Copyright is now extended to 70 years after the death of the author/originator/painter etc. The extra 20 years on top of the original 50 came from Germany to compensate for the Nazi years and has now been generally adopted.
However, if one is a big corporation it seems that this can be extended. Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse and died a little over 70 years ago, but as I understand it they have managed to get the copyright on Mickey Mouse extended.
My personal opinion is it should be no more than 15 years, similar to patents.
The current situation produces two scenarios.
Old authors such as Shakespear, Elliot, Dickens, the Brontes, Austen et. al tend to get done to death. Mind you this particular bunch would probably stand on their own, but I hope it makes the point.
The other is that stories still in copyright get sat on, for whatever reason. In the authors life time, and if it their choice fine. But up to 70 years, or more, after their death?
Anyone else care to make any observations:?:
70 Year rule - any thoughts?
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
70 Year rule - any thoughts?
New web site and this is cine page http://www.picsntech.co.uk/cine.html
-
MovieStuff
- Posts: 6135
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
- Real name: Roger Evans
- Location: Kerrville, Texas
- Contact:
Re: 70 Year rule - any thoughts?
Disney did not die in 1933.wahiba wrote: Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse and died a little over 70 years ago, but as I understand it they have managed to get the copyright on Mickey Mouse extended.
However, you are correct that the Disney corporation lobbied congress here to extend the protection on Mickey Mouse, which was actually due to lapse recently.
Roger
-
Actor
- Senior member
- Posts: 1562
- Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:12 am
- Real name: Sterling Prophet
- Location: Ohio, USA
- Contact:
Disney died in 1966.
In the U.S. it's 95 years, not 70.
http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm
As it stands now everything that is copyrighted in the U.S. will remain so until Dec 31, 2018. I fully expect Congress to extend the term before then. It now seems to be the intention of Congress to get around the "for limited times" clause in the Constitution by incrementally extending copyright terms ad infinitum. Flying in the face of all logic the Supreme Court has supported them in this.
To most Americans the length of copyright terms is not a high priority, making it something Congress feels safe in selling to corporate contributors.
I have talked to a lot of people who seem to feel the copyright in perpetuity would be a good thing. "What's good for Disney," to paraphrase General Bullmoose, "is good for the U.S.A." I've even heard the argument that there should not be a public domain; that everything should have a copyright holder somewhere.
Q. But who would hold the copyright on, say, the works of William Shakespeare?
A. His descendents, provided they could be located.
Q. Who would pay for the search for his descendents?
A. Persons who believed themselves to be descendents of Shakespeare would have to present their proof to the courts and they would pay.
Q. Who would challenge them?
A. Other claimants, provided there were any.
Q. Wouldn't this present an enourmous case load for the courts?
A. At first, but it would work itself out.
Q. Wouldn't this dissuade people from producting Shakespeare's plays for fear that a claimaint might come out of the woodwork and challenge them?
A. That too would work itself out.
Q. What if descendents could not be identified? For example, surely it would be impossible to identify the present day descendents of Homer?
A. In that case the copyright would be held by the government.
Q. Meaning that anyone who wanted to produce The Iliad would have to pay royalties to the government?
A. Exacty.
God, I hope this idea does not catch on.
In the U.S. it's 95 years, not 70.
http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm
As it stands now everything that is copyrighted in the U.S. will remain so until Dec 31, 2018. I fully expect Congress to extend the term before then. It now seems to be the intention of Congress to get around the "for limited times" clause in the Constitution by incrementally extending copyright terms ad infinitum. Flying in the face of all logic the Supreme Court has supported them in this.
To most Americans the length of copyright terms is not a high priority, making it something Congress feels safe in selling to corporate contributors.
I have talked to a lot of people who seem to feel the copyright in perpetuity would be a good thing. "What's good for Disney," to paraphrase General Bullmoose, "is good for the U.S.A." I've even heard the argument that there should not be a public domain; that everything should have a copyright holder somewhere.
Q. But who would hold the copyright on, say, the works of William Shakespeare?
A. His descendents, provided they could be located.
Q. Who would pay for the search for his descendents?
A. Persons who believed themselves to be descendents of Shakespeare would have to present their proof to the courts and they would pay.
Q. Who would challenge them?
A. Other claimants, provided there were any.
Q. Wouldn't this present an enourmous case load for the courts?
A. At first, but it would work itself out.
Q. Wouldn't this dissuade people from producting Shakespeare's plays for fear that a claimaint might come out of the woodwork and challenge them?
