This iconic mouse is weeks away from being in the public domain
www.deseret.com
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

  • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.eeEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    Disclaimer: I’ve only really looked into copyright law from the perspective of a YouTube content creator

    I don’t see how extending copyrights indefinitely discourages new works from being made given that fair use is a thing. Assuming that fair use is protected, wouldn’t having some limitations on how you use a given work encourage more creativity? The best example of this that I can think of is Raccacoonie in Everything, Everywhere, All At Once.

    I’d honestly be fine with something as old as Steamboat Willie being freely available in the public domain, but I’m not sure I’d say the same thing for Mickey Mouse. It’d be cool to get some legal Mickey Mouse animations from small companies or online creators, but IMO, it wouldn’t be great if Mickey Mouse content came from Warner Bros. Disney should be the only large company allowed to use Mickey Mouse as long as they still make quality content with him. The year or decade where Mickey Mouse isn’t being actively worked on as a creative continuation of the original concept should be the time where everyone and anyone can adapt Mickey Mouse.

    The reason why I put a split between small and big is that the latter often seems corrupted by greed, whereas the former tends to do things out of passion. IMO, creatives deserve incredibly strong copyright protections with relatively little work because there’s not much stopping someone else from simply stealing said content. This is especially rampant now on TikTok and Instagram. Large companies should get the same opportunity due to brand identities, but they should be under much more scrutiny to achieve the same level of protection, and they shouldn’t be able to bully creatives.

    I also see a lot of commenters mention how copyright should be limited to 20 years. I don’t see this working out well in today’s world because old stuff is brought up and popularized seemingly often. Niche videos from 2013 can easily go viral in 2033, and I think authors deserve some sort of reward for that.

    • abbotsbury@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      I don’t see this working out well in today’s world because old stuff is brought up and popularized seemingly often

      That’s a feature, not a bug. Humans have always built upon that which came before, that’s why Robin Hood is a beloved story because each generation could do what they want with it, or King Arthur, or Shakespeare.

      Nobody owns ideas, if you come up with something neat, sure have 20 years to try and make it successful, otherwise it’s free real estate. Anything else is a perversion of human nature.

      • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Robin Hood is a beloved story because each generation could do what they want with it, or King Arthur, or Shakespeare.

        How is expanding “fair use” contrary to that goal? Creatives would be able to use Shakespeare or literally any copyrighted work as long as the derived work is transformative.

        Nobody owns ideas

        Ideas are easy to make. Implementing them is painful. Said pain should be rewarded, and Amazon shouldn’t be able to find something just outside of the copyright window to copy and redistribute.

        if you come up with something neat, sure have 20 years to try and make it successful, otherwise it’s free real estate.

        My issue with this is that after 20 years, some content farm could just copy a video, reupload it, then rake in all the profits. These farms already exist because copyright for small creators is rarely enforced. The creator literally gets nothing in this exchange, and creatives in general have way less incentive of making new works as a result.

        • abbotsbury@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          1 year ago

          expanding “fair use”

          I’m not talking about fair use, I’m talking about public domain; complete freedom to modify or redistribute.

          Said pain should be rewarded

          Yes, by temporary monopoly

          Amazon shouldn’t be able to find something just outside of the copyright window to copy and redistribute.

          Why not? Project Gutenberg provides an incredible service (and LibriVox) which is based entirely on the concept of old works naturally falling into public domain. Imagine how absurd it would be if you still had to pay the publisher of Charles Dickens to read A Christmas Carol.

          some content farm could just copy a video, reupload it, then rake in all the profits

          Do you see content farms making bank with public domain content now? This is a ridiculous scenario, you obviously have not thought out this issue and instead are just justifying your feelings on the matter. Old things belong to everybody, culture is meant to be shared.

          because copyright for small creators is rarely enforced

          That’s a completely separate matter bud, go ahead and advocate for enforcing the law for small creators, I’m talking about what the limit for those protections should be.

      • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Google would take some high-schooler’s work and profit off of it in that case. In today’s world, said high-schooler would receive some compensation.

        If you think that this is far-fetched, it literally happened just now with Beeper Mini. A high-schooler received a $400k payout because he had ownership of his work.