Member
Originally posted by dreamer
What's a fair time to own something one creates? Why is it any different that owning a piece f property? Personally, I don't see why there whould be any expiration at all. I could see why people that don't create anything would see it differently, though.


Bingo, thats exactly my feelings. disney and his company were created by disney, they thought mickey up and mickey should be copyrighted by the disney company. People this day and age just want to leech ideas off everyone else instead of thinking up something fresh and new. and think about this what if mickey dose become public domain then what, little mickeys o movies. I mean the publuc can be cruel. Copyriights for entertainment media should not expire. I agree with disney on this one.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom