Slashdot Mirror
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.
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?
Slashdot, now with more Wikipedia trivia!
The very existence of Mickey Mouse guarantees that nothing will ever again enter the public domain in the good old USA.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Seems that 2024 - 2009 = 25, which apparently is the same as 95 - 70. Whodathunkit?
"I move freely 'bout Greenwich 'cause my Copyright's finiched... I'm Popeye the Sailor Man [Whoot-Whoot!]"
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.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
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>
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I will gladly pay you Tuesday for your copyright today.
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
From the article:
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
The Japanese.
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.
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).
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.
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.
IAAL
Whodathunkit?
No one capable of subtraction? ;)
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.
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.
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.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
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.
No, it is not, and never was. You CANNOT COPYRIGHT A NAME.
Copyright /= Patent /= Trademark.