- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
This iconic mouse is weeks away fromn being in the public domain Jan. 1, 2024, is the day when ‘Steamboat Willie’ enters the public domain
This iconic mouse is weeks away fromn being in the public domain Jan. 1, 2024, is the day when ‘Steamboat Willie’ enters the public domain
I’m not sure how updating IP laws get in the way of this and no one seems able to article it for me.
And yes, I believe that any trademark characters/IPs should be protected forever. I don’t see how letting me write and publish independent Doctor Who stories benefits anyone but me, while damaging the “real” Doctor Who universe.
Do you have a reason for the alternative view?
For me it’s quite simple. The options are offering timed control over an IP, or have the wild west of no copywrite. We, as a society, decided we will protect an IP for said time to allow profit and encourage creation, before the public can go wild on it. Without copywrite protections, derivative works are available immediately.
Under this perpetual exclusive rights system/scenario you’re proposing Disney straight up does not exist. Whichever company held the rights to the Brothers Grimm estate would have immediately cease and desisted Disney’s Snow White. No Disney, no Mouse, end of story.
Now, that works out great for Current Day Media Giant - but what about tomorrow’s creators, the next Disney that builds it’s foundation on stories like Frozen or Moana? Shouldn’t those future generations be provided similar access to their childhood fables? It starts with making Steamboat Willie available.
I don’t understand why this shouldn’t be perpetual if the IP is in use.
“Misunderstood and somewhat outcast princess that develops special powers and saves her people” is hardly off-limits.
Implying there is no difference between derivative works and reimagining. Let me use another example- 100 years from now a creator has a great idea to release a story expanding Harry Potter to introduce a new school, idk.
Under your proposed system, this creator now needs to get a license, or build an entire off-brand wizarding world? You seem believe taking “inspiration” from public works is ok, while using or expanding the preexisting works is not. Meanwhile in reality all works are derivative of SOMETHING that came before it, and rights holders, while Potter is still under copywrite, will absolutely C&D my new movie “Jerry Plopter and the Warlock’s Boulder”, even though my story is “totally original” about Jerry’s first year at Noxorth.
If you don’t see the problem here I have to concluded you’re either a trolling contrarian, or the type that votes to defund libraries.
Yes, absolutely. Same reason I don’t think someone should “create” in Middle-Earth without licensing.
Seems like this would be happening more often if it were the case?
Why are you acting this way?
Because your proposal makes no sense mate, however you cut it, I’m sorry. No public domain (perpetual rights) means no Dracula, no War of the Worlds, no Alice in Wonderland, no Moby Dick, no Sherlock Holmes, the list of works embedded into the fabric of society ceases to exist. Or, perhaps copyright becomes collectively ignored and unmarketable fan fiction is all that remains.
Honestly LOTR going public domain is one thing I am very excited for and I hope it happens in my lifetime. I can’t wait to see what other stories will be told in middle earth and how it will be reinterpreted.
I mean, all of those properties still exist. I’m fine with you having to name your vampire something other than Dracula.
The whole thing just seems like a weird mix of leftist “no one should own anything” philosophy with like, die hard fanfiction lovers.
I’d rather someone create their own fantasy novels than just try to tell some hamfisted Hobbit story.