Limit Copyright to 12 years, followed by max 34 years of *paid* extensions

I forgot to add this part—and to what benefit would it be to culture and society to allow free copying of Mickey Mouse? I don’t see any. There are plenty of opportunities for people to create talking mouse characters or talking rodent characters or talking animal characters—that’s another genre in which there has been an explosion over the last couple of decades—Ratatouille, Fievel, Stuart Little, … It’s to our benefit that these creators weren’t allowed to simply copy Mickey Mouse.

And while creativity can start with fan fiction, fan fiction, if it is time to distribute it, can be adapted to become something new. This little extra push benefits society, because even though we might start off with something that’s a copy, the law pushes it in the direction of something creative.

Hey, we got both Deep Space Nine and Babylon 5. Huge portions of the web are dedicated to examining the similarities. We benefit from having both, and despite their similarities on the level of ideas, there’s no copying of expression between the two.

I don’t know if this is directed at my comment. Are you saying I was welcome to use “seven dwarfs” as long as they weren’t named Grumpy, etc. (and perhaps were something other than dwarves … and/or numbering other than seven?)

It was precisely the familiarity with seven particular names that I wanted to (illegally?) exploit.

The seven dwarfs were not original to Disney. Only those particular names and those specific manifestations of the character were (appearance, for example).

Then you’re a free-rider. I have no problem with the requirement that you be required to get a license to do so, unless you can say that it was some kind of exception to copyright law, such as parody.

Then why didn’t you change them so there wouldn’t be a risk? You can use the concept of characters named after human personalities. You just have to stay away from seven dwarfs with those names.

How about Neil Gaiman’s short story told from a different perspective and its subsequent derivative works?

How about what seems like dozens and dozens of adaptations of the Snow White story in multiple media?

Those are existing stories that Disney adapted (I think…I’m not sure about Little Mermaid).

I was talking about copyright in the sense of e.g. the character Mickey Mouse.
But sure, people should be able to copy your “expression” too, and build on it IMO.
The Kingdom Hearts games use familiar images of disney characters but are creative, original works. This is exactly the kind of quality stuff we’d see more of (yeah, alongside the dross) if copyrights expired.

If the law worked like this, it would be an improvement, sure. But it doesn’t. I can’t write stories set in disney universes naming disney characters.

Well, yeah, you have to come up with your own universe and characters. That’s my point. Society benefits because you are pushed to be more creative.

Babylon 5 didn’t copy the Star Trek universe. It came up with its own.

And I gave the example of Kingdom Hearts. Existing characters/universes can be built on to make new creative content.

Or, put it this way: If new, interesting stories can be produced from using existing universes, then freeing up copyright (eventually) means we’ll see more such stories and “society benefits”. If not, and the copyright has been thoroughly milked, then why protect it?

Yeah I agree. I don’t see any reason to bring the life of the author into it. The purpose of copyright is to create an adequate incentive to create new works and a flat term of say 30 years would be more than adequate.Beyond that you enter the range of diminishing returns, an effective copyright of say 80 years doesn’t really provide much more of an incentive but it means a much poorer public domain. A rapidly expanding public domain is a vital engine of knowledge diffusion and creativity. This is the all more so today when storing and distributing media is so cheap and the tools for media editing and analysis are so widely available.

Actually I think it’s the other way around. Limiting copyright would stimulate more creativity in terms of creating new universes. Let’s say copyright was limited to 30 years and Star Wars was in the public domain. You would no doubt have a lot of Star Wars spin-offs (and I bet a few would be really good).

Think of what that does to the incentives of studios like Disney. They would not be able to milk a franchise like Star Wars or their own earlier stuff; they would be forced to create new franchises. And 30 years is more than enough time to make money off a franchise with multiple films, books, rides etc. After 30 years the first film would fall in the public domain and Disney would have to start creating a new franchise.

It’s both self-evident and tacitly admitted by all parties that ST-DS9 copied the B5 plans, down to some absurdly exact details.

And Roddenberry hardly created his world from scratch. See: preceding 35 years of science fiction. He wasn’t even a writer, just a TV hack who hit it big by filing off the serial numbers and repackaging the content.

And? It’s the perfect illustration that copyright protections on expression do not interfere with creative output, do not prevent other creators from working off the se themes and ideas, and facilitates competition in the marketplace.

KH is a joint venture between Square Enix (the folks who do the Final Fantasy games, among other series, which I will call Squenix for short) and Disney. Squenix didn’t just use the Disney characters (and settings and situations) without permission, it had Disney’s permission to do so. I’m pretty sure that Squenix did not make any detailed plans about the game without first checking to make sure that Disney was on board with the idea. Note that there are Square characters as well as Disney characters in the game. It’s been a while since I’ve played the first KH, but I KNOW that Cloud (confused hero from FF7), Cid (pilot from FF7) and Squall Leonhart (lone wolf hero from FF8) were in it.

For a while, I was calling KH “Final Fantasy Disney”, but it never caught on.

Even if we allow Disney to own Mickey Mouse forever, there’s a big problem with the current status. The current status is, Disney will keep extending copyrights, and almost nothing will ever enter the public domain again.

