Lawsuit Claims Buck Rogers Is In the Public Domain

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lawsuit Claims Buck Rogers Is In the Public Domain

Posted by timothy on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @01:41AM from the popular-imagination dept.

An anonymous reader writes: As reported in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, a court will decide whether Buck Rogers is in the public domain. The Buck Rogers comic strip first appeared in 1929. Team Angry Filmmakers claim that Buck Rogers entered the public domain in the mid-1950s, and they want to make a Buck Rogers movie called Armageddon 2419 A.D. They filed a federal suit this year in Los Angeles against the trust claiming ownership of the name, and the trial has been moved to Pittsburgh.

207 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by dbIII · 2015-10-27 01:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

Doesn't the current mouse protection rule set the clock to death of creator plus 70 years for copyright?
Shouldn't that be not only enough for anyone but utterly overboard?
1. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Nidi62 · 2015-10-27 01:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Hey, the descendants of the descendants of a creator worked hard to be born into a family that had someone come up with a good idea once 2 or 3 generations ago and they deserve to get paid for it!
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
2. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by sanmadjack1624 · 2015-10-27 01:55 · Score: 2
  
  The argument is probably that this entered public domain before those extensions became law.
3. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by operagost · 2015-10-27 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but the interim law of 1978 (and its predecessor) still required that the copyright be actively renewed. If the owner failed to do that, it expired before the Bono act.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
4. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by dbIII · 2015-10-27 01:57 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Even without that argument the writer has been deceased for 75 years so the extensions should not apply either.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Francis_Nowlan
5. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  Think you meant to say "reset the clock", i.e. retroactively. AFAIK, the copyright is basically grandfathered. In other words, once the copyright was up in the 1950s, it was in the public domain until the universe implodes. The key point being that expiration is based on the law at that time. If that's correct then this should be a slam dunk for the film makers.
  IANAL but I do play one on the internet.
6. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by ad454 · 2015-10-27 02:01 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Doesn't the current mouse protection rule set the clock to death of creator plus 70 years for copyright?
  Shouldn't that be not only enough for anyone but utterly overboard?
  This is my understanding as well. And "Philip Francis Nowlan" who is the creator of Buck Rogers died in 1940, which was more than 75 years ago.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  So with the current rules, Buck Rogers should be fully in the USA public domain.
  Unfortunately, we will have to wait until 2036 for Mickey Mouse to enter public domain, and by then I suspect that Disney will bribe enough government officials to prevent it.
7. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by alvinrod · 2015-10-27 02:11 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The issues are a little muddier to me when it comes to using a character. I'd have no issue at all with someone taking an old Buck Rogers story and adapting it for film at this point, but using someone else's character to create new works is a little different, even more so if the owner of that character is still actively using them in the creation of new works.
  
  Perhaps the best way to illustrate it is to use Mickey Mouse. I think Steamboat Willie or the other early cartoons should be in the public domain and freely accessible, but I don't think that entitles anyone to make a Mickey Mouse cartoon as Disney is still actively using the character and creating new works with the character.
  
  Personally I think works should enter the public domain after ~25 years. However, let the copyright for a character exist for as long as works involving that character are being produced by the owner. The extreme example of why I feel that way is no one would probably like it if a character they were developing was stolen by someone else and used to spread a message the original author disagreed with, such as Mickey Mouse being used to promote white supremacist propaganda, an oil company using Captain Planet to tell kids that fracking is great, or some other example along those lines.
  
  It's not an ideal situation as it does run into an issue of perpetual copyright assuming some owner wants to pump out some amount of crap to maintain that it's still being used. Perhaps a set term with paid extensions to ensure that people only maintain those copyrights if they actually intend on using the character or generating some profit from it with the rate increasing for each extension.
8. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by thoromyr · 2015-10-27 02:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  there is no "mouse protection rule". There is an often cited "rule" that anything after steamboat willie is in eternal copyright protection, thanks to Disney. The reality is much more nuanced and the one thing that can be said about the various copyright reforms is that the system was very complex and simplifying it was a good thing. Simplifying it by return to the original rules for terms would have been nice, but the public wasn't the one paying for the reforms.
  One (of the many) complexities is that you used to have to file extensions. Since doing so cost money, many unprofitable properties were allowed to lapse into the public domain. Consequently, even when dealing with simple copyright (non-serialized written work appearing in novels whose printing dates are well documented) you can run into oddities like a novel by an author written in the fifties being in the public domain while another written in the twenties is still copyright protected.
  And it gets worse. The movie Heavy Metal was a compilation and as such required permission from a wide variety of copyright holders, both graphic and sound artists. This resulted in the inability to legally sell the movie for some time.
  As another example, serialized works can be problematic in tracking down their dates of publication. Documentation of assignment of copyright is often problematic. Different media has different rules. Until the DMCA "statements of fact" (such as the plans for a ship) could not be copyrighted so a work might be copyrighted (for the "arrangement of facts"), but the material contained therein be in the public domain (recipe books fall into this category). Where something was "set into tangible form" made a difference as well -- one of the reforms was aligning this so that (for example) an author's work that is copyrighted in the United States will also be copyrighted in Australia.
  This particular twist makes things difficult for Project Gutenberg where something written in 1935 might be legal to distribute in New Zealand, but not in the United States. Such balkanization was somewhat tolerable in the 20's and 30's when it required significant resources to achieve global distribution. Obviously these "loopholes" are more problematic today.
9. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Lumpy · 2015-10-27 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  " such as Mickey Mouse being used to promote white supremacist propaganda,"
  You mean the original use of the mouse in the beginning? Go watch "steamboat willie".....
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
10. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Dredd13 · 2015-10-27 02:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The issues are a little muddier to me when it comes to using a character.
  Not really. This becomes the textbook definition of "a derivative work". If they want to make a derivative work of a public domain story (which includes the characters within that story) then they should be free to do so.
  This is why the Disney thing becomes key, because any new work featuring Mickey Mouse is -- technically -- a derivative work of Steamboat Willlie, whether that work is created by Disney Corporation or (at some future point, after Steamboat Willie falls into the public domain) some new animation house.
11. Re: Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 02:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You had a perfectly good argument without needing to bring up the Jews. Now you just sound like a Nazi (Godwin be damned).
12. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  The argument is probably that this entered public domain before those extensions became law.
  If you think this has anything to do with law and decency you are deluded. This has to do about MONEY! Congress has pulled things from the public domain and given copyright to their rich "campaign contributors" in the past. I don't see much happening legally either, higher level US courts tend to side with the rich no matter what the law says, so any favorable local ruling will just get overturned by a higher court.
13. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  Steamboat willie was intended to promote white supremacy? OK...I'll back away slowly now...
14. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by danbert8 · 2015-10-27 02:28 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I think you are confusing copyright with trademarks. Disney might lose the copyright of the Mickey Mouse character, but they would still have a trademark restricting others from marketing said character. Water is free to market and distribute to anyone, but you can't put "Dasani" on the bottle unless you are Coke. You also can't put it in a Coke shaped bottle as that is trademarked too.
  Thus you'd be able to freely modify the stories and the character of Mickey Mouse as well as distribute without royalties, but you probably couldn't sell merchandise or run say a theme park with the trademarks.
  
  --
  Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
15. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  Not really...
  I mean the mouse cartel has been refreshing their copyright by pumping out a few classically styled shorts which are presented at the beginning of movies.
16. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by jellomizer · 2015-10-27 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  I would say it would be enough. Not necessarily overboard.
  An artist gets married and has a few kids in his early 20's writes an get killed. The life style due his invention would go to his wife and kids until he is in her 90's. Allowing his wife to support her family and herself for the rest of her life.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
17. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
  This did not remove the need to file extensions. It did not simplify copyright law. It extended the terms of the copyright so that works which were written under a copyright that even with their extensions would have expired in the 1970s and 1980s remain under copyright protection for an additional 20 years.
18. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Dog-Cow · 2015-10-27 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  Rounding to the nearest year, it's exactly 75 years ago.
19. Re: Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 02:41 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  This is demeaning to all other cultures that hated or currently hate the jews.
20. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, we will have to wait until 2036 for Mickey Mouse to enter public domain, and by then I suspect that Disney will bribe enough government officials to prevent it.
  The next Icelandic election should be interesting then. A few polls placed the Pirate Party as the largest party.
  With a population of only 329,100 Disney could very well decide that it is easier to bribe the voters directly instead of trying to get a deal with the politicians.
21. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Carewolf · 2015-10-27 02:58 · Score: 2
  
  Perhaps the best way to illustrate it is to use Mickey Mouse. I think Steamboat Willie or the other early cartoons should be in the public domain and freely accessible, but I don't think that entitles anyone to make a Mickey Mouse cartoon as Disney is still actively using the character and creating new works with the character.
  I guess that is the difference between copyright and trademark. The copyright can expire, which means the material can be copied, but the trademark does not expire which means no one can make unofficial Mickey Mouse cartoons.
22. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by OrangeTide · 2015-10-27 03:02 · Score: 2
  
  Sorry, but nobody creates characters in a vacuum. The creators always pull their ideas from society, at least the successful ones that other people can relate to.
  Also, you're suggesting is we have trademark law. There is no need to "copyright a character" in that case. Although I'm a bit skeptical of "are being produced by the owner" suggestion, as in the current system we allow commercial empires to consolidate ownership and hold it perpetually as it does not cost them anything to sit on a few million works and troll the world with their lawyers.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
23. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by spire3661 · 2015-10-27 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  Disney is not going to get another extension through Congress. Way too many eyes are on it now for them to pull off another Sonny Bono Act. It will have to be through a treaty or some other mutli-government agreement.
  
  --
  Good-bye
24. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by N1AK · 2015-10-27 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  The issues are a little muddier to me when it comes to using a character.
  I'm really not sure why it is. If I'm the first person to create a life-saving drug, I don't get perpetual ownership of that drug and all refinements of that drug, nor should I. If I design a distinctive type of building, I don't get to stop people creating buildings of similar shape for time immemorial. Why on earth does the guy who draws a cartoon mouse get such astonishing protection of his intellectual property compared to people whose intellectual endevours had a far larger beneficial impact on society.
  
  In short: The world would not be a worse place if Disney couldn't copyright characters eternally for anyone other than Disney shareholders.
25. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by spire3661 · 2015-10-27 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is under this logic, Shakespeare would still be under copyright. Copyright is intended for a LIMITED time with its express purpose to advance the arts and sciences, NOT to enrich creators, thats a side effect.. I think the 14years +14 year extension laid out in the Constitution is more than fair, especially in an Information Age
  
  --
  Good-bye
26. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by greatpatton · 2015-10-27 03:18 · Score: 2
  
  It has been says in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp that you cannot use trademark to restrict the usage of the public domain. Of course this won't prevent "clever" people to try to game the system by using trademark and creating lawsuit (like for Zorro, Tarzan, etc.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
27. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by spire3661 · 2015-10-27 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Too long. No one should expect to be paid for a lifetime for work that is already done. Thats a shitty deal for The People. Never forget copyright is a SOCIAL BARGAIN, there is a heavy price for that legal copyright protection, and that price is we own your work after a LIMITED time. A lifetime is not what i would call 'limited'
  
  --
  Good-bye
28. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by kilfarsnar · 2015-10-27 03:22 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  Calm down. Sooner or later Elvis and Lennon are going to release new material for their octogenarian fans. We're 13 years beyond the 25 years clause the mouse removed. This illustrates perfectly how US copyright has fucked over the world so a few predominantly jewish billionnaires can control everything created by others.
  Why the gratuitous mention of their religion? The issue is the billions, not the Judaism.
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
29. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by cpt+kangarooski · 2015-10-27 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Personally I think works should enter the public domain after ~25 years. However, let the copyright for a character exist for as long as works involving that character are being produced by the owner.
  
