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

  • SCB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The public must gain it’s share of the revenue for allowing a private company to use public domain IP exclusively.

    Pretty strongly disagree with the idea of a company’s product just becoming the public’s because a certain amount of time has passed.

    I cannot even conceive of what the argument for this could possibly be.

    • ZephyrXero@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      Copyright was never meant to be used how it is today. It was specifically made to protect small creators from having big companies come in and rip them off. Companies were never meant to be the beneficiaries. But lot of lobbying plus corporations are people too bullshit changed that.

      Copyright is meant to last roughly the lifetime of the artist, but organizations can live forever. And then nothing ever goes in the public domain, a shared culture dissolves in to nothingness.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Copyright is meant to last roughly the lifetime of the artist, but organizations can live forever.

        This is why I think it needs to be updated.

        And then nothing ever goes in the public domain, a shared culture dissolves in to nothingness.

        I don’t see how these two things relate to one another at all. We currently have a shared culture.

    • adrian783@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      the argument is that the people, and the political system the people put in place enabled the company to create and benefit off its creations.

      “we live in a society” but unironically.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        enabled the company to create and benefit off its creations.

        And you want to… Stop that?

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                How are the two at odds here? Disney has around a quarter million employees who currently benefit from copyrighted IPs.

                • TomAwsm@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Please explain how Disney being the only ones able to use an IP causes their employees to get a higher salary. Executives do not count, as they get paid obscene amounts as it is anyway.

                  • SCB@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It allows them to get a salary, and their salary negotiations are neither here nor there

    • hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Disney themselves benefited from the public domain since they didn’t invent the stories of Snow White, Cinderella, etc.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They didn’t tell them as-written, either, so this is neither here nor there.

    • CaptDust@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Literally how it’s worked forever, how do you think books and films become public domain? Blame the Romans.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        “this is the way it’s always been” is never an acceptable defense of anything

        • CaptDust@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m confused, are you actually advocating for companies to retain control of their properties forever? Public domain exists for the benefit of all people, to keep knowledge and art open and available, and to allow future generations to build on existing work.

          Sure not a huge deal for Mickey mouse because it’s not as important as research work or whatever, BUT considering Disney was literally built on repacking public domain stories (Pinocchio / Snow White / Beauty and Beast directly taken from previous works, Lion King is basically Hamlet with animals), it’s past time they contributed back.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure not a huge deal for Mickey mouse because it’s not as important as research work or whatever, BUT considering Disney was literally built on repacking public domain stories (Pinocchio / Snow White / Beauty and Beast directly taken from previous works, Lion King is basically Hamlet with animals), it’s past time they contributed back.

            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?

            • CaptDust@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The options are offering timed control over an IP,

                I don’t understand why this shouldn’t be perpetual if the IP is in use.

                but what about tomorrow’s creators, the next Disney that builds it’s foundation on stories like Frozen or Moana?

                “Misunderstood and somewhat outcast princess that develops special powers and saves her people” is hardly off-limits.

                • CaptDust@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • SCB@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Under your proposed system, this creator now needs to get a license, or build an entire off-brand wizarding world?

                    Yes, absolutely. Same reason I don’t think someone should “create” in Middle-Earth without licensing.

                    Meanwhile in reality all works are derivative of SOMETHING that came before it, and rights holders will absolutely C&D my new movie “Jerry Popper and the Warlock’s Boulder”, even though my story is “totally original” about Jerry’s first year at Noxorth.

                    Seems like this would be happening more often if it were the case?

                    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.

                    Why are you acting this way?