Copyright law

[raidermatt]

The Supreme Court has decided to hear the case.

Bloomberg article

Perhaps the Supreme Court is bored?

 

[Annie&Hallie'sMom]

This has got Disney (and others) in an uproar.

 

[JimB.]

I really don't know the legal aspects of the case. I remember the law being passed a few years back & thought it was appropriate.

I really don't know how or why someone should have a right to use someone else's copywrighted intellectual property WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION, regardless of the time frame involved. I'm not real sure about where the Disney "classic" movies enter into this arguement. I'm sure that will be argued in court (i.e., did Disney pay to use Peter Pan, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, etc., etc. ad nauseum............ or were these stories already in the public domain??)

I for one, would be very disappointed to see the law allow someone to use someone else's trademark or characters for personal (or most likely, financial) gain, especially if used in a manner inconsistent with the original intent. For example, (in a worst case..........) would this allow Mickey & Donald & Goofy to begin to appear on the cover of Porno Flicks?? Or how about Rhett & Scarlett showing up in the latest version of the "Tomb Raider" video games?? Or the depiction of someone wearing a NY Mets baseball jersey shooting up a schoolyard for of kids in some really bad movie someplace?? Or how about "Rhapsody in Blue" being used in a TV Ad without proper compensation (Or has that already been done............. Hmmmmmm??? )

 

[raidermatt]

Jim- Here's my understanding. Copyright and trademark law are two different things. Copyright applies to books, drawings, movies, music etc. For everything but books, current U.S. law is 75 years from creation. For example, Mickey Mouse was created in 1928, so the copyright runs out in 2003. I'm not sure when Gone With the Wind and Wizard of Oz were made, but their copyrights will also run out soon. Congress voted to extend the timeframe by 20 years. The law has been upheld in Appeals courts, but no teh Supreme Court has agreed to hear it. (For books, the protection goes from 50 years after the death of the author to 70 years)

I don't think many, and possibly none, of the stories Disney used would have been affected by the copyright extension. Still, just as their copyright on Mickey Mouse would be extended, so would the copyrights of everybody else's work. Its a level playing field.

Certainly Disney would benefit from this law, but they are hardly alone. Talking movies will be coming into play over the next 10 years, and movies like Gone and Wizard could become public property.

A trademark, on the other hand, is a symbol or phrase that a company uses as its identity. These do not expire. Disney MIGHT be able to use trademark law to protect Mickey Mouse, but I doubt they could pull it off with Donald Duck, Goofy, etc.

So unless something can be protected as a trademark, once its copyright expires, it can be used by whomever wants it. In the case of Mickey Mouse, he could be used for rat poison commercials, porno films, other amusement parks, etc. If you wanted to make your own Mickey Mouse t-shirt and sell it, you'd be free to do so, regardless of what Disney thought of its quality or appropriateness.

 

[Sarangel]

(i.e., did Disney pay to use Peter Pan, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, etc., etc. ad nauseum............ or were these stories already in the public domain??)

Disney paid the JM Barry estate for rights to Peter Pan. Cinderella, Snow White, and Sleeping Beauty are all fairy tales originally collected by Charles Perrault in the 1600s, so they were and are fair game (actually, there are 'cinderella' stories from all over the world and as far back as 60 BC - an Egyptian version).

Similarly,

I'm not sure when Gone With the Wind and Wizard of Oz were made, but their copyrights will also run out soon.

These movies were both made in 1939 - what can I say, it was a good year for movies.

As for how this all affects the copyright issue (she says vainly trying to keep this on subject), the fact that Disney has primarily used stuff in public domain should make life easier for them.

Sarangel

 

[YoHo]

I thought Snow White Was Brothers Grimm?
Still they would be public domain.

 

[JeffH]

Another thing not handled well.
TMs and CRs should be based on whether the 'product' is still active in the market.
The whole idea behind the expiration is to allow others to continue a concept after it has been 'used'. But if a concept is still active (public stories being written based on the concept (Return to Neverland), public attractions still are running based on the concept(Peter Pan's Flight), or aspects of the concept still 'appear' in public (characters).
The expiration should be short, so when a concept is abandoned it can be picked up by some one else.
It's really sad to think of all the money the Pooh people have made, and it is disgusting how they sue for more, because Disney took a dead concept and nurtured it into what it is today.
Disney should be awarded 100% of the rights and court costs, in my opinion.
And by 'public', I mean that an honest (and somewhat successful) effort be made to market the concept, not just some glossing over to keep the rights.