Public Domain

[leebase]

Of course people violate copyright, but there would it would be far different without copyright. Or, perhaps you are attempting to make the case that there would be no financial harm to Disney if anyone could create Mickey Mouse content?

And yes, if there had been perpetual copyright, or any copyright, then Disney would have had to NAME it's stories differently. Princess in the Woods instead of Snow White.

[Calenorn]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

And this is the issue. What if Tolkien had started suing everyone who used the words Hobbit and Halfling? It really would come down to someone who was aggressive and willing to push the envelop. As we have seen with patent law, even the threat of a lawsuit will cause people to back off. Very few authors or publishers would be willing to risk a lawsuit given the small amounts of money involved for most works.

The earliest iterations of Dungeons & Dragons, long before it became big business, included Hobbits and Balrogs. Until they were sued by the Tolkien estate.

[MarjaE]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Of course, in the US, copyright is part of the US Constitution and you would need a Constitutional amendment to make the scheme you favor legal.

It's permitted by the constitution, for a limited duration, for specific purposes. The limited duration was originally 14 years after publication, with the option to re-apply for another 14 years. That clause went out the window with the retroactive extensions.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by MarjaE

That clause went out the window with the retroactive extensions.

And without a constitutional amendment, I might add.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by leebase

Of course people violate copyright, but there would it would be far different without copyright.

I was arguing against your specific example: "Or right porn using Disney Characters. While it's obvious the great harm Disney would incur..."

I don't think it would cause great harm. And parody is not considered copyright violation.

Or, perhaps you are attempting to make the case that there would be no financial harm to Disney if anyone could create Mickey Mouse content?

If Mickey fell into the public domain, Disney would lose some money, sure. But that's not a good argument for eternal copyright protection.

And yes, if there had been perpetual copyright, or any copyright, then Disney would have had to NAME it's stories differently. Princess in the Woods instead of Snow White.

You seem to be changing your tactics. Your initial repeated point was: "It's not obvious at all as to why society needs stories about Mickey Mouse that aren't created by Disney."

Disney would have had to do quite a bit more than change the name to avoid copyright violation. Particularly with The Sorcerer's Apprentice and Pinocchio.

I think Snow White, Fantasia and Pinocchio are landmarks in the art of animation and society is better off for them having been created.

Many of the great ballets (Swan Lake, The Nutcracker, Giselle, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Sleeping Beauty) are derivative works. Shakespeare probably didn't write A Midsummer Night's Dream thinking it would make a corker of a ballet.

The point is, just because you in your infinite wisdom can't see what good might come from a character entering the public domain doesn't mean no good thing would ever come of it.

[leebase]

You are presuming that without the ability to copy, Disney and others couldn't create plays. I say they certainly could. And while society gets fiction either way, the copyright holder has a lot to lose in income.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by leebase

You are presuming that without the ability to copy, Disney and others couldn't create plays. I say they certainly could.

Sure they could. They just wouldn't have created stories with the immediate recognition of the fairy tales they used to build their empire.

Why has Disney been cannibalizing their film library for live action remakes rather than creating new original works? Because there is obviously value in the nostalgia associated with the existing story.

[Calenorn]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Why has Disney been cannibalizing their film library for live action remakes rather than creating new original works? Because there is obviously value in the nostalgia associated with the existing story.

Or, I don't know, because they are creatively dead?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Look, I don't mean to drag the conversation down, but there already exist porn 'parodies' that use copyrighted names.

Also, there's Wally Wood's Disneyland Memorial Orgy poster.

So it could likely be done now if there were interest. And honestly, what harm would occur? What confusion would there be? It's ludicrous.



Using that logic, why does society need stories about Snow White not created by The Brothers Grimm, stories about Pinocchio not created by Carlo Collodi or stories about The Little Mermaid not created by Hans Christian Andersen?

Goethe should have held on to The Sorcerer's Apprentice, so no music by Paul Dukas, no Fantasia by Disney, no revival of Mickey's popularity.

If not for public domain, very little of our modern society would exist. There would be little music, literature or movies because very few works isn't based on something else.

A fairly substantial piece of Star Wars was lifted from The Hidden Fortress. The Magnificent Seven was a straight lift from the Seven Samurai. The spagetti western Fistful of Dollars was inspired by Yojimbo and actually lost that copyright infringement case. Changing the names and making it a western rather than a samurai movie didn't help them.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Calenorn

Or, I don't know, because they are creatively dead?

I've learned long ago that just because there are remakes of movies, Hollywood isn't 'out of ideas.' Remakes have existed forever and aren't a bad thing.

A Fistful of Dollars, Scarface, The Maltese Falcon, The Thing, The Departed... There's a long history of remakes.

Now Disney remaking their own movies is a cynical cash-grab. It would be hard to say it isn't. But the studios aren't creatively dead.

[lumpynose]

My gripe is for books when the original creator dies, the copyrights are retained for much too long. When the author dies I wish the books could be made public domain for non-commercial use (e.g., posting on Project Gutenberg), then if the heirs/copyright holders want to make money from it with Hollywood they can.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

If not for public domain, very little of our modern society would exist. There would be little music, literature or movies because very few works isn't based on something else.

A fairly substantial piece of Star Wars was lifted from The Hidden Fortress. The Magnificent Seven was a straight lift from the Seven Samurai. The spagetti western Fistful of Dollars was inspired by Yojimbo and actually lost that copyright infringement case. Changing the names and making it a western rather than a samurai movie didn't help them.

It sounds like you are arguing with my post when you and I seem to agree.

You could stand to use some better examples though. Star Wars did borrow from The Hidden Fortress (and Dune), and Fistful of Dollars was copyright infringement. So public domain had nothing to do with either.

The Magnificent Seven was a remake of The Seven Samurai, so again, not public domain. Oh, and fun fact: a less... official remake of The Seven Samurai was done by Roger Corman. Check out Battle Beyond the Stars some time.

[graycyn]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Interestingly, mandatory deposit of copyrighted books to the library of Congress is still the law in the US. There is no teeth to the law and it's not a requirement for copyright protection, but it exists. In theory, at least, the Library of Congress should have any work copyrighted in the US, however, I'm pretty sure they don't actually keep copies of everything.

Curious, I assume this also applies to books published as ebook only? What do authors do, submit the file online or send in a USB stick?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

And without a constitutional amendment, I might add.

As long as they can point to a time limit, then it's not unlimited, and thus doesn't require a constitutional amendment. One can argue that we have gotten to the point where there is no practical limit, but really it comes down to who are the judges on the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court stretched the Commerce clause way past any rational defense to uphold FDR's power grabs. Many times there is a definite political component to various Supreme Court decisions. Very few people would agree that growing corn for your own conception is interstate commerce, yet that's what the Supreme Court decided so they wouldn't have to overturn FDR's regulations.

This is, of course, the fallacy of unilaterally declaring that no judge or jury would decide something a certain way. You never know what a judge and jury will decide is persuasive. There are many "novel legal theories" (i.e. lawyers trying to stretch the law to get the outcome they want) that end up being accepted.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Sure they could. They just wouldn't have created stories with the immediate recognition of the fairy tales they used to build their empire.

Why has Disney been cannibalizing their film library for live action remakes rather than creating new original works? Because there is obviously value in the nostalgia associated with the existing story.

Correct - and that value should go to the creator and his or her heirs. New authors should write new material....or license the rights from the creator of old material.