How, exactly, did Disney "Kill Copyright?"

Great Debates
1

I’ve seen a lot of lawyers dealing a lot with copyright cases express distaste (or in some cases, deep seeded disdain) for Disney violating the spirit of copyright. They never really make clear arguments, but I gather it has something to do with extending the copyright protection past its expiration date (which I can somewhat understand), along with a few other vague principles. I never really bothered to ask because the time and place would’ve constituted it as a hijack of the topic at hand at best and prying at worst, so I thought I’d establish a correct time and place to ask.

I apologize that I can’t cite the claims because the ones I recently encountered were posted on a restricted board of another forum, but I’ll try to look for public ones if no one can make a logical leap or knows the feeling I’m talking about.

Mods: I put this in GQ because I am simply asking what, exactly, Disney has done to change principles in such a way to anger people, but feel free to bounce it to IMHO or GD if it gets to opiniony (or if you feel it’s already opiniony) or heated. Because you totally need my permission. :rolleyes: :stuck_out_tongue:

2

The Disney Co. did some heavy lobbying to promote the passing of the Copyright Term Extension Act (1998) which extended copyrights in the USA by 20 years.

3

As the Wiki article correctly implies, Disney is merely a convenient scapegoat for an outcome that would have occurred in exactly the same way if the Disney company never existed.

Once the European Union extended the length of copyright protection by 20 years the U.S. either had to match its terms or create a situation in which the two largest creators of copyrighted works had different provisions, a nightmare scenario that would have wreaked havoc in a global system.

Disney does not make a rational target for several reasons. Its characters are trademarked, so they will never fall out of protection as long as the company survives. The placing of the earliest cartoons into the public domain would have been a small loss for Disney. Over the longer term, it would have become more of an issue, true. Even so, the vast bulk of Disney’s earnings comes from properties created within the 56-year window that existed before the 1976 Act.

This isn’t to argue that the current length of copyright is the “correct” length. Few even in the writing community think that. Simply that Disney is a scapegoat for changes in a much larger system.

4

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
As the Wiki article correctly implies, Disney is merely a convenient scapegoat for an outcome that would have occurred in exactly the same way if the Disney company never existed.
[/quote]

Possible, but less likely.

The “we had to kep up with the Europeans” excuse doesn’t hold water. American copyright interests, which represent many hundreds of times more money, pushed the EU to extend the length of the term. They’ve done it twice before.

Disney gets so much hatred because of the hypocrisy of their stance. A huge portion of their business is dependent on using material from the Public Domain, yet they have lobbied to prevent any of their original work from entering the public domain. Mickey Mouse should be as available to other artists as the stories of the Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Anderson, Mark Twain, and others were available for Disney to use. The “Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act” should have been called the “Mickey Mouse Copyright Term Extension Act”.

My favorite scapegoats are Disney and the heirs of Gershwin and Harold Lloyd. When the Sonny Bono extension expires, those evil trolls with their lawyers will be there to push for yet another extension - first in Europe, then in the US. But without Disney money behind it, the effort might fail.

5

[QUOTE=gaffa]
The “we had to kep up with the Europeans” excuse doesn’t hold water. American copyright interests, which represent many hundreds of times more money, pushed the EU to extend the length of the term. They’ve done it twice before.
[/quote]
Sorry, but the facts are that copyright was extended to seventy years by the EU in October of 1993, and in the US in 1998.

As for your little conspiracy theory, why would people with US copyrights be lobbying the EU when they’d have better luck lobbying the US? Why would the EU politicians care what happens to US corporations? You might as well say the whole thing is a plot by the illuminati or the tooth fairy.

Be that as it may, the copyright change was irrelevant to Disney. Even if all Disney copyrights expired tomorrow, you still couldn’t use Mickey Mouse without their permission because of trademark issue.

The Gershwin Estate certainly had a strong reason for the extension, since it would have put an end to their income (the songs can’t be trademarked, and their income comes from licensing the songs). I’m certain they lobbied for it. But I hardly think the Gershwin estate is so powerful it can get its way with Congress (the Lloyd estate is even less powerful).

That’s why Disney becomes the scapegoat – they had no major stake in the extenson (though they certainly favored it), but conspiracy theorists would look even sillier than they are if they tried to argue it was all the fault of Gershwin and Lloyd’s heirs. But repeating the silliness about Disney, they can get those who don’t know the situation to begin to belive it might be true.

Ultimately, though, the argument is that the US had to be in line with Europe. And Europe is no friend of Disney.

6

This is quickly becoming a debate. Moved from General Questions to Great Debates.

Gfactor
General Questions Moderator

7

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
As the Wiki article correctly implies, Disney is merely a convenient scapegoat for an outcome that would have occurred in exactly the same way if the Disney company never existed.

