Copyright vs Public Domain

[Brian Cruz]

The Supreme Court is going to decide whether to overturn the "Sonny Bono" act that extended copyrights from 75 years to 95 years. Do you think they should?

Here's rundown on copyright laws over the past 100 years...

In the early 1900s, copyrights lasted 14 years from the date of publication, and were then renewable for another 14, for a total of 28 years.

In 1909 it was extended to 28 years, renewable for another 28, for a total of 56.

In 1976 it became 75 years with no need for renewal.

In 1998, Sonny Bono introduced the legislation that made it 95 years with no need for renewal. If the Supreme Court overturns this, it would go back to being 75 years, meaning that cartoons from 1928 like "Steamboat Willie" would become public domain starting next year. The Bosko and Buddy cartoons would all be public domain within 10 years.

But if the law stands, none of these cartoons will be public domain till at least 2023, and you can bet they'll try to get the law extended yet again sometime before that.

Here's my opinion...

95 years of copyright is way too long. I think even 75 years is too long, but it does allow for the creators to get as much money for their work as possible. Very, very few things more than 75 years old are still profitable to anybody. The vast majority is rotting away in a vault, or is already gone forever, because the company that owned it didn't care anymore. Adding another 20 years will only increase the number of films and cartoons this happens to. But Disney's lawyers will try to extend the copyright, just to protect Mickey Mouse.

But Mickey Mouse is and will always be a Disney trademark. It's the cartoons themselves would no longer be under their exclusive control, and even then only a few each year. It's not like they're doing much with them! Imagine how much better Late Night Black & White would have been if they could show an original Mickey Mouse cartoon? Sure, the print would be crappy, since Disney would never allow access to their pristine copies, but think of all the history you'd be able to see. That's what it should be about, giving the public access to historical works, not locking them up so some corporation make a few extra dollars.

[Argus Sventon]

If more films go into the public domain, studios will be less likely to care for them. The Paramount toons are perfect examples.

[Thad Komorowski]

I think it should be less. But if the studio is actually doing something with the cartoons, which Disney is, then I think the extension should be allowed.


-Thad

[Pilmedium]

I think it should be 50 years with one 25-year renewal allowed only if the creator is still alive.

I don't care if the studio is doing anything with them or not. If this keeps up, copyright extensions would get to the point where a 1930 film or cartoon would be copyrighted until 2430 or later. It seems to be going too far.

[Matthew Hunter]

75 years is reasonable, but after that, forget it. Mickey Mouse is still popular, maybe, but how many times do we actually see "Steamboat Willie", or any of the other black and white Mickey toons? And the mentality seems to be "if it's not color, nobody likes it". So, if those who know better got to release these films, no matter how bad the print, imagine what new life they would gain, and how much more merchandise Disney could sell? They would still own the original cartoon negatives, and they would still have the means to make money. Same with some of the older black and whites from other studios, I've never even seen a "Scrappy" cartoon before. Look how popular Betty Boop has become thanks to the public domain tapes. A lot of people could stand to profit from this, too. I have some Buddy cartoons with no cuts, logos, or anything, anyone who does could legally sell copies for a profit. Granted, the general public doesn't really know who Buddy is, but...Also, I think there should be some regulation that if the copyright is not renewed sometime in the middle, it should be allowed to become public domain. If a copyright holder has something of clutural or historical value to the public and does not make use of it, I think that's a crime. Look how Warner Bros. just sits on some of the wartime Looney Tunes, and how Universal doesn't show Woody Woodpecker, or the deal with MGM and Pink Panther. Think about how "It's A Wonderful Life" became a classic because it was able to be widely broadcast via public domain? I think 75 years is fine, but no fudging on it.
-Matthew

[Psycho Fox]

I think it should be 25 years and you could renew it twice thus the maximum would be 75 years.

