It's partly Disney (and the Gershwin estate) but the 56-year term was extended in 1976 to bring the US in line with the Berne Convention life-plus-50 term used in the rest of the world. The current life-plus-70 term originated in Germany, spread to the rest of the EU and then was adopted in the US for "harmonization" with Europe.
Harmonization is not necessarily a bad thing. Pre-1976 US copyright law had some outright bizarre restrictions - a book could forfeit its copyright status if the publisher printed it outside North America and imported it - that we're better off having eliminated. But when everything has to be harmonized, it's rare for anyone to question why the policies we're harmonizing with are in place.
"In 1993, the European Union added 20 years to the term of European copyrights. Under European law, American authors would only enjoy longer copyright terms in Europe if the United States followed Europe's lead and adopted "life plus 70" copyright terms."
I can't really fault Disney for this. Mickey Mouse is one of the most recognizable symbols/brands on earth. The difference between Disney and McDonalds and Coca Cola is that there isn't an expectation we all get unfettered access to use the Golden Arches or the Coke logo. Disney is still making new IP with Mickey Mouse; why should they be expected to give up their rights to their most recognizable character that they're still making things for?
So I'd say this isn't so much the result of Disney, as it is the result of bad legislation and possibly outdated expectations about intellectual property that hasn't been updated to reflect reality.
What I find the most strange aspect of these discussions is: if people hate Disney, why do they want to freely use Mikey and its image? For people who like Disney, it is an advantage that the company is making money out of their creations -- so there will be much more of it. For people who hate Disney, there is no point in watching these movies. So, why getting concerned about this?
While not a solution per se, an alternative exists. If the license for current works are unacceptable, start celebrating other works! Notably, works with a Creative Commons license.
Consequently others can ignore laws and licenses clearly out of line with the reality around them. I often find that to be far more effective in living life than seeking squeaky clean legal alternatives.
We really do only have one go around. I'll buy all the knock-off Mickey Mouse crap I want.
In the EU, we have lifetime plus 70 years. So the first released movie of the Marx Brothers, "Coacoanuts" (1929) will enter the public domain in 2048, since Groucho lived to be 87.
The fairest idea I've come across concerning protecting copyrighted works from falling into the public domain is actually pretty simple: tax exclusivity after the initial 30 years has elapsed. If this tax is non-negligible, companies will be obliged to keep only their best IPs protected and will let everything else fall into the public domain.
The government taxes every other kind of property, so why not IP? Additionally, keeping created works out of the public domain is essentially a tax on the public; this intellectual levy placed on everyone should be balanced by a reinvestment in favor of public interests.
If Disney wants to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain, they should pay a yearly fee to prevent it from becoming public property. They'd more than make up for it with the revenue they garner.
I think that this would also encourage less wasteful use of copyrighted properties.
Not just tax, but TRACK anything that you want to keep protected.
Many books, movies, photos, and other IP instances out there are difficult to track down solid ownership info for. Sometimes the contracts surrounding the IP are so complex as to make it impossible for even a trained IP lawyer to determine who owns what. In some cases even IP claimed by a particular company may not be valid [1].
If there were a national registry that listed who owned what rights to a particular property, and you had to pay to be included (maybe the initial copyright registration pays for the first X years, but after that you have to continue to pay to continue your protection), it could not only clarify who "owns" what, it could list those people who had specific sub-licenses to the property in question, and what the details of their licenses are.
To help combat orphan works, you can throw in one other important requirement: Even if we give them X years (30 or otherwise) for the initial registration requirement, they would also need to keep their contact information current at all times, on pain of losing their registration. If you try the forms of contact and get wrong numbers and returned letters, then you report that fact to the copyright registry, and if THEY can't contact the owners within, say, 60 days, then ALL the copyrights owned by that entity get released.
