Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Image of Popeye Enters Public Domain In the EU

Posted by kdawson on 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.

19 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. Finally... by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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.

  2. Don't worry, Olive! by paiute · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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
  3. Re:Errmmm... by berend+botje · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  4. Little limerick... by Lumenary7204 · · 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 · · 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.

  5. Poopie the sailor person by syousef · · 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
  6. Not hungry, just ate a hamburger by vandelais · · Score: 5, Funny

    I will gladly pay you Tuesday for your copyright today.

    --
    Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
  7. Re:disney by Tony+Hoyle · · 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.

  8. Copyright, trademark, patent by SLi · · 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).

  9. Re:Yes, worry! by symbolic · · 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.

  10. corrections by slashmonkey24 · · 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.