Image of Popeye Enters Public Domain In the EU

Several readers wrote in to mention that the copyright on the image of the character Popeye expired in the EU as the year began, 70 years since the death of its creator Elzie Segar. The US will have to wait until 2024, 95 years after Segar's death. Only Popeye's image is free of trademark in the EU; the name "Popeye" is still under copyright by King Features Syndicate. Popeye made his first appearance in a comic strip in 1929 and became hugely popular in the 1930s. The Times claims that Popeye now moves $2.8B of merchandise per year. Le Monde's coverage (in Google translation) mentions the real-life people in Segar's early experience who inspired some of the Popeye cast of characters. Popeye himself was based on the prize fighter Frank "Rocky" Fiegel.

Comments

Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! Now I can finally start selling my comics with fanfic of Popeye's adventures when he still was a sailor.
Lemme tell you, those are some saucy drawings! And you thought that spinach -only- grew his arm muscles?

Re:Finally...

[philspear]

I'll say! I thought I would never realize my dream of opening a non-franchise Popeye's Chicken in Luxembourge.

Re:Finally...

[lysergic.acid]

and i can finally make references to popular 1930's cartoon characters in my artistic works! hurray for copyright laws! god forbid we let artists/writers make references to popular cartoon characters while they're still culturally relevant!

i just wish Matt Groening would hurry up and die so that i can wait 70 years after that to make references to popular 90's cartoon icons.

Re:Finally...

[mattack2]

RTFA. That is not the Popeye you're looking for.

Re:Finally...

[lysergic.acid]

well, clearly you must know something that i don't. because the application of copyright laws in the U.S. generally favors the interests of copyright holders--particularly extremely rich ones--rather than the public. and the only way to use copyrighted works without obtaining a license from copyright holder is through the fair use clause, which is very vaguely defined and generally of little use if the copyright holder is a major corporation like Disney or FOX. so regardless of the intent of the law, the realities of copyright enforcement generally make fair use a moot point if the copyright holder actually decides to come after you.

case in point, one of the artists on our back catalog is a sludgemetal band called Acid Bath. (they're not particularly well known outside of metal circles, though they have garnered a cult following over they ears.) anyways, they released an album in 1994 (When the Kite String Pops, album artwork by John Wayne Gacy) with a track on it entitled "Dr. Seuss is Dead." so for about a decade and a half we sold merchandise related to this song, assuming it'd be covered under fair use.

well, about a year ago we were contacted by the "Seuss" estate and threatened with legal action if we didn't immediately take down all references to Dr. Seuss from our site and hand over our entire stock of CDs, DVDs, and t-shirts which made any reference to that song title. we were even forced to change the name of the song from "Dr. Seuss is Dead" to "is Dead" on iTunes. should we have taken the dispute to court and fought the charges? i, in my infinite optimism and naiveté, had initially thought so. but that was until my boss talked some sense into me and brought up other such cases which should have been covered by fair use rights & legal parody that ended with the verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

perhaps if we were Sony BMG or one of the other Big Four labels we could have stood in chance in court. but we're a small indie label with neither the legal muscle nor the financial means to sustain a long & drawn out legal battle.

Re:Finally...

[jaymzter]

Acid Bath was/is da bomb! It is a shame they never got to realize their potential. I remember almost wearing out one of their demo tapes prior to their first major release coming out.

Re:Finally...

[1u3hr]

Now I can finally start selling my comics with fanfic of Popeye's adventures when he still was a sailor.

Tom of Finland beat you to it.

Re:Finally...

[PCM2]

No, you RTFA, because yes, it is. It says so right in the third paragraph.

Re:Finally...

[sumdumass]

Well, it's quite simple, there are portions of other people's copyright that you can use without regard to licensing and often, if your making money from it, the licensing costs aren't that much if they are even needed.

In your example of Acid Bath (Which I am somewhat familiar with), simply altering the depiction of Doctor Sues could have been enough to evade copyright altogether. Interestingly, if you would have consulted a copyright lawyer first, he probably could have gotten a low cost license for distorted images that wouldn't have led people to believe it would have been the original Dr Sues Cat in the hat.

Anyways, I read through the case you linked to. The court was right in it's decision on the cat's not in the hat. But your situation was completely different. First the court found that Dr Juice copied image verbatim from Dr. Seuss' works. Second, they found that the parody simply didn't exist because in no place did their works criticize The cat in the hat or Dr. Seuss but it used it's style, rhymes and so on. Outside of using their images, I'm not sure it would even be close to the same case. They used a reference in culture and made fun of it (albeit in a dark way) to describe the events surrounding them in today's culture. That's exactly what Fair use was supposed to be used for. It would be more like Two live Crew's situation with Pretty woman. Anyways, directly copying the image probably would have been a "no no" but a lawyer in the field of copyright could have given invaluable guidance there that would have stopped Seuss from doing a damn thing. It most likely would have ended up with your intent being the same and getting by with what you were attempting to accomplish.

You originally mentioned using Matt Groening's works in fair use. Have you ever watched family guy when they do a "like that one time I" flashbacks? They don't reproduce the characters exactly, they do rough imagery of them and insinuate but they don't need licenses for each time they do it. That's because it falls into fair use and their lawyers tell them what they can get by with.

The point is, if you don't know for sure, get a lawyer, especially if your planning on selling stuff and making money from it. Trust me, it is not an burdensome expense and you will be surprised at how much you can do that you think you currently cannot. Your manager did you a disservice by talking you out of visiting with a copyright lawyer to at least see where you stood. "Seuss" had to protect it's assets or risk having them watered down, it could have very well been possible that they could have worked out a deal even if it meant twisting the images a little (which I'm sure isn't a problem for a metal band). Approaching them before hand would have made it easier but as long as they feel their assets were being protected, there is no rational reason for them to continue to object to actual fair use. I can't find an image of the art work so I can't really comment on if I think it would be fair use or not. But then again, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not yours. I suggest getting one, the case you provided doesn't really seem to be in the same league and your situation.

BTW, did you say you were in Acid Bath or worked with them/their works?

Re:Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

the application of copyright laws in the U.S. generally favors the interests of copyright holders--particularly extremely rich ones--rather than the public.
 
The article refers to the image of Popeye entering the public domain, in the EU, not the US...

Re:Finally...

[Kalriath]

No, YOU RTFA, because no, it's not. It says so right in the tenth paragraph.

Re:Finally...

[KDR_11k]

References are slightly different from taking verbatim. You could always make references, you just couldn't put the character straight into your work. Now you can.

Re:Finally...

[cayenne8]

Either way....Popeye's Fried Chicken makes some of the best fast food there is...oh, the red beans and rice...and spicy chicken.

Can't eat it that often, but, during Mardi Gras...I gotta do a couple boxes of the stuff...

Re:Finally...

[lysergic.acid]

i used to think similarly, but you're ignoring certain realities of business and the legal system.

first of all, licensing copyrighted works is not always a viable option. if you're familiar with Acid Bath, then you know what kind of subject matters they sing about and the type of lyrics they use. i don't think the Seuss estate is likely to grant a license to use their character's name in a song about IV drug use & rotting corpses, and that uses the f-word 18 times, in an album that is illustrated by a convicted serial-killer/cannibal/pedophile/necrophile.

even if we were somehow able to convince the Seuss/Geisel-estate to grant us a license to use their character, it's unlikely that the album would have remained profitable--all for a single song title. frankly, the lyrics have very little to nothing to do with Dr. Seuss. so in retrospect, from the perspective of the label, the smart thing to do would have been just to change the track title and remove the 4 occurrences of "Dr. Seuss" from the lyrics. but we're not in the habit of censoring our bands, and i don't think they'd really appreciate being forced to run all of their new material by a copyright lawyer before being allowed to perform a song or record an album. i don't know, that just doesn't seem conducive of a healthy creative environment IMHO.

lastly, the only merchandise we sold containing an actual depiction of the Dr. Seuss character did have major alterations--it was an original design commissioned by the label & the band depicting Dr. Seuss looking strung-the-fuck-out, smoking a joint, and with a needle in his arm. but as i said, there's no fixed metric for determining what is considered fair use and what is not. it's always judged on a case by case basis. and frankly, we don't have the money to engage in a court battle with a multi-million/billion-dollar corporation. if ABC backed down from a copyright dispute against the Geisel estate, then that tells me that we don't really stand much of a chance.

i mean, in an ideal world, the law would always be interpreted in accordance to its intent. mentioning "Dr. Seuss" in the song title or lyrics of a metal album is not likely to devalue the Geisel estate's IP or otherwise damage them financially. so we should have had nothing to worry about. and in an ideal world, money would also mean nothing in a court of law, and any average joe could take on a major corporation like Disney or Sony BMG in court and win. but that's not the way the world works, and people who are in the right are unfortunately often forced to settle out of court.

as to your last question, i've never been in a band or worked with Acid Bath, though i did meet Sammy Duet at a Goatwhore (the band he formed with Ben Falgoust of Soilent Green/Paralysis fame after Acid Bath broke up) show when they were signed to Rotten Records, which is where i work. unfortunately, Acid Bath broke up a couple of years before i started working at the label around my senior year in high school. but i can tell you this much, Dax Riggs, who wrote most of the songs, is not the type of person to associate with lawyers. heck, he's refused to work with even record labels since Agents of Oblivion split up--and not for a lack of offers. in fact, Dax's antiestablishmentarian views is the primary reason why Acid Bath (minus Audie Pitre, obviously) has never reunited.

oh, and one last thing. i think it's worth noting that FOX owns the copyrights to both, The Simpsons and Family Guy, so that's probably not a good example to use. South Park's parody of Family Guy and The Simpsons are probably more appropriate to this discussion, but Comedy Central has a lot more money to spend on lawyers than we do.

Re:Finally...

[s0l1dsnak3123]

Ironically, you are still infringing on those copyrights on your last.fm page ^_^
I love the stupidity of the world.

Re:Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the early 70s a friend of mine found that Disney had failed to renew the copyright on the original images of Mickey Mouse. He then proceed to create a series of very amusing cartoon strips using the old image of MM. It wasn't long till Disney lawyers hit him hard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_O'Neill

Re:Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh, the company I work for Red Fish Blue Fish Dyeworks had a similar issue. The Suess camp asked us to produce everything that we did with Red Fish Blue Fish on it, ie catalogs garments etc and we complied. We asked them to do the same, which you have the right to ask of the copyright holder. It turned out to be a huge hassle for them, they dropped the case and let us get use it as a service mark. I am not sure if that would have helped you guys, but food for thought in the future..

Re:Finally...

[sumdumass]

first of all, licensing copyrighted works is not always a viable option. if you're familiar with Acid Bath, then you know what kind of subject matters they sing about and the type of lyrics they use. i don't think the Seuss estate is likely to grant a license to use their character's name in a song about IV drug use & rotting corpses, and that uses the f-word 18 times, in an album that is illustrated by a convicted serial-killer/cannibal/pedophile/necrophile.

even if we were somehow able to convince the Seuss/Geisel-estate to grant us a license to use their character, it's unlikely that the album would have remained profitable--all for a single song title. frankly, the lyrics have very little to nothing to do with Dr. Seuss. so in retrospect, from the perspective of the label, the smart thing to do would have been just to change the track title and remove the 4 occurrences of "Dr. Seuss" from the lyrics. but we're not in the habit of censoring our bands, and i don't think they'd really appreciate being forced to run all of their new material by a copyright lawyer before being allowed to perform a song or record an album. i don't know, that just doesn't seem conducive of a healthy creative environment IMHO.

The point of my post was more then you can get a license. It may be that the lawyer could have pinpointed what you could have and could not have gotten away with or even in the attempts to get a license, ensure to them that your usage wouldn't imply their products or degrade the value of them. Anyways, legal advice from someone who is qualified to give it (Not me or your manager unless he is a lawyer) should have shown well before any problems arose, what potential problems could arise and even after the problems were there, how far you needed to go in making them happy. You don't need to legally vet an original song or censor every song unless they do something obvious like sing about Dr Seuss and print Tshirts with the images on it or incorporate any other copyrighted works into their own. I mean they knew Dr Seuss was a product by someone else, knowing what you can and can't do with someone elses product before investing money on it is probably something you should do. It like checking the local zoning out before buying a building for a business so you don't find out after the purchase that your particular business isn't allowed in that are because of zoning laws. Just see where you stand and get professional advice from a competent lawyer practicing in that field when obvious things come around.

I'm pretty sure the song itself would have been more then covered by fair use. The entire song attempts to display an damaging social path where people are killing themselves and how Society itself aids in that destruction with it's profane justifications and thousands of people judging your every move. It's saying the images like the Dr Seuss worlds of the childhoods are gone, it is shattered,, Dr Seuss is dead. I could be wrong on that interpretation but it would seem reasonable to believe. And it would seem reasonable that the song, the intent, and artistic interpretations fall directly into the rawest of definitions for Fair use.

