Disney Wins Copyright Extention Battle

[mbaker]

It looks like the supreme court has given Disney A victory on the copyright extention law. Click here to read more.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030115/ap_wo_en_bu/na_fin_us_copyrights_2

[Sprocket]

Crap.

[William C. Maune]

[indent]Why is this a bad thing (I'm sure their are certainly arguments, but I am interested to hear what they are)? Why should anyone be able to make Mickey Mouse related stuff and thus be able to profit off of Disney's work for the 70+ years? Also, for the record, it wasn't just Disney. Warner Bros., etc. had been supporting this extension also.

[Nin-Nin69]

If good old Walt was still alive thats one thing, but no one cares now that the magic is gone and its all about the money.

[mbaker]

Here's an interesting "editorial cartoon" I foud on this particular subject.

http://www.waxy.org/random/images/weblog/eldred.jpg

[RZetlin]

It's ironic that Disney made most of its money from public domain characters and stories and yet it is not willing to give up its own characters to the public domain.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by William C. Maune
Why is this a bad thing (I'm sure their are certainly arguments, but I am interested to hear what they are)? Why should anyone be able to make Mickey Mouse related stuff and thus be able to profit off of Disney's work for the 70+ years? Also, for the record, it wasn't just Disney. Warner Bros., etc. had been supporting this extension also. Well lets take TTA:Spring Break Special. Now lets say WB doesn't distrabute it for the remainder of its copyright. During that time even though if a fan distrabuted it wouldn't make a difference to WB's Bottom line (might actully help it by promoting stuff they do sell) it is still illegal and even after the copyright WB can still turn around and say they lost it. Meaning yes you can air it if you can find a copy but we don't have to provide you with a copy. Meaning if that's the case it would be bootlegs (that would then be perfectly legal) that would be the only source.

Basicly long copyrights hurts works that gets brushed aside by its owners.

Also

[mbaker]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Basicly long copyrights hurts works that gets brushed aside by its owners.
Dose this mean the Di$ney could legally pretend that some of their past (and better) movies, and TV shows never exitsed while contiuing flod the market with crap?

[zimbach]

Originally posted by mbaker
Dose this mean the Di$ney could legally pretend that some of their past (and better) movies, and TV shows never exitsed while contiuing flod the market with crap? They already do that!

Case in point: "Der Fuhrer's Face" starring Donald Duck.
It's just a WWII propaganda short, but we'll never see that again. It had Donald in a Nazi uniform. :knd1:

[Mad Monkey 7]

Actually, we will in the next Disney Treasue series this week entitled: "Disney War Cartoons".

[Narfpinky]

So, what do you think will happen in 2023?
They'll just ask for another 25 years...

If they can't accept that a copyright will actually expire, then they should just get out of the business(yeah, as if they'll consider that.;)) Besides, it's not as if *all* of their works will become public domain overnight.

[zimbach]

Originally posted by Mad Monkey 7
Actually, we will in the next Disney Treasue series this week entitled: "Disney War Cartoons". Really? That's one of the selections in the set?
For a long time, they denied its existence, even though there were films in circulation.

[Dee]

Originally posted by mbaker
Dose this mean the Di$ney could legally pretend that some of their past (and better) movies, and TV shows never exitsed while contiuing flod the market with crap?

mbaker, please refrain from using a dollar sign in the Disney name. I know you may think it's clever but I consitder it to be flame bait because yes, there are Disney fans in the world.

[Exatron]

Originally posted by William C. Maune
Why is this a bad thing (I'm sure their are certainly arguments, but I am interested to hear what they are)? Why should anyone be able to make Mickey Mouse related stuff and thus be able to profit off of Disney's work for the 70+ years? Also, for the record, it wasn't just Disney. Warner Bros., etc. had been supporting this extension also.

It's a bad thing because the creators of currently copyrighted works drew on the innumerable works in the public domain to create their works. Copyrights in the US are meant to give authors (but not their grandchildren, great-grandchildren, or great-great grandchildren) exclusive rights to their works for a limited amount of time as an incentive to create more works. When a copyright expires, a work is expected to enter the public domain as compensation for the limited period of exclusivity.