  There is no copyright for a character. A character is a part of the work it appears in, and thus making a new work with that character is, at most, a derivative work based on the previous material. (A lot depends on how fleshed out the character is -- the vaguer the character, the less likely that it will be protectable at all. For example the character of Sam Spade, the detective, from the novel 'The Maltese Falcon' was never protected by copyright because he consists of little more than a name.)
  Once the original work in which a character appears enters the public domain, then there's no doubt that the character is free to use. But only as he appeared in that work! Character traits that appeared in later works remain protected by the copyrights of the works in which they were first introduced. So if Steamboat Willie entered the public domain, people could use black and white 1920's Mickey, with a mischievous attitude and a lot of farm animals, but not his voice, or his later character designs (like the way the face was totally redesigned -- originally he had huge white eyes with huge black pupils, and a black head -- later the eye became a tan face, the pupils became eyes, and the new pupils were much smaller).
  
  The extreme example of why I feel that way is no one would probably like it if a character they were developing was stolen by someone else and used to spread a message the original author disagreed with
  Who cares? The reason we grant copyrights is not to make authors feel happy, it is for the public good, specifically in causing more works to be created and published than otherwise would have been, and to have those works protected as little as possible, as briefly as possible, and in the public domain as fully and quickly as possible.
  I don't think there's much chance that an author is going to fail to create and publish a work because there is a small chance that in twenty-five years (to use your number) someone will use it in a way that the author disapproves of. Especially given that people happily use characters in that way during the copyright period, or perhaps you have not seen some of the depths to which fan fiction and fan art will sink?
  Better to just have short fixed terms, and for authors to get over it.
  
  --
  -- 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.
30. Re: Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by squiggleslash · 2015-10-27 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  http://i.imgur.com/3A53b.jpg
  (I agree with you)
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
31. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  The issues are a little muddier to me when it comes to using a character. I'd have no issue at all with someone taking an old Buck Rogers story and adapting it for film at this point, but using someone else's character to create new works is a little different, even more so if the owner of that character is still actively using them in the creation of new works.
  Perhaps the best way to illustrate it is to use Mickey Mouse. I think Steamboat Willie or the other early cartoons should be in the public domain and freely accessible, but I don't think that entitles anyone to make a Mickey Mouse cartoon as Disney is still actively using the character and creating new works with the character.
  Personally I think works should enter the public domain after ~25 years. However, let the copyright for a character exist for as long as works involving that character are being produced by the owner. The extreme example of why I feel that way is no one would probably like it if a character they were developing was stolen by someone else and used to spread a message the original author disagreed with, such as Mickey Mouse being used to promote white supremacist propaganda, an oil company using Captain Planet to tell kids that fracking is great, or some other example along those lines.
  It's not an ideal situation as it does run into an issue of perpetual copyright assuming some owner wants to pump out some amount of crap to maintain that it's still being used. Perhaps a set term with paid extensions to ensure that people only maintain those copyrights if they actually intend on using the character or generating some profit from it with the rate increasing for each extension.
  I believe that's what trade mark is for, as mickey mouse is a trademark making new mickey comic without a license could be fought that way and leave republishing of old works protected.
32. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by cpt+kangarooski · 2015-10-27 03:48 · Score: 2
  
  I think you are confusing copyright with trademarks. Disney might lose the copyright of the Mickey Mouse character, but they would still have a trademark restricting others from marketing said character.
  
  Not quite, though you're close. As the other poster correctly said, trademarks cannot be used like copyrights.
  In fact, given cases such as the SHREDDED WHEAT case, it turns out that where a trademark would otherwise interfere with the free use of a public domain copyrighted work, the trademark will suffer from genericide and be lost.
  This is why Disney focuses so much on copyright extensions: If Steamboat Willie enters the public domain, the Mickey Mouse trademark will be lost in many areas. It'll still be viable for goods and services totally unrelated to creative works, like those Mickey Mouse head-shaped ice cream pops, but that's no different than PETER PAN peanut butter, which hardly stops anyone from making yet another movie adaptation of the original play.
  OTOH, merchandise with creative aspects will be allowed. You could probably print t-shirts with pictures of Mickey on them so long as you were doing so for creative / aesthetic purposes, and not for branding purposes.
  While some trademark value would be salvageable, Disney would lose out tremendously. It's their own fault for associating themselves too closely with a single character. They'd've done better to keep growing their stable of characters and retiring the old ones such that only old-timers even remembered Mickey Mouse, and nowadays all the kids were into Johnny Jackalope or something.
  
  --
  -- 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.
33. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by jandrese · 2015-10-27 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I mean if that woman had married a steel worker or a baker or pretty much any other professional on the planet she should expect to be set for life even if he dies at 20 with no insurance right?
  
  --
  
  I read the internet for the articles.
34. Re: Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by MachineShedFred · 2015-10-27 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe not, but he certainly took it to a level rather unprecedented, what with the gas chambers and incineration...
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
35. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Cederic · 2015-10-27 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  His wife can't go out and earn a living? Even 20 years later when the kids are adults?
  Why the fuck should she get the easy life, to the detriment of society at large.
36. Re: Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by TapeCutter · 2015-10-27 04:37 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Jews have been persecuted for 2000yrs and have also persecuted of others for a similar length of time. The money thing is related to the historical fact that Jews were the only one of the three main religions that permitted a money lender to charge interest. Christians and muslims considered it a sin but it was ok to borrow from them, this changed when the Medici family invented modern banking. Remember, baby Jesus threw the 'evil' money lender's out of dad's house, right?
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
37. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is under this logic, Shakespeare would still be under copyright. Copyright is intended for a LIMITED time with its express purpose to advance the arts and sciences, NOT to enrich creators, thats a side effect.. I think the 14years +14 year extension laid out in the Constitution is more than fair, especially in an Information Age
  Actually, The Constitution does not define the length of the terms for copyrights. It only grants Congress the ability to pass laws To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; (Section 8 of the Constitution).
38. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by mark-t · 2015-10-27 05:25 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Mickey Mouse is trademarked, and those trademark protections last into perpetuity... or until Disney stops defending the trademark (ie, into perpetuity). Steamboat Willy, a Mickey Mouse cartoon, is already public domain in some international jurisdictions, but the trademark is still valid. What that means in those jurisdictions, and in the US, if Disney does eventually allow the copyright to expire, is that although Mickey Mouse is trademarked, the work can be freely copied and distributed in and among those jurisdictions, as well as even have derivative works made from it, so long as any derivative works do not use the trademarked Mickey Mouse character. Actual copies of the cartoon are not considered misappropriation of the Mickey Mouse trademark because Mickey Mouse was obviously used with permission in that work.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
39. Re: Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  He through money changers out.
  It wasn't because of interest, it wasn't even that he didn't like their ridiculous exchange rates (from what I hear they were ripping people off) it was that there should be no activity of that type inside the temple.
40. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 05:36 · Score: 0
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo
41. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  I installed a server this morning. I should be compensated not just for the time I spent doing that but until the end of my life, correct?
  I mean I had to name it, configure network settings, install applications, move file shares. It is obviously a creative work and the people using it should have to pay me for the next 75 years. Correct?
  The way I see it Copyrights on software, ten years movies books and music 15 years. All of those a MAXIMUM, no extensions. That way the "innovators" will actually get back to coming up with the next best thing instead of rehashing 30 year old ideas in an effort to keep the IP under copyright.
42. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by westlake · 2015-10-27 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  This is why the Disney thing becomes key, because any new work featuring Mickey Mouse is -- technically -- a derivative work of Steamboat Willlie.
  What you get with the expiration of the copyright on Steamboat Willie is the right to produce derivatives of Steamboat Willie. Eight minutes of silent era sight gags with a synchronized sound track and a thin narrative thread, with a steamboat as your principal stage set and prop.
  What you don't get are to the rights to the trademarked character designs or the rights to produce derivatives based on the hundreds (?) of films, comic strips, children's story books, radio and television productions and video games that would come later.
43. Re: Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Nyder · 2015-10-27 06:15 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Jews have been persecuted longer then that. When they started flapping their mouths about being "God's Chosen" and "God's Children", people started deciding they could do without them.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
44. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by aaaaaaargh! · 2015-10-27 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  That's an excellent example of how absurd modern copyright law is.
45. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Dredd13 · 2015-10-27 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  The character *is* part of the copyrighted work, so anything you can do with that character (which hasn't itself been copyrighted and given some later-expiring protection) is fair game.
  So you could create your own "Mickey Mouse" comics/cartoons/etc. so long as such creations were not dependent on other, still existing copyrights. (In other words, you could create your own wholly-original Mickey Mouse cartoon, but it couldn't be based on, say, Fantasia... it couldn't also contain Minnie Mouse, etc.)
46. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Kjella · 2015-10-27 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't the current mouse protection rule set the clock to death of creator plus 70 years for copyright? Shouldn't that be not only enough for anyone but utterly overboard?
  Depends on what you think the purpose is. If you look at it from an economic perspective is it worse that your great-grandfather wrote Lord of the Rings than that he was a Rockefeller? If you look at it from a creative perspective, why do you have to reuse someone else's character, story or universe? Can't you come up with an original work and don't pretend it'd all be copyright infringement because nobody has the copyright on archetypes like the hero or villain. From a moral perspective, is it good that you have vultures looking to profit the moment they can use it without paying royalties? I can easily argue for copyright where it's a repository of knowledge that you would like to build on stone by stone.
  But for creative works of pure fiction or entertainment, is there any weighty arguments that makes it imperative we take it away from the estate and into the public domain? I'm not talking about abandonware, we could create an "orphan" system where works nobody claims ownership over could be used without any expiration dates, mandatory licenses and other ways of making sure it doesn't disappear. If we free the mouse, is that really going to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" like the copyright clause says? Or is it just a free license to make cheap merchandise and other spin-off leeching of a popular character that's been sustained by Disney for decades? It's easy to be the Devil's advocate here arguing against the entire idea of a public domain, rather than about how many years.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
47. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by CanEHdian · 2015-10-27 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  Don't you just love those sneaky, sleazy, monopolist bastards? Big Pharma is also good at this, effectively extending their expired patents.
  
  --
  When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
48. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by vux984 · 2015-10-27 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Under copyright. Yes. You can do that.
  But the mouse is still a registered trademark. And you will lose. They'll go after you for trademark infringement.
  That's why the disney copyright stuff really doesn't make a lot of sense. They won't lose mickey mouse when steamboat willie goes into the public domain, but the mouse itself is trademarked. My sense of it is that its a belt and suspenders defense... they don't want to take any chances. But really, the trademark will hold as long as they maintain it.*
  When steamboat willies goes into PD, anyone can upload it to youtube. Anyone can make movies about a dancing mouse on a steamboat, and even use the same music that it's paired with it etc. But that mouse still can't *be* Mickey Mouse; nor so similar as to be confused with Mickey Mouse.
  * - trademarking components of works is really a separate problem that's gone into overdrive lately. Every major and minor character, event, location, etc is being "trademarked" these days. (Harry Potter for example...every proper noun in the series and some that aren't is a registered trademark. That's wrong on some level.)
49. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2015-10-27 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, the descendants of the descendants of a creator worked hard to be born into a family that had someone come up with a good idea once 2 or 3 generations ago and they deserve to get paid for it!
  You'd prefer Warner Brothers make out like bandits instead of the family of JK Rowling?
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
50. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Dredd13 · 2015-10-27 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Ultimately, I think Disney is 'right' in their defense because I don't think trademarked characters, without the original copyright to back them up, will actually survive.
  It's not something that's been really tested (although actually this case might, because if Buck Rogers is ruled to be in the public domain, there are Buck Rogers related character trademarks in play, theoretically), but my gut tells me that courts will throw those out.
51. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Sowelu · 2015-10-27 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  That's surprisingly informative and sensible. Thank you!
52. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by spire3661 · 2015-10-27 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Fair enough. I will amend to say that the original length of 14+14 as decided by Congress at the time was fair and reasonable. The current implementation is not.
  