Once the European Union extended the length of copyright protection by 20 years the U.S. either had to match its terms or create a situation in which the two largest creators of copyrighted works had different provisions, a nightmare scenario that would have wreaked havoc in a global system.
[/QUOTE]
I admit ignorance of the details of the historical record, but I’ve got a problem with the logic. It’s not like the U.S. has much of a history of conforming to what Europe does. (Metric system, anyone?)

ISTM that a much more likely explanation is that big-ass copyright holders, Disney included (but probably not alone) were glad to have the European extension as a convenient justification for lobbying to lengthen the American copyright term as well.

We should certainly expect some more data points as 2023 approaches.

8

[QUOTE=RealityChuck]
Sorry, but the facts are that copyright was extended to seventy years by the EU in October of 1993, and in the US in 1998.
[/quote]

The US copyright term didn’t have to be extended until “Steamboat Willie” was going to fall into the public domain. So they have some time to get their ducks (and mice) in a row.

Please take your ad homin attacks elsewhere. If Mickey fell into the public domain, he would have the same legal status as other formerly copyrighted works, like Betty Boop. People could sell DVDs of expired Mickey Mouse films and could sell Mickey Mouse plush animals, Mickey Mouse sheets, Mickey Mouse watches, etc. A copyright has far greater legal power than a trademark. Mickey Mouse would remain a trademark for Disney, but only when applied to Disney businesses. Someone could legally start Mickey Mouse Fried Chicken.

Cite?

Hallmark Cards has a trademark on a gold crown and “Hallmark” in the greeting card business. You could not start a card shop called "Hallmark Cards. But you are perfectly welcome to start a car dealership with that name, because nobody will think that Hallmark cards has decided to sell VWs.

They have less power and money than Disney, but share in the damage they have done to film. By keeping their grandfather’s works in copyright, they have damned thousands of films to dissolve into vinegar-scented dust. If the copyright term had been left where it had been, hundreds if not thousands of films could have been rescued. But nobody can afford to do it because they can’t sell copies of the restored films without spending the money to track down the current copyright holder. Harold Lloyd’s granddaughter is easy to find, but his contemporaries? Any money spent tracking down these people is money that could have been spent on restoration, and at some point it becomes more than sales of the restored film would yield. So films become dust to keep the gravy train running for some trust fund babies.

Does the well-respected law site Findlaw.com qualify as wack-jobs?

Look at the history. European copyright interests have been using the US as the reason to extend their terms, and vis-versa.

9

[QUOTE=gaffa]
By keeping their grandfather’s works in copyright, [Harold Lloyd’s heirs] have damned thousands of films to dissolve into vinegar-scented dust. If the copyright term had been left where it had been, hundreds if not thousands of films could have been rescued. But nobody can afford to do it because they can’t sell copies of the restored films without spending the money to track down the current copyright holder. Harold Lloyd’s granddaughter is easy to find, but his contemporaries? Any money spent tracking down these people is money that could have been spent on restoration, and at some point it becomes more than sales of the restored film would yield. So films become dust to keep the gravy train running for some trust fund babies.
[/QUOTE]
This is the problem we have in a society that is relatively young, and where culture and commerce are so inseparable. Our cultural heritage, more and more often, is private property, and when it can’t generate profit any longer, there’s no real way to save it.

10

The real problem is that Disney Corporation, will try again, to extend the time another 20 or 30 years, to an even 100. Corporations like disney are like psychopaths and have no conscience or care for anything but their profit.

Sonny Bono, the sponsor to the copyright extension, wanted to make copyrights permanent, but was stymied by the constitution.

Also even relatively minor special interests can get legislation passed if they can ‘sneak it’ through. In this case, Disney had all the motive to protect their sinecure, and the public was completely disorganized.

11

[QUOTE=scrambledeggs]
Sonny Bono, the sponsor to the copyright extension, wanted to make copyrights permanent, but was stymied by the constitution.
[/quote]

And a damn good thing he was too.

Bono mistakenly thought he had created those pop tunes he wrote, thus he and his heirs should be able to own them forever. But composers don’t invent melodies, they discover them. You think up a neat melody for a song, but if you do some searching you’ll probably discover that Mozart came up with it while he was still in short pants. Try to imagine a world in which the heirs of Mozart and Shakespere still owned copyright on their works.

12

[QUOTE=gaffa]
And a damn good thing he was too.

Bono mistakenly thought he had created those pop tunes he wrote, thus he and his heirs should be able to own them forever. But composers don’t invent melodies, they discover them. You think up a neat melody for a song, but if you do some searching you’ll probably discover that Mozart came up with it while he was still in short pants. Try to imagine a world in which the heirs of Mozart and Shakespere still owned copyright on their works.
[/QUOTE]
That’s an interesting statement. Do you have a cite for the “discover” tenet in some copyright-respecting country’s law? My point is that despite Paul McCartney’s assumption that he was rewriting a song when he sang the tune to “Yesterday”, and asked all around for what he was copying, I’ve never heard the slightest accusation that it was anything but an original song. Of course I’m sure that some part of the phrasing is similar to something else, but that’s not what you implied.