I know of some properties (old games in particular) that have such confused licensing surrounding them (with companies buying "rights" in large packages and then ignoring them, or the companies closing down with no clear record of who ended up purchasing those particular rights...) that they are languishing in limbo. No one can make a sequel, no one can republish them on new platforms... With a registry, you could look to see WHO is currently paying the upkeep fee, and with the "keep your contact info public" requirement, at least you'd be guaranteed that you'd be able to contact the current rights holder.
One of the effects of this act is restoring copyright in the U.S. to foreign works of authors that weren't dead for 70 years on january 1st 1996 in their home country. Instead, works only enter the PD 95 years after publication.
So for example, the last paintings by Theo van Doesburg, a Dutch artist who entered the public domain in the Netherlands in 2002, will only be out of copyright in the U.S. in 2026. And that's why you won't see those works on a site such as Wikipedia, that is under U.S. law.
The irony that Atlas Shrugged is on the list and massively protected by government IP law is deliciously sad.
More interesting is that Tesla is part of the class of 2014 for 70 year countries :)
50 year countries get some nice additions (some real heavyweights): Robert Frost, Sylvia Plath, William Carlos Williams, Louis MacNeice, Jean Cocteau, C. S. Lewis, Aldous Huxley
Atlas Shrugged doesn't address IP law fully, but Ayn Rand's philosophy respects strong government enforcement of IP rights. The idea that Atlas Shrugged is anti-government is a misunderstanding.
If this stuff did start to enter the public domain after 28+28 years, the modern entertainment industry would be screwed because they would have to compete with it. Rationally, they'd rather it burned than free.
There's some interesting stuff on that list but I don't think it'd be competition to anything. I like the idea that the kids would be watching Bridge on the River Kwai instead of the latest recruitment video but it doesn't seem likely.
Of course, the studios would lose the long-tail revenue from controlling movies like Bridge on the River Kwai (or licensing the movie rights to things like the old version of 3:10 to Yuma) and that does add up.
Burned? Blah. The Cat in the Hat, Atlas Shrugged and probably others from that list are still popular. The books are still being printed and sold, not being hidden away from society.
Am I the only one that thinks that we should almost certainly treat scientific research entirely differently than entertainment? Frankly, when I think about it objectively, I could care less if a novel is under copyright for a very long time - it's not like there's a lack of entertainment options for people, and that they will suffer because they have to pay something to read a book or see a movie. But scientific research seems like an entirely different animal: if we as a society are so into technological progress, why wouldn't we act to make all scientific research as widely available as possible? It would seem that in the Internet age the best and easiest way to achieve that as a matter of policy is simply modifying copyright rules - and if Aaron Swartz is any indication, there will be many people more than happy to store and disseminate the information as a public service. (Although I personally believe that it would be entirely reasonable for the USG to spend a modest sum hosting the data, sort of like a federal online library. Perhaps this could even be started by generous endowment from an Internet titan, just as The Smithsonian was started by such an endowment.)
You have a personal bias towards hard science. Many, many people; linguists, anthropologists, historians, socialists, academics, for example; would consider what you call entertainment, their scientific research.
I do not see a problem with indefinite copyright protections.
One of the assumptions is that everything being equal the same works would exist if it were not for copyright protections. However, I would argue without the extended copyright protections, most of these [future] classic works would not exist, simply because publishers/studios would not invest in the creation/distribution of the works initially. In other words, copyright protections encourages the creation of works.
The OP takes an opposing stance, suggesting if copyright protections existed historically it would have stifled the creation of many classic works. This may be the case in certain instances, but to make that argument one must have an in depth understand of what constitutes copyright infringement in a legal sense - including all defenses to infringement (i.e. derivative work, fair use, educational/news worthy use, ect...)- and make the argument on a case by case basis. Very few people have any idea of what constitutes copyright infringement - and even among legal scholars, practitioners and judges there is disagreement.
All I know is if you have ever created anything and had it stolen you understand the need for legal protection. Plus it would suck to live in a world where I am financially rewarding thieves because I can not distinguish if a work was original or a knockoff. Finally, legal protection is just that protection, there is nothing stopping copyright owners from giving away their works for free, in other words voluntarily releasing their work(s) to the public domain.