I am shocked that the Supreme Court upheld the retroactive extension of copyrights in the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension act since it removed several works from the public domain. All this ruling does is allow media conglomerates to steal from society.

[mbaker]

Check out this funny interview I found.

http://www.reason.com/links/links011703.shtml

[Conan-san]

Originally posted by Narfpinky
So, what do you think will happen in 2023?
They'll just ask for another 25 years...

If they can't accept that a copyright will actually expire, then they should just get out of the business(yeah, as if they'll consider that.;)) Besides, it's not as if *all* of their works will become public domain overnight.

Beging blunt i could see the events of EVA hapeing more easly than Disney give up the rights...

and it;s a lot harder due to 2nd implact not happening in 2000... :D

[TServo2049]

I actually think this was somewhat of a good idea...listen to this:

When some films go into the public domain, the market is flooded with public domain videos of awful quality. A bigger, more established company has the opportunity to release a restored version, but decide not to, for they will not profit from it, it will be bootlegged, the market is flooded already, whatever. Say what you will, if a film is in the public domain, that could make it so you'll never see a good version ever.

[Joe Tully]

The Wartime Disney set was supposed to be out in the second wave, but for some reason it's not out yet. People are assuming that it's coming out in the third, but it hasn't been confirmed.

Most of the argument for reducing the time limit on Public Domain has to do with the fact that many people who own rights to older material do not put it out there where the collectors can get to it. I'm sure that a lot of Disney's motivation for the B&W Mickey set was that those cartoons were getting close to falling into public domain.

The Somewhere In Dreamland DVD set is a good case for keeping the number of years for materials to fall into the public domain low. This set is the only source for the cartoons to most collectors, since it they have been off TV for decades and have not been released as a whole on tape.


Originally posted by TServo2049

When some films go into the public domain, the market is flooded with public domain videos of awful quality. A bigger, more established company has the opportunity to release a restored version, but decide not to, for they will not profit from it, it will be bootlegged, the market is flooded already, whatever. Say what you will, if a film is in the public domain, that could make it so you'll never see a good version ever.


But if a film is about to go into public domain, it prompts the owning company to put the film out on DVD properly instead of letting it sit in the vaults. And if they don't, then people will have access to a version of the film, even if it is not restored.

The thing that bothers me most about the ruling is that these materials have to be allowed to go into the public domain sooner or later, but courts once again rule in favor of the giant companies with lots of money. It makes you wonder how many more times the Public Domain limit will be extended.

[Dee]

I bet the dude who penned "Happy Birthday" would be kicking himself in his grave... if that were humanly (or inhuman zombily) possible. LOL

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Delia97
I bet the dude who penned "Happy Birthday" would be kicking himself in his grave... if that were humanly (or inhuman zombily) possible. LOL

Actually, it was a woman. But hey, it was a 50/50 shot! :D

On to the subject, though, I really don't see how Disney is doing anything wrong, here. If they want to hold the copyright, that's their business.

To me, trying to capitalize by totally copying an idea is wrong, and it shows lack of ability on the part of the artist. I don't mind a subtle reference here and there, but these pirate comics and such, were pretty low. If you can't have an original idea, don't waste your time.

[Jack]

I'm confused, I was under the impression that Disney wouldn't lose thier characters if the films went into the public domain. After all, a bunch of Porky Pig, Daffy Duck, Bugs Bunny, Popeye, Betty Boop, Superman and other cartoons are in the public domain, but the characters are still owned by WB, KFS, DC etc. In fact, one of Mickey's cartoons, The Mad Doctor, is already public domain.

I'm not worried about Disney getting to keep all of thier stuff, they are actually using it and making high quality copies of the films available to the public. Disney is the exception, though. Viacom, which owns the output of three or four golden age cartoon studios, has done nothing with thier cartoons. Public domain DVDs and videos are the only way to see this stuff. Betty Boop would be almost impossible to see if it weren't for Cartoon Network airing public domain Boops on Late Nite Black and White. Warner Bros is never going to let anyone see Bosko again, so if you want a sampling of his cartoons you have to find the public domain collections.


