A Pretty Panda
fuckin' called it, man
Time to shop around my Conan the Barbarian vs. Sherlock Holmes screen play
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain, American judge rules
- Thread starter Ripclawe
- Start date
- Status
pants
Member
I'm not aware of how this works is this one of those cases of a law for the poors and a different one for Disney?
I THINK that may be a joke.
But if we work under the assumption it's not: frankly, I think Disney has Mickey Mouse NAILED as being their thing, others could try to use him but it just won't be "authentic." Nevermind that as the Sherlock case is showing it'd come out in pieces, his most iconic design would take forever to come into public domain, and the new cartoons won't take until almost a hundred years anyway.
And seriously, think of the long term: who the FUCK is going to care in 200 years about anyone freely using Mickey Mouse? And if we're in that situation to care I have to assume one of two things: someone did an amazing (for that time anyway, may look like trash to us) reinvention of Mickey Mouse people put on a pedestal over others, or Disney somehow managed to REALLY fuck up the copyright system to hold on to it long past the lives of anyone closely related to those who created him and were in Disney at the time. And that latter situation means EVERYTHING'S going to be screwed up and they're stuck with Sherlock Holmes as the newest public domain option for forever.
Another problem with the long term too: ownership rights are undoubtedly going to just get more and more convoluted. You'd probably be facing paralysis re-releasing anything but the very newest, the very oldest, or the most well tracked properties out there. And thus piracy would be more legitimate than it is today by far.
They lobby and get Congress to pass laws allowing their copyrights to be extended again. Still, I question if that tactic will keep working: prior times America was practically the king when it came to pop culture, but that's been rocked, politicians are more inclined to feuding than before (though it would figure they'd band together for shit like this), and other countries like China may look more valuable now to protect their IP in. I guess they could step it up to try to get something to happen globally, but I don't think they could successfully pull things OUT of the public domain at that point so it'd probably be smarter to just cultivate new properties to milk. Or buy them in the case of LucasFilm.
RobotChant
Member
I remember reading that Disney will only lose the copyright to Mickey Mouse but not the trademark. Basically anyone will be able to make Mickey Mouse movies, books, etc, and call it Mickey Mouse. However Disney will still own their design of Mickey Mouse, which will still be trademarked. Other companies won't be able to sell/make knock-off versions of Disney's Mickey.
Beaniedude
Member
I don't quite understand this public domain business.
So after x amount of years they enter public domain and anyone is free to use them?
But then what about Bond or comic books that have been around forever? In 50 years time can everyone start pumping out Doctor Who spin offs? Or are they protected because they are still in regular use?
So after x amount of years they enter public domain and anyone is free to use them?
But then what about Bond or comic books that have been around forever? In 50 years time can everyone start pumping out Doctor Who spin offs? Or are they protected because they are still in regular use?
It's sort of like how Walt Disney made a movie called Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs without ever having to pay the original writers of that story.
Congress keep extending it so that Mickey Mouse doesn't enter the public domain, you can always count on everything made after Steamboat Willie (1928) to still be protected.
They made Jungle Book the year it entered the public domain.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
If this is how it works, I don't understand their reluctance and use of resources to push the date back. Anyway, I'll catch up on this thread tomorrow. It's been an interesting discussion.
RobotChant
Member
There's still a lot of room for creativity with just the copyright even though much of the value is in the trademark. For example, you could make a Mickey Mouse horror series that could damage even Disney's Mickey Mouse by making your new Mickey, creepy, evil and scary to kids. There is also the threat that a new design of Mickey owned by someone else over time could trump Disney's version and become synonymous with anything Mickey related.
Disney: Hello there Senator! I really appreciate the great job you're doing in fighting those (checks notes) ...Republicans, so here's $50. Oh, I see you're up for re-election. Well I wish we could give you more money to help you fight those damn (checks notes again) ...Republicans, but money is tight for us lately. It's this darned copyright business. 300-year copyright just doesn't work. If only someone had the good sense to extend it to 350 years. Then we could totally free up money in our budget to help you fight the good fight. Now if you'll excuse me sir, I still have ten more Senators who I have to visit today.