The artwork and T shirts is where I'm not sure though. Now, what they wanted you to do, and what you think you had to do to get them off your backs isn't necessarily what you needed to legally do. It is likely that the song itself would have passed, even if it was just something sang live in concert and not on the album. There are several (metal) bands that do that- have songs that can only be heard live. Metallic used to do that in the early days before becoming famous outside of small circles.

lastly, the only merchandise we sold containing an actual depiction of the Dr. Seuss character did have major alterations--it was an original design commissioned by the label & the band depicting Dr. Seuss looking strung-the-fuck-out, smoking a joint, and with a needle in his arm. but as i

Re:Finally...

[lysergic.acid]

well, i know that my boss does have a lawyer on retainer (these days it's nigh impossible for a record label to operate without some sort of legal consul), though not a copyright lawyer. so he did consult a lawyer about the situation when the Geisel estate first sent the cease & desist letter. but ultimately, it was just cheaper to give them what they wanted rather than to fight it. had the decision been up to me, i probably would have done just as you said and gone to court if necessary. but we aren't printing any more runs of the WtKSP album, and, being a businessman, my boss didn't feel it was worth the hassle just to make a moral stand.

it's interesting that you mention Jacob's Dream and not being able to find their CDs. Metal Blade is actually our biggest competitor. it was only 2-3 years ago that they poached Goatwhore from us. and while Metal Blade is one of the larger indie labels out there (like Relapse or Fat Wreck), they actually have relatively shitty distribution compared to us. for the amount of touring Goatwhore had to do in promotion of their last album, their soundscan numbers weren't that impressive.

the reason for that is mainly that they handle all of their distribution in-house, which is no doubt cheaper, but it's not going to be as extensive as having a distribution agreement with one of the majors, which is what Rotten Records has (we're distributed by Sony/RED through Megaforce). but then again, Metal Blade releases like 5-10 albums each month, whereas we average about 1 a month.

if you can't find the album(s) you're looking for in record shops, then i'd try their online store--or even iTunes; digital sales comprise about 25% of our total revenue these days. or you could probably write down the addresses of the record shops not carrying their CDs and e-mail Metal Blade with the info. i'm sure they'd appreciate that.

Re:Finally...

[sumdumass]

You know, I never thought about looking to the label to see if I could find anything there (tour dates or anything).

After looking, I couldn't find anything at Metalblade.com even mentioning them. It appears according to Encyclopaedia Metallum they quit Metal blade sometime after their 2005 album release and self released their latest (2008) album which is probably why I can't find them. I found a link from a myspace page but It just for the new album and you have to email a hot mail account (like I'm really going to do that with a check information or something) Anyways, most electronic or website places won't carry their stuff, either sold out and have been on back order for a while or are located in Europe and the shipping will be more then the album. Maybe I'm their one American fan from way back? I lost the albums I had when moving a few years ago, I guess I could renew my search for them but I think they got tossed out on accident.

Stuff that matters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot, now with more Wikipedia trivia!

Re:Stuff that matters?

[mdwh2]

Yes, this would be Slashdot, where IP issues are discussed a significant amount of the time. And consider how Disney make arguments for extending copyright terms because of Mickey Mouse, that would apply just as much to Popeye.

Re:Stuff that matters?

[tobiasly]

You mean like how they're still making $2.8 BILLION each year in fucking POPEYE MERCHANDISE?! Are you shittin' me? Who the hell is buying all this crap?

Don't worry, Olive!

[paiute]

The very existence of Mickey Mouse guarantees that nothing will ever again enter the public domain in the good old USA.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Anonymous Coward]

The very existence of Mickey Mouse guarantees that nothing will ever again enter the public domain in the good old USA.

Just curious why it is critically important for the characters to be in public domain? People will still make money off them if they are in public domain but the parent company will likely loose business and have to lay off people. Why? Why does the public have rights over and above the creator? I ask this as an artist that has copyrighted characters. I'd rather have my grandchildren benefit from my creations than some guy that has a sweat shop in China cranking off cheapie knock offs. How is society better off from artists loosing rights to their work? Oh they're dead so what does it matter? To me it feels like stealing the pennies off their eyes. I often wonder about releasing some work to the public because in the end the only true way in our society to control your work is to not publish it ever. I no longer have the financial need so why not just keep my work for family and friends? Society won't benefit, it's an AC post so you don't know who this is, but at least I'll control my creations. I understand if there is no remaining family but why shouldn't the rights pass to the surviving family much as physical property does? In some ways an artist's creation should have more protection than personal property since it is a part of themselves yet it has far less protection. My family home can still be in the family in 500 years but my work will belong to anyone that wants to reproduce it for a quick buck. It may seem straight forward to non artists but it's an upsetting subject for many artists. I've largely decided to draw a line between commercial and personal work and what I deem personal will never be released to the public. It's my choice and ultimately it is the only real control I have.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_copyright#Opposition_to_copyright

I am a creator (music in my case) as well and I think limits on copyright actually have a value for society, specially if it comes to abandoned works, which is the majority of created works...

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Frozen Void]

Proprietary information restricts freedom of expression. Its basically a patented way of thinking(which only corporations can afford to use).
Yet, chinese copies could be called Smackey Mice with slightly altered looks and still sell. Its the people who want to use Mickey Mouse in their works who are affected.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Anonymous Coward]

In 500 years, assuming two descendant per generation
and 4 generation per century we get 2^20 descendants: approximately a million.

How are you going to divide this intellectual property among the family members ? And in 800 years, we get 2^32: 4 billions. Meaning mostly everyone in America will be your descendant (unless your line dies fairly early leaving you with no descendants). Does it make sense passing intellectual property that far ?

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Anonymous Coward]

Characters going into the public domain is repayment to society for society enforcing your exclusive rights over the characters for a number of years. If you don't like them going into public domain, tough luck - without them eventually going public domain there's no good reason for society to enforce copyright.

The alternative, I think, is paying property tax on your copyrights just for holding them.

The idea is to encourage you to make new things, after all, not to keep making money off the same old idea. Of course that doesn't really work with modern copyright terms...

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[zwei2stein]

Its this simple: Why should anyone make money from one idea over again for rest of ther life?

Socienty does not benefit by encouraging certain people to parasite on it for rest of their life for less than days job. Society benefits from those people continuing to create.

If you, an artist and want to make money, keep producing art. That simple. Works for every other job, you are not superhuman deserving different treatment.

If someone can succesfully make cheapie knockoffs without your cooperation, then they deserve money and you don't, because you had opportunity to be first, to be brand, to abuse new fad before it becomes old fad, to be The guy to come to when they want to make knockoffs and just missed it or werent good enough.

Socienty does not need institutionalized freeloaders.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent wasn't just talking about characters.

Even if characters were the only issue, how many old-European tales did Disney use because he could (they were in the public domain after all)?

And why should my descendants, say 10 generations from now, get to control my work? And if I'm lucky that my work is high enough quality that future generations will appreciate it, I'd want it to be accessible to people who share my common interests. Not those who share have a minuscule portion of my DNA.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you like to pay some tax for society allowing you the privilege of exclusive use of these ideas? Hmm, no, I thought not. Then perhaps it would not kill you (pun intended) to allow society to use this stuff 95 years after you die?

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Dogtanian]

Why does the public have rights over and above the creator?

The creator enjoys the protection of the law that *stops* other people making copies of that character. You're already operating from the assumption that an artist has the inherent moral right to stop anyone making copies of his or her work.

Let me make clear that I'm not one of Slashdot's kneejerk anti-IPers. I strongly believe that the time and effort put into creating intellectual (as opposed to physical) works should have the same *opportunity* to be rewarded as physical work or service. Nor do I agree that no-one ever loses out from "piracy". So copyright is (ideally) the protection of *potential* income from intellectual works.

Still, the assumption that the creator should enjoy the protection of the state forever and ever on their works is one some people could reasonably disagree with.

I understand if there is no remaining family but why shouldn't the rights pass to the surviving family much as physical property does?

Regardless of whether some people call it intellectual property, the fact remains that it isn't the same as physical property.

Our culture is built upon the works of previous cultures and their intellectual works. To impose copyright and similar intellectual protection for generations would ultimately have the effect of tying up our current and future popular culture and make it impossible to build upon it in the same way that previous generations have.

Can you imagine how hard it would have been for the creators of Popeye if they hadn't been able to use *any* previous elements, even getting down to the basic structure of the story and the setup? (e.g. Two guys fighting over one girl; sorry, the Greeks have a copyright on that from 2000 years ago, etc.) And yes, IIRC, some people *were* wanting to copyright things down to that sort of level on modern creations.

You probably know (or ought to know) that many of Disney's classic works are based on public domain material and characters that they never paid a cent for. The company is one of the arch-hypocrites when it comes to intellectual property.

My family home can still be in the family in 500 years but my work will belong to anyone that wants to reproduce it for a quick buck.

Your original artwork will still be in the family in 500 years, if they haven't sold it off. You just won't have the right to stop other people making copies of it.

And while you can hold on to the house, you can't hold on to it *and* have the benefit of selling it. Sure, you can rent it out and stuff, so the edges are blurred; but as I said, physical and intellectual property aren't the same thing and can't always be compared. With IP, you can sell copies of it *and* retain the original rights.

I often wonder about releasing some work to the public because in the end the only true way in our society to control your work is to not publish it ever.

That's your choice.

I no longer have the financial need so why not just keep my work for family and friends?

Ditto. Though I'd burn it before you die, as if it's really as important as you seem to think, some descendant will probably release it anyway- likely before the copyright expires in order to make money as well.

It may seem straight forward to non artists but it's an upsetting subject for many artists.

No-one ever said life was perfect. I agree that it's sometimes unpleasant that some creatively bankrupt advertising f*****t can cheapen a piece of out-of-copyright classical music by using it for some lousy product, but that's an unfortunate side effect of something that is desirable on the whole.

Upsetting? Perhaps, but they have to decide whether the trade-off of releasing their work is worth it; they already enjoy the better part of a lifetime's protection in many cases, and that's a lo

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Korin43]

This isn't even someone profiting from it for their entire life. It's about someone profiting from it 95 years after they die.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[_Sprocket_]

Just curious why it is critically important for the characters to be in public domain? People will still make money off them if they are in public domain but the parent company will likely loose business and have to lay off people. Why? Why does the public have rights over and above the creator? I ask this as an artist that has copyrighted characters. I'd rather have my grandchildren benefit from my creations than some guy that has a sweat shop in China cranking off cheapie knock offs. How is society better off from artists loosing rights to their work?

It's interesting that you characterize the beneficiaries of limited copyright being sweat shop. Meanwhile, you've already breezed by one of the most well-known beneficiaries of the public domain: Disney.

Disney's portfolio is littered with stories from the Public Domain (starting with Snow White). Many of those stories are some of the best examples of classic Disney work.

Another interesting aspect of copyright is religion. Religion is one of the fundamental aspects of society. Religious texts are published, copies, and scrutinized by both true believers and critics. Can you imagine the Roman Catholic Church claiming copyright over the Bible? If you're a critic of Scientology, you can.

I often wonder about releasing some work to the public because in the end the only true way in our society to control your work is to not publish it ever. I no longer have the financial need so why not just keep my work for family and friends? Society won't benefit, it's an AC post so you don't know who this is, but at least I'll control my creations.

You're under the delusion that you own and control your creations.

In some ways an artist's creation should have more protection than personal property since it is a part of themselves yet it has far less protection. My family home can still be in the family in 500 years but my work will belong to anyone that wants to reproduce it for a quick buck.

And now I see why you have this idea. Ideas are not property. Again - at best you have copyright and / or trademarks. These are often referred to as "intellectual property" for simplicity. But they are not real property.

It may seem straight forward to non artists but it's an upsetting subject for many artists. I've largely decided to draw a line between commercial and personal work and what I deem personal will never be released to the public. It's my choice and ultimately it is the only real control I have.

That will work until eventually those works enter the public awareness via a distant relative's actions or death. And then, once the issue of copyright is worked out, the public has just as much access to your work as ever.

The only control you can exert on the future is to destroy your work now while you're alive. Obliterate it. Make it as if it never existed. Undo your work if control is that much more important that creativity. Otherwise you're going to have to accept that ideas outlive their creators and are beyond control of mortal man.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh Boo fucking hoo. A company has had more than enough time to make money off of their creation. The deal with copyright is that it is a contract between the people and the creator. We provide the creator with a Government mandated monopoly for a LIMITED time in exchange for the eventual entrance of that work into public domain so we the people can enjoy it as part of our culture. The creator or creators of a work live high off the hog with the system we have in place. Who do you think pays for all that copyright enforcement, who do you think pays for keeping those laws on the books and especially criminal prosecution of copyright infringement? We the tax paying citizens do. What you're saying is that we should enforce the monopoly of someone's creation until the end of time.

Also please tell me this. Why should the children and grand children be able to leech off of Royalties of their late parent or grandparent's work? They had no part in creating it, so why should creations be treated as an inherited estate. If you cannot profit off of your work while you are alive for an amount of time less than the rest of your life, maybe you need to create something that does. The copyright system has been oppressively anti-consumer and anti-creativity and more pro-business as time goes by.

