[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Ok, let’s change it a bit.

How would you respond if a famous cartoon character you created were used in a campaign to spread the idea that all races are not created equally, and that this cartoon character, Mr. Jingles, advocated the extermination of all non-whites? Would you seek legal recourse to protect your creation? Or would you consider it this racist group’s right to use a character you created to spread their message?

If it were 80 years after the creation, (like M. Mouse is atm), the copyright would have already expired, and more importantly, I would already be dead.
So I really doubt I would care. That said, if copyright were abolished (which I think rather unlikely), there would be fairly little I would be able to do about it, yes. Although I'm not really sure why I would care either.
Anyway, chartering dead people (specifically folk heroes) for whatever ideological point you want to make is something that has been happening since the invention of mythology. Look at the things the church say "jesus would've done", the crusades, the institution of poor houses, schools, condoning people who excommunicate whole families for choosing for abortion, etc. (apologies for the politicization)
All this in the name of the same fellow or faith, and never mind the contradictory uses the mythical person (or my creation "mickey mouse") is put to.

Appropriation of cultural icons is nothing new.

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

However outside of copyright, all works belong to the public domain, which is the vast repository of our collective (human, global) culture. a work which is copyrighted eventually falls into the public domain (barring the endless prolongations of copyright lobbied for by disney et al.), and a work can be released directly into the public domain if the creator so chooses.

the public domain belongs to all of us, and this collective cultural heritage is responsible in large part for defining who we are, regardless of the degree to which we are aware of it.

the people who are arguing in favor of prolonging copyright near indefinitely seem to forget that the ultimate goal of publication is (should be) to enrich the public domain and our collective culture ; otherwise, keep your writings locked up in a little metal box somewhere buried under a tree and don't share them with anyone.

if this seems to be a shocking idea to some, let's not forget that writers also benefit from the public domain and our shared wealth of references and culture, perhaps more than anyone else ; as so many have said before, there is no completely "new" creation, because we are all influenced by the stories that we previously have read, the music we listen to, etc. someone pointed out that for example the harry potter series follows closely the structure of other preceding works of fantasy (i think it was the Lord of the Rings which was mentioned).

the difference between a copyrighted work and a work in the public domain work, practically, is the the public domain work is available to other creators to enrich their own work in ways that copyrighted works are not. some people may shout "thief !" or "plagiarist !" at this notion, but how many of the themes of works made today were not already present in shakespeare's works, or molière, or homer ?

culture builds upon culture (writers build upon the works of the writers who have written before them, and musical genres are all born of the musical traditions which have preceeded them as well), just as science builds upon the advances of all previous scientific work (as daithi said).

the corporations who would like to lock up creations ad vitam aeternam for their sole benefit and profit are doing a grave disservice to the entire population by deliberately impoverishing our collective culture not only of the specific works they control (mickey mouse) but also of the huge mass of works that are accessorily locked up and as a result more and more falling into obscurity and being (practically speaking) lost because they are no longer in print (because it would not be profitable enough for a publisher to pay for the rights) and are therefore not accessible in any way to the public, whereas a work which is in the public domain (say, Pride and Prejudice) can be distributed freely, allowing countless people the intellectual and cultural benefit of discovering it, building upon it, drawing inspiration from it, adapting it, creating new variations of it...

to me, this is argument enough for a radical reform of copyright laws, and it seems to me highly pertinent to this discussion.

Hmm.. better put