# Copyright law and Disney **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 19, 2001, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-law-and-disney/88365 "2001-10-19T03:46:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![FlyingScotsman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/838e76/32.png) [@FlyingScotsman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlyingScotsman)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2001, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-law-and-disney/88365/1 "2001-10-19T03:46:37Z")
In the artistic and computer community, copyright law always seems a good “hot button” topic. In recent years, copyright terms have been extended from two 28-year terms (upon renewal) to life-of-creator-plus-50-years, and now recently extended to life-of-creator-plus-70-years. Several computer and art writers have told me that this new definition of copyright, and its extension, is due to one thing and one thing only–Mickey Mouse. In short, the Disney Corporation’s lobbyists managed to ram this past Congress almost completely to protect the creations and characters of Walt Disney, and thus the Disney empire as well, from going into the public domain bit by bit. This smells like an urban legend to me. Disney died in, what, 1965? It would be a different matter if Disney had died in 1950 or 1955; then the numbers would coincide more closely. But I have heard this explanation from such diverse quarters that I have to wonder if they’re on to something. This query is in no way intended to spur debate on the merits or lack of same of the changed copyright law, or the constitutionality of the changes made to the laws. I’m merely curious if The Mouse That Spawned an Empire could truly be this mighty. ---
**Author:** ![Wumpus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8c91f0/32.png) [@Wumpus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wumpus)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2001, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-law-and-disney/88365/2 "2001-10-19T04:12:46Z")
The more important rule here isn’t for individual copyright, but corporate copyright. I assume that all the copyrights to Disney movies are in the name of the Disney corporation, not in Walt’s personal name. The recent extension changed corporate copyright from 75 years to 95 years. (The rules are different for corporations because corporations don’t necessarily die.) Disney is indeed a major benificiary of this change (the first Mickey Mouse cartoon, Steamboat Willie, would have expired in 2003; now it will expire in 2023.) I’m sure they lobbied mightily for the extension. Is Disney’s lobbying enough to get a bill past Congress? Given that copyright durations are pretty low on Congress’s lists of priorities, I don’t see why not. (I imagine there were some other people lobbying for the extension, namely Ted Turner/Warners/AOL, which owns the rights to the Warner Bros and MGM film catalogs, as well as the heirs/assignees of various songwriters and novelists.) It does create a mess, as US copyright law is now totally out of sync with copyright laws in other countries. It creates all sorts of gray-market goods…for example, European CDs of 1940s American jazz tunes that are out of copyright in Europe but still covered by copyright in the US. These are routinely sold in the US, though I assume (IANAL, however) they are technically in violation of US copyright law. Interesting conundrum: I believe Mickey Mouse is also a registered trademark of the Disney corporation. Trademarks never expire–they endure as long as the company uses them. This might mean that it may be legal for other firms to sell copies of Steamboat Willie in 2023, but they can’t show Mickey Mouse on the cover! ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2001, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-law-and-disney/88365/3 "2001-10-19T04:24:26Z")
It’s true. Here’s the current deal, based on the info from the chart from my copyright class last semester: Works published in 1922 or earlier are now in the public domain. Works published between 1922 and 1950, assuming they were published with a copyright notice, were good primarily for a 28-year term. If they were then renewed, the copyright was extended, via the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, to 95 years from the date of publication. See 17 U.S.C. § 304(b). The Act, effective in 1998, extended copyright terms by an additional 20 years in most cases; before the Act, the term of an extension was 75 years from the date of publication. Steamboat Willie, the first Mickey Mouse cartoon released, was published in November, 1928. In other words, it was 5 years away from falling into the public domain when the Act was passed. Now, I know there was some finagling before the Sonny Bono Act to extend the renewal term, and I was told by my copyright professor that Disney was behind both those extensions and the Sonny Bono Act. With the death of Sonny Bono, the passage of the Act in his honor became a certainty. Anyway, I’ll have to do more digging to see how and why the renewal term was increased to 75 years from publication, way back when. Then again, you can do it yourself, just do a Google search for “Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act Disney”. ---
**Author:** ![Wumpus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8c91f0/32.png) [@Wumpus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wumpus)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2001, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-law-and-disney/88365/4 "2001-10-19T04:36:31Z")
One of the reasons the two 28-years terms were scrapped in favor of a single 50-year individual copyright is that it was hard to verify whether a copyright had been renewed or not, creating all kinds of confusion. Another reason is that the original 28-year term made it possible, indeed likely, that the copyright would expire long before the creator died. (I recall that one argument advanced in favor of the recent extension from 50 to 70 years was that people live longer now, hence the copyright needed to be longer. As if lifespans had increased by 20 years since the 50-year rule was introduced in the 1970s…) ---
