Slashdot Mirror
Betty Boop and Indefinite Copyright
An anonymous reader writes "Apparently the Fleischer estate has lost a court battle for the rights to Betty Boop, a character created by Grim Natwick at Max Fleischer's studio in 1930. The 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals (based in San Francisco) ruled against the Fleischers, saying in their decision, 'If we ruled that AVELA's depictions of Betty Boop infringed Fleischer's trademarks, the Betty Boop character would essentially never enter the public domain.'"
Once again, a story about a lawsuit posted to /. with a particular spin but very light on facts. According to one of the linked articles:
[Judge] Wallace also said the defendant AVELA Inc, which licensed Betty Boop dolls, T-shirts and handbags under a copyright based on vintage posters, did not infringe any trademark, having not held out its products as "official" or misled customers.
So according to one article Avela licensed the images, according to another they were public domain. According to one, the images are OK because they're not claimed to be "official," according to the other the images are OK because Betty Boop is public domain. What's the real story? Is it about public domain? Is it about the relationship between copyright and trademark? I have no idea. Neither the reporters or the submitter bothered to explain, or apparently, even to find out.
Breakfast served all day!
Fleisher Studios was a direct competitor with Disney, and even created a Superman villain that looked suspiciously like Walt.
Revenge is a dish best served cold.
Blank until
Yes!
In the 1990s, former Disney researcher Gregory S. Brown determined that the film was likely in the public domain in the United States already due to errors in the original copyright formulation.[3] In particular, the original film's copyright notice had two additional names between Disney and the copyright statement. Thus, under the rules of the Copyright Act of 1909, all copyright claims would be null.
But you'll need a lot of money to prove it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Steamboat_Willie
It is also public domain in Australia.
Because that does not make lazy idiots that want to milk their inheritance for money rich.
We have to think of the lazy grand children and great grand children!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
>>>Boop's face gives me the major creeps
I think her face looks a lot like that babe Danica McKellar (winnie from the wonder years) - http://www.google.com/images?q=Danica McKellar
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
Easy. Two words: Property Tax.
First 14 years: 0 tax
Next 14 years: 5% of assessed value, minimum $25,000 per year per copyright
Next 14 years: 5%, $50,000 min
Next 14 years: 5%, $100,000 min
and so on. Make people and companies VERY careful about which works they wish to maintain copyright on.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Grim Natwick, the animation artist who created the character of Betty Boop told a story to Howard Beckerman, an animation historian, and my instructor when I attended School of Visual Arts in NYC.
Apparently, Grim was up for a scholarship to the Art Institute of Vienna, and he was competing against another young artist of the time, a young man named Adolf Hitler. Grim got the scholarship, beating out Adolf.
For decades, Grim blamed himself for World War II. If he'd let Adolf win the scholarship, that guy might have just gone on to become some nameless painter doing still-lifes, instead of becoming the most infamous name in all of history.
I'm not sure how true this all is, but it sounds plausible. Either way, it's a good story related to Betty Boop.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Guess the estate of whoever invented the pencil should start suing for a metric ton of money then. People still use that... guess it shouldn't be public domain yet.
Gregory S. Brown determined that the film was likely in the public domain in the United States already due to errors in the original copyright formulation.
But who is willing to risk millions of USD testing Brown's argument in a court of law? As long as the answer is nobody, the copyright is still de facto valid.