I live your statement about a creation being an extension of an artist. I am sorry you live in a society and if you create and RELEASE something that has value to other people, they will want to read, watch, play with your creation. If you don't think that is such a fair deal, do not release it and you don't have to worry about making money off of it. Honestly you pro-retarded copyright people are sickening. You think just because you release something that you want to sell, that the Government should lick your ass for the rest of eternity. You seem to forget that some of the greatest songs, movies, books, etc have been produced as derivative works that were out of copyright of copyright. Look at half the Disney cartoons released, most of them are movie adaptations of public domain stories. I am sure Disney at the time wouldn't have cared of the copyright system in it's current state but now that they are top dog in the content arena they can have incumbent views. Copyright is supposed to be a fair deal so that you, the creator can benefit, and in exchange for us recognizing that you yourself have control over your work, we expect something in return.

Also do you think that people in general are so rigid and static that they cannot adapt to sane copyright laws or even the idea of something going into public domain? Here is a quick example: A movie that company X has had the copyright to for many years suddenly goes out of copyright. They have several choices in what they can do to still make money.

1) Company X can just keep selling DVDs of that movie for a decent market price but realize that anyone else can do so.
2) Company X can release a remake or create a derivative work off of that movie, creating a copyright over that new adaptation
3) All of the above.

These are fairly decent ways to still make money off your out of copyright creation however you seem to think that we should take a cue from the RIAA and MPAA and force the market to bend to our will rather than following the market. You want to keep something in copyright forever because a few people my magically lose jobs. If your business model is solely based on squeezing aging works for every dollar they have rather than building on top of them, you deserve to go out of business.

But like I said, if you don't like it, don't release your work. The World will get along fine without your mediocre work (if you are that anal about keeping it secret and a monopoly for an eternity + 1 day, it isn't worth the medium it exists on)

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you imagine the Roman Catholic Church claiming copyright over the Bible?

News Corp International own that one. Seriously, Zondervan are part of News Corp and own the copyright on the arguably the most widely used version, the NIV (and variations). FWIW.

pbhj

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine dipshit, why don't you pay property tax on your creation so we don't have to bare the burden on your copyright hardons. I am sick and tired of you fuckfaces thinking that a company has a right to an idea for the rest of time. We the people enforce the rights so that Disney can benefit. All society is asking is that after a LONG LONG time it gets put into common culture.

Your phrase should be:

"Waaaah waaah! A company that owns a copyright that the people pay for through the courts and enforcement doesn't want to pay back society for generations of enforcement so they can squeeze a few extra bucks out of stagnant ideas!"

When your phrase gets deciphered into that, you start to really sound like a douchebag. If you really, really hate Society and all those advocated that think public domain should be fair, stop benefiting off of society. Leave the country, go find a remote island to live off of. Burn all your possessions that have benefited off of the public domain and just leave aka boycott society. Why not come up with 2000+ years of civilization on your own instead of bitching about people wanting copyright to be reasonable.

Without public domain what's the point of copyright?

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[thetoadwarrior]

Why is it so critical that generations worth of people, who did nothing to create the work get money out of it while tax payer money is spent protecting your work?

People were not born with the right to copyright. The government gave it to you with the understanding that it becomes becomes public domain after a certain period.

If copyright was indefinite eventually it would be so hard to create something without someone claiming you're infringing on their copyright so it has to end no matter how greedy an artist is.

For all you know, if copyright was indefinite your work might be similar enough for someone to take you to court.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Ed Avis]

I think rms put it best:

Control over the use of one's ideas really constitutes control over other people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more difficult.

I wouldn't even say that characters entering the public domain is 'repayment' for anything. Rather, the exclusive right for a limited number of years is a special boon, and freedom for everyone to use the idea is the default state in the absence of special laws creating a new kind of property.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's this simple: Why should any one make money from someone else's idea over again for the rest of their life? Society does not benefit by encouraging whoever has the greatest marketing force to monetarily "acquire" whatever art they can find. Society benefits from artists continuing to create, which is contingent upon artists being able to make a reasonable living from their own art, rather than inadvertently funding someone who happened to be faster and richer than they were. If you are someone who wants to make money from a so-called "IP", make one yourself, or work out an agreement with the creator. It's that simple. Society does not need institutionalized freeloaders.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[narcberry]

It is an asset of some sort. If copyright entered the public domain purely on merit that the owner is dead, you would have to also release his other properties freely to the public. I don't think you'll get much support for that.

But I like the idea stated earlier, that property tax should be paid on all intellectual property. Hopefully creating extra headache to calculate the value of properties you are hoarding for the sake of hoarding.

I think that would protect people with good ideas while stopping douchebaggery.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[slimjim8094]

Pinko? How old are you?

It's a social contract (also known as government). The rationale is that the government will protect your little ideas in exchange for the fact that - after you make your money off them - everybody else gets to use them, for anything, freely.

Otherwise, what's the benefit? Society as a whole doesn't give two shits for your ideas, and won't protect them, unless there's something in it for us.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Paradise Pete]

Just curious why it is critically important for the characters to be in public domain?

Copyright is a contract between you and the public. In exchange for the incentive for producing more work, society is willing to grant a temporary monopoly on that work. It's not the other way around. It has already been abused and warped to where it does too much harm. As has been mentioned elsewhere, a reasonable compromise now would be to impose increasing taxes as the copyright ages. That way the very successful works get a longer monopoly, while the rest naturally fall back into the public domain where everyone can benefit. The "grandchildren" not having to work is not so important. I write this as someone who will one day inherit a fairly large body of copyrighted work. But I still think it's wrong.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[sumdumass]

How is that contract not happening now? 70 or 90 years after their death doesn't make any difference in that contract. Well, unless you think society is only now when your here.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Atario]

I agree that it's sometimes unpleasant that some creatively bankrupt advertising f*****t can cheapen a piece of out-of-copyright classical music by using it for some lousy product, but that's an unfortunate side effect of something that is desirable on the whole.

True. On the other hand, we'd also be missing things like Procol Harum's Whiter Shade Of Pale, among others.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[toriver]

Disney is a greedy shithouse which either uses public domain works for free (Hunchback, Pocahontas, Mulan, Snow White) or tries to trick people into selling their IP for a pittance. E.g. when they tried to get the rights to the Dr. Dolittle stories and offered the pricenly sum of $7,500 for the perpetual rights to the books, characters, merchandising etc. and the same for whatever other works he had written or would write in the future.

They got a "no".

Sadly, the A. A. Milne descendants did not have the sense to say so, so Disney are leeching off the Winnie the Pooh universe so much they possibly can.

And do I really have to remind you of "Uncle Walt", where the actual creators and artists were denied credit because if this saintly image they were creating? How can you defend that POS company?

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Anonymous Coward]

That argument might stand except the U.S. still leads in creative and art development.

Hollywood still leads any other country that try to produce movies, the quality still stands far superior.

Compared to countries with very lax and socialistic laws towards copyright, they do not seem to produce that much creatively or music/video/games.

I hear about how that will be the downfall of the U.S. around here, but yet to see any real world results or economic figures. Hollywoods creative minds continue to flourish and they still seem to flock there to share their ideas.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Anonymous Coward]

Socienty does not need more institutionalized freeloaders.

There, fixed it!

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[cpt kangarooski]

It is an asset of some sort. If copyright entered the public domain purely on merit that the owner is dead, you would have to also release his other properties freely to the public.

That's not the basis of it, though. The copyright has a limited duration. It used to be 14 years, with the option to be renewed for another 14 years. Then 28+14; then 28+28. And then it was life+50.

A life term is just another span of time, after all. Of course, the duration ought to be whatever, in combination with the breadth of the grant of rights, best serves the public interest. This is probably best accomplished by not automatically granting copyrights, instead letting authors who want them step forward to get them (thus allowing many works to instantly enter the public domain because the authors don't care), and by having short terms with multiple renewals, so that works whose authors at some point stop caring about copyright, can enter the public domain sooner than later. Term lengths might vary depending on the kind of work; a book probably gets more use out of a long copyright than a piece of software or a newspaper does.

On the whole, though, a term of 25 years maximum (i.e. 1-2 year terms, renewed periodically to get to the 25 year total) is probably more than enough for anything. After all, the point of copyright is to encourage authors to create and publish works, which are minimally protected for as short a time as possible. If an author is willing to create a work for a 25 year copyright, it is foolish, and a waste of public resources, to grant a longer copyright. It's just like finding someone to paint your house for $1,000, and then insisting that they accept $10,000 instead.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[anagama]

If you, an artist and want to make money, keep producing art. That simple. Works for every other job, you are not superhuman deserving different treatment.

A typical artist will have to try many times before making a profit on something. The recompense for the successful idea pays for the ones that don't pay off. Making art isn't like standing on an assembly line making widgets. It's easy to value the labor per widget, i.e., (hourly wage + other labor costs) / (widgets per hour). But how do you value the years of failure and practice it takes to get a piece of art that succeeds? While 90 years may be a bit on the long side to be able reap some benefit from a work, why should artists essentially get nothing: a pittance for what sells, and nothing for the all the work that didn't, but was crucial in making the piece that works possible? Such a system totally discourages arts.

I have my own business and my rates can seem high to people who don't understand that I don't earn X dollars/hour. That rate must pay staff salaries, rent, taxes, equipment, supplies, more taxes, services and utilities, and a few extra fees and taxes. I make decent money but it's really depressing to look at how little I keep of every dollar that comes in the door. Artists face similar self-employment hurdles -- the works that pay need to cover the works that don't, plus the time necessary to fail enough to succeed again. In art, failure is a huge amount of the overhead.

I would have liked to have been an artist, but I wasn't brave enough. I chose a permanent day job, and to dabble in my spare time. To be an artist, you have to work your tail off to get started, then you have to work like mad to make even a basic living, and then you have to have worry about how everyone seems to feel entitled to your work for a pittance or nothing. It takes a lot of guts to go that route and I didn't have them. Although the art I would have chosen is a physical sort, I do have a lot of empathy for people who make things that can be trivially copied these days. It must seem so pointless to spend so many years eating ramen and working hard to come up with a good idea, just to fulfill the sense of entitlement of the P2P community.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Omestes]

Why does the public have rights over and above the creator?

The creator is dead, long dead, and hence receives absolutely no benefit from Mickey Mouse's copyright.

The point of government is to find the balance between individual good, and public good, and enforce it. Things being public domain enhance the public, while control over creations benefit the individual, the original goal of copyright was to balance these, limiting the creators rights to continue to give incentive for creation (to the benefit of the public), and limiting the public's rights until there was a period for the creator to benefit.

Right now, the public has essentially NO rights when it comes to works, while the creator (and his great great grandchildren) have all of the rights, and none of the incentives to continue being creative. There is no reason that zombie Disney (still benefiting somehow from the mouse after his death) to EVER create another iconic cartoon.

This is idealized, since often the creator doesn't even have the rights, they are held by giant corporations. For example the Beatles music copyrights are not benefiting any single member of the band, only giant corporations, and Micheal Jackson. This doesn't make sense. Lovecrafts works only benefit Arkham House, and the Derelith estate, since he left no heirs. None of this makes much sense to me.

Copyright should involve the creators of content, and the public. That is the original Constitutional scope.

Corporate profits should NOT come into this equation, just you (the artist), and me the consumer.

I see no actual reason why copyright should even exist past death, since the children of artists should be no more privileged than my own children (i.e. have to work for a living).

In my perfect world, copyright would last for 20 years, with 2 possible extensions (not to exceed the lift of the creator) with proof that the work is making money/being used. Rights would be nontransferable, and only existent within actual people, though this would not disallow signing profits over to 3rd parties, just not the full rights themselves.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[poopdeville]

Just curious why it is critically important for the characters to be in public domain? People will still make money off them if they are in public domain but the parent company will likely loose business and have to lay off people. Why? Why does the public have rights over and above the creator?

Newsflash: Walt Disney, the creator, is dead. His rights have expired, with him.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Dogtanian]

I agree that it's sometimes unpleasant that some creatively bankrupt advertising f*****t can cheapen a piece of out-of-copyright classical music by using it for some lousy product, but that's an unfortunate side effect of something that is desirable on the whole.

True. On the other hand, we'd also be missing things like Procol Harum's Whiter Shade Of Pale, among others.

Which proves the point I was making(!) :)

FWIW, I actually prefer the melody of A Whiter Shade of Pale to the Bach "original" that they incorrectly (or intentionally) didn't quite copy.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's not complete as names (trademarked) don't ever expire, which is obviously wrong, but still enforced by powerful countries because of their corporate interests (Coca-Cola, Ford etc).

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[mdwh2]

Just curious why it is critically important for the characters to be in public domain? People will still make money off them if they are in public domain but the parent company will likely loose business and have to lay off people.

Gasp - they might actually have to come up with some new products once every century! (And there is no reason to think that excessive copyright laws increase employment - on the contrary, with things in the public domain, there are more companies who can employ people to do things with that information, just like Disney did - in fact, why don't you criticise Disney for "stealing" ideas that were in the public domain? What about all those thieves who make films of Shakespeare, or play classical music?)

