I think this may be one reason why Disney has been making the new Mickey shorts, with Mickey looking very much like he does in the films that would fall into public domain. They want to be able to demonstrate that they are still using Mickey, "old-fashioned" appearance and all, in current works.
The Public Domain is for the growth of human ideas and the sharing of stories & knowledge...
It's NOT for specific Characters, Cartoon or otherwise. Superman, Batman, Spider Man, Mickey Mouse, Donald duck... aren't they protected as "Trade Mark Characters" of their current company/owners/Disney/DC/Marvel Anyway? What would they add to the world being in the realm of the public domain? And if Disney's Snow White etc... falls into the public domain and it means we can make re-mixes of it using that animation & footage etc, or whatever, & they can't sell the film anymore so what? None of this nonsense is what the Public Domain is about or what it was for.
This documentary linked above does a good job of explaining what the Public Domain is for, the reasons why we should champion it, and why copyright should effectively be limited to a 25 year period after the creation or the patient is filed, and make that the limit to the period of profitability & exclusivity. But this stuff is for Design Patients & Programing Patents & things that people can then use & expand on to create new things. This is the reason why the current issues with Copy Right & the Public Domain should be address, FIXED & not F***ed with. It's not about some stupid cartoon mouse character created in 1928, or Superman or whatever else...
That's a good argument, Matthew, but it only looks at one side of the story. The reason things like characters should fall into public domain isn't that the public should do whatever they want with them. It's so the corporations won't keep working with the same characters forever and ever and will come up with new ones instead. And this is very related to Mickey Mouse and Superman. These are both characters from the early half of the 20th century whose popularity eclipses that of new characters that would otherwise take their place.
GW, Yes, if we were simply talking about the ideals of promoting a life cycle of constant new creations & new creative growth in every aspect of society (even in something as inane as animation or art), then I would completely agree on the notion that we need the ability to let these characters go and let their franchises die, retire, etc...
Yet the reality of behemoths like DC, Marvel, Disney, and the Capital & Currency based Society that we choose to sit upon, is that this will not happen. They WILL continue to utilize characters like Batman, Spider-man & Mickey Mouse "FOREVER"... as long as they continue to be profitable characters that become icons & brands for merchandise, TV-Shows, etc. These characters have become the safest option because of their creative legacy, their popularity was built over Decades and potentially spans generations of consumers. On top of that those characters come without the limited life span of the flesh and blood humans who created them. Their creations can potentially live on for millenia.
So to be clear & honest with you, I don't think laws like Copyright or Patent Law should jeopardize themselves simply by trying to include these abstract character creations.
I love Animation and creations like Micky Mouse as much as anyone on this planet could, but you have to be in two minds about such things. And in the mindset of creating a Public Domain and Laws that create fairness, openness and promote learning & new developments... Characters like Mickey are, in plain terms, "just some stupid cartoon mouse". They're not worth renewing a patent on a human or crop genome, or some miraculously useful design or a piece of code or program that could, if in the public domain, potentially save/help/make/better millions of things.
... I think we need to accept that we need to separate the context of an abstract individual character creation from things that have real meaning and purpose to the world. Things like Inventions, Stories and Ideas. These things belong in the Public Domain and should never be kept locked up for reasons of profit & exclusivity. But as for fictitious characters, they belong purely in the context of Imagination & Creations for the purpose of Fictitious Entertainment & Promotion. Most likely they too will die or be replaced over a long enough period of time, so please keep your Talking Mouse or Invincible Man, because there will be many more where they came from...
I'm going to take a stab at reading between the lines and say that part of the reason you don't want copyright to apply to characters is because you're worried that the corporations will keep pushing for copyright renewals. You figure it's not worth the effort so you'd rather forego copyright applying to characters.
GW, here's a link to my closingThoughts on The Public Domain, Copyright & Personal Ownership. If you'd like to help rationalise those thoughts any better than the attempt I've left here, you can contact me via that tumblr. If not, then no worries & thanks for the interesting exchange.
Mr Mayerson likewise, if you have anything to add or comment please do, otherwise all I can say is thanks for writing about this topic and I hope you find something of value in what I’ve said.
November 05, 2013 10:10 AM
[Image]
Timothy B. Lee, writing in the Washington Post, has an excellent summary of the evolution of copyright in the United States. In a little over 5 years from now, assuming the copyright law isn't changed, works will once again begin to fall into the public domain. However, it is likely that major corporations such as Disney will be heavily lobbying to extend the length of copyright once again. Lee suggests that the existence of the internet, which rallied to kill the Stop Online Piracy Act, may be a countervailing force.
"The big question now is whether incumbent copyright holders will try
to get yet another extension of copyright terms before works begin
falling into the public domain again on January 1, 2019.
"For now, Hollywood is staying mum; a spokesman for the Motion Picture
Association of America declined to comment on its plans. We weren't
able to find any sign the topic has come up on Capitol Hill. But most of
the experts we spoke to said the stakes are so high that a renewed
lobbying push is almost inevitable.
