Copyright

When will Mickey enter the public domain?

Who cares, there has never been a good Mickey Mouse cartoon

Fuck off, the recent shorts are superb.

oh yeah? did you form that opinion after watching every fucking mickey short?

Once Disney's lawyers lose their ability to sue for an extension of copyright retention.
So, not in the foreseeable future.

Yeah
Disney shorts have never been as funny as Looney Tunes, they've never been able to go the distance in terms of comedy, animation wise they tend to be the best at what they do when they put in full effort but they've never been really all that funny, which is the point of such shorts

December 16, 2036.
According to international copyright law, the estate can retain the rights to a work for up to 70 years after the death of the creator.
Though, I wouldn't be surprised if they did find a loophole, like you said.

Disney were the people that extended it twenty years, in the US Copyright used to be fifty years.

>Disney shorts have never been as funny as Looney Tunes
If you compare the newer Mickey shorts to Wabbit you may be surprised.

Copyrights should be 35 years max.

Probably never

In 2024 Popeye will fall into the public domain.
If his rights don't get renewed Geendy can make his dream movie without Sony interference.
It's public domain already in Europe.

copyright should not exist, everything should be in public domain for the benefit of humanity. Why should technology and art serve the wealthy few and not the entire world?

when greedy ***s die

>70 years
wew
#FUCKOPYRIGHT
fuck Jizzney and their 'muh monee, muh monee morals, muh copyrite'

copyright is shit, just a way for GRAND COMPANIES to get billions $$$ while making life of other ambitious people bad
this

Copyright originally was ment to protect the author, But companies will always found ways to take advantege of loopholes or just loobying to retain ownership of their intelectual property.

I think it was meant to stop CP, but it gone wrong.

property is theft, theft!

better discuss copyright on /his/
unspooked?

Or /lit/, since there's a lot of debate about certain literature not being released into public domain.
It might even be possible to get support for abolition of copyright on the ghosthouse that is Sup Forums by framing it as "supports freemarket :^)".

piracy is sometimes free advertisement, but **** are blind and hate it

When Disney loses the lobbying power to extend the copyright length.

I prefer mickey mouse as a disney property instead of a shit character that will be exploited by the chinese market like a fucking 10 years old kid. people are just mad because of that deadmau5 faggot.

when Jewsney dies.
t. shill

actually it used to be 25 in the first place, which was when Disney first extended it to 50

then to 70
money corrupts and kills sometimes

When modern society collapses and man's law becomes meaningless.

>implying Chinese give a shit about copyright

With jews you lose

Disney is still very much actively using their creative property. If it was a character like Felix who had been lost in the ages, then yeah I'd say he belongs to the public. But Mickey is pretty much everywhere you look in the Disney company.

Current copyright is LIFE+75
So if it was gonna happen by those rules, it would be around 2041.

Never, because he's trademarked.

Which makes Disney's continuous push for unlimited copyrights such a joke.

sadly is true, from tumblr ,deviantart, and etc.

Copyright is meant to protect the author's rights in the near term, while legally granting media into the Public Domain to enrich the culture.

For the record, under today's copyright laws Dracula would not have entered Public Domain until the mid to late eighties.

Copyrights need to exist during the life of the author if nothing else, simply because their absence ruins artists entirely. Why bother writing or drawing when a large company will simply copy it and stomp you into the dirt?

Disney has got teams of international lawyers and lobbyists working around the clock to get the law changed to a longer time. They had a very big hand in the TPP and the TTIP.

They're one of the nastiest companies around today, everyone who actually lives in Florida hates them

>get rid of copyright
>artist creates something that gets modestly popular
>Disney makes a movie based on it and makes millions while the creator gets nothing

but atleast we can make bootleg mickey mouses without issue

Someone should dox these lawyers and publish their home addresses/phone numbers.

>>If his rights don't get renewed Geendy can make his dream movie without Sony interference.
mite b kool

That's a false dichotomy, user. Stopping the absurd telescoping of a "reasonable" period of time an owner can profit of an invention does not mean abolishing all intellectual property protections.

The original idea is that copyright was a special protection to reward and encourage innovation and then things would return to the public domain which is the natural place for things. Now the public domain is just a no-man's-land where nobody could manage to get their mitts on the stuff.

I was only countering "copyright should not exist"

The capacity it exists in needs to be reduced, but removing it entirely would be idiotic over-correction.

The basic premise of copyrights is to ensure that old creative works move into the PD to encourage the creation of new ones and prevent artistic stagnation.

I don't understand

Disney created Mickey yes? Why can they not be the deciders of how Mickey is used

Literally doesn't matter because Disney has the trademark for almost everything Mickey related so even if the character goes into the public domain you could never package or market anything with Mickey on it because that would infringe on their trademark.

And as long as they're enforced trademarks never expire.

A lack of any copyright protection means that EVERYTHING is in the public domain so your statement isn't true.

I think what you mean is that copyright-protected works eventually falling into the public domain is an important aspect of the system that has been willfully distorted.

I think he was lying about seeing every Mickey short

>I think what you mean is that copyright-protected works eventually falling into the public domain is an important aspect of the system that has been willfully distorted.

Correct.

Also true. All it really means is that old Disney material from the 1930s-40s would be PD.

Copyright's meant to incentivize creators to create by giving them a certain period where they have a monopoly on their ideas.

However these days it just incentivizes estates to cling to the IPs they have and new creations are a rarity.

Cause Disney passed away long ago

What I mean is it still belongs to the Disney company? Or his descendants?

Why do people care about getting access to Mickey? Can they not make their own hit cartoon/mascot etc.

>Why do people care about getting access to Mickey?