NekoFever
Member
The copyright on Mickey Mouse wouldn't remove Disney's control over it since the design is a trademark. You'd be legally allowed to sell Steamboat Willie on DVD and make your own character called Mickey Mouse, but you still couldn't do what you like with the Disney character.
It's like how Tarzan is a public domain character and you're free to make your own Tarzan stuff, but this particular instance of him...
...is the property of Disney. You could make a Tarzan animated movie, but using that Tarzan would bring Disney's lawyers to your door.
It's like how Tarzan is a public domain character and you're free to make your own Tarzan stuff, but this particular instance of him...
...is the property of Disney. You could make a Tarzan animated movie, but using that Tarzan would bring Disney's lawyers to your door.
Winterfang
Banned
I'm confused can someone give me a lesson of why Mickey can't be own by Disney?
You can't own an idea.
But artists were starving, historically, so the government said that you can, for a short while, but then it has to become "public" and be owned by humanity. It's a part of our culture, we just agree to keep our hands off it for a while, as a thank-you to the artist.
Thanks to that unnatural level of protection, Disney made a bunch of money by being inspired from the past, and then bribed to have the rules made even stronger so that nobody else can ever be inspired by him. And then his company said that poor old Walt Disney needs to provide for his children, even in death. And not by passing down his money like the rest of us do, oh no, Walt needs to keep on working, like a zombie. Copyright must last at least 70 years past the death of the artist. One would think that if your dad died 70 years ago, that you're probably around 100 years old and should probably start thinking about getting a job sometime soon, but no. That's just not fair to Walt's kids. Zombie Walt must keep on working.
And then they decided to pervert the law even more by having corporations declared as people. The Walt Disney Corporation is a person. He has made all of the Disney movies since that became law. So all the rest of these movies won't become part of human culture until 70 years after a piece of paper "dies", which is really messed up.
If you ask Disney, the only time anyone should be allowed to touch "their" art (which is totally original and not at all based on everybody else's art) is after the last person who might want to do such a thing is dead and buried. If that last person is not you, then your kids. Or the kids of your kids. Disney can keep this up longer than you can. 70 years longer than you can.
Austriacus
Member
Hmm, if i was a writer i wouldnt want random people to use my creations and make money off them. Not because i care about the money i lose while dead, but because i want my descedants to own something that i made that can sustain them.
Its like if someone took my grandfathers company and made it public without my consent or respecting his wishes. I know its not the same thing but he created it and the creator of sherlock holmes, Mickey, etc prob put the same effort in creating their characters. I dont understand how the whole system works but unless the family is not getting something out of the change to public domain it seems somehow cruel to the memory of the creators.
Its like if someone took my grandfathers company and made it public without my consent or respecting his wishes. I know its not the same thing but he created it and the creator of sherlock holmes, Mickey, etc prob put the same effort in creating their characters. I dont understand how the whole system works but unless the family is not getting something out of the change to public domain it seems somehow cruel to the memory of the creators.
I think the children of these people made out okay.
The current limit is enough that your children and grandchildren would benefit from your work. But in the case of Doyle and Disney we are talking about 5th generation descendants probably. There is absolutely no reason they should benefit from the work of a man who died 50 or 80 years ago.
This is a very self-centered perspective to IP. The society as whole benefits from not having large chunks of culture locked up. There are other mechanisms in place for you to transfer wealth to your descendants that do not require preventing others from enjoying nonrival and nonexcludable goods. I recommend reading Boyle - The Public Domain - Enclosing the Commons of the Mind if you are interested in more elaborate rationale for and against IP.
SneakySneaks
Member
About time. My Wide Sargasso Sea-ish story about Moriarty's beginnings will set the literary world on fire (or I'll just make an "official" Sherlock Holmes porno).
Davis_McGee
Member
On this subject we get more annoyed about how the big American studios treat the matter of Peter Pan's copyright. Utterly despicable.
EU copyright is life of the author plus 70 years - enough for the work to be passed through 2 generations of descendents.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Sherlock Holmes is trivially in the public domain, but something being in the public domain doesn't meant that the estate of the author doesn't have a sort of "intellectual" attachment to the property.