  --
  Good-bye
53. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by msauve · 2015-10-27 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  "But the mouse is still a registered trademark. And you will lose. They'll go after you for trademark infringement."
  
  How does trademark infringement apply if not using the character to identify a competing good or service? Do you claim that no one can publish a picture of an apple with a bite missing, because it's a trademark of Apple?
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
54. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by vux984 · 2015-10-27 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  I think disney will hang onto Mickey Mouse. He is more than just a random character in some of their films. He *is* their identity and their mascot. He identifies to disney as much as the michelin man or the pillsbury doughboy belong to their respective companies. (Indeed the Michelin man dates back to the 1890s himself.)
  Mickey Mouse is used the way Trademarks should be used.
  I could see them losing a lot of other stuff as the copyright falls. And the nonsense I mentioned with Harry Potter should likewise fall apart. (That would be good.)
55. Re: Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by angel'o'sphere · 2015-10-27 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, for jews as well it is forbidden to lend money for interest.
  But the other book religions often prohibited them from having other jobs than merchant/trader and money lender.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
56. Re: Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. If Hitler merely took advantage of anti-semitism, then he'd drop that stuff once he became an all-powerful dictator. He could have focused on world domination instead - jews could be sent to the eastern front to fight, instead of just killing them off. Give them second-rate equipment to placate the anti-semites of the day, give them the worst missions and so on.
  But no. Hitler did not want a few million extra soldiers/workers. He had them killed, and prioritized this killing over the needs of his military. Military trains had to wait for higher-priority trains destined for Auschwitz. The killing operations ramped up as he gained power - to him, it was as important as victory. And when victory failed, he still tried to "at least exterminate the jews". He was not merely taking advantage, he was a true believer.
57. Re: Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by angel'o'sphere · 2015-10-27 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Most religions follow that mantra, some exception might be tantra ...
  Or Buddhism and partly Shintoism.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
58. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Dredd13 · 2015-10-27 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  In the Michelin Man though, the trademarked character is "original".
  For Mickey Mouse, the trademarked character is a derivative work (of the copyrighted work, yes a work they own, but still, it was created first and foremost as a character, not as a branding mark).
  I think that'll make a difference.
59. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by angel'o'sphere · 2015-10-27 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Technically, as you like that word so much, all your examples are not derived works.
  I suggest to read copyright law, or the similar laws and scroll down to the definition of 'derived work'.
  The term 'derived work' is not something people writing articles about copyright made up: it is a defined term in the relevant laws.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
60. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by angel'o'sphere · 2015-10-27 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  It is only fair to people who actually never create anything.
  If you write a novel today, publish it on Amazone or iTunes, does not really matter how much success you have. When I "take it for free" and make a multi billion movie like LOTR, from it: you are pissed.
  If you have spent your whole life writing stuff, novels, plays, music barely surviving at minimum income, just because the market plays you, or you are bad at marketing, no one 'discovers' you, no one invests into you, no one cares about you, and the greedy bastard corporation comes and takes all your stuff for free and makes billions ...
  You really want us to believe, that you don't care? Your art is so important to you that you don't care that others become filthy rich and you are dying to craft it ... while crafting it?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
61. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by oh_my_080980980 · 2015-10-27 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Not unless he died today.
62. Re: Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by nospam007 · 2015-10-27 07:42 · Score: 0
  
  "Jews have been persecuted for 2000yrs and have also persecuted of others for a similar length of time. The money thing is related to the historical fact that Jews were the only one of the three main religions that permitted a money lender to charge interest."
  And the fact that the Jews were not allowed to work as a Builder, Baker, Blacksmith, Armorer, Bookbinder, Breechesmaker, Butcher, Carpenter, Chandler, Collarmaker, Cook, Cooper, Cutler, Engraver, Filesmith, Gardner
  Engraver, Gunsmith, Hatter, Joiner and another few dozens of jobs and crafts.
63. Re: Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by alva_edison · 2015-10-27 07:43 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  As I understand it, the line was that it was sinful to lend money for interest to another Jew. However, you could lend money for interest to a Gentile. Similarly, there were deals where Gentiles would hold grain in trust for Jews during passover. In order to satisfy the letter of the law, the grain was sold and then bought back. It's all about loopholes.
  
  --
  He effected a bored affect.
64. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  This whole discussion shows just how damaging the extremely grossly overextended copyrights of today are. One of the many reasons that copyrights and patents should be limited to 7 years and no renewals or extensions at all!
65. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by mattack2 · 2015-10-27 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  But couldn't there be legal derivative works using the Mickey Mouse image/style from that time?
  Does the trademark really cover all of the various permutations of the Mickey Mouse image?
  Other cartoon characters, e.g. Bugs Bunny, changed significantly over time too.
66. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by HiThere · 2015-10-27 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, to understand it you also need to get a lawyer to explain a large number of related court cases. Even then you only get that lawyer's opinion, and a judge may well have a very different opinion.
  Still, you are right in that they all link back to that original definition.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
67. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Macdude · 2015-10-27 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  The issues are a little muddier to me when it comes to using a character
  The solution you're looking for is trademarks. Copyright protects the work, and trademarks can protect the characters. Trademarks don't expire as long as you renew and protect them.
  
  --
  "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
68. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by porges · 2015-10-27 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  For another example, the copyright status of all the various Wizard of Oz properties and components is pretty interesting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
69. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  Apple is not, primarily, a media company in the business of making, and selling, images of the still or moving type. Trademarks are for a specific domain. You can have, for example, a Pepsi Auto Service. You can even mimic their font. They will take you to court but you'll win if you have enough money. They take you to court to defend their trademark, failing to do so means they lose it.
70. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 08:45 · Score: 0
  
  What qualifies you to have an opinion - why should your arbitrary number be the authoritative number and not some other arbitrary number of years? What background, expertise, and citations do you have to make your suggestion worth considering?
71. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by mark-t · 2015-10-27 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  I believe that trademark does allow creation of something that imitates the style of the trademark for purpose of satire or parody, but I think it may still necessary for it to somehow be distinctive. I'm more familiar with copyright law than trademark, to be honest... but IANAL, so standard disclaimers apply. Ultimately, everything I've said is true to only the best of my understanding and knowledge.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
72. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  I'd prefer that anybody be able to make out like bandits a century later, rather than it be a property in pertuity...they could deny all others from building on it...public domain prevents that...
73. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by wshs · 2015-10-27 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Or they can get it in through an NDAA renewal or a Protecting Children From Abuse Act
74. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 10:07 · Score: 0
  
  I'd prefer we get more original content.
75. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  So basically you think there should be something like a trademark (a right to determine how a character is used) on the individual characters and a copyright (the right to determine how a particular work of art is distributed) on an individual work of art?
  Good suggestion, let me see if I can get something like this organized.
  8-)
76. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by vux984 · 2015-10-27 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  "How does trademark infringement apply if not using the character to identify a competing good or service?"
  In precisely the same way EA using a "Porsche 911" or "Ferrari Enzo" in a Need 4 Speed racing game without licensing the use would be infringement.
  Or are you arguing that because EA doesn't need to license the trademarks to be allowed use them? Because if so you'd be wrong.
  
  Do you claim that no one can publish a picture of an apple with a bite missing, because it's a trademark of Apple?
  A picture of an apple with a bite missing? Or the apple logo? Not all pictures of apples with a bite out are the Apple Logo. And to answer your question yes, you do need to pay damned careful attention to what you are doing when you are publishing works containing trademarked things; or you expose yourself to liability for infringement.
77. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by vux984 · 2015-10-27 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  You can have, for example, a Pepsi Auto Service.
  For sure.
  
  You can even mimic their font.
  
  Mimic maybe. But use their actual colors and logo wholesale, without modification. I'm just not buying it.
78. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by vux984 · 2015-10-27 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  but still, it was created first and foremost as a character, not as a branding mark).
  Why, at first blush I was going to agree, since you are arguing that trademark cannot be used to 'remove' something from the public domain.
  But then I realized that's exactly what all trademarks are. The letters I, B, M couldn't be more public domain, ... the trademark's sole purpose is to remove them from the public domain and grant a entity limited exclusive rights to use them for certain designated purposes.
  I think its pretty plausible that Disney will successfully argue that it still owns Mickey Mouse as a trademark even if the original film enters the PD. There might be some limited uses of it that would be allowed... but even stamping the image on a shirt would 'confuse' buyers into thinking the Disney company had authorized or endorsed that shirt... no i think no matter what Disney owns the mouse.
  And I'm ok with that. Steamboat willie should still slip into the PD though.
79. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 12:26 · Score: 0
  
  More original content happens with short or non-existent copyrights. For an example, look at the fashion industry, which cannot legally copyright designs. Industries with big, up-front costs could probably make a decent case for copyright as a concept, but not the effectively infinite copyrights we now have.
80. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 12:36 · Score: 0
  
  Look at Hollywood.
81. Re: Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 13:32 · Score: 0
  
  So if he'd referred to "crusty old white guys" that'd be no problem, nobody would call that out as racist. But heaven forbid you mention the protected class, even if it's provably true.
82. Re: Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by kenai_alpenglow · 2015-10-27 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I don't see where you came up with that list. Many of those professions are permitted in the Bible. A very famous Jew was the son of a carpenter...
83. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 13:51 · Score: 0
  
  Common sense. All that's needed.
  It was 14 years originally. Today you can publish far faster and to a much wider audience with less effort and cost. Hence, the time frame should actually reduce, not increase, as you can realize your profit in less time. And based on how much improved the speed of publication and distribution is, 7 years is still probably far too long.
84. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by cpt+kangarooski · 2015-10-27 17:53 · Score: 2
  
  If Harry Potter were in the public domain, anyone who wanted to, could make movie adaptations of it, not just Warner Bros.
  I'd certainly prefer that the public at large make out like bandits -- enjoying many adaptations and the chance to make their own, as well as greater access to the original novels (e.g. for free via Project Gutenberg) -- rather than the family of JK Rowling.
  
  --
  -- 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.
85. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by cpt+kangarooski · 2015-10-27 18:02 · Score: 1
  
  Mickey Mouse is trademarked, and those trademark protections last into perpetuity... or until Disney stops defending the trademark (ie, into perpetuity)
  No, trademark protection also ceases if the mark is no longer distinctive, which is to say, if it no longer indicates that goods and services bearing the mark originate from a single source.
  
  if Disney does eventually allow the copyright to expire, is that although Mickey Mouse is trademarked, the work can be freely copied and distributed in and among those jurisdictions, as well as even have derivative works made from it, so long as any derivative works do not use the trademarked Mickey Mouse character.
  
  Wrong. The MICKEY MOUSE trademark would lose its distinctiveness, at least with regard to creative works, because without a copyright, anyone can copy the work in which the character first appeared, and anyone can make new works using the character.
  The two key cases you need to look at are: 1) Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), in which the Supreme Court made very clear that trademarks cannot substitute for copyrights; trademarks are the inferior right, and are subject to the effects of copyrights terminating; and 2) Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938), in which the Supreme Court made similarly clear that when exclusive rights lapse (in this case, the patent on shredded wheat cereal), so too do trademarks that merely describe the thing to which those rights had applied, (the SHREDDED WHEAT trademark, which could stand so long as the patent did, but which necessarily had to become generic when the patent expired).
  If Disney loses the copyright on Steamboat Willie, they'll lose much of the trademark protection for Mickey Mouse, and everyone will be free to use that character -- or at least the Steamboat Willie incarnation -- freely.
  