Forever is a long time. My great-great-great grandfather was a newspaper publisher in the 19th century. Should I be able to exert some sort of control over that information because someone who was dead before my grandfather was born wrote it?
So if you were an author, you would not write a book because royalties would cease coming in to your grandchildren X years after your death?
People and companies should be able to "own" their ideas for a reasonable period of time. The point of copyright is to "promote the useful arts" and to promote and reward creativity.
Allowing companies to own the Mickey Mouse story in the year 2213 does nothing to promote that. What purpose does that serve? Why should the government protect the right for generations of your descendants to be profit from the intellectual work of a distant ancestor? Why should shareholders in the year 2513 benefit from a cartoon produced in 1930?
I can create and distribute any creation for free thanks to the internet. Your argument assumes that a publisher/studio is required, when this is simply not the case, and not the direction the world is headed. Copyright and all IP law stifles creation at the cost of creativity.
I create because I'm a creator, not because there is a fiscal reward. I create because I want to make a great product, not because I want to make a lot of money. I don't create so I can make some corporate fat ass rich.
I know nothing on the subject, but would it be possibly for Disney (or any other creator for that matter) to start a Mickey Mouse company, with Mickey as the logo and mascot, that sells Mickey Mouse paraphernalia and protect the characters as a trademark?
> Twentieth Century Fox was the producer of a World War II video series that was no longer protected by copyright. When a competitor used it, Fox sued — not for copyright infringement (because they couldn’t), but for trademark infringment. They lost. See Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. et al., 540 US 806 (2003), which you can read here: ( http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/support-files/dastar.pdf ).
Just to clarify this point. Disney does not need to start a separate company to Trademark Mickey Mouse. In fact you better believe Disney is the registered owner multiple dozens, because the way Trademark works there are dozens of Trademark categories which need to be registered separately, of Mickey Mouse Trademarks.
I got into a long discussion with a lawyer-colleague who insisted that Disney doesn't have "Mickey Mouse" trademarked, but only a handful of very specific renderings of him. His preferred solution was to give Disney a "right to publicity" for Mickey Mouse (as if Mickey Mouse were a real person) which would let their old stuff enter the public domain while still maintaining control of the character.
Oh crap, Atlas Shrugged. That would have been awesome. I could have taken Ayn Rand's words, modified them how I wanted to, published it, and donated all of the proceeds to the Socialist Party USA.
That would probably depend on whether they were minarchist or anarchist libertarians. Minarchists would likely defend copyright with more rational time limits, whereas anarchists would contend that copyright is not rational or enforceable, and that artistic patronage is the only viable business model.
In either case, "stealing" an artistic work would be interpreted as plagiarism rather than unauthorized copying.
Artists capable of doing live performances could also sell tickets, I suppose. Authors might be paid to attend conventions and book signings. Without copyright, the works are disseminated widely to generate a fan base, and the revenue is derived from the truly limited resource: the artist's time.
"Government enforced monopolies are bad" is what particularly doctrinaire libertarians say, but libertarians aren't know for their ability to agree with each other.
[+] [-] kevando|12 years ago|reply
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25...
[+] [-] MWil|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theandrewbailey|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bbanyc|12 years ago|reply
Harmonization is not necessarily a bad thing. Pre-1976 US copyright law had some outright bizarre restrictions - a book could forfeit its copyright status if the publisher printed it outside North America and imported it - that we're better off having eliminated. But when everything has to be harmonized, it's rare for anyone to question why the policies we're harmonizing with are in place.
[+] [-] bananacurve|12 years ago|reply
"In 1993, the European Union added 20 years to the term of European copyrights. Under European law, American authors would only enjoy longer copyright terms in Europe if the United States followed Europe's lead and adopted "life plus 70" copyright terms."