Why does the public have rights over and above the creator?

You do realise that a key part of "X years after the creator's death" means that the creator is dead?

As for keeping your work privately, go ahead, I'm sure there's no great loss. But what about if a descendant makes it public, or in hundreds of years time, your precious work is discovered by archeologists? Oh noes, you've lost control of your work!

I'm not sure what your point is - if you don't want people seeing it, don't publish it. If you do, then there isn't a problem. Why do you need to "control" your work after your death, like some kind of zombie? You're dead. You won't be able to control it.

My family home can still be in the family in 500 years but my work will belong to anyone that wants to reproduce it for a quick buck.

No, it won't. People can't steal any work that you make. However, there's nothing stopping them using the information that you've chosen to release to the public. Copyright law gives you control over that information for the duration of your lifetime, and has no analogy to a physical product.

I've largely decided to draw a line between commercial and personal work and what I deem personal will never be released to the public.

Except posts to Slashdot - aren't you now worried that 70 years after your death, someone can use your Slashdot posts without asking your corpse? You'd better stop posting here, just in case!

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[mdwh2]

Dude, seriously, GET OVER IT. Waaaaah! Waaaaah! A company owns a copyright on a character which they are using to generate revenue! Waaaah! It's so unfair! Waaaaaah!

Why not come up with your own lovable and globally adored character that you can place into the public domain, instead of endlessly bitching about it?

Copyright has a limited term. Dude, seriously, GET OVER IT. Waaaaah! Waaaaah! Copyright expires years after you're dead, you might even have to do some new work once a century to generate revenue rather than relying on the work of dead people! Waaaah! It's so unfair! Waaaaaah!

Why don't Disney come up with their own character, instead of clinging onto a character created by people who are long dead, and endlessly bitching about it to the US Government?

If you really, really hate Disney and all the copyright trolls, then why not just boycott the firm and their franchises, instead?

When Disney are lobbying the Government, people who disagree have just as much right to voice their opinion on copyright terms.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[I_want_information]

That guy in a Chinese sweat shop will be cranking off cheapie knock-offs with or without things entering the public domain.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[I_want_information]

As to the first part of your question, society enforces copyright by enacting copyright laws and financing the judicial system which enforces them.

As for Hollywood and the record companies "needing" armies of lawyers, if you'll visit just about any /. thread initiated by NewYorkCountryLawyer, you might be persuaded that the need is artificial and motivated by a mafia-like business model of grossly inflated judgements for piracy against people who don't own computers, etc., and based upon faulty assumptions such as that IP addresses accurately identify any given defendant, all the while ignoring the vast amount of commercially-motivated piracy that goes on outside the U.S.

For what it's worth, I pay for my movies and music. I pay for my commercial software. I pay my shareware fees. I contribute financially towards FOSS that I use. Please don't tar us all as a bunch of thieving, conniving losers who want to rob you blind.

However, I must also say in your defense that the college-age population seems to have absolutely zero moral objections to file-sharing. I teach a general education course on "the computer impact on society" and my last discussion prompt for my students was on piracy and copyright. Maybe one student made a serious argument against piracy, and that student is at least 55 years old. So I do understand why artists get pissed off; I just ask you to consider that not everyone is out to get you.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[I_want_information]

Well, it must be admitted that, in some places like the UK, pretty much any Neandertal scatalogical finding enjoys seemingly permanent Crown Copyright.

I do some editing work for a UK-based charitable/educational organization in the area of medieval history and apparently you MAY NOT photograph medieval carvings and reproduce them not-for-profit in a community newsletter without paying a truly hideous fee, which is something our small organization cannot afford.

To me it's simply not clear how something created by someone who went on to his other-earthly final rewards more than 600 years ago has not entered into the public domain, especially when it is located within a public location.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[I_want_information]

Religion is one of the fundamental aspects of society. Religious texts are published, copies, and scrutinized by both true believers and critics. Can you imagine the Roman Catholic Church claiming copyright over the Bible? If you're a critic of Scientology, you can.

Actually, IIRC, that was exactly the case during the medieval and renaissance period -- Jews had problems getting rights to print the Torah from the Church.

But I like your analogy -- what if you had to pay some hideous fee just to use a bible quote in your wedding invitation or church newsletter or whatnot?

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Zironic]

Noone cares about Mickey Mouse, what people care about is that Disney has repeatedly managed to successfully lobby for copyright extensions each time Mickey Mouse is about to enter public domain.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[jonadab]

> The very existence of Mickey Mouse guarantees that nothing
> will ever again enter the public domain in the good old USA.

What I don't understand is why Mickey Mouse *needs* copyright extensions. Mickey's image is the #1 trademark of the Disney corporation, arguably more strongly associated with them than even the word "Disney", but certainly more than any other visual logo. I would think anything that even sort-of resembles Mickey should be protected as a trademark, so wouldn't that prevent anyone from making unauthorized Mickey Mouse cartoons, even in the absence of copyright protection?

Okay, so somebody could distribute the extremely early Mickey cartoons as they stand, without modification. But is there really any significant monetary value in them (in that form) at this point anyway? I think all the real value is in the character himself, and the ability to use him in new material, and I would think trademark law would cover that.

Can someone explain this to me? I'm obviously missing something important...

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Jason Levine]

Fine. Let's suppose you create a work today (book, song, whatever) that winds up being pretty successful. Thanks to copyright, you are motivated to create more works (maybe based off of the successful work, maybe not). Copyright law grants you copyright ownership over the idea for 70 years after your death, however. Assuming you happen to be 30 years old (since I don't know your real age) and that you will die at the respectable age of 80, this means that the copyright will expire in the year 2129. Assuming that every 30 years, a new generation comes into the world, this means that the copyright on your work will expire when your great-great-great-grandkids are born. Exactly how is copyright supposed to motive you to create new works when you're dead, your kids are dead, and your grandkids are likely dead also?

I definitely support copyright protections, but would like to see them significantly scaled back in length. I'd like to see them reverted back to what they were in the time of the Founders: 14 years initially with an optional one-time 14 year extension. I would probably support a 20+20 rule, but not much beyond that. There could be a phase in period for existing works starting with the oldest works and working forward. It would give artists plenty of time to make money off of the idea. Using the previous example, your work created today (when you are 30) would go into the public domain in the year 2037 when you are 58.

This would also solve the problem of abandoned works: They would either not be renewed after the first term or would naturally expire after the renewal term.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Anonymous Coward]

I know many artists, some successfully, some not, one is my wife. None of them make any money due to copyright laws.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that contract not happening now?

Because every 20 years, they add 20 years. I've never seen a copyright expire in the US. I call that unlimited.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Ian Alexander]

I'd rather have my grandchildren benefit from my creations than some guy that has a sweat shop in China cranking off cheapie knock offs.

Wouldn't everyone, yet nobody expects the grandchildren of, say, realtors or carpenters to receive any more benefit from their grandparents' work than an inheritance after they're gone.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Anonymous Coward]

The creator does have rights over the public. He gets his life to profit on his work and those x years after death for his heirs to profit. The government graciously gives him this gift, then the work goes to the public where anyone can benefit from it. If you would prefer, government could stay out of the copyright game entirely, and then the creator only has the rights he can enforce himself.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Jason Levine]

Can you imagine how hard it would have been for the creators of Popeye if they hadn't been able to use *any* previous elements, even getting down to the basic structure of the story and the setup? (e.g. Two guys fighting over one girl; sorry, the Greeks have a copyright on that from 2000 years ago, etc.) And yes, IIRC, some people *were* wanting to copyright things down to that sort of level on modern creations.

Not to mention how difficult it would be to track down the IP owners to get the proper permission. Abandonware advocates often cite computer games from the 80's as problematic in tracking down the copyright owner. In the past 20 years, companies have been sold, split up, gone out of business, and had their IP assets raided. Trying to read through all the legal documents just to find out who owns a computer game from the 80's can make you cross-eyed.

Now extend that by a few centuries. Who owns the rights to Romeo and Juliet, A Mid-Summer Night's Dream, or Shakespeare's other works? How could we even begin to attempt to track that down?

The answer is that we can't. It's impossible. Which is one reason why copyrights should be "short" in length. The longer copyrights get, the harder it becomes to legally figure out who owns what.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Anonymous Coward]

People who come up with ideas and work hard selling them are freeloaders? Spoken like a real pinko.

People who want to tell everyone their secrets and then run crying to mommy government to protect them? Spoken like...

Here's an idea for you: you don't want people to learn how to make your invention or hum your little ditty? Don't tell them.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[penix1]

Why is it so critical that generations worth of people, who did nothing to create the work get money out of it while tax payer money is spent protecting your work?

Not that I agree with it but the idea stems from real property inheritance. That's what you get when you refer to copyright as "Intellectual Property". The only problem with the idea is it isn't real people that wind up holding the copyright. It is a corporation that owns it in exchange for being published and promoted.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[anagama]

I think we tend to agree. 90 years post death is pretty darn long. The only modification I'd like to see with the 14+14 (or 20+20) suggestion of yours is that it be X+X years, or the life of the creator, whichever is longer, while copyright is held by an actual person. For non-human entities, it would simply be X+X. Like you, I think 40 years is adequate to recoup expenses on the work. It certainly would be for me, as I just turned 40.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Anonymous Coward]

Without public domain what's the point of copyright?

Well, get rid of Public Domain then! Why should anyone who hasn't paid to use an idea get the benefit from it, regardless of how long ago the idea or work was created? TANSTAAFL, and that includes society/civilization at large. So what if so-called "progress" is slowed or all but halted? "Progress" is mental masturbation and an illusion. The universe could not care less if humans never discovered how to use fire, or even whether or not life evolved at all. I don't see where humanity has any right to "progress" on the backs of the creators of ideas and inventions. So what if Disney took material from the Public Domain and profited, and now lobbies to cease this practice? They have the power because they have the cash to pay for it.

Want things to be different? Stop whining and pony up more money or form a military strong enough to enforce your wishes, then! That's how civilization truly works, money and power. If those complaining about copyright want to change it, then gain either financial or military power sufficient to *make* people change it. Stop whining because someone else smarter than you realized these truths about how civilization truly works before you did.

All the crap about "rights", "justice", and "rule of law" is simply pablum and Soma to help keep the costs of controlling populations down by fooling idiots into believing that they have any rights or hope of actually affecting their lot in life in any meaningful way, and that their well-being means any more than a possible extremely-minuscule gain or loss of labor/cannon-fodder and tax income to those who understand how wealth and power truly work.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Anonymous Coward]

It would make no sense for trademarks to expire. The purpose of trademarks is so when I buy a bottle labeled "Coca-Cola" I know it's made by the Coca-Cola company, and not by Joe's Cola company who are only labeling it Coca-Cola to benefit from the better known brand.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[_Sprocket_]

But I like your analogy -- what if you had to pay some hideous fee just to use a bible quote in your wedding invitation or church newsletter or whatnot?

Good point. But it's more than that. Say you want to criticize the Church by quoting the text of the Bible. What if the Church decides to squelch your criticism by claiming copyright of the Bible and pursues legal action. Sure - you can claim fair use. But the trouble with that is that fair use isn't determined until you take it to court. Do you really want to pit your personal finances against the financial resources of the Church?

Again - this is more than a theoretical situation. Critics of Scientology have faced this exact issue.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[1u3hr]

It is an asset of some sort. If copyright entered the public domain purely on merit that the owner is dead, you would have to also release his other properties freely to the public

There are a lot of false analogies made with "real" property.

The reason we have "intellectual property" laws is because many things are quite different.

On a moral basis, the "asset" you speak of, e.g. a story or song, were not created by the author ALONE. They were built on the work of other artists. This is most clear considering the example of Disney, a major copyright hawk, which has based most of its "assets" on stories in the public domain. And in music you don't have to explicitly sample another song to be influenced by it. As Pablo Picasso said "Bad artists copy. Great artists steal." The converse of that is if you police copying strictly, you will stifle art. All you'll have is a bunch of sterile commercial art, all licensed and approved by the corporations, since no one else will dare to produce something for fear they will be sued for infringing some ancient copyright.

All art is part of the culture. It builds on the work of previous artists, work that the artist appropriated without paying. So it is only just that his work should, eventually, go back into the public domain it came from.

And I think that death plus 95 is much too long for this. "Never" is completely absurd.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[remmelt]

"while copyright is held by an actual person"

THIS SANITY WILL NOT STAND.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[sydneyfong]

Copyright is not intended to "protect" works that are deemed "personal".
Copyright is not intended to combat privacy.

Of course, if somebody distributed private photos of me you can bet that I'd be going after them with copyright suits but it isn't how it's supposed to work.

As for a larger picture of how society would benefit with artists losing their rights, the issue is not the cost to the artist, but the relative cost to the society. If copyrights were shortened, would most artists continue producing works? I'd say most would. After all, the value of a work after like 100 years is not something people would think about compared with the profits that they would/might receive in the first few years/decades.

