Will we see another copyright extension in 2018?

[Antonio the Sixth]

"Intellectual property" is a horrible concept that needs to die.

An opinion generally professed by those whose ideas don't warrant copyrighting.

Yes, I'm generally in support of the interest of those who don't own capital (whether physical or cultural) over those who do. That's socialism for you.

[John Dule]

"Intellectual property" is a horrible concept that needs to die.

An opinion generally professed by those whose ideas don't warrant copyrighting.

Yes, I'm generally in support of the interest of those who don't own capital (whether physical or cultural) over those who do. That's socialism for you.

Give it time. Maybe someday you'll have an original thought that you'll want to take credit for.

[Dr. MB]

copyright is a stupid concept

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

copyright is a stupid concept

What about people like writers and artists who need this for their livehood?

[Dr. MB]

copyright is a stupid concept

What about people like writers and artists who need this for their livehood?

I'm not against selling your work or anything. I am against people who sue the sh!t out of anyone who vaguely reproduces it.

[John Dule]

copyright is a stupid concept

What about people like writers and artists who need this for their livehood?

I'm not against selling your work or anything. I am against people who sue the sh!t out of anyone who vaguely reproduces it.

... so copyright isn't a stupid concept.

[The Mikado]

Megabump as once again we are about to celebrate Public Domain Day in the USA as everything made in 1926 enters the public domain.

This thread's knee-jerk cynicism is so misguided. People really, really underestimated how Congress' basic bias is to never pass any significant legislation ever.

[darklordoftech]

People really, really underestimated how Congress' basic bias is to never pass any significant legislation ever.

People think Congress does whatever its donors want rather than doing nothing out of principle.

[The Mikado]

The late 19th/early 20th century law of "28 year term with opportunity to renew for another 28 years" for a grand total of 56 years was probably the optimal solution we ever hit on. Even tagging on a third optional renewal term to bring the total up to 84 would've been fine, as most people with things that no one uses anymore wouldn't opt to renew the first time and DEFINITELY wouldn't the second time so only really productive things 56 years out would get a third term.

If I could wave a wand that'd be the structure I'd pick. Third term would have a much higher fee than the second, under my system. Say, first renewal would be a fee of $5,000, enough that any work that had totally lost steam 28 years after publication would just default to public domain but anything anyone was still using wouldn't. Second renewal would be a fee of $50,000, and most works 56 years after publication just wouldn't be worth that, but the works of really talented and prestigious artists would. 84 years after publication even those would be public. Seems fair for just about everyone and accomplishes the goal of having, like, 90-95% of things that are essentially worthless enter public domain relatively early where other people can adapt them and turn them into actually valuable things again.

[politicallefty]

I'm not against the idea of copyrights, but current law has been absurdly perverted and changed by corporate interests that it basically only serves the rich and powerful now. It has nothing to do with protecting intellectual property. It has everything to do with protecting corporate profits.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Trademarks are different things to copyright. All Disney would loose is the royalties for publishing Steamboat Willie, not the use of Mickey as a trademarked figure for their own purposes.

So when expiry on the first batman comics run out, you can start printing, selling and scanning them online without harm, but you wouldn't be able to start selling Batman merchandise.

Can you explain that better? That did not make sense to me.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Megabump as once again we are about to celebrate Public Domain Day in the USA as everything made in 1926 enters the public domain.

This thread's knee-jerk cynicism is so misguided. People really, really underestimated how Congress' basic bias is to never pass any significant legislation ever.

You say that, but in 2018 Congress passed a huge reform to copyright for musical recordings, which previously had a very vague patchwork of state laws regarding to the public domain - that's why this year will see a huge backlog of pre-1923 music being suddenly made available. (100 year long durations though for pre-1946 music, with 115 year long copyrights for 1946-56 music and not much clarity for music from 56-72).

Trademarks are different things to copyright. All Disney would loose is the royalties for publishing Steamboat Willie, not the use of Mickey as a trademarked figure for their own purposes.

So when expiry on the first batman comics run out, you can start printing, selling and scanning them online without harm, but you wouldn't be able to start selling Batman merchandise.

Can you explain that better? That did not make sense to me.

Copyright applies for a work (and its expression as an idea) So Disney owns a copyright for the animated short Steamboat Willie, meaning they have the exclusive right to publish, copy and make derivative works based on Steamboat Willie. (Note this does not automatically mean everything mickey related will be in PD - when say the first Batman comic's copyright expires, this does not mean that The Dark Knight will also be free!)

A trademark is a specific branding for individual logos, words and icons that can pretty much be renewed indefinitely (i.e. until it remains profitable). For example, though Tarzan of the Apes is public domain as its copyright has expired, the Edgar Rice Boroughs estate has a trademark on the name "Tarzan" so their lawyers will jump on you if you, say, write a derivative book with "Tarzan" in the title (as more and more of these franchises start falling into this grey area, I imagine more definitive precedent will be set, but this has been the modus operandi of quasi-public domain stuff like Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes and The Wizard of Oz). The issue rationale behind trademarks is consumer confusion - a hack animation studio can't just slap a mouse logo on their work to deceive customers into thinking it's Disney, nor can you mass manufacture merch with Batman on it without lawyers descending.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

"Intellectual property" is a horrible concept that needs to die.