13

[QUOTE=Cardinal]
That’s an interesting statement. Do you have a cite for the “discover” tenet in some copyright-respecting country’s law? My point is that despite Paul McCartney’s assumption that he was rewriting a song when he sang the tune to “Yesterday”, and asked all around for what he was copying, I’ve never heard the slightest accusation that it was anything but an original song. Of course I’m sure that some part of the phrasing is similar to something else, but that’s not what you implied.
[/QUOTE]

It’s probably worthy of a different thread “Are Melodies Created or Discovered?” I’m strongly of the opinion they are discovered for one main reason - there are a finite number of possible melodies, only so many notes and only so many possible combinations of those notes in a popular song. Given that the vast majority of those possibilities will sound like cacophony to the majority of potential listeners, this large but finite number becomes much smaller. Inadvertent copyright infringement becomes pretty much certain.

14

[QUOTE=gaffa]
If Mickey fell into the public domain, he would have the same legal status as other formerly copyrighted works, like Betty Boop. People could sell DVDs of expired Mickey Mouse films and could sell Mickey Mouse plush animals, Mickey Mouse sheets, Mickey Mouse watches, etc. A copyright has far greater legal power than a trademark. Mickey Mouse would remain a trademark for Disney, but only when applied to Disney businesses. Someone could legally start Mickey Mouse Fried Chicken.
[/QUOTE]

This is wrong in every way.

If Steamboat Willie fell into the public domain, the only consequence would be that any individual could sell copies of Steamboat Willie. Period. Disney’s trademark use of Mickey Mouse - the name, the likeness, the mouse ears, everything - would be completely protected. And strongly so, since trademark protection is much stronger, in my judgment, than copyright protection, which protects only specific expression rather than general use.

Nobody could start Mickey Mouse Fried Chicken. Trademark law allows common words to be use in non-competitive industries, true. However, the basis for the law is to prevent consumer confusion. Trademarked and made-up words and names are almost never allowed to have any other use, no matter how non-competing. You will never find Kodak dog food or a Xerox diner because the presumption would automatically be that these were enterprises connected to the more famous firm.

Trademarks do fall into disuse (considered “dead”) if a firm no longer actively promotes and protects the use of that trademark. Contrary to your assertion, this did not happen to Betty Boop. Trademarks are easily searched for by using the government’s Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS). A quick search there shows that Betty Boop has multiple “live” trademarks affixed to it, all of them registered by Fleischer Studios, Inc and Hearst Holdings, Inc. Max Fleischer is of course the originator of the Betty Boop cartoons.

Your FindLaw cite is merely an editorial commentary, no different from and with no more authority or relevance than any op-ed piece. These are expressions of opinion only and often are from wackjobs.

BTW, your notion that composers - or writers or artists or any other creative mind - discover rather than invent their work is entirely contrary to the very existence of copyrightable work. No such thing could exist if works were discovered. Your statement is equivalent to saying that no writing is copyrightable because it all depends on the same 26 letters and all somebody does is place them in the right order.

In sum, I can’t find a single factually correct statement in your posts. They remain, nonetheless, original to you and automatically copyrighted.

15

copyrights and patents were supposed to be a deal with the government. We will extend to you certain leagle protection for your creations for a certain length of time. In return, those creations become public property after the end of that time. It is one thing to change these time limits for future creations. It is an entirely different thing to retroactivly extend it for existing works.

16

Couldn’t I sell Steamboat Willie hats with a picture of Steamboat Willie era Mickey on 'em? He’s changed a bit over the years.

17

[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Couldn’t I sell Steamboat Willie hats with a picture of Steamboat Willie era Mickey on 'em? He’s changed a bit over the years.
[/QUOTE]

Simple answer: no.

18

[QUOTE=Kevbo]
copyrights and patents were supposed to be a deal with the government. We will extend to you certain leagle protection for your creations for a certain length of time. In return, those creations become public property after the end of that time. It is one thing to change these time limits for future creations. It is an entirely different thing to retroactivly extend it for existing works.
[/QUOTE]

IIRC this was the issue used in fighting the Copyright Act. If the government can extend copyrights indefinately, then it is in effect an infinite copyright. But the Constitution only allows for a limited time for copyright. SCOTUS ruled that as long as the copyright will eventually expire, it was Constitutional.

19

[QUOTE=Cardinal]
That’s an interesting statement. Do you have a cite for the “discover” tenet in some copyright-respecting country’s law?
[/QUOTE]
Apparently not.

20

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
You will never find Kodak dog food or a Xerox diner because the presumption would automatically be that these were enterprises connected to the more famous firm.
[/QUOTE]

Just to be clear, this is an invocation of trademark dilution, which is different from trademark infringement.