There are benefits to society too. Limits on copyright on literary works, for example, would greatly benefit society. Ever heard of Project Gutenberg? I've grabbed a few texts there. I wonder how many authors would rather have their ideas be heard by a larger population than to rake in that last penny 50 years after his/her death.

Don't be such a control freak. That's the trait of many artists I've seen, but it's not how society grows and develops.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[atraintocry]

They are in the public domain naturally, it takes force of law and the establishment of an artificial monopoly to keep them out of it. Society has better things to do.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Repossessed]

I'm certainly in favor of reducing copyright, but renewals every two years? So it should cost a no name author thousands of dollars over the course of the copyright, even with a modest fee, to retain the hope of both getting published and getting payed for it?

28+28 was fine, that gave us 86% (real figure, instead of pulled out of my ass) of everything within a semi reasonable amount of time, and kept the associated costs down.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[KDR_11k]

I'd rather see different treatment of active and abandoned works than a blanket duration. Something like if a work or a legally made derivative of it hasn't been available for (legal) purchase to the public (possibly with a restriction that it has to be at a sane price, exact threshold to be decided in court) for 10 years (or maybe less) the work enters the public domain. Anyone who cares can easily keep his copyright to the maximum duration but someone who doesn't will lose it. Might even make some copyright holders who want to hold onto their rights re-release old materials that would have been unavailable otherwise.

I'd make sure to include derivatives so in order to keep something like a character you wouldn't have to republish the first incarnation. Of couse the derivative chain only includes the elements that still appear in the sold works, a character that has been abandoned within a setting would be abandoned too.

IMO a restriction like that would make copyright only restrict access to things that are still being used and open up a lot of old material to the public that wouldn't be preserved otherwise (and really has no commercial interest attached so it just gets protected by accident when the durations get extended rather than with any intent on using the copyright). Probably easier to get implemented than a general shortening of durations because if it's abandoned by this system that would be because there is no commercial interest in keeping it alive and therefore no reason to oppose it.

I do think it's somewhat fair that Disney gets to keep Mickey Mouse and such still because it is a quite rare feat to make a work that has any relevance even 10 years later but their duration is pushing it.

Either way I think the derivative chain being enough to protect something would also make it easier for prospective users since currently when an old version goes out of copyright any derivatives (such as later stories, character changes, etc) remain copyrighted and someone trying to write a story with such a character would suddently find out that most of what makes up the current image of the character is actually much newer and still covered (and I expect most people to find that part out the hard way).

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[KDR_11k]

To be fair, most "artists" aren't going to make much more money off an old idea after a year or two, the vast majority of all "art" sells for a few months or years and then it becomes practically worthless and without additional creations the "artist" would starve. If you could really make money off an old idea forever companies like movie studios and such wouldn't keep making expensive new material and instead rely on the money they get from their old copyrights.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't even say that characters entering the public domain is 'repayment' for anything. Rather, the exclusive right for a limited number of years is a special boon, and freedom for everyone to use the idea is the default state in the absence of special laws creating a new kind of property.

The default state also happens to be that the strong, kills the weak. We have special laws, creating a new kind of right to life.

Don't read me wrong, I do believe that some of the copyright laws are insane. I would prefer a copyright system with life or ten years. If I die five years after I published something, then there is another five years of rights for my family. If I die eleven years after I published something, then the copyright ends with my death. I think that is a reasonable time limit. 95 years after someones death, is not reasonable.

My point is that copyright gives people incitement to publish. If you can't make money of your hard labour, why should you do that labour. Most artists aren't rich, most artists struggle to make a living.

I like reading comics and reading books and I know that many of the ones I read, would not exist in a society that did not have laws that protected them.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[silanea]

[...] How is society better off from artists loosing rights to their work? [...]

You are aware that for thousands of years societies all around the globe have only been able to develop and survive by replicating and modifying existing material? The idea of ownership over something you cannot touch is quite novel (disregarding claims by spiritual groups).

Why should you have the right to get paid several times for a work done once? Do you pay the mechanic who fixed your car last summer a fee every time you turn on the engine? That your product is an idea instead of an object does not magically make you somehow special. You are a producer who offers a product on the market. That you have the possibility to license copies on which you can impose restrictions is an artificial right, a concession from society. A sensible one, basically, since society benefits from your contributions to culture. But when your rights endanger that contribution beyond what is reasonable to allow you to make a living, culture suffers.

Besides, here's a simple test for you: Try to come up with a unique storyline, never-before-seen characters and an original writing style for a new novel. Something that has never been done before in any comparable fashion anywhere in the world. Could you? I can't.

Culture is mix-and-match. Science is observe-mix-and-match. Could you imagine Einstein's theories being protected by copyright, not open to education and research? Could you imagine the Four Evangelists fighting over who had the right to publish Jesus' biography? Could you imagine the original Luther Bible being burned for copyright infringement? I can't.

Copyright has its place in today's information-centric society and industry. But it has to be weighted very carefully against the need for information to be free (in both senses) so that our culture does not literally starve to death.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientology is known for its abuses of the court system and their sacred texts are fairly recent as well. Emphasis on abuses, it's questionable if they actually had much of a case most of the time but many people and companies back down when just threatened with a lawsuit.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[KDR_11k]

Only if someone else used Mickey Mouse as a trademark. I think having the character appear in a story (but not in a prominent role on the cover) would not fall under trademark law.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[cpt kangarooski]

So it should cost a no name author thousands of dollars over the course of the copyright, even with a modest fee, to retain the hope of both getting published and getting payed for it?

Probably not. Currently, it costs $35 to register a copyright, so even if there were yearly renewals over a maximum 25 year period (one initial registration, plus 24 renewals), that's still under a thousand dollars.

Anyway, remember, copyright is an economic incentive, but not a guarantee that the author will make money. A work will be valuable or not, depending on the public, with some being flops, and others hits. In almost all cases, it will be clear which a work is quite soon after publication. If the work is a hit, it's no trouble to renew it. If the work is a flop, the author may as well cut his losses and try again from scratch.

The point of the fees is to move works into the public domain faster, which yields a public benefit. Works where the author doesn't expect to make money (this counts for the vast majority of works) won't be worth the fees, so won't get copyrighted, e.g. a typical Slashdot post. This moves most works into the public domain immediately.

Works where the author wrongly thinks he'll make money, but which turn out to be flops will get registered but not renewed, so will enter the public domain much more quickly than they would if the term was quite long. Works which are moderately valuable, but where the value declines over time (Of works with any value, most works only have value for a short time after publication, anywhere from hours to a couple years) will get renewed initially, but eventually the renewals will taper off due to diminishing returns on the investment.

Only a handful of works will have significant value over the full term, and it will be easy to renew those, and it will be trivial to afford to do so.

After all, it's an economic incentive; it is entirely appropriate to expect authors to treat copyrights in a hard-nosed businesslike fashion. They aren't children, they aren't idiots, they have as much experience filling out simple forms as anyone else. It's not a significant burden, but it is just enough to avoid absolutely everything from automatically being copyrighted for as long as possible, even when that doesn't make sense.

28+28 was fine

True, most works were not renewed, and that helped. However, that doesn't mean that 28+28 was actually better than 14+14+14+14 or some other arrangement of term length and number of renewals. The question is how can we encourage the greatest amount of creation and publication of creative works for the least copyright, measured in both the breadth of protection and duration. It doesn't scale linearly -- going from 0 to 1 year has a far greater effect on authors than going from 1 million years to 1 million and one. Treating all types of works the same (which we probably ought not to do) I've generally seen figures in the neighborhood of 15 years. This suggests that a single 28 year term, with another 28 year renewal is extremely overlong.

And anyway, the terms ought to be set according to what works best, and not merely because historically it used to be 28+28, and before that 28+14, and before that 14+14, and that was set because it followed the 14 year patent term, and that was set because it had something to do with how Renaissance England guilds set apprenticeship and journeyman periods. As much as I appreciate the people who call for a return of the 14+14 term, they could stand to think it through a little further.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really feel you (or 'artists') actually deserve protection for your works from the state then you must acknowledge your responsibility to said state. As long you hold control over this art, you MUST provide access to it. If you want us to pay for decades after your death, and for these rights to pass onto your children, then you must ensure they fulfill their responsibility as well.

Never forget that IP 'rights' are not god-given. They are not included in your in-alienable human rights. They exist as a mutually beneficial contract between you and the state - theres no point in the state helping you if you aren't going to help it.

If you don't like that, stop selling you work, get a real job. It wont' hurt society, even if all you half-arsed artists shut up for good, because there are still people out there that enjoy creating for the sake of creation alone. There are also those that see a gap in a market as a problem to solved, rather than an opportunity to be exploited. These are the people that will advance society, these are the people that deserve our protection.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[dargaud]

The idea is to encourage you to make new things, after all

That seems to contradict the facts that:

• Copyright carries on after the author is dead (I didn't know you could produce art while dead)
• Copyright is transferable (how is Michael Jackson going to write a Beatles song, even if he holds the copyright, which he does ?)

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[dargaud]

Such a system totally discourages arts.

Nope. Art existed before the establishment of copyright laws.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[I_want_information]

Right. I agree entirely. I was just going for 'the bigger point'.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Anonymous Coward]

You do understand that copyright is a limited grant of monopoly to encourage more creativity, right?

Then consider that Disney with their vast catalog of animated movies that gave them their start which were almost exclusively created/derived off of public domain works.

Copyright is to encourage publication, with the work then entering the public domain for others to benefit and derive items from. That's the trade off for the limited time monopoly grant as it was originally envisioned.

I'm all for shortening copyright back down to the original 14 + 14 year extension. 28 years is plenty to profit off of a work.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Jon Chatow]

Another interesting aspect of copyright is religion. Religion is one of the fundamental aspects of society. Religious texts are published, copies, and scrutinized by both true believers and critics. Can you imagine the Roman Catholic Church claiming copyright over the Bible?

Interestingly, the Authorised Version (or "King James Bible", as many people call it informally), which is the basis of most Bibles currently available in English, is under perpetual copyright in the UK*, though I believe no other jurisdiction recognises this, and it is made available at no charge by the Church Commissioners who administer the copyright on behalf of the Crown.

* - Technically, not perpetual; the author it deemed to be the Throne (i.e., the meta-physical "human" embodiment of the Sovereign - a natural person), rather than James I himself, so it has the copyright of life+70; until and unless the UK becomes a republic, the author is deemed to still be 'alive'. Who said IPR wasn't intruiging? ;-).

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, then it is mathematically in the public domain as everyone would have a right to it.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[nem75]

What a sorry state our society must be in where a post like this is modded +5 insightful.

Don't get me wrong, you are absolutely right. It's just pitiful that it doesn't seem to be obvious to so many people.

Re:Don't worry, Olive!

[weber]

Your calculations are intriguing. By your logic, if enough time passes the copyright of the work will belong to everybody. Sounds to me like it converges to public domain.

Errmmm...

[JamesRose]

Today- 2009- 70 years after his death apparently, and also 2024 will be 95 years? MATH ERROR?

Re:Errmmm...

[berend botje]

Seems that 2024 - 2009 = 25, which apparently is the same as 95 - 70. Whodathunkit?

Re:Errmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Say what now? Check that math again.

Re:Errmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

HA HA!

Re:Errmmm...

[JamesRose]

You're wrong! So stop mocking me!

Re:Errmmm...

[Insanity Defense]

From the article:

From January 1, the iconic sailor falls into the public domain in Britain under an EU law that restricts the rights of authors to 70 years after their death.

While the copyright is about to expire inside the EU, the character is protected in the US until 2024. US law protects a work for 95 years after its initial copyright.

The 70 years began with the death of the author. The American 95 years began with the initial copyright. Two different dates to initiate things. So the gap between them ending need not equal the difference between 95 and 70. So it was not a math error but a reading comprehension error on your part.

Re:Errmmm...

[JamesRose]

From the summary: "The US will have to wait until 2024, 95 years after Segar's death."

So the summary actually has it's maths wrong- it literally says that it's 70 years from Segar's death to now, and ALSO 95 years from Segar's death to 2024. 2024 is indeed when the copyright expires- but it ISN'T 95 years after Segar's death.

Re:Errmmm...

[4D6963]

Le Monde article actually says that it's 95 years after the character is first used.

Re:Errmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ow. Math faceplant.

Re:Errmmm...

[Khaed]

Whodathunkit?

No one capable of subtraction? ;)

Re:Errmmm...

[Nivoset]

look at the current stock fun! people have been working on figuring out a lot of new math that isn't positive!

Little limerick...

[Lumenary7204]

"I move freely 'bout Greenwich 'cause my Copyright's finiched... I'm Popeye the Sailor Man [Whoot-Whoot!]"

Re:Little limerick...

[KeithJM]

Sorry to be all nazilike on you, but that's a not a limerick. It's a , uh, couplet and a half.

Poopie the sailor person

[syousef]

Since the name is still under copyright, I propose that we have a new comic "Poopie the sailor person". He could go around eating brussel sprouts. His girlfriend's name would be Canola Oil and his arch enemy Brittas would be a thug that went around killing copyright holders and waiting until the copyright expired.