An opinion generally professed by those whose ideas don't warrant copyrighting.

Yes, I'm generally in support of the interest of those who don't own capital (whether physical or cultural) over those who do. That's socialism for you.

Stephen Foster and several other nineteenth-century musical figures died in penury because of their lack of any legal entitlement to make money from their own work. Framing actual writers and artists (as opposed to the vultures at Disney or Viacom) as capitalists for purposes of this issue strikes me as a serious mistake.

[If my soul was made of stone]

"Intellectual property" is a horrible concept that needs to die.

An opinion generally professed by those whose ideas don't warrant copyrighting.

Yes, I'm generally in support of the interest of those who don't own capital (whether physical or cultural) over those who do. That's socialism for you.

Stephen Foster and several other nineteenth-century musical figures died in penury because of their lack of any legal entitlement to make money from their own work. Framing actual writers and artists (as opposed to the vultures at Disney or Viacom) as capitalists for purposes of this issue strikes me as a serious mistake.

There's a real lack of nuance in this discourse that belies the actual views of working artists and those opposed to corporate orthodoxy. We now live in the era of Creative Commons, GNU, and so on, alternatives to standard intellectual property laws that stray from the zero-tolerance greed and litigiousness advanced for creative works by the least creative people imaginable while still requiring just attribution and protecting the original creative intentions of the work (preventing it from being co-opted by someone else into Big Intellectual Property). I think that both extremes are the work of those without regard for creators in this time where we refer to "content" and "content creators" in the most dehumanizing terms possible, and there's working proof that another way is viable. Protecting the interests of creators and the interests of those who consume and reinterpret their work doesn't need to be as mutually exclusive as the post-Sonny Bono world insists it is.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"Intellectual property" is a horrible concept that needs to die.

An opinion generally professed by those whose ideas don't warrant copyrighting.

Yes, I'm generally in support of the interest of those who don't own capital (whether physical or cultural) over those who do. That's socialism for you.

Stephen Foster and several other nineteenth-century musical figures died in penury because of their lack of any legal entitlement to make money from their own work. Framing actual writers and artists (as opposed to the vultures at Disney or Viacom) as capitalists for purposes of this issue strikes me as a serious mistake.

1. Well that sure is a necropost.

2. You know full well that I'm not in favor of anyone living in poverty, artist or not, so it should be obvious that financial compensation wasn't what I was talking about.

[Starpaul20]

Bumping this just to say that no copyright extension has come and as of today Steamboat Willie is public domain.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thank goodness there doesn't seem to be any appetite in Congress for another extension. Rare W for the deadlocked dysfunctional state of American politics, I guess.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Here's the thing: Steamboat Willie is now public domain, and the likeness of Mickey Mouse in that...but that's not the likeness Disney uses in their current branding.

This is what Mickey Mouse looks like in Steamboat Willie:


That's quite different from the current likeness used on Disney licensed merchandise and products. One can now print and sell T-shirts or other merchandise with that likeliness of Mickey Mouse on it, but that's still recognizably different from official Disney merchandise.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Thank goodness there doesn't seem to be any appetite in Congress for another extension. Rare W for the deadlocked dysfunctional state of American politics, I guess.

I don't think you can attribute this to deadlock though, because as deadlocked as Congress is right now and all that, there was really no push from Disney to extend again anyway. In fact I recall hearing there was a report some anonymous Disney executive admitted that they made a choice to not do this for fear of backlash. People are now much more plugged in to this sort of thing now than in 1998, and the bad press Disney would get would be quite the PR blow. Look at what happened with SOPA about a decade ago.

And Disney is already making Republicans angry, this is really a fight they couldn't win.

Also it's kind of a myth that Disney got the 1998 extension passed. They supported and lobbied for it sure, but it was really due to pressure from Europe which extended copyrights in 1993, to avoid having works be public domain in the US and not Europe, there hasn't been an EU extension of copyrights since then, so thus no need for another extension on those grounds.

[Goldwater]

Unfortunately, probably so.

Man, this guy is bad at predicting things.

[The Mikado]

Thank goodness there doesn't seem to be any appetite in Congress for another extension. Rare W for the deadlocked dysfunctional state of American politics, I guess.

I don't think you can attribute this to deadlock though, because as deadlocked as Congress is right now and all that, there was really no push from Disney to extend again anyway. In fact I recall hearing there was a report some anonymous Disney executive admitted that they made a choice to not do this for fear of backlash. People are now much more plugged in to this sort of thing now than in 1998, and the bad press Disney would get would be quite the PR blow. Look at what happened with SOPA about a decade ago.

And Disney is already making Republicans angry, this is really a fight they couldn't win.

Also it's kind of a myth that Disney got the 1998 extension passed. They supported and lobbied for it sure, but it was really due to pressure from Europe which extended copyrights in 1993, to avoid having works be public domain in the US and not Europe, there hasn't been an EU extension of copyrights since then, so thus no need for another extension on those grounds.

There's also a bunch of companies with vested interests in wanting more things in the public domain now, most notably Google. "Big corporations" are split on this issue in a way they weren't in 1998.