First, let me say that I’m a big advocate of intellectual property rights.

First, it’s 20 years, not 14. Second, there is no natural right to any kind of property, other than “might makes right.” Just watch dogs with a bone. All property is what we call a legal fiction, which means it exists based on laws. Oddly enough, you don’t even own your own body, because you can’t sell it. (Yeah, there are exceptions, let’s not quibble.)

Patents and copyrights are justified in two ways. One is the fundamental belief that we should be entitled to the fruits of our own labor (including mental labor). The other is a pact between creators and society with the idea that if we let people have the benefit of a monopoly on their ideas, they’ll create more. Whatever the reason, these laws exist, and any super radical change to the concepts just won’t work in our society or happen in our legislative system. Ain’t gonna happen.

But the problem with copyrights is, right now, nothing goes to public domain unless the creator specifically releases it to the public domain (e.g., using a Creative Commons licence).

Disney has made fortunes using public domain stories from the past. Yet right now, their strong interest in protecting Mickey et. al. has led to a system where EVERYTHING is implicitly copyrighted, and NOTHING goes to public domain until .. well, until never since they’ll keep extending it for Mickey.

The OP’s suggestion is ludicrous. It’s way too expensive to administer (for the IP owners) and meaningless (because how much revenue does Disney get from Mickey Mouse? How to calculate that? There’s no way.) It’s not even a beginner as a contender. Far, far more conservative suggestions have been viciously attacked and won’t fly., like the suggestions from the creator of Creative Commons licences (whose name I don’t recall at the moment).

Even if we let Disney hold Mickey forever (and we’re going to have a hard time prying it from their cold dead fingers), there’s a serious problem. What if we want to use anything from the past, something that didn’t catch on at the time, something that nobody remembers, but that with a modern spin could be brilliant. (The world is full of old ideas coming back to greater success.) Today, if it was created past some date in the early 1900’s, you can’t do it. You can’t do it because it’s implicitly copyrighted, and you’d have to prove that the copyright holders are OK if it became public domain. This is practically impossible.

Do we want a future with essentially no public domain?

my suggestion

Allow copyright holders to annually register to attest that all copyrights they own are still in force. If there is no such registration on record, then copyrights expire 50 years after the author’s death, etc. That is, we follow the same rules as before the most recent extension from 50 years to 70 years, and that we’ll have to do again in 20 years thanks to Mickey.

It’s simple. It follows Berne. It requires relatively little record holding. It makes it easy to find out if something done in the past is still in the public domain. And it protects Mickey.

Some folks don’t think Mickey should remain protected. I acknowledge the arguments, like the one if Stoker Enterprises still held rights for Dracula. (Did Stoker even invent the concept and term vampire? I doubt it, but don’t know.) It’s a valid point. At some point, doesn’t Mickey become part of the culture, rather than corporate property? Good arguments, but practically speaking, there’s too much investment against it, and it’ll never fly in Congress.

Don’t worry; the Twinkie will live on. It may not be called a “Hostess” Twinkie, but someone will be making things called Twinkies, with rights to the original recipe. Meanwhile, there have been copy products on the market for decades, called something else. I don’t remember the biggest brand, but I do remember “Ho Ho’s”, “Ding Dongs”, and “King Dons” being pretty much the same thing (maybe not the same quality). So, don’t worry. Plus if you ever come to a fair in the US, you’ll even be able to get a deep fried Twinkie. I’ve never had one myslef, but … choose your poison.

Disney has neither the authority nor the ability to do that.

I think this is the best example of why copyright extension should be shortened to what it was before the Mickey Mouse/Sonny Bono Act.

I personally have no problem with the copyright term as set forth under the copyright act of 1976. The actual obstacle to going back to that term is persuading all of the other Berne nations to go along with it.

Yes, obviously.
I was responding to the point that letting copyrights expire would just lead to derivative works and, if anything, stifle creativity.
Works like KH show you can use existing characters as a jumping off point for fresh, original works.
…As Disney well knows, because of course they use public domain fairy tales.

This then leads to the point of “So…why not just get a license to use Disney characters”? Well:

  1. You have to have sufficient clout to arrange such a deal. Square can, you couldn’t. 2. The fees may mean the difference between a potentially profitable artistic venture and a loss-making one. They are clearly going to deter lots of people.

Eh, if you’re that creative, then make up some NEW characters. I would have been much, much happier with KH if it hadn’t had quite a few of the Disney characters. I find The Mouse to be annoying. I also didn’t like Donald or Goofy (attacking with a shield? really?) and interacting with the duck nephews. I did like some of the other characters in the game, and I thought that finding the pups was a good sidequest, for instance.

Exactly. Alan Moore wrote “Watchmen” for the Charlton characters like the Question. When he was told he could no longer use them, he came up with new characters and it became an entirely new creation.

Again, if we’re suggesting that using copyright characters either leads to dross, or at least pulls down the quality of any future work, one wonders why there’s even any need to protect copyright. Or why producers of content ever reuse any of the characters or worlds they create.