"'If Hollywood and their allies want to do this, they're going to have
to start doing it now,' says Chris Sprigman, a legal scholar at New
York University. "I would imagine there are discussions going on."
Sprigman predicts a debate over term extension over the next five years
will look very different than it did in the 1990s. "People are paying
attention," he says. "There's a coalition now" that's likely to oppose
longer terms."
(Link via Mark Evanier)
posted by Mark Mayerson at 10:10 PM on Oct 26, 2013
"The Coming Copyright Battle"
7 Comments -
I think this may be one reason why Disney has been making the new Mickey shorts, with Mickey looking very much like he does in the films that would fall into public domain. They want to be able to demonstrate that they are still using Mickey, "old-fashioned" appearance and all, in current works.
October 28, 2013 12:41 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
October 29, 2013 1:04 AM
The Public Domain is for the growth of human ideas and the sharing of stories & knowledge...
It's NOT for specific Characters, Cartoon or otherwise. Superman, Batman, Spider Man, Mickey Mouse, Donald duck... aren't they protected as "Trade Mark Characters" of their current company/owners/Disney/DC/Marvel Anyway? What would they add to the world being in the realm of the public domain? And if Disney's Snow White etc... falls into the public domain and it means we can make re-mixes of it using that animation & footage etc, or whatever, & they can't sell the film anymore so what? None of this nonsense is what the Public Domain is about or what it was for.
Take a look at the documentary "Everything Is a Remix
This documentary linked above does a good job of explaining what the Public Domain is for, the reasons why we should champion it, and why copyright should effectively be limited to a 25 year period after the creation or the patient is filed, and make that the limit to the period of profitability & exclusivity. But this stuff is for Design Patients & Programing Patents & things that people can then use & expand on to create new things. This is the reason why the current issues with Copy Right & the Public Domain should be address, FIXED & not F***ed with. It's not about some stupid cartoon mouse character created in 1928, or Superman or whatever else...
October 30, 2013 12:23 AM
That's a good argument, Matthew, but it only looks at one side of the story. The reason things like characters should fall into public domain isn't that the public should do whatever they want with them. It's so the corporations won't keep working with the same characters forever and ever and will come up with new ones instead. And this is very related to Mickey Mouse and Superman. These are both characters from the early half of the 20th century whose popularity eclipses that of new characters that would otherwise take their place.
October 31, 2013 7:26 PM
GW, Yes, if we were simply talking about the ideals of promoting a life cycle of constant new creations & new creative growth in every aspect of society (even in something as inane as animation or art), then I would completely agree on the notion that we need the ability to let these characters go and let their franchises die, retire, etc...
Yet the reality of behemoths like DC, Marvel, Disney, and the Capital & Currency based Society that we choose to sit upon, is that this will not happen. They WILL continue to utilize characters like Batman, Spider-man & Mickey Mouse "FOREVER"... as long as they continue to be profitable characters that become icons & brands for merchandise, TV-Shows, etc. These characters have become the safest option because of their creative legacy, their popularity was built over Decades and potentially spans generations of consumers. On top of that those characters come without the limited life span of the flesh and blood humans who created them. Their creations can potentially live on for millenia.
So to be clear & honest with you, I don't think laws like Copyright or Patent Law should jeopardize themselves simply by trying to include these abstract character creations.
I love Animation and creations like Micky Mouse as much as anyone on this planet could, but you have to be in two minds about such things. And in the mindset of creating a Public Domain and Laws that create fairness, openness and promote learning & new developments... Characters like Mickey are, in plain terms, "just some stupid cartoon mouse". They're not worth renewing a patent on a human or crop genome, or some miraculously useful design or a piece of code or program that could, if in the public domain, potentially save/help/make/better millions of things.
... I think we need to accept that we need to separate the context of an abstract individual character creation from things that have real meaning and purpose to the world. Things like Inventions, Stories and Ideas. These things belong in the Public Domain and should never be kept locked up for reasons of profit & exclusivity. But as for fictitious characters, they belong purely in the context of Imagination & Creations for the purpose of Fictitious Entertainment & Promotion. Most likely they too will die or be replaced over a long enough period of time, so please keep your Talking Mouse or Invincible Man, because there will be many more where they came from...
November 01, 2013 12:55 AM
I'm going to take a stab at reading between the lines and say that part of the reason you don't want copyright to apply to characters is because you're worried that the corporations will keep pushing for copyright renewals. You figure it's not worth the effort so you'd rather forego copyright applying to characters.
November 03, 2013 6:45 PM
GW, here's a link to my closingThoughts on The Public Domain, Copyright & Personal Ownership. If you'd like to help rationalise those thoughts any better than the attempt I've left here, you can contact me via that tumblr. If not, then no worries & thanks for the interesting exchange.
Mr Mayerson likewise, if you have anything to add or comment please do, otherwise all I can say is thanks for writing about this topic and I hope you find something of value in what I’ve said.
November 05, 2013 10:10 AM