Image of Popeye Enters Public Domain In the EU

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Image of Popeye Enters Public Domain In the EU

Posted by kdawson on Sunday January 4, 2009 @08:34AM from the yam-what-he-yam dept.

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.

29 of 229 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Finally... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-04 08:36 · Score: 5, Funny

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?
1. Re:Finally... by lysergic.acid · 2009-01-04 12:23 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
Don't worry, Olive! by paiute · 2009-01-04 08:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

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
1. Re:Don't worry, Olive! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-04 09:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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...
2. Re:Don't worry, Olive! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-04 09:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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 ?
3. Re:Don't worry, Olive! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-04 09:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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...
4. Re:Don't worry, Olive! by zwei2stein · 2009-01-04 09:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  -- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
5. Re:Don't worry, Olive! by Dogtanian · 2009-01-04 09:59 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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
  
  --
  "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
6. Re:Don't worry, Olive! by Korin43 · 2009-01-04 10:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This isn't even someone profiting from it for their entire life. It's about someone profiting from it 95 years after they die.
7. Re:Don't worry, Olive! by Ed+Avis · 2009-01-04 11:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
8. Re:Don't worry, Olive! by slimjim8094 · 2009-01-04 11:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
9. Re:Don't worry, Olive! by cpt+kangarooski · 2009-01-04 12:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
10. Re:Don't worry, Olive! by anagama · 2009-01-04 12:22 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
11. Re:Don't worry, Olive! by Jason+Levine · 2009-01-04 15:36 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:Errmmm... by berend+botje · 2009-01-04 08:50 · Score: 5, Funny

Seems that 2024 - 2009 = 25, which apparently is the same as 95 - 70. Whodathunkit?
Little limerick... by Lumenary7204 · 2009-01-04 08:51 · Score: 5, Funny

"I move freely 'bout Greenwich 'cause my Copyright's finiched... I'm Popeye the Sailor Man [Whoot-Whoot!]"
1. Re:Little limerick... by KeithJM · 2009-01-04 10:02 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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 by syousef · 2009-01-04 08:51 · Score: 5, Funny

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
1. Re:Poopie the sailor person by apathy+maybe · 2009-01-04 08:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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?)
  
  --
  I wank in the shower.
2. Re:Poopie the sailor person by apathy+maybe · 2009-01-04 10:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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
  
  --
  I wank in the shower.
Not hungry, just ate a hamburger by vandelais · 2009-01-04 08:55 · Score: 5, Funny

I will gladly pay you Tuesday for your copyright today.

--
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
Re:Errmmm... by JamesRose · 2009-01-04 09:04 · Score: 3, Informative

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.
King Syndicates Should FIght back... by tkrotchko · 2009-01-04 09:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

... 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
Re:disney by Tony+Hoyle · 2009-01-04 09:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Copyright, trademark, patent by SLi · 2009-01-04 09:31 · Score: 5, Informative

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:Yes, worry! by symbolic · 2009-01-04 09:38 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
corrections by slashmonkey24 · 2009-01-04 10:43 · Score: 5, Informative

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:Basic legal vocabulary by Capsaicin · 2009-01-04 12:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

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
You CANNOT copyright a name by 1u3hr · 2009-01-04 13:19 · Score: 3, Informative

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.