Jack:bosko:

[Joe Tully]

Originally posted by Delia97
I bet the dude who penned "Happy Birthday" would be kicking himself in his grave... if that were humanly (or inhuman zombily) possible. LOL

Her family still holds rights to the Happy Birthday song, which is why you rarely hear it on TV or in movies. If you want to pay for the rights to it, it's incredibly expensive. Often you hear "He's a jolly good fellow" or something like that.


Originally posted by Jack

I'm confused, I was under the impression that Disney wouldn't lose thier characters if the films went into the public domain.

The articles I've read say that Disney would lose rights to the early version of Mickey that was in those cartoons, if they were to all go into the public domain. Meaning the B&W pie-eyed version.

[mbaker]

Here's another fun editorial cartoon I found.

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/td/2003/td030125.gif

[DarthNuriko]

LOL!!!!!!!!



It's too bad about the ruling though.

[mbaker]

That editorial cartoon reminds me of the kinds of storys I would write using existing characters, but I made them for myself.

[Keeper]

Warner Bros. claims a copyright on "Happy Birthday" but if I recall correctly, their actual only copyright is over a "unison chorus" performance. That won't keep them from trying to stop any use/sale of the tune whatsoever.

Really, all it needs is one person to sing harmony, or out of key (isn't that ALWAYS the case?) and it doesn't fall within their claim anymore.

Extended copyrights are a frustrating thing for those of us who enjoy early-20th-century music. We're stuck at 1923 because of these extensions. No commercial business copyright holder of music from the '20s, '30s, or in many cases '40s is interested in doing anything with all the music they have; as far as they're concerned, pop music didn't exist before rock'n'roll (the Y2K celebration of the 20th century at the White House believes the same, apparently, as they proudly claimed that, in the 20th century, a new music form was born in the U.S. which swept over the whole world, called rock'n'roll-- RRR! wrong! thanks for playing. It was RAGTIME that was born in the U.S. and took the world by storm. Everything else that followed, including rock'n'roll, already had the door wide open thanks to ragtime... that really made me mad to see them think that rock'n'roll was this huge epiphany, when it wasn't). So we historians/aficionadoes are left with a very difficult task when it comes to finding and acquiring sheet music from after 1923. No one who owns it wants to reprint it, but the copyrights keep getting extended anyway...

[Joe Tully]

Originally posted by Keeper
Warner Bros. claims a copyright on "Happy Birthday" but if I recall correctly, their actual only copyright is over a "unison chorus" performance. That won't keep them from trying to stop any use/sale of the tune whatsoever.

Really, all it needs is one person to sing harmony, or out of key (isn't that ALWAYS the case?) and it doesn't fall within their claim anymore.



Eh...it's a small company under the AOLTW umbrella. And you're wrong about the unison chorus/harmony part. (I don't see how the harmony claim you make could possibly hold up in court, as it would still be virtually the same song and they would be sued for plagiarism at the very least.) They make about $2 million a year from the song's use. The whole story is at Snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.htm

[loyalheart]

I don't understand how so many people think it's a crime for disney to want to keep their characters.

Warner Bros. owns their characters they DONT let any company use them in a public domain. or if it seems that way its because the other company has to buy rights....


but disney is tighter with their characters. Still Disney created them they should be able to own them.

[Exatron]

Originally posted by KimPossibleFan
I don't understand how so many people think it's a crime for disney to want to keep their characters.


It's a crime because Disney, and many other media conglomerates are stealing from our culture every time they convince congress to extend copyrights. They borrowed things from the public domain when making these things and they are expected to put the new works into the public domain after a certain amount of time as compensation for the limited monopoly given to them while a copyright is valid. US Copyright law is meant to encourage progress in art and culture, not to guarantee an eternal revenu stream for a small number of people.

[loyalheart]

Originally posted by Exatron
It's a crime because Disney, and many other media conglomerates are stealing from our culture every time they convince congress to extend copyrights. They borrowed things from the public domain when making these things and they are expected to put the new works into the public domain after a certain amount of time as compensation for the limited monopoly given to them while a copyright is valid. US Copyright law is meant to encourage progress in art and culture, not to guarantee an eternal revenu stream for a small number of people.

yes..but if they bought the rights??

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by KimPossibleFan
yes..but if they bought the rights?? You missing the point. The fact copyrights has a limmit is so works can retire into public domain where anyone can use it and no be locked in a valut till the end of time.