Will Poopie save the day? Tune in same bat time, same bat channel. Same bat shit.

Re:Poopie the sailor person

[apathy maybe]

Except that I very much doubt that the name is copyrighted, or else everyone should be getting into trouble when they write it down. Wikipedia wouldn't be able to have an article about Popeye etc. etc.

Now the name might be a trademark, which is something which doesn't expire (unless not defended, or unless it becomes generic).

Dear folks, please don't use the term "intellectual property" at all. Trademarks are quite different to copyrights, which are very different to patents. They are all covered under different laws, and of those three, I believe that only copyright is international.

(Oh, and a great example of long copyright encouraging dead artists to keep producing yes?)

Re:Poopie the sailor person

[dwye]

> (Oh, and a great example of long copyright encouraging dead artists to keep producing yes?)

Long copyrights encourage OTHER artists, not the dead ones, just as any copyright, and especially long a one, encourages one-hit wonders like J.D.Salinger or Margaret Mitchell. Whether it encourages enough to warrant the loss to the public in the medium term (period between the end of the copyright under frex 1890 statutes and under today's) is another question.

Don't make easily knocked over strawman arguments like above, or you just encourage the people who really care to lump you in with the people who complain because they cannot make copies of the latest Metallica CD for all their friends, neighbors, and anyone linked by 6 levels of acquaintance, because of the "wild" idea that such copies would cut into album sales.

Re:Poopie the sailor person

[apathy maybe]

I fail to see how having copyright extend 75 years past the death of the artist encourages said artist to produce anything either before or after they die.

I am alive today, right now, and can not imagine the world 75 years after I die. Why should such a distant future (at least 75 years into the future, and hopefully many more), affect my decision making process now regarding creating new art work?

Surely I should be creating art work now to benefit myself right now? (Or more likely for most of the good artists, they would be producing stuff anyway.)

Having a long copyright does nothing to benefit artists, but only parasites and other scum.

Some websites with arguments against copyright
http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=52
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-copyright

Re:Poopie the sailor person

[pbhj]

I believe that only copyright is international.

There's an international Patent Cooperation Treaty to which 139 countries are signatories. One learns something new everyday!

http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/treaty/about.htm
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=6

Re:Poopie the sailor person

[Jason Levine]

(Oh, and a great example of long copyright encouraging dead artists to keep producing yes?)

Everyone knows that dead artists don't produce new works for money. They produce new works for BRAAAAIIIINNNNSSS!!!!!

Re:Poopie the sailor person

[the_womble]

Or to put in in a more strictly financial way: the change increase in the NPV of the income generated by a copyright by extending copyright beyond about 20 or 30 years from the date a work is finished, is very small. The increase in changes such as increasing copyright from life + 50 to life + 70 is negligible.

Re:Poopie the sailor person

[Anonymous Coward]

I could see something like life, or 20 years whichever is longer. This would still encourage older artists, who might not be able to profit significantly in their remaining years but might like the idea of having something to pass on to their heirs.

Re:Poopie the sailor person

[bentcd]

I fail to see how having copyright extend 75 years past the death of the artist encourages said artist to produce anything either before or after they die.

The media conglomerate that buys the rights off of you will take the full 150 years (or whatever) of copyright into account when calculating the current value of the work and so may offer you $150k instead of $130k (with a shorter copyright duration) for you to sign over the rights. This may matter to you.

Re:Poopie the sailor person

[Anonymous Coward]

I am alive today, right now, and can not imagine the world 75 years after I die. Why should such a distant future (at least 75 years into the future, and hopefully many more), affect my decision making process now regarding creating new art work?

It's actually not about you. It's about that dying guy who's selling his novel to the book publisher.

The publisher wants to be able to milk some years out of it. The idea is that they'll be more interested in a work with more years left on it, and hence will be more interested in buying it.

Add this to the idea that you should have the right to own your copyright for the duration of your lifetime, and we have the current problem.

Re:Poopie the sailor person

[Anonymous Coward]

They are all covered under different laws, and of those three, I believe that only copyright is international.

Of course patents are international. Otherwise China could freely make knockoffs of any other countries' products with no problem.

Some years back, the pharma phucks went insane when Brazil and India said that, if prices weren't lowered on AIDS drugs, they'd say "Fuck your patent -- we're going into production rather than let our people die."

Then, a few years later, when less than two handfuls of USians died in the anthrax thing, Cheney "invited" the German producers of the antidote to "visit" him to "negotiate" better pricing, or we'd go into production. The Germans were warned "to bring very sharp pencils". So this buttfucking son of a bitch was ready to overturn the entire international patent system because of a half dozen or so American deaths. Nice going, you duplicitous asshole -- that ranks decently high among all the things you did to fuck America into the ground. Now the world knows exactly what kind of bullies we can be.

Of course you do have a few countries which haven't signed on to all this US IP bullshit -- most notably North Korea. So it's not illegal, under their system, tt make knockoffs of anything. Just as we seem to think that pre-emptive invasion of another sovereign country is humky-dory under our legal system.

Response from US customs?

[whoever57]

Does this mean that US customs agents will now be searching kids' luggage more diligently, in order to prevent the illegal importation by kids of comic books that they legally bought in Europe?

Think of the kids! Just think of the harm those books could do in the US, probably they are supporting terrorism! </tongue in cheek>

Re:Response from US customs?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is sad how you felt that you needed to add the statement about your post being written with the tongue in cheek. Did you fear that people would take you seriously otherwise? I wonder if that tells something about you or the slashdot readers...

Re:Response from US customs?

[mdwh2]

I think it tells us something about the state of some of the laws.

Not hungry, just ate a hamburger

[vandelais]

I will gladly pay you Tuesday for your copyright today.

Re:Not hungry, just ate a hamburger

[Anonymous Coward]

Genius. The original, not the post.

You don't trademark images...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and you can't copyright a name. Always that same legal error of people not able to make the difference between a patent, a copyright and a trademark.

For pitty's sake...

[Anonymous Coward]

the copyright on the image of the character Popeye expired in the EU as the year began, 70 years since the death of its creator Elzie Segar. The US will have to wait until 2024, 95 years after Segar's death. Only Popeye's image is free of trademark in the EU; the name "Popeye" is still under copyright by King Features Syndicate.

Someone close enough to him to see the incomprehension in his eyes and the drool from his lips, PLEASE explain to kdawson the difference between copyright and trademark. It's appalling that he would write such crap as appears here.

Does anyone other than kdawson think that the name "Popeye" is copyrighted? Or that the copyright on the image running out means that the trademark is affected? This is crap. It's awful.

I guess I should be thankful he didn't bring patents into it.

Re:For pitty's sake...

[pbhj]

Perhaps the article wasn't controversial enough and he wanted to garner a few more ad impressions knowing that this would rile some of us.

Um, 3) Profit.

Re:For pitty's sake...

[gilgongo]

Does anyone other than kdawson think that the name "Popeye" is copyrighted?

Huh?

Or that the copyright on the image running out means that the trademark is affected?

From TFA:

"The Popeye trademark, a separate entity to Segar's authorial copyright, is owned by King Features, a subsidiary of the Hearst Corporation â" the US entertainment giant â" which is expected to protect its brand aggressively. "

When the copyright runs out, the trade mark is most certainly affected. This is because the two things are separate, and one is now in a lawyer-free zone. Things might get interesting.

Re:For pitty's sake...

[gilgongo]

Oh I see, you're on about the name vs image thing (sorry I didn't notice). Yawn. Yes - yes. It's probably just a typo. Keep your pants on.

Of much more interest is my point about the effect of having a mark hitherto protected by copyright now having to fend for itself in a world where many will start to regard the image of Popeye as something they have a right to use as they wish.

Consider this: I produce a range of toys featuring Robin Hood, a swash-buckling hero who robs from the rich and gives to the poor. Now I want to produce another range featuring Popeye, a lovable pipe-smoking sailor who eats spinach. King Features will try to sue me. Which side should we be on?

Re:For pitty's sake...

[demonlapin]

image of Popeye as something they have a right to use as they wish.

No, they don't have that right - it's trademarked, and still being licensed. You can reprint the original stories without paying them a royalty.

Re:For pitty's sake...

[DaveV1.0]

As King Features holds the trademark on Popeye(tm), a lovable, pipe-smoking, spinach-eating sailor, I would have to be on King Feature's side.

King Syndicates Should FIght back...

[tkrotchko]

... by inventing new characters.

Seems to me that it doesn't advance the sciences or arts by relying on copyrights that have been around longer than anybody who works at King.

Re:King Syndicates Should FIght back...

[dangitman]

... by inventing new characters.

Uh... Hmm... How about... Ghost Mutt?

Re:ahh

[Angstroem]

You're supposed to take it out afterwards, not let it stick in until the peristalsics do their job.

Ztuff z'at m'tours?

[djupedal]

Shouldn't we be reading this on slashdot.eu, instead?

Re:Ztuff z'at m'tours?

[Anonymous Coward]

We shouldn't be reading this on Slashdot at all until they hire an editor to review IP related entries with at least a cursory understanding of what the hell he or she is approving.

Re:Ztuff z'at m'tours?

[djupedal]

Flamebait? I fart in your gen-er-ral dye-REction!

disney

[Bizzeh]

i saw somebody mention disney earlier on. am i correct in thinking, since walt disney died in 1966, according to current EU law, the images of characters such as micky mouse and donald duck will enter the public domain in december of 2036 in the EU (70 years after death) and 2026 in the USA (95 years after initial copyright)?

Re:disney

[Tony Hoyle]

Mickey Mouse will *never* enter the public domain in the US - Disney has bought a lot of senators to make sure that doesn't happen.

By the time mickey is public domain in the EU, the US copyright law will be 200 years after initial copyright.

Re:disney

[dkf]

i saw somebody mention disney earlier on. am i correct in thinking, since walt disney died in 1966, according to current EU law, the images of characters such as micky mouse and donald duck will enter the public domain in december of 2036 in the EU (70 years after death) and 2026 in the USA (95 years after initial copyright)?

You have to differentiate between copyright and trademark. Copyright relates to the ability to make copies of "Steamboat Willie", display them in a public place, that sort of thing. Trademark relates to the ability to make wholly new Mickey Mouse cartoons, merchandise, etc. If the copyright on early Mickey Mouse cartoons has expired (not that I'm claiming that it has in your jurisdiction) that means you can create derivatives that are clearly from those specific works, but you'll have to be careful when you do so because you'll need to avoid trademark problems: trademarks are perpetual so long as they're defended actively (and Disney definitely aren't fools that way...)

Re:disney

[dwye]

am i correct in thinking, since walt disney died in 1966, according to current EU law, the images of characters such as micky mouse and donald duck will enter the public domain in december of 2036 in the EU (70 years after death) and 2026 in the USA (95 years after initial copyright)?

Only if all of Disney's lawyers and lobbyists die of mysterious causes between now and then. Otherwise, expect that laws to change, again, before 2026.

Re:disney

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys missed the joke. And god damn Bizzeh you had me rolling. I would mod you +5 funny if I wasn't an anonymous coward.

Re:disney

[Anonymous Coward]

And you had me rolling. I'd mod you +5 funny if I wasn't an anonymous coward.

Re:disney

[Anonymous Coward]

Lead poisoning anyone? The Sky is falling, and the stars are pointy!

Re:disney

[tommten]

All hail to our cryogenic overlords!

1. create a popular cartoon character
2. get put in cryogenic stasis moments before you die
3. ?????
4. Your coming descendants will profit for generations since technically - You're not dead

Re:With Jews, you lose.

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess who really owns America?

The Japanese.

Re:ahh

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks! Any other good tips from experience?

Copyright, trademark, patent

[SLi]

Argh, can't you get your facts straight even in the summary?

A name cannot be copyrighted. It's a trademark. It doesn't expire after a number of years, like a copyright. A copyright is not a trademark, and a trademark is not a patent. Neither is copyright a patent.

Copyright protects certain expression (or a picture). A trademark protects the name it's sold under. A patent protects the idea of a technical solution to some problem.

And now that I'm ranting, there's no such thing as "copywritten" which is seen often. A copywriter does something entirely unrelated to copyright.

A trademark has to be actively protected to prevent the trademark from becoming common language (like using "googling" to mean searching the web or "xeroxing" to mean copying). Neither a copyright or a patent becomes invalid by failure to enforce.

Patenting is always an active act, i.e. you don't get a patent for something just by inventing it. And it's expensive in general. Copyright comes automatically, so there cannot be such a thing as "failure to copyright" (nowadays anyway, it was different decades ago). A trademark can either be registered (which is inexpensive) or obtained by becoming well established (registering it is a safe bet).

Re:Copyright, trademark, patent

[jgerry]

Thank you! Why can't people ever get this straight? Copyrights, trademarks, and patents are all different entities. It's not that hard to learn the difference.

Re:Copyright, trademark, patent

[fm6]

A name cannot be copyrighted. It's a trademark. It doesn't expire after a number of years, like a copyright. A copyright is not a trademark, and a trademark is not a patent. Neither is copyright a patent.