A. That too would work itself out.
Q. What if descendents could not be identified? For example, surely it would be impossible to identify the present day descendents of Homer?
A. In that case the copyright would be held by the government.
Q. Meaning that anyone who wanted to produce The Iliad would have to pay royalties to the government?
A. Exacty.
God, I hope this idea does not catch on.
I must admit I always thought Disney died more recnetly than 70 years ago, so why all the fuss now about Mickey Mouse copyright?
As for perpetual copyright. It really depends on the EU, where, for all practical purposes the majority of out of copyright material originates at present. It actually strikes me as one of those ideas that would backfire. If everything were copyrighted then a lot of people would say stuff it and ignore all copyright. Trying to police that lot would make the war on drugs look like a tea party.
Note: my attitude to drugs is if people want to shove crap down themselves then they should be free to do so, but be prepared to suffer the consequences of their actions. Legalise the lot, including in sport. Would probably kill off, literally, professional sport pretty quickly which as far as I am concerned would be no bad thing.
Sorry, waffling, doing a dobby.....
As for perpetual copyright. It really depends on the EU, where, for all practical purposes the majority of out of copyright material originates at present. It actually strikes me as one of those ideas that would backfire. If everything were copyrighted then a lot of people would say stuff it and ignore all copyright. Trying to police that lot would make the war on drugs look like a tea party.
Note: my attitude to drugs is if people want to shove crap down themselves then they should be free to do so, but be prepared to suffer the consequences of their actions. Legalise the lot, including in sport. Would probably kill off, literally, professional sport pretty quickly which as far as I am concerned would be no bad thing.
Sorry, waffling, doing a dobby.....
New web site and this is cine page http://www.picsntech.co.uk/cine.html
The current copyright terms are prima facie unconstitutional, in that they extend the terms of copyright so far that it violates the intent of the framers (to allow a limited period of time which the Author can profit from the creation, then roll it into public domain for everyone's use and enjoyment). The majority of the Supreme Court, however, really does feel that what's best for Disney is best for Americans.
Public domain is essential to creativity. "There is nothing new under the sun," says the Preacher. This is certainly true under the arts. Without public domain, the creators of "West Side Story" could have been sued by Shakespeare's descendants. Without a public domain, you'd have to pay a license to have Santa visit in your Xmas home videos. You couldn't paint a picture of Jesus, because his image would likely be owned and controlled by a church. There are many more examples.
Ironically, Disney is one of the many companies who profited madly off a public domain. Snow White, Cinderella, etc. - all public domain characters whent he films were created (not now though: Disney owns them).
But to Disney, what they have mined is theirs alone to exploit: try to make a movie based on "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" - a book that is in the public domain (or at least was) - and see how far you get. Or save yourself the trouble and legal fees and ask the creators of the awful "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" movie and ask them why they had to change the name of one character to "Agent Sawyer" and make him unrecognizable as the character of that well-known novel. (Short answer: copyright and licensing give Disney control of the Tom Sawyer character in film. The character does not appear in the comic, though Alan Moore would not have been able to use any of those characters under this copyright law.)
Ironically, Walt Disney himself was guilty of copious intellectual theft. One example: The original Mickey Kouse cartoon, "Stramboat Willie," was ripped from "Steamboat Bill," a Buster Keaton film. The cartoon could not be made today. Even Walt's original script acknowledges the theft, with its cues for the music to the Keaton film (used without license). That's right, I said it: Disney was a thief. Send in the Mouse Police, boys!
The hijacking of copyright is one of the many injustices wrought upon Americans (and the rest of the world) by the corporations who rule us. Connect copyright changes with things like "digital rights management" and you'll see how much of our lives and minds these bastards want to control. Greed will eventually drifve everything into the private domain. Environmental pollution will probably kill us all before the copyright expires on Mickey Mouse.
Public domain is essential to creativity. "There is nothing new under the sun," says the Preacher. This is certainly true under the arts. Without public domain, the creators of "West Side Story" could have been sued by Shakespeare's descendants. Without a public domain, you'd have to pay a license to have Santa visit in your Xmas home videos. You couldn't paint a picture of Jesus, because his image would likely be owned and controlled by a church. There are many more examples.
Ironically, Disney is one of the many companies who profited madly off a public domain. Snow White, Cinderella, etc. - all public domain characters whent he films were created (not now though: Disney owns them).
