An Apple patent expiring doesn't allow people to using Apple logos. My point is that Mickey Mouse is a trademark. Mickey Mouse has been copyrighted for nearly a century - more than most human lifetimes But I was responding to the OPs point about how they believed copyright should behave rather than how it currently does. his modern appearance won't be public domain once Steamboat Willie enters it. > Note that you can't use elements still under copyright, e.g. It wasn't created to encourage creating creative works because people used to do that long before the printing press, eg by passing stories down by word of mouth.
Later it was used like patents where authors could recover the costs of publishing before those stories became free for the masses. Originally it was intended to prevent scandalous pamphlets rather than promoting creative works. > Copyright's only base for existence is encouraging creating creative works after all.Ĭopyright is an English invention and the purpose of it has evolved multiple times over the years. You're setting different standards for different people. I might dislike Disney as an org but I also don't think it's fair to say it's "creative" for other people to use that asset but not "creative" for Disney to reuse it. Which is what is happening if these types of characters are covered under trademark law (I wasn't sure if that was the case when I made my earlier post). So there is some sense in companies protecting that asset. > Why not? Maybe it will encourage creativity and corporations will be forced to create new things.īecause Mickey Mouse is an icon, a mascot, a trademark, and one that is in active use in new media. However it doesn't add anything to this particular discussion. This is a philosophical point and one that would be fun to debate in the pub over a pint.
Nobody is culturally a creator, merely a transformer.
I fully agree there needs to be a copyright reform that works for consumers, but it should be applied equally for everyone and not have some rules for one company but Disney has a different set of rules "because they're bad". We cannot and should not make specific exceptions for specific companies because we do not like them. > Disney got content from it, it profited from it, and now it must, in my opinion, give back. > It's actually especially egregious with Disney too, since their business model to no small degree is grabbing a piece of popular culture and transforming it into a Disney product, the company we know today wouldn't be anywhere near what it is without public domain to begin with. So I agree with your statement but not really sure how it applies (or even adds anything) to the discussion. Nothing we create is done so in a cultural vacuum. > Characters (any creative work) are not created in a cultural vacuum.
I wasn't claiming it to be a perfect comparison but rather than illustration of how IP is complicated and how a single piece of work might have multiple different strands of IP against it. Oh there will be loads of subtle differences. > There is a crucial difference between a voice and a character here. You can just assume I'd agree to all the other points about how "Disney is evil" etc because I've made those exact same points myself in other conversations in the past (eg ) However there is a difference between published works (like the 1920s cartoon exampled above) and a mascot that is a trademark and still in common use (like Mickey Mouse). I don't like nor agree with how Disney extend copyright. I don't like nor agree with how Disney 'steal' public domain stories. I'd love to hear whyĮdit 2: there seems to be some confusion about my statement above.
Likewise for actors vs TV shows.Įdit: getting downvoted but no explanation why people disagree. I look at like how a song might be in public domain but that doesn't mean the singers voice is. However original media like the 1920s Mickey Mouse cartoon "Steamboat Willie", absolutely should. I think it is unreasonable to ask for iconic characters like Mickey Mouse, who still see regular content, to fall into public domain because they've become more analogous to a trademark (Mickey Mouse might even be trademarked?).