No one does. They're more concerned about other things that should be public domain but aren't because of the law. If Disney had made it so that only their mascots weren't PD but allowed for other people's stuff to go into PD, there would be less of a debate. Instead Disney became part of the problem and Mickey Mouse became the symbol of the problem instead.

It's not specifically about the mouse. It's more the fact that because of these actions the next time anything will enter the public domain will be 2019. Basically nothing published after 1923 has entered the public domain thanks in large part to Disney.

Basically, Disney is able to make insane amounts of money off of the public domain while contributing nothing to it.

50 years after the disney corporation dies or not use the mouse

>the next time anything will enter the public domain will be 2019

IF Disney doesn't try to push it back again like they have, I think it's been several times now?

>IF Disney doesn't try to push it back again like they have,
Disney doesn't care until their time comes up.

Once Mickey enters the public domain, do you think there will be an attempt to shorten the time it takes for something to enter public domain instead of lengthen it? So that companies like Disney can try to for example, have the MGM Wizard of Oz movie enter public domain faster so that they can capitalize on it sooner? Or will they want it to stay as it is now so they can hold onto some of the IPs from after Mickey a bit longer?

discuss it on /his/

>Why do people care about getting access to Mickey?
Because really good stuff comes out of borrowing from and adapting older works

read: the golden age of Disney

>disney's success is based off of taking shit from public domain
>they do everything they can do fuck it over

Well Disney still has the trademark for Mickey Mouse. So they would still have some sort of claim to the character.

The stuff that would be in public domain would be the early stuff, and not everything. Like say they allowed the Mickey cartoons before 1930 to go into public domain. Then that means they can't use Pluto. Or say Golden Age Superman comics from 1938 to 1955 went into the public domain this year. It'd mean you can use Luthor, Ultra-Humanite, Mxyzptlk, Toyman, and Prankster, but not the Legion of Superheroes, Supergirl, or Braniac. So I'd think that Disney would try to bring out more stories and stuff to add to their version of Mickey that can't be used.

bump

honestly I'm starting to think Copyright and Trademarks were a horrible mistake, at least in the form we have

>And as long as they're enforced trademarks never expire.
Trademarks really should also have an expiration date

It's not a horrible mistake. The problem is with any new idea you can't always forsee how far it'll use. Copyright and trademarks should still be in place but within reasonable use.

They aren't a mistake, it guarantees that the original creator and his/her family have some kind of revenue while he is still alive and some years after he dies, but extending that time from 25 to 75 years is complete bullshit.

Don't you have a blog for this, John?

>thinking about animating goofys trial
>remember how nazi disney is
>abandon all ideas for it

>So why is Disney fighting so hard to keep these—minor, probably public domain—cartoons still in copyright(ish)? Because of what happens after "Steamboat Willie" enters the public domain. Have a gander at the Disney filmography. If "Steamboat Willie" unambiguously enters the public domain in 2018, then in 2027, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves joins it there. Things putter along for another decade (Pinocchio and Fantasia, 2030; Dumbo, 2031; Bambi, 2032; The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, 2039) but in 2040, we get to Cinderella and after that, it's pretty much a major feature film every year: Alice in Wonderland in 2041, then Peter Pan, Lady and the Tramp, Sleeping Beauty... Every year, a new major movie that anyone can sell, remix, or build a ride around—assuming they can navigate the trademark issues.

95 years for corporate things

I think 25 years, plus a one time extension for rightsholders of 25 years is fair enough.

comically most of those things are based on public domain stories

>assuming they can navigate the trademark issues.
And that's the key. Disney is already protected by trademark (which is totally fair,) but they're intentionally destroying copyright to fight a part of the social contract that they don't want to play along with.

Disney doesn't own those stories. Disney owns their specific imagery.

Trademarks expire when they're not in use. This is fine since as long as you're making use of a symbol you can lay claim to it. But if you aren't, it should be able to go to people who can make use of it.

>So I'd think that Disney would try to bring out more stories and stuff to add to their version of Mickey that can't be used.

And this is what is supposed to happen.

>TTIP
Never heard of this one, what is this?

Pretty much TTP cept between the US and the Eurozone and some greater controls on Digital Commerce (Parts of the failed SOPA and such making their way into it.)

Both pretty dead now with the elections of populists to office though.

Trademarks aren't exactly an air tight deal either. Most litigation, especially for IP laws, is done with bullying and knowing that no other group save for the trademark holder is likely to want to use the property or would be capable or willing to go to court for it.

A few years ago Edgar Rice Burroughs' estate sued a comics company over their John Carter comics in regards to the trademark of the John Carter and Tarzan characters. Apparently the cover art used did not depict John Carter and Tarzan in a way that ERB estate approved of. The first couple of novels for the characters are in the Public Domain, but the characters themselves are protected by Trademarks, which is why you don't see all new stories about them without ERB estates say so.

The case was settled out of court, with ERB estate actually taking away Disney's license to the series and giving it to the comic company. It was doubtful that the estate could have won the case any way, since how could they would have to prove that the depictions of the characters diluted the brand. It's much easier for a company to make these claims when the trademarked character is a mascot or defacto logo for their company however.

It would be interesting to see what kind of arguments would have been made for the Tarzan/John Carter trademark case though. The thought at the time was that the comics company would win the suit.

I know its offtopic, but it kinda amazes me that companies are that desperate to hold onto the extra buck that far in the future while there are so many people that can't be bothered to give a fuck about the future of the environment.

Literally never

Then go to fucking China is you genuinely believe this.

>Both pretty dead now with the elections of populists to office though.

Don't be too sure, a lot folks in Trump's administration are pro-TPP.

A trade deal that would of made my country more prosperous, but idiots who couldn't manage their own economies squashed it.