[+] [-] benihana|12 years ago|reply
So I'd say this isn't so much the result of Disney, as it is the result of bad legislation and possibly outdated expectations about intellectual property that hasn't been updated to reflect reality.
[+] [-] coliveira|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] donpdonp|12 years ago|reply
Some Creative Commons cartoons http://www.seosmarty.com/15-cartoonists-that-allow-using-the...
Creative Commons Music at Jamendo (see the FAQ http://www.jamendo.com/en/faq)
edit: 'per-say' to 'per se' (thx ansimionescu)
[+] [-] ansimionescu|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] streetnigga|12 years ago|reply
We really do only have one go around. I'll buy all the knock-off Mickey Mouse crap I want.
[+] [-] bluekitten|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sentenza|12 years ago|reply
System is broken. Please reboot.
[+] [-] rurban|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] possibilistic|12 years ago|reply
The government taxes every other kind of property, so why not IP? Additionally, keeping created works out of the public domain is essentially a tax on the public; this intellectual levy placed on everyone should be balanced by a reinvestment in favor of public interests.
If Disney wants to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain, they should pay a yearly fee to prevent it from becoming public property. They'd more than make up for it with the revenue they garner.
I think that this would also encourage less wasteful use of copyrighted properties.
[+] [-] SomeCallMeTim|12 years ago|reply
Many books, movies, photos, and other IP instances out there are difficult to track down solid ownership info for. Sometimes the contracts surrounding the IP are so complex as to make it impossible for even a trained IP lawyer to determine who owns what. In some cases even IP claimed by a particular company may not be valid [1].
If there were a national registry that listed who owned what rights to a particular property, and you had to pay to be included (maybe the initial copyright registration pays for the first X years, but after that you have to continue to pay to continue your protection), it could not only clarify who "owns" what, it could list those people who had specific sub-licenses to the property in question, and what the details of their licenses are.
To help combat orphan works, you can throw in one other important requirement: Even if we give them X years (30 or otherwise) for the initial registration requirement, they would also need to keep their contact information current at all times, on pain of losing their registration. If you try the forms of contact and get wrong numbers and returned letters, then you report that fact to the copyright registry, and if THEY can't contact the owners within, say, 60 days, then ALL the copyrights owned by that entity get released.
I know of some properties (old games in particular) that have such confused licensing surrounding them (with companies buying "rights" in large packages and then ignoring them, or the companies closing down with no clear record of who ended up purchasing those particular rights...) that they are languishing in limbo. No one can make a sequel, no one can republish them on new platforms... With a registry, you could look to see WHO is currently paying the upkeep fee, and with the "keep your contact info public" requirement, at least you'd be guaranteed that you'd be able to contact the current rights holder.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/nyregion/lawsuit-aims-to-s...
[+] [-] sheff|12 years ago|reply
http://publicdomainreview.org/2013/12/10/class-of-2014/
[+] [-] huskyr|12 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act
One of the effects of this act is restoring copyright in the U.S. to foreign works of authors that weren't dead for 70 years on january 1st 1996 in their home country. Instead, works only enter the PD 95 years after publication.
So for example, the last paintings by Theo van Doesburg, a Dutch artist who entered the public domain in the Netherlands in 2002, will only be out of copyright in the U.S. in 2026. And that's why you won't see those works on a site such as Wikipedia, that is under U.S. law.
[+] [-] kriro|12 years ago|reply
More interesting is that Tesla is part of the class of 2014 for 70 year countries :) 50 year countries get some nice additions (some real heavyweights): Robert Frost, Sylvia Plath, William Carlos Williams, Louis MacNeice, Jean Cocteau, C. S. Lewis, Aldous Huxley
[+] [-] throwawaykf03|12 years ago|reply
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.htm...
http://hallingblog.com/ayn-rand-on-intellectual-property/com...