Confusion between the three is pretty common. But you'd think a Slashdot editor, of all people would have heard these arguments before, and gotten their terms straight.

Re:Copyright, trademark, patent

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you! Why can't people ever get this straight? Copyrights, trademarks, and patents are all different entities. It's not that hard to learn the difference.

When you have a battery of PR flacks constantly telling you that copyrights never expire, patents mean no one can do anything that remotely looks like the patent, and trademarks apply to everyone, not just competing fields, it's quite easy to see why people get confused.

Re:Copyright, trademark, patent

[PCM2]

TFA actually makes it pretty clear. The copyright on the earliest images of Popeye has expired. That means you are free to make derivative works of those images -- in other words, draw Popeye yourself -- and you won't have to pay royalties to the copyright owner of the original image (because there is none). However, from TFA:

The Popeye trademark, a separate entity to Segar's authorial copyright, is owned by King Features, a subsidiary of the Hearst Corporation -- the US entertainment giant -- which is expected to protect its brand aggressively.

...and so on those grounds, you won't get away with it. The Popeye trademark is doubtless registered for everything from coffee cups to T-shirts to books and any other junk you can think of, so if you try to sell your perfectly-legal drawing of Popeye, you'll probably get sued into oblivion.

On the other hand, I'd be really interested to see if someone drew a comic strip featuring a character that looks exactly like Popeye, but whose name is Jeremy the Anthropology Professor. Jeremy is a highly intelligent tenured employee of a major Ivy League university. He is very even-tempered himself and decidedly anti-violence, and for that reason he is against the military (all four branches). He is gay and therefore has no interest in women, and furthermore he can't stand any form of vegetables. Would the author get away with it now?

Re:Copyright, trademark, patent

[cei]

And, to be more complete, a "copywright" is the guy who works in a copy shop making copies. Like a shipwright builds ships and a playwright writes plays.

(I need to get "copywright" into publication at some point so the OED will finally recognize my mad genius!)

Re:Copyright, trademark, patent

[Anonymous Coward]

That said, can you really trademark "Popeye" if the original work is public domain?

If the Popeye character belongs to everyone, then trademarking "Popeye" is like trademarking "photocopier". It's a product that anyone is permitted to make, and the name is necessary in order to identify it.

Re:Copyright, trademark, patent

[Anonymous Coward]

Confusion between the three is pretty common.

And so, as we see here, is confusion between "between" and "among".

Between is used when there are only two objects under consideration. Among is correct for three or more objects.

Hence, "Confusion among the three is pretty common" is the correct phrasing.

/pedantry

70 years ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

How on earth does anybody justify such a long protection? 5 years, maybe even 10 seem reasonable. But 70? Come on ...

Re:Yes, worry!

[symbolic]

We're not talking about "the artist" here, we're talking about a huge media conglomerate. Here's the irony with current copyright law: back when the 17-year copyright was first enacted, the means of production and distribution were far more limited than they are today. Because corporations have much easier access to potential customers, they can make far more money, far faster than they ever could in the past. And yet, there's this insane belief that the copyright needed to be extended. If anything, it should have been shortened to take into account the benefits brought by advances in technology. I dare say those who initiated the idea of copyright ever envisioned multi-billion-dollar corporations creating a stranglehold on the sale and distribution of works that define our culture.

Name still trademarked.

[dr.bone]

In the US, a name, title, short phrase, or short expression, such as "Popeye," can't be copyrighted, as it is not considered an "original work of authorship." See US Copyright Circular 34.

Images, on the other hand, can be copyrighted, and it is a copyright in an image of Popeye that has entered the PD in the EU.

The mark "POPEYE," however, is still the subject of numerous trademark registrations in the US (and probably in the EU as well). Generally speaking, trademarks can persist for as long as they are used as source identifiers in commerce, so it is likely that the POPEYE trademarks will persist for as long as they have commercial value.

A quick search on TESS ("popeye[bi] and hearst[on] and live[ld]") shows 9 different US registrations for goods and services that range from comic strips to amusement park services to socks. The US trademark registrations mean that you can't sell Popeye branded goods or services that are similar to comic strips, amusement park services, socks, or other goods that Hearst brands with the POPEYE mark.

Copyrights and trademarks are separate beasts, but they can interact in odd ways. For example, if Popeye ever enters the public domain in the US (I say "if" because of the Mickey Mouse problem mentioned above by paiute), then you might be able to create new comic strips using the character and image of Popeye. However, Hearst's trademark registrations would bar you from using Popeye as a brand to sell your new comic strip.

Re:Name still trademarked.

[eclectro]

However, Hearst's trademark registrations would bar you from using Popeye as a brand to sell your new comic strip.

The US supreme court has struck down the copyright/patent/trademark interactivity used by corporations to falsely create protections beyond what the original category allows. Specifically, the copyrighted image of Popeye when (and more importantly if) reaches the public domain in the US, nothing can be done to stop people from selling T-shirts with Popeye images on them, even though King Feature syndicate will most likely argue (again) that they have a "trademark" on Popeye. After all, their paid staff attorneys need to earn their keep (like most all corporate attorneys that know on the outset that they really have a losing argument).

Of course, this only is the case if their is no further erosion of copyright by corporate interests tyring to get more handouts.

Re:Name still trademarked.

[dr.bone]

Yes, you can sell a t-shirt with the public domain image on it. However, you cannot use POPEYE as a trademark (e.g., sell a POPEYE brand t-shirt) because Hearst's Trademarks on POPEYE exist independently of the copyright. Your comment suggests that Hearst's trademark rights will be extinguished by copyright expiration, and that is not the case.

Re:Name still trademarked.

[againjj]

I have a hard time believing this. See Tarzan. Many work have been prevented from reaching publication.

Re:Name still trademarked.

[eclectro]

Your comment suggests that Hearst's trademark rights will be extinguished by copyright expiration, and that is not the case.

No, what I am suggesting is that the courts have made a clear distinction between copyright and trademark use

While Hearst may have a valid trademark for any specific brand of item aka Popeye brand T-shirts, they can not stop anyone from producing a t-shirt with the image of Popeye on it! In this case, they have a valid Popeye trademark, but their Popeye copyright rights *have* been extinguished. Confusing the two to some how extend protections is what the high court has clearly delineated against.

Re:Name still trademarked.

[dr.bone]

Right. With the popeye image in the PD, you could make a copyright use of the image (printing image on t-shirt), but you still couldn't use the image or the word POPEYE as a trademark (i.e., POPEYE brand t-shirts). That was my point.

Basic legal vocabulary

[tverbeek]

Kdawson apparently doesn't understand basic legal terms (or perhaps just suffers from a kind of dyslexia). The notion of copyrighting a name is utterly absurd. To set it straight:

The copyright - the appearance and basic character traits off the Thimble Theater cast - has expired in the EU.

The trademark - the name and the distinctive likeness of the characters, as used in marketing - presumably has not.

The effect of this is that in the EU, you can create your own Popeye and Olive Oyl stories, and use the characters as they were originally presented by Segar, and you can even sell this comics strip/book/movie/opera/whatever for profit. However, you cannot use the name or images of the characters in the packaging or marketing of your product, because that would violate the trademark rights of (I assume) King Features.

Re:Basic legal vocabulary

[demonlapin]

IANAL, but my understanding of copyright v trademark is that you could republish original images without paying royalty, but creating any new ones would infringe King's trademark. Still, the summary is as badly confused as any I've seen in a long while.

Re:Basic legal vocabulary

[Capsaicin]

IANAL, but my understanding of copyright v trademark is ...

... wrong.

Copyright is a right (held against everyone else in the universe) inter alia to copy a work (eg. an artistic work) and to create derrivative works. Copyright (in almost every juridisdicition around the world) arises automatically on the creation (technically when a work is first rendered in material form) of a work capable of being the subject of copyright (i.e. not a single word). In a few jurisdictions registration of the right is required before any legal action for infringement may commence. Copyright subsists for a limited (but historically growing) term. Subject to limited fair use exceptions, you may not make a copy of a work subject to copyright for any purposes.

Trademark is the use of a word (or words), image colour, scent etc.. in trade. It requires registration and subsists as long as registrations in maintained. Use other than trade use is not restricted (well that's not 100% true, you can't use it say to defame a company). You can use the name 'Coca Cola,' for example, as much as you like (look I just wrote the trademark 'Coca Cola') providing you are not doing so to sell anything. You can tattoo it on your forehead if your want, but beware any logo may additionally be subject to copyright.

Re:Basic legal vocabulary

[demonlapin]

In other words, I'm technically wrong, but practically right?

Re:Basic legal vocabulary

[tverbeek]

No. Not even close.
Before trying to figure out what copyright and trademark law allow you to do, go learn what the two things are. Your attempt to summarize them demonstrates that you don't understand that yet, and without that you'll never get how they each work.

Re:Basic legal vocabulary

[Capsaicin]

In other words, I'm technically wrong, but practically right?

Nope, you are simply off base.

The question of "republish[ing] original images" vs "creating any new ones" is not related to any trademark which may or may not subsist in "Kings trademark." It's a question of copyright law, not traffic law, not anti-trust law, not trademark law, but copyright law.

The trademark issue arises were you use that mark to trade any goods listed in the category for which the mark is registered (or generally if the mark is covered by the TRIPS based "famous trademarks" protection).

Copying, creating derivative works, performance, etc -> copyright. Trading, branding for use in trade -> trademark.

This means ...

[Tamran]

... there can now officially be a Popey Linux!

How apt

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article: "Popeye became a Depression-era hero..."

In these troubled times can we expect to see a militant vegetarian renaissance?

We used to sing a Popeye song

[Anonymous Coward]

To the Popeye cartoon theme music:

I'm Popeye the sailor-man
I pee in an old tin can
I turn up the heater
And burn up my weiner
I'm Popeye the sailor-man!

I don't get the lasting appeal

[Junior J. Junior III]

How in the hell does Popeye still pull in $2.9 BILLION dollars a year? That's amazing. I never would have thought they'd rake in that much still. Can you imagine how much they must have been losing to piracy?

Who is still such a big popeye fan after all these years? What are Popeye's key demographics?

Re:I don't get the lasting appeal

[DaveV1.0]

Children age 4 to 100 around the world.

corrections

[slashmonkey24]

Following copyright legislation the Popeye image has been copyright free in Canada for 20 years now, as copyrights here in Canada only extend for 50 years after the death of the creator. Also regarding the story the submitter got it wrong as the image would have been free of copyright, not trademark.. as artwork falls under copyright legislation. Likewise, the name would be under trademark and not copyright.

Re:corrections

[Just Some Guy]

copyrights here in Canada only extend for 50 years after the death of the creator.

That is a use of the word "only" with which I was previously unfamiliar.

Re:With Jews, you lose.

[KingAlanI]

Wait, I though it was the *Chi*nese... :)

Spinach

[bingoathome]

Off topic but I thought I would mention that in "Seeds of Change " Henry Hobhouse mentions the use of Spinach was a thinly veiled nod to Cocaine and also generations of kids had to eat the stuff because it was a high source of iron - where as it is nothing special for a leafy green.

Re:Spinach

[LionMage]

Off topic but I thought I would mention that in "Seeds of Change " Henry Hobhouse mentions the use of Spinach was a thinly veiled nod to Cocaine and also generations of kids had to eat the stuff because it was a high source of iron - where as it is nothing special for a leafy green.

You need to do your research better. A quick check of Amazon shows that the book you mention talks about 5 plants, none of which is spinach; the 5 plants are quinine, sugar, tea, cotton, and the potato.

As for Spinach, it is widely believed that Spinach was a metaphor for hemp / marijuana, not cocaine. The term "spinach" has been slang for marijuana since the early 20th century. A simple Google search for the terms "Popeye marijuana" brings up this article, as well as this follow-up article which includes a scan of an October 1939 Popeye comic book cover.

Re:Spinach

[bingoathome]

There are many things that we could all do better :-)

When I follow your link to a check of Amazon it shows a book called "Seeds of Change: Six Plants That Transformed Mankind" however the first review I read mentions only 5 plants. The missing plant wait for it .... Coca - in the book he refers to both Popeye and at least one Charlie Chaplin movie that appeared to be references to Cocaine. Your links seem reasonable - at the mo' I have loaned the book to my brother and can't refer to his rational.

It is a great read - amongst many interesting things I felt he put a great case for decriminalising drugs but at the same time making a great case for why addictive drugs (such as Cocaine ) should be avoided.

I was wondering if in fact there existed a censored version of the book ( he speaks not unfavourably of the use of the drug in its natural form so some Govt. might not like it ) - if you have read it let me know.

Happy Days

I'll ask once again...

[jwiegley]

Would somebody pease provide a cogent argument as to why an "artist's" intellectually property is protected by copyright for 95 years AFTER their death while an "engineer's" intellectual property is only worthy of being protected for 20 years after filing?? What makes "Art" worthy of five times the length of protection?