**Author:** ![Wumpus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8c91f0/32.png) [@Wumpus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wumpus)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2001, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-law-and-disney/88365/5 "2001-10-19T04:58:43Z")
Doh, the recent discussions were about the _children_ of the creators seeing the copyright expire. The rule adopted in the 70s was, after all, the life of the author plus 50 years. Though I don’t recall why the children of the creator were supposed to be morally entitled to a full lifetime’s royalties. ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2001, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-law-and-disney/88365/6 "2001-10-19T13:42:13Z")
**Wumpus** , could you explain this better: > [@](#): > > It does create a mess, as US copyright law is now totally out of sync with copyright laws in other countries. I was under the impression that the change in US copyright law was to give it the same term as copyright law in the rest of the world. ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2001, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-law-and-disney/88365/7 "2001-10-19T14:27:56Z")
\*\* Wumpus\*\*, this is my understanding of present European copyright law. The Berne Convention provided an international framework for copyright law. More recently, it appears, some countries have decided that copyrights need protection for longer duration. > [@](#): > > [Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works](http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/7.html) (Paris Text 1971) > Article 7 > > (1) The term of protection granted by this Convention shall be the life of the author and fifty years after his death. > > (2) However, in the case of cinematographic works, the countries of the Union may provide that the term of protection shall expire fifty years after the work has been made available to the public with the consent of the author, or, failing such an eventwithin fifty years from the making of such a work, fifty years after the making. > > (3) In the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works, the term of protection granted by this Convention shall expire fifty years after the work has been lawfully made available to the public. However, when the pseudonym adopted by the author leaves no doubt as to his identity, the term of protection shall be that provided in paragraph (1). If the author of an anonymous or pseudonymous work discloses his identity during the above-mentioned period, the term of protection applicable shall be that provided in paragraph (1). The countries of the Union shall not be required to protect anonymous or pseudonymous works in respect of which it is reasonable to presume that their author has been dead for fifty years. > > (4) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the term of protection of photographic works and that of works of applied art in so far as they are protected as artistic works; however, this term shall last at least until the end of a period of twenty-five years from the making of such a work. > > (5) The term of protection subsequent to the death of the author and the terms provided by paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), shall run from the date of death or of the event referred to in those paragraphs, but such terms shall always be deemed to begin on the 1 st of January of the year following the death or such event. > > (6) The countries of the Union may grant a term of protection in excess of those provided by the preceding paragraphs. > > (7) Those countries of the Union bound by the Rome Act of this Convention, which grant, in their national legislation in force at the time of signature of the present Act, shorter terms of protection than those provided for in the preceding paragraphs, shall have the right to maintain such terms when ratifying or acceding to the present Act. > > (8) In any case, the term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed; however, unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work. From the [Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights](http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1993/en_393L0098.html) > [@](#): > > (5) Whereas the minimum term of protection laid down by the Berne Convention, namely the life of the author and 50 years after his death, was intended to provide protection for the author and the first two generations of his descendants; whereas the average lifespan in the Community has grown longer, to the point where this term is no longer sufficient to cover two generations; > [@](#): > > (11) Whereas in order to establish a high level of protection which at the same time meets the requirements of the internal market and the need to establish a legal environment conducive to the harmonious development of literary and artistic creation in the Community, the term of protection for copyright should be harmonized at 70 years after the death of the author or 70 years after the work is lawfully made available to the public, and for related rights at 50 years after the event which sets the term running; Made this change: > [@](#): > > Article 1 - Duration of authors’ rights > > 1. The rights of an author of a literary or artistic work within the meaning of Article 2 of the Berne Convention shall run for the life of the author and for 70 years after his death, irrespective of the date when the work is lawfully made available to the public. > > 2. In the case of a work of joint authorship the term referred to in paragraph 1 shall be calculated from the death of the last surviving author. > > 3. In the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works, the term of protection shall run for seventy years after the work is lawfully made available to the public. However, when the pseudonym adopted by the author leaves no doubt as to his identity, or if the author discloses his identity during the period referred to in the first sentence, the term of protection applicable shall be that laid down in paragraph 1. > [@](#): > > 1. In the case of works for which the term of protection is not calculated from the death of the author or authors and which have not been lawfully made available to the public within seventy years from their creation, the protection shall terminate. It appears to me that one argument for the change is to harmonise US law with EU law. Certainly, you can’t discount Disney’s interest in such legislation, but Disney likely isn’t the only reason. ---