  --
  -- 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.
86. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by cpt+kangarooski · 2015-10-27 18:08 · Score: 1
  
  But the mouse is still a registered trademark. And you will lose
  No, the trademark will largely lapse when the copyright does. This is pretty well settled law, dating back almost 80 years. I have discussed this elsewhere in this thread if you care to look into it.
  
  trademarking components of works is really a separate problem that's gone into overdrive lately. Every major and minor character, event, location, etc is being "trademarked" these days. (Harry Potter for example...every proper noun in the series and some that aren't is a registered trademark. That's wrong on some level.)
  Pfft, they're amateurs compared to TSR. Also I'm fairly dubious that they're getting registered marks. They may be claiming common law trademarks, but I don't see every proper noun from the books making it through the PTO.
  
  --
  -- 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.
87. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by cpt+kangarooski · 2015-10-27 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  It is only fair to people who actually never create anything.
  I used to be a professional artist, and it never bothered me. Then again, I was able to make a living at being an artist without relying on exploiting copyrights. It's hardly unusual. The trick is to sell artistic services instead of many copies of finished works. Even selling single copies of finished works can provide a living without copyrights.
  But even assuming that you're right, so what? Those people outnumber the authors, and the majority rules. It's not like copyrights are a natural thing, either. (In fact, they're opposed to the natural right of free speech, being a form of private censorship enforced by the government) Either you convince other people to respect your wishes -- which they may only be willing to do on their terms for their benefit as they consider fair -- or else you get no rights at all. So even the least protection is something authors should be grateful for, really.
  
  If you have spent your whole life writing stuff, novels, plays, music barely surviving at minimum income, just because the market plays you, or you are bad at marketing, no one 'discovers' you, no one invests into you, no one cares about you, and the greedy bastard corporation comes and takes all your stuff for free and makes billions ...
  If someone else can figure out how to do that when I never could, and gets my work out to the world in a way that I never was able to, I'd be happy. Sure, I'd like to get some of the money, but if I had to choose between, on the one hand, my work never reaching anyone and I'm poor, and on the other hand, my work reaches many people and is popular and I'm poor, the second one is better than the first.
  
  --
  -- 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.
88. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by cpt+kangarooski · 2015-10-27 18:44 · Score: 1
  
  If you look at it from a creative perspective, why do you have to reuse someone else's character, story or universe?
  Because I have a good idea for something that can be done with those, and it improves the world to have such works created. Let's take Shakespeare -- he didn't come up with the story of Romeo and Juliet. It derives from the story of Pyramus and Thisbe, from the first century. Dante referenced it. An Italian version appeared long before Shakespeare, called Mariotto and Gianozza, and was then readapted by another author into Giulietta e Romeo. Eventually it was translated into English by Arthur Brooke, as The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet, and Shakespeare made a number of theatrical adaptations of Italian stories (that's why so many are set there).
  And of course, after Shakespeare, there are various adaptations of that -- in fact, Shakespeare's original text wasn't terribly popular for some decades, since people preferred a slightly different version where Juliet wakes up before Romeo dies, so that they get one last moment together before he dies and she kills herself. Prokofiev adapted it for ballet. There are dozens of opera adaptations, not to mention the famous Tchaikovsky symphonic adaptation. Then there's West Side Story. And it probably is the one play that has had the most film adaptations made of it; Georges MÃ©liÃs, did one. And it was the basis of, and subject of, the well-received film, Shakespeare in Love.
  But according to you, that's all just crap, and we should've stuck with Ovid's original Pyramus and Thisbe -- assuming he wrote it, which is actually pretty unlikely; it probably originated in the ancient Middle East.
  My response: Fuck you. All these many changes and modifications and tweaks and responses and responses to the responses have been an improvement in the world. There's nothing in the slightest bit wrong with creating a derivative work.
  
  From a moral perspective, is it good that you have vultures looking to profit the moment they can use it without paying royalties?
  Yes, absolutely, because the vultures are more moral than the copyright holder who has created a work but has locked it away, only granting access or copies to those who will pay him for it. The vultures get no monopoly; they can use it without paying royalties, but anyone else can copy their editions, and it's never been easier to do so than it is now. The price will drop to the real market value of the work -- which is at or nearly at zero -- and access to it will improve, since now people who wanted it but couldn't afford it, can get it for free.
  Copyright is censorship. It's a private-public affair, in which private parties decide what and how much to censor, and the government helps them enforce it, but it is at best tolerable in the purpose of a greater good. It is by no means good in itself.
  
  I can easily argue for copyright where it's a repository of knowledge that you would like to build on stone by stone.
  People can argue anything; I bet you a dollar you can't do so convincingly.
  
  is there any weighty arguments that makes it imperative we take it away from the estate and into the public domain?
  Yes. It was never the estate's to begin with. Works are inherently in the public domain. Copyright only exists when we gin it up out of thin air. And it isn't created by authors, it's created by everyone else in the world who the author would like to abide by it. To claim a copyright without the public willingness to agree to it is like trying to claim that you own the moon; you can claim to til you're blue in the face, but you'll just be a nut.
  The public is willing to give authors copyrights for a little while, because it serves the public interest to do so. Since authors start with no copyright, and only get copyright through the good graces of the public, authors have no cause for complaint that the gift is li
  
  --
  -- 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.
89. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by david_thornley · 2015-10-28 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  A "Need for Speed" racing game would depict the actual cars, more or less accurately. Whoever owns those trademarks is going to be able to control their use on cars, and stuff closely related to cars. That says nothing about putting out, say, drink mixes of those names.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
90. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by david_thornley · 2015-10-28 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Trademarks need to be used in order to be kept. They don't have to be widely used, and may be used in contexts most people don't see. Corporations can sit on copyrighted works, but the copyrights will theoretically expire.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
91. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by david_thornley · 2015-10-28 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  If you spent your whole life producing stuff, then under the copyright rules we had when I was a kid you'd control everything you produced for 28 years (assuming you renewed copyrights). The purpose for copyright according to the US Constitution is to encourage people to produce things, and nobody is going to decide to produce something original based on the money he or she will make 28 years in the future.
  Moreover, if a multi-billion dollar movie is based on something you wrote, that's going to be a lot of free publicity.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
92. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by vux984 · 2015-10-28 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  That says nothing about putting out, say, drink mixes of those names.
  Sure a drink mix named "Porsche" is fine.
  A drink mix named "Porsche" featuring the Porsche shield logo though? Give me a break. No way that's going to fly.
  Images are not the same as words.
93. Re: Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2015-10-28 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Finally. I was wondering when Open Source Geekry was going to grow up.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
94. Re: Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2015-10-28 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  Might it be the insistence on a monotheistic objective value system?
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
95. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-28 04:30 · Score: 0
  
  I'd certainly prefer that the public at large make out like bandits -- enjoying many adaptations and the chance to make their own...
  Check out the numerous adaptations of the Wizard of Oz and get back to me on that.
96. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by cpt+kangarooski · 2015-10-28 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  There have been many adaptations of The Wizard of Oz, and while just as with original works, not all have been good, enough have been that it's worked out quite well.
  
  --
  -- 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.
97. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by mark-t · 2015-10-28 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  They already have lost the copyright on Steamboat Willie in several international jurisdictions.... the trademark, however, still remains entirely valid in those jurisdictions, and does not dilute Disney's ownership at all. There is absolutely no compelling reason to believe that it will not be exactly the same in the US when the copyright on the work expires there, assuming that it does not somehow get extended again
  The fact that the film can be freely distributed in jurisdictions where the copyright has expired does not impact Mickey Mouse's distinctiveness as a trademarked character, because the work being copied does not constitute unauthorized use of the trademark because in turn, that work originally had authorization to use Mickey Mouse in the first place. Because of Disney's retained ownership of the trademark, the caveat on its public domain status is that it is actually not possible to legally copy Steamboat Willy without attribution, as one may ordinarily be able to with a public domain work that does not utilize trademarks. But this is only because the title character remains trademarked by Disney, and not because the work itself is not public domain. One could, for example, as with any public domain work, freely make a derivative work using another lead character.
  The Dastar Corp case you mention also illustrated the distinction between trademarks and copyright, and that ownership of one cannot be used to exercise control over the other when it is not applicable. To the best of my understanding, the result of that case did not lead to the dilution or surrender of any trademark owned by any party... it merely established that, as should be expected, a public domain work may be freely copied. If anything, this case exactly illustrates my point.... that trademarks can be retained even after a work falls into public domain.
  The Shredded Wheat case you referred to was lost by Nabisco because the company was trying to apply entirely generic words that happened to describe what was done to the product as a trademark. The judge said nay, nay to that... as can reasonably be expected. However, Mickey Mouse could not be argued to be a generic term because "Mickey" is very obviously a name, and not just a general description of the mouse as "shredded" was for "wheat" in the case you referred to. Had Disney used a titular name for their character that was simply descriptive of him in other English words, then they would indeed, as you have noted, probably lose their trademark status on the character as works using that character went into public domain.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
98. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-28 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  Remember that the next time you complain about Hollywood reboots and sequels.
99. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by cpt+kangarooski · 2015-10-28 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  They already have lost the copyright on Steamboat Willie in several international jurisdictions.... the trademark, however, still remains entirely valid in those jurisdictions, and does not dilute Disney's ownership at all.
  Well, my analysis is limited to US copyright and trademark law. I have no idea what they do in other countries.
  
  To the best of my understanding, the result of that case did not lead to the dilution or surrender of any trademark owned by any party... it merely established that, as should be expected, a public domain work may be freely copied.
  It did more than that. It established that trademarks cannot be used to interfere with the public domain status of public domain works. A public domain work can not only be freely copied and distributed, but it can serve as the basis for new, derivative works. If trademarks prevented the use of a public domain work as the basis for new derivatives, it would be taking on a copyright function, which Dastar tells us is absolutely not allowed.
  So now we know that once Steamboat Willie enters the public domain, anyone in the US will not only be free to make and distribute copies of it, they will also be able to create new works which include the Mickey Mouse character. This then brings us to the Shredded Wheat case.
  The sine qua non of a trademark is that all goods bearing the mark originate from a common source and are perceived to do so by the market. If all computers marked with the APPLE trademark originate from Apple, Inc., the APPLE mark may be viable. But if Lenovo, Dell, and HP all make computers with the APPLE trademark, the APPLE mark is no longer a viable trademark. This is why trademark holders are always going after anyone they think is infringing; if the infringer were to be left alone to infringe, goods bearing the mark would have different origins, and the mark would no longer be viable.
  Likewise, this is why trademark holders also try to urge the public to use trademarks 'correctly.' If most people who buy computers refer to Apples, Lenovos, Dells, and HPs as APPLE computers, this indicates that the mark is not identifying the common source to the public, and again can result in the mark no longer being viable. The way that this happens in real life is that consumers start using the mark to describe the good itself, rather than the origin of the good. For example, Apple would tell you that a computer they make is not an APPLE, but an APPLE-brand computer. Similarly, you aren't supposed to wear LEVI'S, you wear LEVI'S-brand blue jeans. A failure to distinguish between the good and the source of the good caused marks like ELEVATOR and TRAMPOLINE to become generic. KLEENEX has teetered on the edge for years, and Xerox runs ads to try to protect their XEROX mark, my favorite being "You can't xerox a xerox on the xerox," meaning, you can't photocopy a photocopy on a photocopier. Of course, real human beings xerox xeroxes on xeroxes all the time -- if anything will save XEROX it will, ironically, be the march of progress rendering xeroxes obsolete. (Similar thing happened to SANKA, which nearly became generic when it was basically the only brand of decaf coffee and was synonymous with it -- to the extent that this is the origin of the association of orange with decaf -- but when other brands showed up, the SANKA brand was able to be revived, albeit at the expense of having near total domination of the market)
  In the SHREDDED WHEAT case, what happened was that Nabisco had a patent and was therefore the exclusive manufacturer and seller of shredded wheat. Their mark was not quite generic at the time, but effectively had secondary meaning simply because there were no competitors manufacturing the same product due to the patent. Once the patent expired, it turned out that SHREDDED WHEAT merely described the good, rather than Nabisco's version of it, and whatever sort of trademark protection Nabisco might have been able to claim during the patent term was lost.
  