But to Disney, what they have mined is theirs alone to exploit: try to make a movie based on "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" - a book that is in the public domain (or at least was) - and see how far you get. Or save yourself the trouble and legal fees and ask the creators of the awful "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" movie and ask them why they had to change the name of one character to "Agent Sawyer" and make him unrecognizable as the character of that well-known novel. (Short answer: copyright and licensing give Disney control of the Tom Sawyer character in film. The character does not appear in the comic, though Alan Moore would not have been able to use any of those characters under this copyright law.)
Ironically, Walt Disney himself was guilty of copious intellectual theft. One example: The original Mickey Kouse cartoon, "Stramboat Willie," was ripped from "Steamboat Bill," a Buster Keaton film. The cartoon could not be made today. Even Walt's original script acknowledges the theft, with its cues for the music to the Keaton film (used without license). That's right, I said it: Disney was a thief. Send in the Mouse Police, boys!
The hijacking of copyright is one of the many injustices wrought upon Americans (and the rest of the world) by the corporations who rule us. Connect copyright changes with things like "digital rights management" and you'll see how much of our lives and minds these bastards want to control. Greed will eventually drifve everything into the private domain. Environmental pollution will probably kill us all before the copyright expires on Mickey Mouse.
"I'm the master of low expectations. I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things."â€â€George W. Bush, June 4, 2003
-
Actor
- Senior member
- Posts: 1562
- Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:12 am
- Real name: Sterling Prophet
- Location: Ohio, USA
- Contact:
Disney does not own them. They are still public domain. What Disney owns is the studio's representation of them. E.g., Disney represented Snow White as a teenage girl with dark hair who always wore the same dress. If you want to do your own version of Snow White you can represent her as a redhead in a bikini. Certain aspects of her character are part of the Brother's Grimm (public domain) story and Disney has no exclusive claim to them. For example, she is a princess, she accepts her fate stoically, the mirror on the wall, the queen poisons her, she is awakened by a kiss. All this is public domain. Disney owns only the creative aspects of the story that he and his people added. Leave out all this, go back to the source material and you are free to create your own version.calgodot wrote: Snow White, Cinderella, etc. - all public domain characters whent he films were created (not now though: Disney owns them).
Another example is the seven dwarfs. In the original material they are "seven little people," not necessarily male. The seven names that Disney came up with are Disney property as are their individual personalities. One of the first things you'll have to do with your own version is come up with seven other names such as Limpy, Hotblood, Sugardaddy, Big Dick, One Nut, Threeballs and Horney.
-
Actor
- Senior member
- Posts: 1562
- Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:12 am
- Real name: Sterling Prophet
- Location: Ohio, USA
- Contact:
Because up until 1978 copyright terms were dated from the date the work was first copyrighted or published, not from the date of the author's death. Works which were copyrighted before 1978 still follow that rule. The mouse first appeared in 1928 and was due to become PD this year.wahiba wrote: I must admit I always thought Disney died more recnetly than 70 years ago, so why all the fuss now about Mickey Mouse copyright?
-
Actor
- Senior member
- Posts: 1562
- Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:12 am
- Real name: Sterling Prophet
- Location: Ohio, USA
- Contact:
I just returned from Blockbuster. While there I noticed a non-Disney version of Snow White on their shelves.
Why??? Why people? What are your concerns? Who gives a rats ass?
I must admit, I'm pretty drunk right now and I just wanted to....well, whatever.....why do you care? who gives a shit? copyrights?? come on you guys. what the hell. Why is this a subject on this forum?
SORRY!!!!! if I......hmmm. well well.....
I must admit, I'm pretty drunk right now and I just wanted to....well, whatever.....why do you care? who gives a shit? copyrights?? come on you guys. what the hell. Why is this a subject on this forum?
SORRY!!!!! if I......hmmm. well well.....
Ah, so the Disney bit represents a difference between USA law and the rest of the world. I know there were/are differences regarding patents.
And why is this string on the forum. Film making is an art and copyright is important, even for us little gage people. Also, if it was of no interest no one would have replied.
Anyhow, I thought booze was mega expensive above the artic circle?
Must do the midnight sun bit on the bike one of these days.
And why is this string on the forum. Film making is an art and copyright is important, even for us little gage people. Also, if it was of no interest no one would have replied.
Anyhow, I thought booze was mega expensive above the artic circle?
Must do the midnight sun bit on the bike one of these days.
New web site and this is cine page http://www.picsntech.co.uk/cine.html