**Author:** ![Wumpus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8c91f0/32.png) [@Wumpus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wumpus)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2001, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-law-and-disney/88365/8 "2001-10-19T15:35:25Z")
Thanks for the info, Robb. It does indeed sound like US and European laws are in sync for new works. I think the current difference between US and European laws must lie in the grandfather clauses. I’m no legal expert, but here’s what I gather: 1. As Max Torque noted, the Bono act in the US is retroactive–it extends the copyright on works created as far back as 1923. 2. My only sources of knowlege about Europe are European jazz reissues. From them I deduce that the current rule in effect for older material is 50 years from the date of creation. For example, there’s a French series called Chronological Classics, which reissues an artist’s work in chronological order (with no copyright notices, I might add.) The Chronological Classics series is always released just over 50 years after the original recording – right now, they’re reissuing material from '49, '50. I’m sure they’re waiting for the copyright to expire before they do their reissue. If you look at other European reissues, you see material from the '40s without copyright notices, but not material from the '50s. The rights to some of these reissues are still valuable (e.g. Duke Ellington, Miles Davis) and owned in the US by megacorporations like Sony and BMG. I’m sure they’d stop the European reissues if they legally could. So the European Union appears to have a different grandfather clause than the US, at least for music. ---
**Author:** ![labradorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3ec8ea/32.png) [@labradorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/labradorian)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2001, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-law-and-disney/88365/9 "2001-10-19T22:09:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Wumpus \* > \*\*Another reason is that the original 28-year term made it possible, indeed likely, that the copyright would expire long before the creator died. (I recall that one argument advanced in favor of the recent extension from 50 to 70 years was that people live longer now, hence the copyright needed to be longer. As if lifespans had increased by 20 years since the 50-year rule was introduced in the 1970s…) \*\* The old term under the US copyright act was LIFE plus 50 years; extending the “plus” part has nothing to do with average lifespans, since the clock only starts ticking at the end of the year in which the creator dies anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Wumpus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8c91f0/32.png) [@Wumpus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wumpus)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2001, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-law-and-disney/88365/10 "2001-10-19T23:20:51Z")
Yup, my brain was on vacation. I corrected myself in the next post, though. Reading the EU law, providing for the full life span of the creator’s children is an express goal of the law. Which is odd goal, because the vast majority of indidually held copyrights don’t provide enough royalties to live on, and the copyrights that _do_ produce big bucks are almost all held by corporations. Stephen King’s kids must be ecstatic, though. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2001, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-law-and-disney/88365/11 "2001-10-20T16:26:06Z")
A couple of additional notes: It doesn’t matter if a copyright is owned by a corporation or an individual, the duration of the copyright is “the life of the **author** plus 70 years.” Even if a copyright is held by a company, it still has one or more human authors with definite lifespans. These works WILL fall into the public domain at some time; the core idea of copyright protection is that art and artistic expression is good for the public. In order to encourage people to create, the government allows people to have a sort of “monopoly” on the art they create. Copyright is not supposed to allow a perpetual monopoly. Also, while the Bono Act did bring _current_ U.S. copyright terms (the duration of copyrights of works being created today) in line with the rest of the world, there was no need to extend the copyright terms of works created in the 1920s to bring us into harmony with Europe. So, I still feel that that portion of the Act which extended these stale, about-to-expire copyright terms was likely the result of lobbying in general, and Disney in particular. ---
**Author:** ![Wumpus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8c91f0/32.png) [@Wumpus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wumpus)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2001, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-law-and-disney/88365/12 "2001-10-20T20:32:06Z")
Max, works done for hire (i.e. works done for corporations as part of an employee’s job) get 95 years of copyright protection from the date of first publication. See: [http://www.law.duke.edu/copyright/face/stilim/basics.htm](http://www.law.duke.edu/copyright/face/stilim/basics.htm) [http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/sl15.pdf](http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/sl15.pdf) So for works done for hire, the life of the author is irrelevant. All movies are works done for hire. Novels are not works done for hire. Music can be done for hire (e.g. commercials), but in the case of recording artists it usually is not (assuming the recording was made after 1978). There was some hoopla about this recently. See: [http://www.wallacecollins.com/workforhire.html](http://www.wallacecollins.com/workforhire.html) This raises a host of other interesting issues, like how session musicians are handled.