Priceonomics:
In 1997, Congress introduced the Copyright Term Extension Act, which proposed to extend corporate copyrights again — this time, from 75 to 95 years. To ensure the bill passed, Disney cozied up to legislators.
Watchdog records show that the Disney Political Action Committee (PAC) paid out a total of $149,612 in direct campaign contributions to those considering the bill. Of the bill’s 25 sponsors (12 in the Senate, and 13 in the House), 19 received money from Disney’s CEO, Michael Eisner. In one instance, Eisner paid Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) $1,000 on the very same day that he signed on as a co-sponsor.
While it is impossible to say for certain whether or not Disney’s efforts directly impacted politics, the results heavily worked out in their favor: the bill quietly and unanimously passed in the House and Senate with no public hearings, no debate, no notice to the public, and no roll call.
On October 27, 1998, Mickey Mouse’s copyright was extended another 20 years, to 2023.
That’s only seven years away. We can look forward to Disney extending the Mickey Mouse copyright again and again with no public oversight or comment.
You have to admit that the idea of Mickey Mouse becoming part of the public domain and open to anyone using him is quite ridiculous. Why should there even be a public hearing or debate about it? Just because something is old, doesn’t mean it’s not relevant or a valuable property that a business would want to protect.
I wouldn’t admit any such thing. Why is it ridiculous?
Let me flip this around. Why is it ridiculous that Disney should not be able to maintain copyright on IP that is as iconic, relevant and current to the business now as it was all those decades ago?
But, as TFA states, Mickey wouldn’t, for practical purposes, be (fully) open to anyone using him due to the numerous trademark registrations which are, assuming prompt renewal, perpetual.
I’m definitely not clear on how copyright, which protects (simplifying for the sake of brevity) things that can be put on paper, extends to all of the myriad physical manifestations that Mickey Mouse has been made to take.
Is it fair/accurate to describe it something like, “Where copyright ends, trademark begins”?
From a more visceral perspective, imagining Mickey in contexts (and there would presumably be many) other than Disney is even more disorienting than when I recently heard the Rebel March as part of a parade on Main Street in Disneyland.
Can you illustrate your point with a known existing example? Is there a precedent?
If something created by (read: assigned to) a company isn’t covered by copyright or trademark, isn’t a patent the only other tool they have to keep things out of the hands of everyone else? Even patents eventually expire (granted, patents have been subject to extensions similar to copyright’s).
Mickey would remain a trademark despite historical depictions of him becoming public domain.
The two are separate.
Let’s not conflate two issues.
First, Mickey-as-character; he’s copyrighted, and even if he wasn’t, he’d also be a trademark protecting him in various uses even without copyright.
Second, the films Mickey appeared/appears in.
The character might be relevant and iconic (which its use as trademark supports), and worthy of continued protection … without meaning that Fantasia never gets to become public domain.
(There’s no legal basis for a difference here, but then again, there’s no real legal argument for keeping copyrights forever other than “Disney would sure like to”.
But then, Disney’s money doesn’t even come from Mickey anymore, does it?
Frozen will be in copyright until kids are sick of it, just like the new Star Wars movie.)
The Constitutional point of copyright is: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive
Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
Note “limited times”.
Isn’t 75 years more than enough to encourage people to create?
You have it backwards. What’s ridiculous is the idea that Snow White or Sleeping Beauty might not have been available as public-domain stories which a certain previous-century company might’ve wanted to adapt into new works. That’s what you’re advocating.
<
blockquote>❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
qm.
➤➤.
➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly…❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦
What you forget is that copyright is an entirely artificial thing, invented to allow a creator a period of time to profit from their creative invention and thereby incentive the creator to share the creation publicly. It was never intended to be perpetual, which is why the US Constitution uses the phrase “by securing for limited Times”.
I have to admit, I’d have no objection to giving by exception Disney whatever copyright they want on Mickey Mouse and his friends. Frankly, it’d be a hell of a lot easier to swallow than extending copyright on everything forever.