  --
  -- 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.
100. Re: Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Bert64 · 2015-10-28 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  He did use the jews as workers, they were forced to do slave labor in concentration camps.
  Putting them on the front line likely wouldn't have worked out very well for the nazi cause, although it would have given them more soldiers and got a few jews killed it's likely that many more would have used the opportunity to join the enemy and fight back against the nazis.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
101. Re: Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Bert64 · 2015-10-28 22:26 · Score: 1
  
  My whole point is summed up in your quote "anyone else that he thought he could get away with killing"...
  If there was no existing anti semitic feeling, he couldn't have got away with killing jews and would have needed to pick another target. Jews had already become sufficiently unpopular that a significant proportion of the population were willing to tolerate or even support hitler.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
102. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by mark-t · 2015-10-29 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  >[? You insist on alleging that somehow, by making the Steamboat Willie cartoon public domain, that this should cause trademark dillution.
  This is not substantiated by any precedent where the name of something is not otherwise a general description of the trademarked item, and is actually countered by the fact that despite the fact that the cartoon is public domain in many international jurisdictions, Disney has *retained* the trademark in those jurisdictions. Freedom to copy and distribute the work in those jurisdictions does not make the title character public domain, only the work itself. The only notable difference is that because of the trademarked status of the character within the work, attribution is still required, but that is only to satisfy trademark law, not copyright law. Further, trademark and copyright law are similar enough in some of these jurisdictions to US law that there is plenty of reason to believe that it will be exactly the same in the US, if Disney does allow their copyright to expire on the work in the US. As you have observed, trademark cannot be used to prohibit a work from becoming public domain, but such public domain status only dillutes the trademark when the trademark itself is too general to refer only to whatever the owner created, which Mickey Mouse will not be, because other people copying Steamboat Willy does not cause Mickey Mouse to suddenly be theirs.... it only makes the copy of the cartoon theirs.
  Copyright and trademark are quite orthogonal, in general... what happens to one does not generally affect the other except when one is incorrectly attempted to be used as control on the other.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
103. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by cpt+kangarooski · 2015-10-29 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  You insist on alleging that somehow, by making the Steamboat Willie cartoon public domain, that this should cause trademark dilution.
  No, not at all. I'm saying that it will cause the MICKEY MOUSE mark to suffer from genericide, at least with regard to certain types of goods.
  OTOH, I agree that the mark would not be completely invalidated; there is ample precedent for fictional characters to be both in the public domain with regard to copyright, while also being protected trademarks. The key, however, is that the characters can only be trademarks with regard to goods that do not interfere with the public domain use of the characters in a copyright context, due to the superiority of copyright over trademark in the law. My go-to example is the character of Peter Pan, which is in the public domain in the US because the works in which he originated are in the public domain in the US. Anyone here can freely use the character in any manner of creative work; in fact a new Peter Pan movie was just released recently. However, at the same time, there are also PETER PAN trademarks for intercity bus services, and for peanut butter. That the character cannot freely be used to sell peanut butter does not prevent anyone from freely writing new books, performing the original J.M. Barrie play, making a film adaptation of the play, etc.
  When Steamboat Willie enters the public domain, the same situation will occur for the Mickey Mouse character as he was in that work; he'll be freely usable, since there will no longer be any limitation on the creation of new derivative works based on Steamboat Willie. (That later changes to the character will still be protected until the works in which they originate also enter public domain is well established in, IIRC, Silverman v. CBS, which went through this already with the infamous Amos 'n Andy characters) Any trademarks that Disney has on MICKEY MOUSE which would interfere with the creation of copies of the existing work or new derivative works will cease to be valid. However, MICKEY MOUSE trademarks which are totally unrelated to creative works -- such as if Disney starts selling MICKEY MOUSE brand motor oil -- will remain perfectly valid.
  
  Freedom to copy and distribute the work ... does not make the title character public domain, only the work itself.
  There's actually no such thing as a copyright on a character. Only works can be copyrighted. If characters enjoy any copyright protection at all, it is due to being part of a copyrighted work, subject to whatever happens with that work.
  
  This is not substantiated by any precedent where the name of something is not otherwise a general description of the trademarked item
  In the US, trademarks come in five strengths: generic, descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary, and fanciful. Generic marks can never be protected, and suggestive, arbitrary, and fanciful marks usually are. Ironically, a stronger mark (fanciful are the strongest) may sometimes also cause a loss of protection, as I'll get to in a moment. Descriptive marks, come in a further two types: Merely descriptive marks, which are not protected, and descriptive marks with secondary meaning, which may be protected.
  DIGITAL is a good example of a descriptive mark for digital computers; it's not generic (that would be COMPUTERS) but does merely describe the computer at hand. Anyone who makes or sells digital computers can describe their computers as being digital in nature; no one can have exclusive rights in this. However, a digital computer company that uses the DIGITAL mark in conjunction with their computers a lot -- like the much-loved Digital Equipment Corporation (also known as Digital, and as DEC), whose logo was the word "digital" may be able to show that they have built up a sufficient association with their mark and their goods in the minds of consumers that they are entitled to protection for the descriptive mark where secondary mea
  
  --
  -- 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.
104. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by mark-t · 2015-10-29 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  My go-to example is the character of Peter Pan, which is in the public domain in the US because the works in which he originated are in the public domain in the US. Anyone here can freely use the character in any manner of creative work; in fact a new Peter Pan movie was just released recently. However, at the same time, there are also PETER PAN trademarks for intercity bus services, and for peanut butter. That the character cannot freely be used to sell peanut butter does not prevent anyone from freely writing new books, performing the original J.M. Barrie play, making a film adaptation of the play, etc
  Yes, but that's because the name Peter Pan, as it refers to the name of the main character in the story that is now in public domain, was not under any trademark in the first place (any trademark status it has since acquired, such as the name of a particular brand of peanut butter, or bus services, or the like, happened after the work fell into public domain). Further, even if the character had been trademarked, trademarked status could not stop people from copying the public domain work (although it may have been able to prevent other people from using the character in their own works, but that I will admit that is conjecture. Had the character been called something that was simply descriptive of him, such as "Orphan Flying Boy", any trademark status on that term would have become genericized after the work fell into public domain).
  
  US copyright law and US trademark law control what is and isn't legal in the US. What foreign countries do has no particular bearing here. I cannot imagine why you keep bringing it up, as though it mattered even a little.
  I keep bringing the matter up because it shows that even in countries which have almost identical copyright and trademark laws to those that exist within the USA, the most significant difference being what the legal lengths of copyright have been, causing Steamboat Willie to fall into public domain in those jurisdictions, Disney has not lost any trademark control in those jurisdictions, one of them being directly north of the USA (Steamboat Willie entered public domain in Canada several years ago, not long after the turn of the century, IIRC, and although copyright terms in Canada were since recently extended, in preparation for participation in the TPP, the extension did not impact the status of works that had already fallen into public domain).
  There is nothing magic or special about the US's copyright or trademark laws that would suggest that what would happen within the US should be even slightly different than what has already happened elsewhere when those jurisdictions have extremely similar laws. Your apparent indifference about what happens in other countries simply because they are not subject to US law does not mean that what happens elsewhere will not also happen within the USA when the conditions are sufficiently similar, which in this particular matter, they do indeed happen to be. Believing otherwise is at best naive, wilfully ignorant at worst.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
105. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by cpt+kangarooski · 2015-10-29 15:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but that's because the name Peter Pan, as it refers to the name of the main character in the story that is now in public domain, was not under any trademark in the first place (any trademark status it has since acquired, such as the name of a particular brand of peanut butter, or bus services, or the like, happened after the work fell into public domain).
  Nope.
  First, names are not copyrightable; even during the time when the original Peter Pan plays by Barrie were copyrighted, the name could have been used by others without running afoul of the copyright.
  Second, while patents require novelty, i.e. that something has never been done before, trademarks do not. And while copyrights require originality, i.e. that something originates from an author, rather than having been copied, trademarks do not. It is perfectly acceptable to use pre-existing material to make a mark, e.g. APPLE for computers, and it is even perfectly acceptable to copy someone else's mark provided that it is not then used in an infringing or diluting manner. A classic example is the PERSON'S mark used for clothing: In 1977, a Japanese clothing firm began using the PERSON'S mark in Japan, and in 1981 an American visited Japan, bought some samples of PERSON'S clothing, took them to America, and began manufacturing and selling his own line of clothing in America using the PERSON'S mark. In 1985, the Japanese firm began selling in the US, and the next year, the two firms realized they were now both in the same market with the same mark. They went to court, and ultimately the American won, since he had been the first to use the mark in the US; it didn't matter that he copied the mark from the Japanese, because trademarks, like copyrights, are not really international in nature, and use in Japan didn't count for anything in the US.
  Third, your history is wrong. The Swift Company's divisions E.K. Pond and Derby started selling PETER PAN brand peanut butter in 1928, at a time when the plays were not only copyrighted, but Barrie himself was still alive and still held the rights. There's no indication that the name was used with permission, that there was a license agreement, or that there was any payment, or that Barrie even knew about it. Great Ormond Street Hospital, which wound up with the copyrights says that they never gave permission or got paid during the remainder of the time that the plays were still copyrighted in the US.
  
  Had the character been called something that was simply descriptive of him, such as "Orphan Flying Boy"
  You have a way too narrow view of what's descriptive in a trademark context. A mark is descriptive if it has an ordinary meaning and is used in conjunction with goods or services directly related to that meaning. Show anyone a picture of the Mickey Mouse character and ask them what that is, and they'll tell you that it's Mickey Mouse; the name of the character is a characteristic of it. If it weren't, you could say that no, the picture is of a character named Dan O'Neill, and people would believe you.
  