[+] [-] EarthLaunch|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pessimizer|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justin66|12 years ago|reply
Of course, the studios would lose the long-tail revenue from controlling movies like Bridge on the River Kwai (or licensing the movie rights to things like the old version of 3:10 to Yuma) and that does add up.
[+] [-] thirdtruck|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] res0nat0r|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seandougall|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] javajosh|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] njharman|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrcactu5|12 years ago|reply
It is a really great to read the beautiful color version of the *First Six Books of the Elements of Euclid" online for free. https://archive.org/details/firstsixbooksofe00byrn
Meanwhile it is selling on Amazon for up to $100 http://www.amazon.com/Oliver-Byrne-Six-Books-Euclid/dp/38365...
[+] [-] will_brown|12 years ago|reply
One of the assumptions is that everything being equal the same works would exist if it were not for copyright protections. However, I would argue without the extended copyright protections, most of these [future] classic works would not exist, simply because publishers/studios would not invest in the creation/distribution of the works initially. In other words, copyright protections encourages the creation of works.
The OP takes an opposing stance, suggesting if copyright protections existed historically it would have stifled the creation of many classic works. This may be the case in certain instances, but to make that argument one must have an in depth understand of what constitutes copyright infringement in a legal sense - including all defenses to infringement (i.e. derivative work, fair use, educational/news worthy use, ect...)- and make the argument on a case by case basis. Very few people have any idea of what constitutes copyright infringement - and even among legal scholars, practitioners and judges there is disagreement.
All I know is if you have ever created anything and had it stolen you understand the need for legal protection. Plus it would suck to live in a world where I am financially rewarding thieves because I can not distinguish if a work was original or a knockoff. Finally, legal protection is just that protection, there is nothing stopping copyright owners from giving away their works for free, in other words voluntarily releasing their work(s) to the public domain.
[+] [-] Spooky23|12 years ago|reply
So if you were an author, you would not write a book because royalties would cease coming in to your grandchildren X years after your death?
People and companies should be able to "own" their ideas for a reasonable period of time. The point of copyright is to "promote the useful arts" and to promote and reward creativity.
Allowing companies to own the Mickey Mouse story in the year 2213 does nothing to promote that. What purpose does that serve? Why should the government protect the right for generations of your descendants to be profit from the intellectual work of a distant ancestor? Why should shareholders in the year 2513 benefit from a cartoon produced in 1930?
[+] [-] horseapples|12 years ago|reply
I create because I'm a creator, not because there is a fiscal reward. I create because I want to make a great product, not because I want to make a lot of money. I don't create so I can make some corporate fat ass rich.
[+] [-] ewillbefull|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aestra|12 years ago|reply
http://www.gutenberg.org/
[+] [-] tunap|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BlackDeath3|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cafard|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stanmancan|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brazzy|12 years ago|reply
From http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/trademark.html :
> Twentieth Century Fox was the producer of a World War II video series that was no longer protected by copyright. When a competitor used it, Fox sued — not for copyright infringement (because they couldn’t), but for trademark infringment. They lost. See Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. et al., 540 US 806 (2003), which you can read here: ( http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/support-files/dastar.pdf ).
[+] [-] will_brown|12 years ago|reply
See: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4802... (and search "Mickey Mouse", USPTO does not permit linking to result pages)
Moreover, "Mickey Mouse" can be Trademarked in name and then the actual "logo" (drawing of a mouse) can be Trademarked.
[+] [-] danielweber|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavpanchekha|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VikingCoder|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simbolit|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iand|12 years ago|reply
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker#The_Four_Monopo...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_monopoly_capitalism
[+] [-] logfromblammo|12 years ago|reply
In either case, "stealing" an artistic work would be interpreted as plagiarism rather than unauthorized copying.
Artists capable of doing live performances could also sell tickets, I suppose. Authors might be paid to attend conventions and book signings. Without copyright, the works are disseminated widely to generate a fan base, and the revenue is derived from the truly limited resource: the artist's time.
[+] [-] Symmetry|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kbenson|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]