Something good from Republican feud with Disney?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Dec 10, 2005
21,784
3,667
126
No one that created Mickey is still alive. Disney is no longer owned by the Disney family. They have gotten their value out of Mickey, it's time for him to enter the public domain. Disney itself is the perfect example of why stories should enter the public domain, almost no one would know the story of Snow White, Little Mermaid, Cinderella, etc without Disney. All stories pulled from the public domain.

Also it isn't all of Mickey that's about to enter the public domain, only the original Steamboat Willie. So modern versions are still protected.

Do you think the Wright aircraft company should still have exclusive rights to build aircraft?
Mickey will still likely be protected due to the fact that it is a registered trademark of Disney, and that has no expiration. So that could impact the ability of independent people to make derivative works specifically of Mickey (and his depiction in old cartoons)

However, society would still greatly benefit by having old materials enter the public domain for redistribution or creating other derivative works. And anyone would be able to distribute or sell the public domain Mickey cartoons (regardless of trademark status).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
11,629
6,070
136
Mickey will still likely be protected due to the fact that it is a registered trademark of Disney, and that has no expiration. So that could impact the ability of independent people to make derivative works specifically of Mickey (and his depiction in old cartoons)

However, society would still greatly benefit by having old materials enter the public domain for redistribution or creating other derivative works. And anyone would be able to distribute or sell the public domain Mickey cartoons (regardless of trademark status).
I don't think that style Mickey is Trademarked, but might be. Either way you could make him look different, but still have new "Mickey Mouse" stories.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
58,708
6,901
126
Mickey will still likely be protected due to the fact that it is a registered trademark of Disney, and that has no expiration. So that could impact the ability of independent people to make derivative works specifically of Mickey (and his depiction in old cartoons)

However, society would still greatly benefit by having old materials enter the public domain for redistribution or creating other derivative works. And anyone would be able to distribute or sell the public domain Mickey cartoons (regardless of trademark status).
if an "artist" has to depend on existing works to be creative...maybe they need to find some other job, because that doesn't sound very creative to me.
Why should ANYONE have the right to materials created by someone else?

Why not make a law similar to this that applies to real property? You bought or built your house, but you only have ownership of it for 26 years (or 75 years) After that, it becomes public domain and anyone can live there without your permission or paying you for the privilege.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
53,765
6,259
126
if an "artist" has to depend on existing works to be creative...maybe they need to find some other job, because that doesn't sound very creative to me.
Why should ANYONE have the right to materials created by someone else?
There would be no modern Disney without them depending on existing works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
53,765
6,259
126
BUT, AFAIK, they bought those works...or at least bought the rights to use them.
They couldn't buy the rights to Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Aladdin, Beauty & the Beast, The Little Mermaid, etc, as they were already public domain.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,681
10,652
136
I'm not against shortening copyright protection. But I'm against this bill. Because our legislature is not supposed to pass laws to politically retaliate against private individuals or corporations.

Josh Hawley is a shit stain. Probably his parents are or were shit stains. And if he has kids, they'll be shit stains too. All he is doing here is puffing himself up like a peacock for his and Trump's brain dead cultist followers. That should never be the purpose of legislation. Legislating is not a performative act, and it should never be a punitive act.

It's corrupt right from the get go since he is trying to punish a specific company, and for that reason, it needs to fail, or it opens the door for more deplorable behavior of this kind. We should not be passing laws to punish our political enemies. Yet another basic norm of democracy flushed down the toilet by the far right. Brick by brick, we're losing our democracy.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
58,708
6,901
126
They couldn't buy the rights to Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Aladdin, Beauty & the Beast, The Little Mermaid, etc, as they were already public domain.
I don't really follow this stuff, but were those ever copyrighted before they became public domain?
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
58,708
6,901
126
I'm not against shortening copyright protection. But I'm against this bill. Because our legislature is not supposed to pass laws to politically retaliate against private individuals or corporations.

Josh Hawley is a shit stain. Probably his parents are or were shit stains. And if he has kids, they'll be shit stains too. All he is doing here is puffing himself up like a peacock for his and Trump's brain dead cultist followers. That should never be the purpose of legislation. Legislating is not a performative act, and it should never be a punitive act.