  There is nothing magic or special about the US's copyright or trademark laws that would suggest that what would happen within the US should be even slightly different than what has already happened elsewhere when those jurisdictions have extremely similar laws.
  No, there are two special things. First, many other countries regard international treaties such as the Berne Convention as being law which can be used by parties to a suit. The US does not; we regard most treaties to simply be obligations on our government to abide by them, but our actual law is what our own government enacts. Maybe they'll pass laws that comply with their treaty obligations, maybe they won't. We've been in violation of the TRIPS Agreement and the Berne Convention with regard to our homestyle exception (it concerns publicly playing the radio without owing royalties or needing permission) for well over a decade now and not
  
  --
  -- 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.
106. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by mark-t · 2015-10-29 17:27 · Score: 1
  
  Whether or not Disney holds a MICKEY MOUSE trademark that effectively inhibits the free use of the public domain in Canada would not, for a single second, enter the mind of a judge who had to decide on how to treat the mark in the US when Steamboat Willie enters the public domain
  I wasn't suggesting it would enter a judge's mind. I was saying that given the fact that the cartoon is public domain in these jurisdictions while Disney still retains full control over their trademarks in those jurisdictions, it seems nothing less than irrational to think that the same would not happen in the US. A judge doesn't have to consider what happens internationally to decide on the matter, they would only need to look entirely at local law. If Steamboat Willie fell into public domain in the USA, there is no reason to think that would somehow grant other people the free privilege to use Mickey Mouse in their own works, because Mickey Mouse is trademarked. Using Peter Pan as a precedent to the contrary is not really a counter-precedent because while the story. was copyrighted, the character name and image of the character from the story had no IP protection at all. Mickey Mouse has trademark protection.
  However, given the repeated long-windedness of your replies, you evidently have far more patience for discussing this matter than I. Peace out.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
107. Re: Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by unicornzvi · 2015-10-30 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I don't see where you came up with that list. Many of those professions are permitted in the Bible. A very famous Jew was the son of a carpenter...
  That list comes from not being completely ignorant of history. The image of Jews as monelenders and greedy bastards comes from the middle ages, especially eastern europe and is due to Jews being forbidden by the local laws from practicing most jobs forcing them into the job of money lender or tax collector.
108. Re: Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by beastofburdon · 2015-10-30 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Just because it sounds racist doesn't mean it isn't true. Trace back the ownership of all the major corporations in the world and you will quickly find that you keep running into the same couple of families which are heavily intermarried and do happen to be Jewish. These people are the ones that created the stereotype, they also happen to own well over 90% of the banks in the world to include the central bank in all but 3 or 4 countries.
109. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by cpt+kangarooski · 2015-10-30 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  If Steamboat Willie fell into public domain in the USA, there is no reason to think that would somehow grant other people the free privilege to use Mickey Mouse in their own works, because Mickey Mouse is trademarked.
  In Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc, the character of Betty Boop was at issue. Without getting too deep into the weeds, the gist of the dispute was that Fletcher claimed to hold copyrights and trademarks on the Betty Boop character, and AVELA was printing up Betty Boop art. There, the situation was similar to a public domain character, because Fleischer turned out not to hold the copyrights at all (and it isn't the court's problem to figure out who did and to drag them into this suit), but did have trademarks. The district court, on remand, said: "The words 'Betty Boop' used on goods bearing the image of the character Betty Boop self-evidently describe those goods, and are not referring to something else. ... In addition, there are no words other than âoeBetty Boopâ available to describe or name the character Betty Boop. As noted above, these proceedings have already established that Defendants may so use the character over Plaintiff's objection [because the Plaintiffs could not show that they held the pertinent copyrights]; Defendants must also, therefore, be able to identify this character by name."
  End result: The Fleischer trademarks didn't prevent the free use of the trademarked character by a third party, where copyright was not a factor.
  And given that the way that precedents work is that you look more for analogous situations, rather than those which are exactly alike, it requires no real effort whatsoever to see how this would apply in a future MICKEY MOUSE trademark case.
  
  However, given the repeated long-windedness of your replies, you evidently have far more patience for discussing this matter than I.
  Well, this is both my job -- I'm a copyright and trademark attorney -- and also my hobby. And while I admit to being long-winded, is that really the worst thing in an Internet argument?
  
  --
  -- 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.
110. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-04 19:01 · Score: 0
  
  Irony is it's the French who really pushed for strong copyrights during the 1970's. Now look who's pushing for them.
111. Re:Isn't the current mouse protection rule ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-04 19:05 · Score: 0
  
  Watch the Chinese make a deal with the (mostly white) devil, and extend theirs, then the USA's lobbyists will say "oh look, if they're planning on extending it, the supremes will probably allow another extension here, too".
Mickey et al won't let that happen by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 01:52 · Score: 0

Mickey Mouse et al paid WAAAAY too much to let that happen.
PS - Just to tweak the /. crowd, guess which party they've bought?
1. Re:Mickey et al won't let that happen by pla · 2015-10-27 01:57 · Score: 2
  
  PS - Just to tweak the /. crowd, guess which party they've bought?
  
  The (D) stands for "Disney".
2. Re:Mickey et al won't let that happen by i.r.id10t · 2015-10-27 02:01 · Score: 2
  
  Or perhaps Duck Dodgers in the 24th and a Half Century!
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
3. Re:Mickey et al won't let that happen by Wycliffe · 2015-10-27 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  PS - Just to tweak the /. crowd, guess which party they've bought?
  I'm not sure what that proves. If you pay off the democrats to vote for your issue because the republicans are going to support it anyways (or vice versa), it still makes both parties culpable. Sometimes the money is spent on the side that already supports their views and sometimes the money is spent to get them to support your views. To me the later is a lot worse as instead of just helping support the group that you agree with, you are actively bribing the opposing group. You have to look at the bigger picture and connect a lot of dots to figure out which one it is though.
4. Re:Mickey et al won't let that happen by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  It makes me ill deciding which is worse.
  Being too stupid to know better.
  Being smart enough to know better but too corrupt to do the right thing.
5. Re:Mickey et al won't let that happen by Holi · 2015-10-27 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  You just pulled the same bullshit you were railing against. Fucking hypocrite.
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
6. Re:Mickey et al won't let that happen by Wycliffe · 2015-10-27 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Ahh, the old "My side proven guilty and corrupt well beyond any reasonable doubt so I counter with both sides are equally bad" added with a hint of "actually your side is still worse despite no evidence" to top it off.
  Leftists are so funny these days with the contortions they have to do to still support candidates that are as corrupt as the average DNC member in DC is.
  Funny how you jump to conclusions about me. I'm definitely NOT a leftist and I do think both sides are corrupt. You also flipped my conclusion. My conclusion was that the democrats are "more corrupt" because they supported something they probably wouldn't have naturally supported in the first place. I in no way was trying to defend the democrats. I think like most people, you are seeing what you are wanting to see instead of actually looking at what I said. The average DNC member and the average RNC are both crooks. Luckily people are starting to realize it and that's why people like Sanders, Trump, and Carson are leading in the polls. Whether they will be less corrupt remains to be seen but people are at least making an attempt to vote for people who they perceive as outsiders.
7. Re:Mickey et al won't let that happen by Fire_Wraith · 2015-10-27 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  Sonny Bono was a Republican.
  
  Which is not to say this is a partisan issue, merely to point out that it's quite the opposite.
Counterpoint by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 01:59 · Score: 0

I know most people here hate the "Disney extension" of the copyright term, but what is the "community" losing, besides the ability to get Warner Bros. and Disney plush toys for practically free?
The point that hardly anybody remembers who Buck Rogers was, cuts both ways. Why can't the makers of this movie come up with a different name and tweak things a little bit? It's not like that would be a violation of precedent. Is their movie going to be so lame that they need this tie-in to prop up the box office?
1. Re:Counterpoint by LoyalOpposition · 2015-10-27 04:39 · Score: 2
  
  I know most people here hate the "Disney extension" of the copyright term, but what is the "community" losing, besides the ability to get Warner Bros. and Disney plush toys for practically free?
  Economics answers this by referring to the effects of monopolies in general. Copyright is a government-granted monopoly. Insofar as Disney is able to function as a monopoly they increase their profits. That implies that there will be a shift of goods and services to Disney and away from their customers. Monopolists accomplish the increase in profits by reducing supply. That means that there will be fewer monopoly-associated goods and services produced than there would have been had there been no monopoly.
  The point that hardly anybody remembers who Buck Rogers was, cuts both ways. Why can't the makers of this movie come up with a different name and tweak things a little bit? It's not like that would be a violation of precedent. Is their movie going to be so lame that they need this tie-in to prop up the box office?
  Characters can be incremental, just like inventions can. Perhaps I want a can opener with a bottle opener on the other end. Perhaps you want to read about a character who's trying to do good, but who had a tortured past.
  ~Loyal
  
  --
  I aim to misbehave.
2. Re:Counterpoint by tburkhol · 2015-10-27 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  I know most people here hate the "Disney extension" of the copyright term, but what is the "community" losing, besides the ability to get Warner Bros. and Disney plush toys for practically free?
  "Mickey Mouse" plush toys would still be covered by trademark. The community loses the ability to make up their own Mickey Mouse stories. To answer what would happen if Mickey met Kermit in a dark alley? Or if Mickey and Jerry teamed up against Tom the cat? The community loses the ability to make a Mickey Mouse costume for your favorite Destiny character.
  Sherlock Holmes, pre-1923, is in the public domain, and look how many adaptations that's spawned. Or (less well known) Allan Quatermain, the original Indiana Jones.
3. Re:Counterpoint by wxxy___ · 2015-10-27 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  The entire intellectual property debate is backwards.
  
  The 'creators' or their descendants, in most cases, aren't the ones who are doing the plebs a favor when ip enters the public domain. It is the public who are doing the creators a favor by pretending that thoughts are equatable to actual property. Once a thought leaves somebodys fruity little mind it's no longer theirs. You can think up a unique set of words or a cartoon mouse, but once it is out of your head, I can say those words or draw that mouse. The only reason you can stop me, is because society decided it is worth pretending that those ideas are the same as actual property so that the creators will be able to make a living bettering society with their works.
  
  The problem is that this idea has gotten twisted beyond the breaking point. To the point that people believe ownership of ideas is the same as owning a rock, and that people who are sick of literally paying forever to protect the ideas of dead men from being used freely, are thought of as parasites.
4. Re:Counterpoint by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 14:02 · Score: 0
  
  "hardly anybody remembers who Buck Rogers was"
  This is exactly the problem with perpetual copyright. Culture gets put into a vault and then forgotten. Just because Company D can't think up anything profitable for a franchise doesn't mean it should disappear. But the way things currently sit is that they'll just lock up the rights to it and let it rot, and that's not right.
Article summary by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2015-10-27 02:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

1) Hollywood producers want to make new Buck Rogers movie based on his very first book appearance. Announce it at Comic Con.
2) Trust that says it owns the character threatens to sue producers.
3) Producers try to reach deal. Trust apparently refuses to reach a deal. They simply don't want the film made.
4) Producers are now going to try an argument that Buck Rogers is actually already in the public domain, so screw the trust as they don't need their permission anyway.
1. Re:Article summary by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  3) is more likely be producers don't want to pay the going rate and lowballed them with a derisory offer. They're all terrified of a billion dollar success monster and not wanting anyone to get the money other than themselves.
  I'd just be happy to have Col Deering (Erin Gray) in those trousers in glorious HD!
2. Re:Article summary by Megane · 2015-10-27 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Only if I can also have Princess Ardala (Pamela Hensley) in those skimpy sparkly outfits in glorious HD.
  How was I to know back then that so much of her attractiveness was due to being tsundere.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Black Buck Rogers by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 02:07 · Score: 0

I'm not sure whether to root for a vaguely sensible interpretation of copyright (still so ludicrous as to anger the founding fathers), or be concerned that this will just be an attempt to make a Black Buck Rogers and then take to the tweet-cannons to yell at anyone who is cross. Load up the "Racism Rounds", Fire At Will!
1. Re:Black Buck Rogers by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 02:33 · Score: 0
  
  "Black Rogers" sounds like an early-70s blaxploitation knock-off of the original...
  That said, where does it say he's going to be black anyway?!
2. Re: Black Buck Rogers by cyber-vandal · 2015-10-27 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  Smith?
3. Re:Black Buck Rogers by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  It doesn't, it's just been such a strange trend lately.
4. Re:Black Buck Rogers by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 02:52 · Score: 0
  
  "Black Rogers" sounds like an early-70s blaxploitation knock-off of the original...
  Wasn't that a pr0n...?
5. Re:Black Buck Rogers by cayenne8 · 2015-10-27 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  "Black Rogers" sounds like an early-70s blaxploitation knock-off of the original...
  That said, where does it say he's going to be black anyway?!
  I dunno if it states that, BUT it does seem to be a popular thing to do these days...turn classic white characters black for some reason.
  I mean, if Little Orphan Annie wasn't the whitest cartoon on earth....and yet turned into a black girl recently, I don't know what would stop the transformation of any other character.
  Hey, they're free to do what they want, but I'm puzzled why this trend to change the race of classic characters, rather than create NEW characters of various races to be new heroes, or cartoons, etc.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
6. Re:Black Buck Rogers by MachineShedFred · 2015-10-27 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you give a flaming fuck if he's black or not? Is there some meaningful point in the Buck Rogers story that depends on race, or is the character white simply because when he was created, all lead characters in every story were white?
  I can't help but wonder why that was posted anonymously...
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
7. Re:Black Buck Rogers by MachineShedFred · 2015-10-27 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  I don't have thoughts one way or the other on this - I don't give a shit if the characters I'm looking at in a movie are black or white because in the end, if the story is any good, that's what matters.
  But why aren't new characters being created? Because it's much easier to repave the road someone else already cut than create something new. Hollywood wants to squeeze every drop out of what already exists before they take a flyer on something new.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
8. Re:Black Buck Rogers by Scarletdown · 2015-10-27 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  That goes back to at least the late 80s. I remember the second Batman movie (the one with Keaton and Nicholson) had Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent. It made me wonder if there would eventually be a black Two-Face.
  