They could still have a voluntary licensing program for "Doyle-approved" Holmes works, and they could still ask retailers to voluntarily ask or force those works that are not licensed to be labeled "Unlicensed" or "Unofficial". Of course there'd be no legal recourse if the retailers said no, but the retailers would have a sort of prestige or quality control incentive to say yes.
From my perspective, as someone who would rather greatly greatly reduce copyright lengths and greatly expand fairy use and other exceptions and particularly as someone who would rather take affirmative legal steps to force orphaned works into the public domain, it's always struck me as silly that authors and publishers don't try to use these informal means to help protect their economic case.
Like, Amazon doesn't want to stock 87 different publications of Moby-Dick. Moby-Dick is in the public domain. I could public a new copy today. STUMP PRESS presents MOBY DICK LOL. But Amazon doesn't want to stock every version ever. Among physical versions, they probably want a Penguin classics type cheap entry level version for students, and they probably want a fancier version with annotations and a foreword and afterword and notes and maybe illustrations and whatever. And then they maybe want a few derived works, like a children's book that tells the story in its own words. Plus Amazon doesn't want someone to get 127 different results and not have a clue which is the one they actually want. Too much choice for the consumer is probably going to lower net satisfaction.
And the Melville estate has a vested interest as well in making sure that only faithful, high quality representations of work prosper even if they can't prevent sketchy photocopies from being sold. So the estate would logically work with publishers and retailers even if they have no legal claim, because they have an intellectual one. Likewise, when the book is taught in school, nothing is preventing teachers from making their own course notes, but I'm sure they much prefer getting a teaching package. The bonus is that these new works are subject to a good deal of intellectual property protection, too.
So if I was the Doyle estate here, I'd be reaching out to retailers with a pitch like "There's a lot of unofficial SH junk out there. As the estate, we spend a lot of time vetting products for license to ensure that our name is only going on stuff of a high quality and a limited quantity of new works to keep the product--our characters and locations and stories--from devaluing." and I suspect most retailers would be receptive to enforcing the estate's licensing program.
All of this without any nominal legal protection of the work.
They could still have a voluntary licensing program for "Doyle-approved" Holmes works, and they could still ask retailers to voluntarily ask or force those works that are not licensed to be labeled "Unlicensed" or "Unofficial". Of course there'd be no legal recourse if the retailers said no, but the retailers would have a sort of prestige or quality control incentive to say yes.
From my perspective, as someone who would rather greatly greatly reduce copyright lengths and greatly expand fairy use and other exceptions and particularly as someone who would rather take affirmative legal steps to force orphaned works into the public domain, it's always struck me as silly that authors and publishers don't try to use these informal means to help protect their economic case.
Like, Amazon doesn't want to stock 87 different publications of Moby-Dick. Moby-Dick is in the public domain. I could public a new copy today. STUMP PRESS presents MOBY DICK LOL. But Amazon doesn't want to stock every version ever. Among physical versions, they probably want a Penguin classics type cheap entry level version for students, and they probably want a fancier version with annotations and a foreword and afterword and notes and maybe illustrations and whatever. And then they maybe want a few derived works, like a children's book that tells the story in its own words. Plus Amazon doesn't want someone to get 127 different results and not have a clue which is the one they actually want. Too much choice for the consumer is probably going to lower net satisfaction.
And the Melville estate has a vested interest as well in making sure that only faithful, high quality representations of work prosper even if they can't prevent sketchy photocopies from being sold. So the estate would logically work with publishers and retailers even if they have no legal claim, because they have an intellectual one. Likewise, when the book is taught in school, nothing is preventing teachers from making their own course notes, but I'm sure they much prefer getting a teaching package. The bonus is that these new works are subject to a good deal of intellectual property protection, too.
So if I was the Doyle estate here, I'd be reaching out to retailers with a pitch like "There's a lot of unofficial SH junk out there. As the estate, we spend a lot of time vetting products for license to ensure that our name is only going on stuff of a high quality and a limited quantity of new works to keep the product--our characters and locations and stories--from devaluing." and I suspect most retailers would be receptive to enforcing the estate's licensing program.
All of this without any nominal legal protection of the work.
- Status