There are works right now under copyright rotting away in big studio valts. Some so far gone only bootlegs have survived. Without the limmitation of copyrights there is no way for people in the future to see these works of art.

[mbaker]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
You missing the point. The fact copyrights has a limmit is so works can retire into public domain where anyone can use it and no be locked in a valut till the end of time. There are works right now under copyright rotting away in big studio valts. Some so far gone only bootlegs have survived. Without the limmitation of copyrights there is no way for people in the future to see these works of art.
Case in point, The Fox & The Crow. Two cartoon stars from Columbia Pictures golden age. Nobody (not even me) has ever seen, or heard of them. (except maybe the hardest hardcore animation fan) I'm wondering if they ever had as much TV exposure as WB, or MGM cartoons. Anybody know if they did?

[Exatron]

Originally posted by KimPossibleFan
yes..but if they bought the rights??

Then the copyright still expires. That's how copyrights work. You get exclusive control of your work for a limited period of time for your contribution to society. Once that period has passed, the work enters the public domain as compensation for the period of exclusive rights. The alternative renders significant portions of our culture inaccessible.

[Jack]

Originally posted by mbaker
Case in point, The Fox & The Crow. Two cartoon stars from Columbia Pictures golden age. Nobody (not even me) has ever seen, or heard of them. (except maybe the hardest hardcore animation fan) I'm wondering if they ever had as much TV exposure as WB, or MGM cartoons. Anybody know if they did? They were (from what I once heard) briefly syndicated in the late 50s, possibly along with Hanna-Barbera's Ruff and Reddy. I've heard that the cartoons showed up infrequently durring the 60s on local stations. The characters are better known through the DC comic book based on the cartoon series. Those who liked the comics would probably like the cartoons, The Fox and Crow was possibly the most faithful comic book adaptation of a cartoon series ever done.

The last time a Fox and Crow cartoon may have been shown on TV was on Nickelodeon's "Welcome to Wienerville" program. The last three Fox and Crow cartoons were made by UPA, and Nick briefly had the UPA package. Only one has ever been released on video, "Robin Hoodlum."

Cartoon Network does have some Columbia cartoons, they own Hanna-Barbera's "Loopy De Loop" series, which (even though it doesn't look it) actually was a theatrical series. Columbia recently restored all but 20 of thier color cartoons for TV syndication, but no one in the U.S. has bought the package yet. They don't seem to care about thier B&W cartoons, unfortunately.


Jack:bosko:

[Joe Tully]

Originally posted by KimPossibleFan
I don't understand how so many people think it's a crime for disney to want to keep their characters.

Warner Bros. owns their characters they DONT let any company use them in a public domain. or if it seems that way its because the other company has to buy rights....


but disney is tighter with their characters. Still Disney created them they should be able to own them.

As it's been said, Disney is the exception, in that they are still using their characters, though mostly for merchandising rather than actual works such as cartoons, comics, etc. There are a handful of cases of well-known characters still in use, but there are many more lesser-known characters, and their works which are mostly unshared with the public. You can't just look at the argument for one or the other, you have to look at the whole picture. While there are some arguments against (the Disney characters, the Looney Tunes, and maybe a few more such as Betty Boop who still has a decent amount of merchandise and Woody Woodpecker who had a new series a few years back) there are many more cases of the works just sitting in a vault (many of the Terrytoons, UPA, Lantz cartoons, and more, though some have been released somewhat obscurely on video). Of course, these arguments can be made with live-action works as well, with the evidence for each side being approximately proportionate.

[mbaker]

Personally, I'd like to see certian characters used in more works instead of just being limited to merchandising.

[Joe Tully]

Originally posted by mbaker
Personally, I'd like to see certian characters used in more works instead of just being limited to merchandising.

Yeah, I think most people feel that way, but merchandising counts if you want to count a company's use of the characters, and you have to take that into consideration when considering the case fairly for everyone involved, corporations and consumers. Though the Disney characters have House of Mouse and the Kingdom Hearts game, if you want to count that. The Looney Tunes have that new movie, Duck Dodgers, the Baby series and video games. But, again, I feel that this is little compared to the case against extending the limit.

[mbaker]

It just depends on what it is. I do have my opinions, but you did give me alot to think about though.