  --
  This space unintentionally left blank.
9. Re:Black Buck Rogers by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-28 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  No, you're thinking of "Flesh Gordon", an early-70s knock-off of Buck Rogers' '30s rival.
10. Re:Black Buck Rogers by david_thornley · 2015-10-28 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  The original Anthony Rogers novel was heavy on the Yellow Peril, so race was important in the original. It didn't actually have to be, since Rogers discovered that it wasn't actually the Orientals who were behind it all.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Cartmen freeze for result by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2015-10-27 02:13 · Score: 1

[They] claim that Buck Rogers entered the public domain...and they want to make a Buck Rogers movie called Armageddon 2419 A.D.

Well, hopefully the case is wrapped up by then.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
1. Re:Cartmen freeze for result by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 02:49 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, unfortunately there will be a trademark dispute with never ending sequels to the movie named "Armageddon".
2. Re:Cartmen freeze for result by Sowelu · 2015-10-27 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  If it's not, at least there won't be anyone left to care.
3. Re:Cartmen freeze for result by viperidaenz · 2015-10-27 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Which one?
  Armageddon (1998), Alien Armageddon (2013) or Warlock: The Armageddon (1993)?
Headline from 2090AD by willworkforbeer · 2015-10-27 02:14 · Score: 2

"Estate of 'Buck Rogers 2017' movie producer claims copyright protection to stop holographic remake scheduled for 2092."

--
Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
Public Domain Stories by gweeks · 2015-10-27 02:23 · Score: 4, Informative

The two original stories are in the public domain in the US. Here are Project Gutenberg links.
Armageddonâ"2419 A.D.
https://www.gutenberg.org/eboo...
and
The Airlords of Han
https://www.gutenberg.org/eboo...
Of course no where in the stories was the name Buck Rogers used. That name didn't start until the comic strip.
Nothing profitable goes into public domain anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 02:25 · Score: 0

Let me know when Mickey Mouse makes it into the public domain.
Public Domain does not apply to trademarks by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 02:25 · Score: 0

Just because the original comic is now public domain (and thus can be freely distributed without violating copyright infringement) does not imply that you can use the characters from the comic to create your own original work. For example, if the original superman comic is now public domain (not sure if that's true), that doesn't give you the right to go and make a new superman movie. The trademark still belongs to DC comics. Public domain only gives you the right to redistribute that particular work.
1. Re:Public Domain does not apply to trademarks by Nate+the+greatest · 2015-10-27 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Here's a post which explains why that is the case: http://the-digital-reader.com/...
2. Re:Public Domain does not apply to trademarks by OrangeTide · 2015-10-27 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  They would have to alter the character so that it could not be confused with the trademarked character. Duck Dodgers, etc.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
3. Re:Public Domain does not apply to trademarks by Mr+D+from+63 · 2015-10-27 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  2419, isn't that the 24 1/2 century?
  
  They should do Chuck Rogers. Starring Mr. Norris of course.
4. Re:Public Domain does not apply to trademarks by Holi · 2015-10-27 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  One cannot use trademarks to restrict the use of public domain. Once your copyright expires and the work passes into the public domain anyone has the right to do what they want with it. You can't then use Trademarks to deprive us of that right. Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp 9-0 decision.
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
5. Re:Public Domain does not apply to trademarks by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  2419, isn't that the 24 1/2 century?.
  It's the 25th.
6. Re:Public Domain does not apply to trademarks by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  2419, isn't that the 24 1/2 century?.
  It's the 25th.
  Whoosh!
95 years for works published pre-1978 or for hire by tepples · 2015-10-27 02:57 · Score: 5, Informative
The expiry of 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the last surviving author died applies in Europe. It also applies in the United States to works of individual authorship first published in 1978 or later. But Buck Rogers was first published before 1978, and U.S. copyright in pre-1978 works follows the rule for works made for hire, expiring 95 years after the end of the calendar year in which the work was first published.
Here's a summary of the U.S. copyright term:
- Works made for hire by the United States Government: Public domain
- Sound recordings first published before 1972: State copyright applies until 2067
- Mask works (semiconductor layouts): 10 years
- Works published before 1923: Public domain
- Works published before 1964 whose copyright was not renewed in the 28th year: Public domain. As I understand the featured article, plaintiff claims that Buck Rogers falls in this category.
- Individual works published in 1978-2003 whose last surviving author died before 1978: 2047
- Other individual works first published since 1978: 70 years after death of last surviving author
- All other works, including works made for hire and works published before 1978: 95 years after first publication
Dastar v. Fox by tepples · 2015-10-27 02:59 · Score: 2

Disney might lose the copyright of the Mickey Mouse character, but they would still have a trademark restricting others from marketing said character.
A U.S. trademark cannot be used as an ersatz copyright. Dastar v. Fox.
When the price is a hostile takeover by tepples · 2015-10-27 03:02 · Score: 1

3) is more likely be producers don't want to pay the going rate and lowballed them with a derisory offer.
If an exclusive license was already sold to another studio, "the going rate" can be tens of billions of dollars to acquire a controlling interest in the exclusive licensee.
Copyright expiry causes genericide by tepples · 2015-10-27 03:08 · Score: 1

the trademark does not expire
Trademarks do not expire, but they can become no longer distinctive. In Dastar v. Fox (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that a trademark cannot be used to restrict derivative works of a work whose copyright has expired. I guess the title and likeness trademarks associated with such a work would be deemed generic.
Like NAFTA II? by tepples · 2015-10-27 03:17 · Score: 1

It will have to be through a treaty or some other mutli-government agreement.
Under current law, both Mickey and Pooh enter the public domain in the United States in 2024 because their copyrights are anchored in works first published in 1928: Milne's The House at Pooh Corner and the original Disney/Iwerks Mickey trilogy (Plane Crazy, The Gallopin' Gaucho, and Steamboat Willie). If NAFTA II gets proposed before 2024, watch Disney and Gershwin lobby the USTR to include Mexico's life plus 100 year copyright term in the agreement.
Re:95 years for works published pre-1978 or for hi by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 03:42 · Score: 0

I'm sure the new international intellectual property agreement makes it clear that any work that is worth anything at all is forever owned by somebody, and wherever there is ambiguity ownership moves up to the richest entity that is laying claim.
Nothing New? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 04:04 · Score: 0

They're going to update the characters anyway, for a modern audience (and most likely to appeal to the 13-35 year olds), so why not just create new characters?
Get an old timey phone book, close your eyes, flip to a random page, and point to a name.
There you go, Larry Larryton in the New Century.
I love the Lovecraft shared universe model of writing, different authors contributing to backstory and the general canvass, but if someone doesn't want to play, that in no way limits your creativity. May actually force you to be more creative.
Or expose your lack of talent.
1. Re:Nothing New? by MachineShedFred · 2015-10-27 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  et an old timey phone book, close your eyes, flip to a random page, and point to a name.
  I used to know a guy that was in radio, and when he was starting as a teenage intern, some crusty old disc jockey from the payola era told him that his name sucked, and he should do exactly this.
  So he became "Rick St. James" bringing you all the hits etc. blah blah.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
2. Re:Nothing New? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  Somehow "Irving Schmeltzer Quite a Bit of Time from Now" doesn't have the same ring...
  Bedebedebdebeep -- Gosh, Irving!
Re:95 years for works published pre-1978 or for hi by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 04:42 · Score: 0

The copyright office should publish an easy-to-use flowchart to determine whether a work is copyrighted. These lawsuits are silly, they boil down to arguing over the running of an algorithm or over its inputs. Imagine two parties asking a court to determine for them whether 183 * 241 = 44103. Whoever's wrong should be shamed by the court for wasting its time.
Not quite in the public domain, I think by whitroth · 2015-10-27 04:49 · Score: 1

The novells, Armageddon 2419, first appeared in Amazing Stories in 1928 (I don't suppose anyone here has actually thought to google that title).
However, as noted in wikipedia, that, and the sequel novells, The Airlords of Han, were collected into a book in the sixties, and I assure you that was copyrighted.
I'll check back later this afternoon, and if someone wants to argue, I'll go look at my copy of that book that I bought back then, and check the copyright info, and post it here, tomorrow, though I doubt anyone else will go to the end of the comments here....
mark "now, if I could just find some inertron...."
1. Re:Not quite in the public domain, I think by SoftwareArtist · 2015-10-27 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  That isn't how copyright works. The original story was published in 1928, and the copyright was never renewed. Therefore, it has expired and the work is now in the public domain. Reprinting it several decades later does not retroactively create a new copyright on the original work, or extend its copyright beyond when it expires. In fact, if you look in that collection from the 60s, you will almost certainly find a notice at the front that says, "Amargeddon 2419 Copyright 1928".
  
  --
  "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
2. Re:Not quite in the public domain, I think by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  While I'm not a copyright lawyer, I don't think that's how copyright works.
  If all a publisher had to do to "re-copyright" a work was to put it in a collection, there would be no need for copyright extensions.
  In this particular example, it seems you are saying a work first published in 1928 can be "re-copyrighted" by putting in into a collection 30-40 years later.
  Now that I think of it, I think I will put together a book compiling some of Grimm's Fairy Tales, copyright it, and sue the living daylights out of everyone else using any of them.
3. Re:Not quite in the public domain, I think by Cassini2 · 2015-10-27 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Copyright covers pretty much any new work, even if it is a copy of an old work. An example of this, bible companies routinely copyright the bible. The crucial caveat's are:
  1. If the original work is in the public-domain, then anyone can copy the original work.
  2. If you publish a copy of the original work, say as part of a collection or with editor's annotations, then you can sue the daylights out of anyone that copies your new work.
  In practice this means, if a third party publishes a new copy of the "public domain" work, then they must make sure they publish a new work based on the original, and not the revised collection. Also, if the copyright holder of the later work cannot prove the third-party copy is a copy of his new work as opposed to the original work, then the court will likely just decide that the original work is in the public domain and that is that.
  In the case of the bible, anyone can copy any public-domain copy of the bible. Most of the copies of the bible in circulation feature the "latest updates from the dead sea scrolls translated into common English", which makes almost all of the modern copies of the bible slightly different. As such, copyright can then be claimed on the latest and best translation. Many priests, clergy, bible scholars and theologians spend time comparing different versions of the bible to see how they are different.
4. Re:Not quite in the public domain, I think by Khashishi · 2015-10-27 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  That's only if it has been revised. If it's just reprinted in a collection, without modification, then there is nothing new to copyright.
5. Re:Not quite in the public domain, I think by cpt+kangarooski · 2015-10-27 18:49 · Score: 1
  
  Copyright covers pretty much any new work, even if it is a copy of an old work.
  
