Copyright Expiration: Good or Bad?

[DrNewGod]

Mickey Mouse is about to be fair game for anybody interested in producing a CGI porn flix.

Okay, that's extreme. However, if social media should have taught us anything, it's that The Worst Actors will make The Most Egregious Use out of any opportunity to do Horrible Things with changes intended for the better.

Also, I am not fan of Corporate Fatcats owning Other People's Ideas forever. But, there are some cultural icons that are about to lose any (admittedly thin) protection from any interpretation.

(Personally, I find him annoying, but) Mickey Mouse is generally perceived as a positive figure that many love. Is it a good thing to let just anybody deliver an interpretation? There could be legit artistic merit in something edgy with MM; does that mean everything should be on the table?

Alternatively, should independent creators be free to make Superman an undocumented immigrant to the US, raised by Venezuelan farmers, with his views (that might be closer to S&S' original vision) shaping up everything about him?

[Frobisher]

Put it this way - can you name anything bad about it?

[Mister Mets]

I think copyright extension is bad.

The main purpose of patents is to provide financial rewards to creators. The current system goes way too far (Honestly, 40 years should be enough before something becomes public domain.)

Will some jerks do gross stories with Mickey Mouse? Sure, but they could do the same with Abraham Lincoln, Tom Sawyer and Jesus Christ.

[Farealmer]

I think copyright extension is bad.

The main purpose of patents is to provide financial rewards to creators. The current system goes way too far (Honestly, 40 years should be enough before something becomes public domain.)

Will some jerks do gross stories with Mickey Mouse? Sure, but they could do the same with Abraham Lincoln, Tom Sawyer and Jesus Christ.

Not to mention many of those things could be done under parody(like porn) even without public domain. This thread just seems like the standard pearl clutching that happens whenever something big goes public.

[useridgoeshere]

Aren’t companies successfully using trademark law to avoid any negative impact from copyright expiration? Like, just because a character or work goes public domain, you still can’t do much with it because someone owns a trademark that gives them control in perpetuity.

[DrNewGod]

Put it this way - can you name anything bad about it?

Um. I did?

[Angilasman]

Good.

Being in the public domain hasn't stopped multiple restorations and releases of Buster Keaton's films. It hasn't hurt Dracula or Ebenezer Scrooge. If Disney wants to still make money off Mickey Mouse they should make really good new Mickey Mouse stuff.

[Frobisher]

Um. I did?

You gave hypothetical situations where there may be usages that do not appeal to everybody, which is something that already regularly happens under copyright.

[Chris Lang]

I'm not a big fan of copyright extensions. I'm honestly surprised Disney and company didn't lobby for another copyright extension the way they did twenty plus years ago with the Bono Copyright Extension Act. When they did that, a number of people considered Disney hypocrites, since Disney regularly drew on public domain sources for its feature films, from Snow White to Mulan. And Steamboat Willie, Mickey Mouse's first cartoon, drew from another source as well: It was a parody of 'Steamboat Bill'.

All art is imitative. Sure, George Lucas created the Star Wars galaxy, with its Jedi Knights, Sith Lords, Rebel Alliance, Galactic Empire, droids, bounty hunters, and so on, but he didn't just create it out of whole cloth. He drew from all sorts of other works that came before: Sci-fi adventure serials like Flash Gordon, martial arts dramas, war movies, mythology, and so on. The argument against Disney seemingly buying perpetual copyright on the installment plan is that it causes would-be creators of new works to be walking on eggshells around copyrights, worrying that they might get in legal trouble for their works being too similar to a copyrighted work.

Of course it makes sense for Disney to be protective of Mickey Mouse, given his association with a wholesome, family-friendly image and his being the company mascot. But just the same, it should be all right to do obvious parodies of Mickey.

As for the copyright expiration, I'd honestly be surprised if right off the bat, we got a horror film called Mickey Mouse: Blood and Cheese. Winnie the Pooh was one thing, but I think Mickey is STILL protected under trademark.

Aren’t companies successfully using trademark law to avoid any negative impact from copyright expiration? Like, just because a character or work goes public domain, you still can’t do much with it because someone owns a trademark that gives them control in perpetuity.

Trademark and copyright are similar, but not exactly the same. Disney still has the trademark on Mickey Mouse, so they'll be able to keep making lots of money off of him.

Also, I think the current copyright expiration only applies to 'Steamboat Willie', and Mickey's image has changed a lot since then. 40's Mickey Mouse, 50's Mickey, 60's Mickey, 70's Mickey, and so on look a lot different from the version that appeared in Steamboat Willie, so people would still get in legal trouble if they were to use THOSE versions of Mickey as they're still copyright-protected.

[James Cameron]

It is absolutely a good thing!!!! "Protection from interpretation" is complete gobbly gook.

[Gaastra]

Mickey Mouse is generally perceived as a positive figure that many love.

Early "scrapper" mickey was a jerk who tortured animals to make music and tried to force minnie to kiss him against her will and shot bad guys dead. Not the "nice" mickey he is today!

With that said pd could give us good things. Heck most of disneys movies are from pd books! It could also give us trash like pooh blood and honey and Pinocchio's revenge.

In the right hands we could get a great fantasy family animated movie about scrapper mickey that's well done.

Or we could get this trash--

[DrNewGod]

...I'm honestly surprised Disney and company didn't lobby for another copyright extension the way they did twenty plus years ago with the Bono Copyright Extension Act...

Interesting point. Makes me wonder a bit if Iger, et al. have concluded that Mickey and his gang have run their course as revenue generators and aren't worth the fight to hold exclusivity.

[Angilasman]

Intersting public domain thing: whoever owns the rights to the classic Laurel & Hardy silent movies has been sitting on them for decades, but now, as they fall into public domain in waves year by year they're getting proper restorations and being released.

In a few years movies like Frankenstein and King Kong will become public domain. If Universal and WB want to still make money off of them, well, they own the original elements so they can do the best possible restorations, which they'll still own, and if they make them easily available then poorer quality public domain prints will have little value.

[Scott Taylor]

To me, this is an interesting question because it brings in the why of copyright in the first place. Seems it has to do with money. No one should be able to just take your ideas for free and make money off them, not while you are still actively making many off of them. This is the reason there are copyright lawsuits, it has to do with money. The intent, to me, is to allow people to pick up a dead brand and revive it. And reap the benefits of doing that, of course.

Disney and Mickey Mouse is far from a dead brand.

So with stuff like the mouse, it brings up Disney and their money-making machine. The end of that copyright allows anyone to basically mooch off of the brand. Which is not the intent, I don't think. I could see there being some gray area where people are doing artistic expression in some obvious way that doesn't mooch, and that should be allowable any time. But in the case of the horror film, its mooching. IMHO, of course. And I think thats wrong. As long as the brand is still viable for Disney, its wrong.

[Frontier]

Stop turning children's properties into horror.