This is a frankly infurating framing of the natural end of a copyright literally a human century later
This is a frankly infurating framing of the natural end of a copyright literally a human century later 26 comments
@textfiles And indeed, Disney is still perfectly free to use the (original) Mickey Mouse character if it wants. The only difference is that the rest of us are now, too. @textfiles how so? I'm a bit vague on the details? Is this because Disney extended the life time of their copyright or what? @deavmi @textfiles CBS is framing it like Disney lost some sort of battle and there is an implied injustice in this happening. The truth of the matter is the "Mickey Mouse" copyright laws have been hand crafted by Disney to artificially increase their market dominance when copyright was never supposed to last that long in the first place. @lehi @textfiles what is the copyright validity period in the US versus how Disney extended them to? @deavmi @textfiles According to the Internet, around 1909 there was a revision to the copyright laws that made the base term 28 years, with a 28 year extension available. Since then, well, it's gotten rather messy. Now it's the lifetime of the author plus 70 years. @deavmi@ieji.de @textfiles@mastodon.archive.org To me, it's because the title implies that Disney was wronged, specifically with the word "loses." In reality, that company is already wealthy enough to not benefit from the copyright at all, and it's us who have lost out on all the potential creations we could have made if Steamboat Willie was in the Public Domain earlier. @textfiles And do you know what's worse? Disney will still "own" Mickey Mouse after this. Did you notice that the Walt Disney Animation Studios intro now is just a snippet of the original Steamboat Willie animation? That's on purpose, since trademarks don't expire like copyright (basically as long as they renew it), they can technically still own the original Mickey Mouse even after 2024, just take down anything that uses it as "violations of trademark". At least that's what I understood. @torre you might be happy to know that the Supreme Court strictly and specifically prohibits this tactic: https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/mickey/ "Trademark can not be used as an end run around copyright expiration." @dcfedor Thank you, that's nice to hear. I heard about this "loophole" on a MatPat video on YouTube (yes, I know that sounds stupid), and I guess I was foolish to not do research myself. @torre @textfiles @pluralistic explains well the difference between copyright and trademark on this matter here https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/15/mouse-liberation-front/ @mandugar Thanks, sorry for not knowing this, I just didn't do my own research before posting. How can CBS, an entity generally considered trustworthy, not comprehend the difference between the film and the character...?? Oh, yeah... Clicks. @textfiles always sad to see we're too far gone with corporate propaganda to remember that the end of a copyright term is as important to copyright law as the temporary monopoly granted by it; the whole point of public domain is to celebrate and formalize a work's status as a shared cultural artifact. That's kind of what Mickey Mouse is these days, isn't it? @textfiles and it's right next to a youtube channel reposting british tv without permission. @pluralistic points out that corporations made terrible archivists of cultural artifacts. They often stop art, and other items of cultural significance, from surviving by hoarding it under poor conditions then discarding it later. @textfiles I actually watched the CBS morning show segment and it was pretty good. They interviewed Larry Lessig, and the point that Walt Disney has been using the IP of others for a century was emphasized. Oh no, this means there's going to be mickey branded EVERYTHING next year :(
Disney is such a horrible company and I'd rather not be reminded of their evil, nor expose it to my kid. |
@textfiles
Yeah it's like Kissinger dying in 2023, not really any kind of victory or justice.