It's corrupt right from the get go since he is trying to punish a specific company, and for that reason, it needs to fail, or it opens the door for more deplorable behavior of this kind. We should not be passing laws to punish our political enemies. Yet another basic norm of democracy flushed down the toilet by the far right. Brick by brick, we're losing our democracy.
No argument from me. Disney is getting kicked in the nuts for speaking out...in violation of their first amendment rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
53,765
6,259
126
I don't really follow this stuff, but were those ever copyrighted before they became public domain?
Irrelevant, really, because your argument was:
if an "artist" has to depend on existing works to be creative...maybe they need to find some other job, because that doesn't sound very creative to me.
Why should ANYONE have the right to materials created by someone else?
Regardless of whether they had been copyrighted in the past, Disney still created those based on existing works, and so is apparently not very creative to you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dlerious

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
58,708
6,901
126
Irrelevant, really, because your argument was:

Regardless of whether they had been copyrighted in the past, Disney still created those based on existing works, and so is apparently not very creative to you?
No argument there, but what IS relevant is how they obtained the material. If they legally obtained it, then fine, they can do whatever they want with it...within any legally binding agreement...if any.

Hollywood hasn't been very "creative" with truly original content in a long time. Look at all the movies and TV shows that are just reboots and remakes of stuff that's been outfor decades. As long as the content creators are appropriately compensated...it doesn't matter. ( well, from a consumer, it matters to me because I get tired of the same old crap, over and over, and over again.)
 
Dec 10, 2005
21,784
3,667
126
if an "artist" has to depend on existing works to be creative...maybe they need to find some other job, because that doesn't sound very creative to me.
Why should ANYONE have the right to materials created by someone else?

Why not make a law similar to this that applies to real property? You bought or built your house, but you only have ownership of it for 26 years (or 75 years) After that, it becomes public domain and anyone can live there without your permission or paying you for the privilege.
Should we throw Sherlock Holmes in the garbage because it's inspired and somewhat derivative of a Robert Lewis Stevenson's Suicide Club novella? Creativity breeds creativity, and as you may notice, many works are inspired or derivative of older stories, rehashed in a new context or with new twists.
 

Oyeve

Lifer
Oct 18, 1999
21,324
457
126
I'm no fan of disney but they should up and leave that shithole state and open up shop elsewhere. Just another 200,000 floridians on the welfare system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
19,775
6,495
136
I'm no fan of disney but they should up and leave that shithole state and open up shop elsewhere. Just another 200,000 floridians on the welfare system.
New Mexico maybe. Fed gov owns so much land (White Sands) there might not be enough of a large tract to acquire. Water is probably another bugaboo.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
11,629
6,070
136
if an "artist" has to depend on existing works to be creative...maybe they need to find some other job, because that doesn't sound very creative to me.
Why should ANYONE have the right to materials created by someone else?

Why not make a law similar to this that applies to real property? You bought or built your house, but you only have ownership of it for 26 years (or 75 years) After that, it becomes public domain and anyone can live there without your permission or paying you for the privilege.
How do you feel about patents expiring? Why is it different?
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
11,629
6,070
136
Irrelevant, really, because your argument was:

Regardless of whether they had been copyrighted in the past, Disney still created those based on existing works, and so is apparently not very creative to you?
We also wouldn't have Splash Mountain without derivative works.

By Boomer's standard even the works they bought the rights show they aren't creative because they had to pl use someone else's ideas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
11,629
6,070
136
Should we throw Sherlock Holmes in the garbage because it's inspired and somewhat derivative of a Robert Lewis Stevenson's Suicide Club novella? Creativity breeds creativity, and as you may notice, many works are inspired or derivative of older stories, rehashed in a new context or with new twists.
And isn't Sherlock in the public domain? Which has allowed all of the movies and shows to exist with many different takes.

Schools can do Shakespeare because it's in the public domain. By Boomer's standard someone should still be profiting off Shakespeare's writing. Even if that mean they decided to put it into a "Vault" and refuse to let anyone ever see it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511
Dec 10, 2005
21,784
3,667
126
And isn't Sherlock in the public domain? Which has allowed all of the movies and shows to exist with many different takes.

Schools can do Shakespeare because it's in the public domain. By Boomer's standard someone should still be profiting off Shakespeare's writing. Even if that mean they decided to put it into a "Vault" and refuse to let anyone ever see it.
Yes, some Sherlock Holmes is public domain; a few later stories are still protected. I just brought it up because it's not wide public knowledge that such a famous story and character piggybacked off a novella of another famous author.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba

ASK THE COMMUNITY