[Sogturtle]

Let's bring this down to where the rubber meets the road... Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks created Mickey Mouse in 1928. Walt croaked 36 years ago, 38 years after the creation of the Mouse, with his company owning it, and him a very rich man. Ub passed on 31 years ago, owning not one iota of the Mouse since he had been forced to sell his partial ownership in 1930... Copyrights should NOT have ever been extended past the lifetime of the original HUMAN creator of any work, whether film, art, literature or anything else. Imagine this one... The great Charlie Chaplin made a film in 1967 at SEVENTY EIGHT years of age!!! Iffffff he had copyrighted that film himself, then its copyright (with the extension to 75 years) wouldn't have run out till 2042, when Chaplin would be 153 years old!!! Put another way Chaplin's oldest kids would by that date be nearly 120 years old!! With the 95 years then he'd be 173 and his kids 140!! Does this sound ridiculous?? You bet! Seventy-five years is 3-4 generations, 95 years is 4-5 generations. Should 3-5 generations still be profiting for something which they had nothing to do with??? Now WHY FOR HEAVENS SAKE should an immortal legal person (a corporation) be granted such massive lengths of time when the corporation does not create a blasted thing, but pays a flat salary to individuals who then have no ownership interest whatsover!!!

Did Warners ever see fit to justly pay Tex Avery for the creation of Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck, by giving him partial (if not total) ownership of the characters or the cartoons starring them?? NO of course not! Ditto for Chuck Jones with Pepe Le Pew, the Coyote etc. You know what is even more astounding??? They have NEVER had to pay Avery, Clampett, Freleng, Jones, McKimson, Davis, Harman or Ising ONE RED CENT in residuals!!! I say strike down the ridiculous 95 year law (and I loved Sonny, but that was a rotten law). And THEN address these issues by rolling the copyright law back to what it should be... No more than 56 years and preferably even less than that!!!

[Matthew Hunter]

I saw something maybe 3 years ago on TV about the late Mr. Jones' art galleries. I believe it was on CNN. Apparently, Jones had to PAY WARNER BROS. to draw characters HE came up with. Not one cent of merchandise, from videos to T shirts to stuffed animals with the Coyote, Pepe Le Pew, Elmer Fudd, or others was paid to him. Think how much Warner made off of his work, and how little he recieved in return. That's a crime.
-Matthew

[Cartman]

Originally posted by Matthew Hunter
I saw something maybe 3 years ago on TV about the late Mr. Jones' art galleries. I believe it was on CNN. Apparently, Jones had to PAY WARNER BROS. to draw characters HE came up with. Not one cent of merchandise, from videos to T shirts to stuffed animals with the Coyote, Pepe Le Pew, Elmer Fudd, or others was paid to him. Think how much Warner made off of his work, and how little he recieved in return. That's a crime.
-Matthew

I think I'm going to be sick! That was totally unfair what those corporate creeps at WB did! :mad: :mad:

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Matthew Hunter
I saw something maybe 3 years ago on TV about the late Mr. Jones' art galleries. I believe it was on CNN. Apparently, Jones had to PAY WARNER BROS. to draw characters HE came up with. Not one cent of merchandise, from videos to T shirts to stuffed animals with the Coyote, Pepe Le Pew, Elmer Fudd, or others was paid to him. Think how much Warner made off of his work, and how little he recieved in return. That's a crime.
-Matthew Yhea that does suck but the only way to change it is to change corporate thinking see to them it is the money man that makes something great with out the money man it simply wouldn't exist thus in their eyes they should get complete control over it since they invested money into it. But this idea has a flaw since the creative end invested time into it and without that it really wouldn't exist. Really the money end is exchangeable it don't matter who backs it thus creative proporty should be mostly in the hands of the creator but big companies don't like that. That is why they shut down napster not becouse of loss revenue since CD sales where up during napster but becouse during napster bands where thinking of going it alone and tell their label to f off so they can have a decent percentage of the income. Imagine a world where the is no middle man the artist could sell his art work directly to the fans and take close to 100% of the income.