I'll give you a quick answer: because modern civilations celebrate sports, celebrities and artists vastly more than they do engineering, science or math. we foolishly exalt those who makes us feel good, rather than those who actually make us better. This is also a large part of why everything is so fscked up.

Re:I'll ask once again...

[ckedge]

I bet you it's got something to do with engineers and the companies that employing them realizing that EVERYTHING they do is built on the shoulders of the knowledge of everyone who came before them. If you didn't allow them to use old ideas in new products, there would be no new products.

People who create Intellectual Property are not as reliant on what came before them.

IBM and US Steel will never go squealing to congress demanding that patent terms be made (literally) five times longer. Can you imagine how slowly technology and industry would have grown if the patent term was "life plus 95"??

Just goes to show you how retarded current copyright terms are.

Re:I'll ask once again...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the short term yes. In the long term, who remember athletes from 200 years ago? I can't even name one example. Who doesn't know who Newton is ?

Among musicians, only composers are remembered. And frankly, I don't see anything wrong with people remembering who Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Brahms ... were. Chopin was also a composer.

Celebrities will be forgotten completely. Who will give a fuck in 200 years who was the TV host of some lame show ?

As for painters, I sure hope everyone will forget the dark ages of painting that the 20th century was. I'm probably the worst painter/drawer in the whole world and I would probably be acclaimed as a genius by today's critics (well for that I would have to start drinking myself to death first).

Re:I'll ask once again...

[LMariachi]

Actually, I'd say it's because the products of engineering and science are considered more valuable to society. Nobody's too gravely affected by being prevented from selling their own non-Disney Mickey Mouse products, but companies being able to keep inventions under patent protection for a century would seriously impede the progress of technology, which arguably relies on building on prior developments far more than Art does. It's easier to make a wholly original painting than it is to build a machine using no products or processes that have already been invented.

Re:I'll ask once again...

[LordVader717]

Patents don't do a very good job.
They're too short for encouraging fundamental research, where it could take much longer than the patent term for any financial benefit to result.

They're too long for the relatively trivial innovations which make up the vast majority of granted patents. By the time the patent is released, then technology is probably almost obsolete.

The whole monopoly thing is bullshit too. While there isn't much harm by done by not allowing people to create Mickey-Mouse cartoons, patents on technology and medicine allow active exploitation and put many people's lives at risk.

Re:With Jews, you lose.

[Anonymous Coward]

They sold it to the chinese two years ago. Get on with the program.

I'm Stallman the free sourcek man ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Stallman the free sourcek man ..
when I eats me spinichk ..
M$ will be finishked ..
I'm Stallman the free sourcek man!
TooToo!

after 25 years .. I can finally sing this without risk of copyright infringement

PS: read this only if you are in EU

Re:I'm Stallman the free sourcek man ...

[J.Dev.06]

or in Canada for the last 20 years.

PCT does much less than Berne

[tepples]

There's an international Patent Cooperation Treaty

From the first page you linked: "to reflect on the desirability of seeking protection in foreign countries, to appoint local patent agents in each foreign country, to prepare the necessary translations and to pay the national fees". This tells the big difference between how copyright law is international and how patent law is international. All the PCT does is harmonize the form of a patent app, establish a priority date and let member states share resources on a prior art search. An inventor still has to submit the app to the local patent office, prepare and submit translations to each member state's patent office, and pay fees to each member state's patent office. Copyright in a work of authorship, on the other hand, is automatic in all Berne Convention member states.

Re:PCT does much less than Berne

[pbhj]

Copyright in a work of authorship, on the other hand, is automatic in all Berne Convention member states.

Yes, one must apply for a patent, but one automatically gains copyright upon creation of a new work of artistic expression.

Good luck pursuing your copyright or patent infringement claim in Kyrgyzstan, Namibia, Papua-New-Guinea, ...

What's with the numbers?

[Chakolate47]

If the EU patent expired 70 years after the death of the creator, then he died in 1938/39. If the US patent expires 95 years after that, that will be in 2033/34. So where do we get 2024? Is that a misprint? Or is the 95 year figure a misprint?

Re:What's with the numbers?

[DaveV1.0]

Not patent, copyright.
In the US, it is 95 years after the first copyright is filed.

Re:What's with the numbers?

[Chakolate47]

It's not whether it's patent or copyright, it's that the numbers don't add up. I'm completely ignorant of the law, but there's a problem with the numbers as stated in the article.

Re:What's with the numbers?

[DaveV1.0]

Yeah, but I addressed that in the second part. In EU, it is 745 years from the death of the author. In the USA, it is 95 years from the date the copyright was issued.

Re:What's with the numbers?

[fnj]

In EU, it is 745 years from the death of the author. In the USA, it is 95 years from the date the copyright was issued.

Wow. 745 years is a long time.

Re:What's with the numbers?

[DaveV1.0]

yeah yeah. fat fingers and all that. It is not easy posting only when the boss isn't.... crap here he comes....

You CANNOT copyright a name

[1u3hr]

the name "Popeye" is still under copyright by King Features Syndicate.

No, it is not, and never was. You CANNOT COPYRIGHT A NAME.

U.S. Copyright Office - What Does Copyright Protect? (FAQ)

Names are not protected by copyright law. Some names may be protected under trademark law.

Copyright /= Patent /= Trademark.

Canadian Law

[J.Dev.06]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_copyright_law#Duration Popeye image been public domain in Canada for 2 decades now. Isn't news supposed to be.. you know.. new?

Copyright Expired?

[Sponge Bath]

As Popeye said on the Island of Goons after disguising himself with a wig:
"Hair today, goon tomorrow."

Croporations used to agree with Public Domain

[SupremoMan]

Before they realized one thing, new people are born everyday. Those people have never seen X, so X is new to them. If people bought X before, these new people will buy X; therefore, you can sell X forever!

Well!

[actionbastard]

Blow me down!

That's all I can stands and I can't stands no more!

Another version

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Popeye the sailor-man
I live in a frying pan
Turn on the gas
And you'll burn my poor ass
I'm Popeye the sailor-man!

Re:Another version

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Popeye the sailor-man
I live in a garbage can
I eat all the worms and
I spit out the germs
I'm Popeye the sailor-man! *toot*toot*

Fair Use

[justinlee37]

Your parody is a derivative work. It should fall under the "fair use" clause.

Public Domain

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are an artist and you don't like copyright law, you are free to release your works into the public domain. You can release them at any time. For example, you can put the release in your copyright statement, though you would be best to register the copyright first. You can say: "copyright expires in 2015 (all rights released into the public domain)" in the work. You can also release works upon your death or X number of years after your death. This would be a clause in your will/estate contract under disposition of assets.

The public, of course, can request of any artist that their work be released into the public domain as well. They might take offense, however.

You're a lovely sweet naive idealist...

[fantomas]

"Characters going into the public domain is repayment to society for society enforcing your exclusive rights over the characters for a number of years. If you don't like them going into public domain, tough luck - without them eventually going public domain there's no good reason for society to enforce copyright."

Aww, you're cute, you actually believe this stuff will be accepted by the major companies... Can you honestly believe that in 2023 or thereabouts the management of Disney are going to say "yup, it's tough luck but we're going to have to let Mickey Mouse and all the related imagery go for free, it's going to cost the company tens or hundreds or millions a year but there you go, that's life, let's see if there are some other jobs going down the road in another company?".

I'd like to think so too but I can't see it somehow. I can believe the European Union will stand up to US companies and say "no, this is what you agreed years ago, you have to stick to it" but the US authorities? I think US companies have too much power and the government and the people will do what the companies tell them to. They'll make some argument about it being unpatriotic to let copyright slip and that jobs will be lost to China / India / other forn parts and people will fall into line I reckon. Sad but I think it's the case.

Re:You're a lovely sweet naive idealist...

[KDR_11k]

"and all related imagery"? Nope. Steamboat Willie goes out of copyright but anything that was added to the characters or setting after that (how much is the modern Mickey Mouse like the old one?) would still be protected.

Neither the EU nor the US will stand up against the companies here, they'll just find a new way to increase the durations together.

Popeye=Propaganda

[bowl_of_petunias]

Did you know that Popeye did not originally eat spinich?

Mental Floss Magazine had a brief story about our spinich-eating friend this month.

http://blogs.static.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/20794.html

In part:

"Everyone knows Popeye's secret. Whenever the cartoon sailor is on the verge of losing a fight, he squeezes open a can of spinach, pours the greens down his throat, and uses his supercharged muscles to pummel opponents. But fewer people know that the U.S. government is directly responsible for his dependence on canned vegetables."

That's right, folks! Popeye=propagana

Also, the article mentions that spinich was actively promoted due to its high-iron content, which was miscalculated when a scientist moved a decimal point.

~ bowl_of_petunias ~

Oh no! Not Again!

You really need to get your facts right

[Garwulf]

"Our culture is built upon the works of previous cultures and their intellectual works. To impose copyright and similar intellectual protection for generations would ultimately have the effect of tying up our current and future popular culture and make it impossible to build upon it in the same way that previous generations have."

You may not be a knee-jerk anti-IPer, but you're very far from understanding the basics of how copyright works. Copyright is already built so that it preserves the ability for creative artists to draw upon what has come before them. You cannot copyright an idea. You can only copyright the exact implementation of one.

The problem may be that you're drawing on Lessig here - and Lessig does not understand the difference between creativity and plagiarism, to put it bluntly. Modern copyright is designed to prevent plagiarism, but protect creativity. That's why a key clause in the Berne Convention reads "Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without prejudice to the copyright in the original work." The term "without prejudice" here can be translated as "without loss or waiving rights," as far as I can tell. So, if story A is adapted into story B, story B is protected as an original work, but the author of story A does not lose any of the rights to story A as a result of story B being written.

What you are concerned about is the transmission and use of ideas, which is a right that is carefully protected in copyright law. Anybody is allowed to draw on and modify ideas - stopping somebody from using an idea requires that you prove actual plagiarism has occurred. For example, there was at one point a lawsuit between White Wolf and the producers of Underworld - White Wolf had to be able to prove that Underworld was a copy on a point-by-point basis. Essentially, they had to prove that no original thought had taken place.

So, in fact, people are still able to draw upon and build on the culture that has come before. What they aren't allowed to do is directly plagiarize it. And creativity doesn't work through plagiarization. It is an evolutionary process, where a previous idea comes in and goes out as something new. In fact, in general, if you give the exact same idea to two different writers and have them write a story, you'll get two very different stories.

So, the argument that the basic ideas creative artists need to be able to access to create and build on previous culture is being locked away by copyright doesn't really hold any water. In order for it to do so, copyright would have to work like patents, and happily, it doesn't.

Deep Thoughts...

[AmericanGladiator]

"I bet one legend that keeps recurring throughout history, in every culture, is the story of Popeye."

-Jack Handey

Re:With Jews, you lose.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been reading Anne Frank's "Pwn3d by Auschwitz" and found it hilarious.

A Good First Step

[flyneye]

Now that Popeye's been outed as a public character,it's time for Disney to turn loose the rat that no longer affect kids to the depth it once did as important enough to destroy our copyright system and weaken the rest of our Constitution.(yeah,I said it in one breath.)
Felix is doing well and still beloved.Disney needs to get a life and quit being the secret force behind scientology,socialism and satanism in Florida and points beyond.
Just fix copyright the way it's supposed to be and I'll quit ranting like this.
Moron damn Disney.

$2.88 of merchandise per year?

[smokin'moses]

I know it's really $2.8B, but to me, $2.88 just sounds more believable.

Re:Yes, worry!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was recently granted a trademark on the phrase "I dare say" and I dare say you owe me, bub.

Name not copyrighted

[againjj]

You can not copyright a name. I think the summary writer misread or misunderstood the line in TFA:

The Popeye trademark, a separate entity to Segar's authorial copyright, is owned by King Features, a subsidiary of the Hearst Corporation -- the US entertainment giant -- which is expected to protect its brand aggressively.

The name Popeye is trademarked.

Righhhht!

[Mathinker]

> The media conglomerate that buys the rights off of you will take the full
> 150 years (or whatever) of copyright into account ....

And also the probability that someone will be interested in more than 60 years, which is really, really small. Smaller, in fact, than winning most lotteries, I would guess.

Re:Righhhht!

[bentcd]

And also the probability that someone will be interested in more than 60 years, which is really, really small. Smaller, in fact, than winning most lotteries, I would guess.

Indeed. Hence my guess that 150 years of copyright rather than 28 may raise the offered price from $130k to $150k as an example.
On a tangent, current copyright legislation seems to me to encourage concerned citizens to murder any author who has just published an important work. This way, the work can start being used by the general public that much sooner. It's really a very perverse kind of law, making a public good out of the early death of important authors.

Tarnishment, anyone?

[Mathinker]

That's not quite the whole story.

Your mileage will certainly vary according to jurisdiction, of course.

P.S. I love your Slashdot ID, it's really hot!

Clothing with Popeye characters

[Ofenza]

So does this mean anyone in the EU can make t shirts or whatever with Popeye PLUS Olive Oyl and Brutus? That doesn't seem to be clear on any article. Thanks