  No it does not. Copyright only protects original material, i.e. material which you, the author, originated. Anything you copied, you don't get a copyright on. This is an absolutely fundamental part of copyright.
  Imagine you have a copy of the Mona Lisa, a public domain work. You paint a small red circle in the corner. The most you now have a copyright on is a small red circle in the corner. I can copy the entire rest of the Mona Lisa -- from your canvas with the circle! -- and so long as I don't copy the single bit you added, I'm totally in the clear.
  The relevant bit of the law you want here is 17 USC 103(b):
  
  The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.
  The Bible is not copyrighted, but translations of it may be. And if you reprint an old book, and add some new material, such as an introduction, only the introduction is protected, not the reprint of the old book.
  
  --
  -- 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.
Re:95 years for works published pre-1978 or for hi by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 04:51 · Score: 1

Thats what the law says at current but we know that's horse shit.
The moment Disney's (Or anyone else's) copyrights are due to expire they'll bribe some congrescritters to extend them again.
This will continue forever.
Copyrights no longer expire, and there is no reason to expect they will ever again.
Harmonization vs. perpetual copyright by tepples · 2015-10-27 04:58 · Score: 3, Informative

The moment Disney's (Or anyone else's) copyrights are due to expire they'll bribe some congrescritters to extend them again.
The Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft was careful to distinguish harmonization to the copyright term of another established major market from the possibility of "perpetual copyright on the installment plan". It allowed the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 because its express purpose was to harmonize to the European Union. In fact, harmonization is the only excuse that the Supreme Court has ever accepted for multiple successive extensions: 1978 harmonized to the Berne Convention, and 1998 harmonized to Europe. So to what established major market would an extension between now and 2025 harmonize?
1. Re:Harmonization vs. perpetual copyright by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  TPP.
2. Re:Harmonization vs. perpetual copyright by tepples · 2015-10-27 05:52 · Score: 2
  
  The copyright term in the leaked final TPP is life plus 70, no increase over the present U.S. term.
3. Re:Harmonization vs. perpetual copyright by Coren22 · 2015-10-27 05:58 · Score: 0
  
  SuricouRaven also uses a hosts file [slashdot.org]
  What point are you trying to make? He actually says he uses DNS block lists, not Hosts, but you can try to claim they are the same thing if you like. APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS. He also doesn't have an account, so can't see your signature without creating one.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
4. Re:Harmonization vs. perpetual copyright by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 09:52 · Score: 0
  
  Are you lost?
5. Re:Harmonization vs. perpetual copyright by MrDoh! · 2015-10-27 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  Sure there'll be another TIP agreement that it gets tweaked a bit, and because of harmonisation, it'll get knocked up. Again.
  
  --
  Waiting for an amusing sig.
6. Re:Harmonization vs. perpetual copyright by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-28 01:17 · Score: 0
  
  Harmonization to the copyright laws of the Free Republic of Liberland. I'm sure with enough economic incentive Vít Jedlika would enact a copyright revision extending copyright to 200 years. Probably cheaper than buying a couple of congressmen too.
7. Re:Harmonization vs. perpetual copyright by Coren22 · 2015-10-28 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  Not in the least, perhaps you didn't see that I was replying to the guy's signature.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
8. Re:Harmonization vs. perpetual copyright by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-28 02:47 · Score: 0
  
  Language is a living thing.
  I'm not sure if this applies to English too, but I happen to know that the syntax of the Dutch language has gone though some profound changes in the previous century, whereby the official spelling of many words was changed on more than one occasion.
  Now I'm wondering if cleaning up (actualizing) the language of a 1920-something work entitles the new version to a fresh copyright term.
  So, especially for literary works, do the rights holders really need to "buy" another extension, or can they get it by simply relacing every instance of "thou" by "you"?
Re:95 years for works published pre-1978 or for hi by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 05:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Doesn't this give all creators a perverse incentive to have an infant contribute to the work, just to ensure maximum copyright duration? I mean, if the main author is in her 30s at the time of creation, and life-expectancy is mid-late-70s, she's losing some 30 years of copyright duration, whereas if she simply has an infant fart on the cover, she gets it back.
Hell, keep that "anchor-baby" on life-support as long as possible in old age, just to keep the dream of everlasting copyright alive!
Wong, but close. by DarthVain · 2015-10-27 07:38 · Score: 2

Protecting the right of the son or grand-son to sell it to some corporation to pay for their coke habit, who in turn owns the works forever, never dies, and actively lobbies for copyright extension using profits until the eventual heat death of the universe.
1. Re:Wong, but close. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 08:19 · Score: 0
  
  Correction - heat death of the universe -1 day. They're not monsters, you know.
Re:95 years for works published pre-1978 or for hi by viperidaenz · 2015-10-27 08:35 · Score: 2

It doesn't technically move to the richest entity.
It moves to the entity with the largest lobby group.
way to miss the subtext, Sheldon by Thud457 · 2015-10-27 08:38 · Score: 1

Steamboat Willie was a STEAMBOAT Captain.

You know, those big boats with the paddlewheels that they forced the slaves to load the cotton onto back in the good old days.
And since he was the Captain, he was in charge, and you can bet he damsure kept those darkies in line so they didn't deservedly murder him in his sleep.

Every single word of that logically follows from the job description Steamboat Captain.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1. Re:way to miss the subtext, Sheldon by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 10:02 · Score: 0
  
  Steamboat Willie wasn't black?
Re:95 years for works published pre-1978 or for hi by viperidaenz · 2015-10-27 08:38 · Score: 1

A child would be a safer bet than an infant. Probably one taller than the rear window of an SUV, since kids get run over by parents.
some guy on the internet said it, must be true by Thud457 · 2015-10-27 08:59 · Score: 1

(Note - direct links to project Gutenberg bibliographic details)
Armageddon - 2419 A.D.
The Airlords of Han

I have fairly high confidence that PG has at least one competent lawyer and knows what they're talking about when they say those works are in the public domain.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
sorry charlie by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 10:08 · Score: 0

i don't know how one could make a 'true' buck rogers film, even if based on old 1920s era story, that did not in some way infringe on the rights of more recent buck rogers projects, including the 1979 film, the 1979-81 tv series, more recent novels (including one from the mid-1990s based upon that same 1920s story), TSR's role playing game, novels, graphic novels, and video game.
Mickey on You Tube by westlake · 2015-10-27 11:05 · Score: 1

When steamboat willies goes into PD, anyone can upload it to youtube. Anyone can make movies about a dancing mouse on a steamboat, and even use the same music that it's paired with it etc. But that mouse still can't *be* Mickey Mouse; nor so similar as to be confused with Mickey Mouse.
Disney posted Steamboat Willie to You Tube in 2009.
If the geek were honest about the thing, what he has in Steamboat Willie is simply a tech demo of synchronized sound. The only other reason to watch it is to see Mickey, Minnie and Pete in their earliest, but still recognizable, form. Now fixed and trademarked.
1. Re:Mickey on You Tube by vux984 · 2015-10-27 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  Disney posted Steamboat Willie to You Tube in 2009.
  Yes. But *I* can't. That's the difference.
  
  If the geek were honest about the thing, what he has in Steamboat Willie is simply a tech demo of synchronized sound. The only other reason to watch it is to see Mickey, Minnie and Pete in their earliest, but still recognizable, form. Now fixed and trademarked.
  Steamboat willie itself yes, but in terms of what it represents... and what would flow into the PD afterwards, that's when it gets interesting.
  Steamboat Willie ... 1928
  Three Little Pigs ... 1933 (including "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf Theme song")
  Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is 1937
reasoning by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-27 12:32 · Score: 0

It's because Buck Rogers is one of the most racist stories ever written that the family doesn't want it to be retold as long as they have control over it.
Re:95 years for works published pre-1978 or for hi by dbIII · 2015-10-27 15:32 · Score: 1

That is so screwed up and far worse than I imagined. Let's hope that such copyright idiocy remains only in the USA since the death plus 70 is stupid enough without adding the rest onto the pile.
s/thou\b/you/g is not original by tepples · 2015-10-28 05:02 · Score: 1

"Thou" was already obsolete in many dialects by the late seventeenth century according to The Merriam Webster Dictionary of English Usage. Perhaps breaking up the long periodic sentences in old writing might be a better analogy.
Anyway: Copyright in the United States operates not on "sweat of the brow" but on originality. Just as spelling corrections do not confer originality, and color corrections do not confer originality (Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.), a mechanical replacement of a small number of widely recognized archaisms with their widely recognized contemporary counterparts likely confers very little originality if any. What would more clearly confer originality is modification of other parts of the text to confer the connotations that had been inherent in the T-V distinction or to break up long sentences. But in any case, a competing translation into contemporary English could make different choices of which archaisms to update, how to rearrange sentences, or how to express politeness distinctions, much as translations from Japanese have to represent honorific distinctions.
It depends on who recognizes Liberland by tepples · 2015-10-28 05:04 · Score: 1

harmonization to the copyright term of another established major market

the Free Republic of Liberland [...] would enact a copyright revision extending copyright to 200 years
From the opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft: "Nothing before this Court warrants construction of the CTEA’s 20-year term extension as a congressional attempt to evade or override the 'limited Times' constraint." So anyone using the argument of "harmonization" to the copyright term in a recently established micronation or a tiny, less-developed country would have to make it clear that the copyright policy of said other country was not unduly influenced in such an "attempt to evade or override". For one thing, what reasoning prompted this change in Liberland's copyright policy well in excess of Berne? (For comparison, the purported reasoning behind life plus 70 is that an author's children and grandchildren who knew the author personally are in the best position to follow the author's wishes in the work's exploitation.) Is the country even sovereign enough to enter treaties? What's its GDP?
this is all nuts by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-30 20:26 · Score: 0

There is no reason any copyright should last anywhere near as long as it does. These laws have nothing to do with artist be it music,video or pictures. The only one making any money of theses Iong copywrites it the corporations.the artist was paid the time it was made in most cases.they will never earn another dime of the product,idea etc .there employer .when William Shakespeare wrote his plays he was happy if people like it . the great painters the same.music was freeily shared for the enjoyment of all. Til we make copywrites something realistic like 5 years period . steamboat willy .after 5 years there value is minimal if they actual benifit the artist I could see a few years more but corporate owners can screw off
Telling lies Coren22? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 08:08 · Score: 0

"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)
Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? Show us proof of that. You can't. I'm not that stupid and I know better.
In fact? I've even said it's heavily dependent on them.
I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks since the free model does NOT work with AD specifically you lying little imbecile).
I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.
I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).
Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine). Most people out there don't run a home LAN. They have single systems. It's not practical for them to run a home LAN stupid, no need. Just an internet connection is all they require.
APK
P.S.=> You're a pitiful little lying scum OR totally illiterate imbecile (take your pick, but I wager it's probably both in your case, trolling liar)... apk
Coren22's desperation, lies, & libel by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 11:05 · Score: 0

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)
False positive: I've wrote 'em long ago, no response vs. 60++ REPUTABLE sources (not nobodies) below that fries you Coren22!
Is that YOUR fake site for MORE LIES Coren22?
Lying about me LIKE YOU DID HERE punk? -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ??
---
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
APK
P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)
Coren22 "security guru" wannabe fails security by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-02 11:28 · Score: 0

YOU say "hosts=bad" (but they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch on admin privelege to UPDATE vs. threats:

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Hypocrite - You use admin priv admitting it
&
How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?
---

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
---
Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Oliver Day (Symantec) does-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
---
* HOW MANY SECURITY PROS DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUTTA YOU?
---
Those security pros INCLUDE me: I work w/ guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!
I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (Even showing you HOW to migrate a hosts across an enterprise-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...
You told me you learn from guides?
I write good ones that MILLIONS USE & was PAID FOR IT http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn...
+ WARES TO PROTECT USERS that are endorsed & hosted by security pros -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
You did all that? No!
(& that's ONLY a SMALL part of what I could put out)
APK
P.S.=> You're all TALK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" in security... apk