Slashdot Mirror


CBS, Others Sued For Copyright Infringement Over "Soft Kitty" In Big Bang Theory (arstechnica.com)

UnknowingFool writes: In the popular sitcom, The Big Bang Theory, Penny has sung "Soft Kitty" to the difficult Sheldon Cooper on numerous occasions as a lullaby and to comfort him. These scenes are such fan favorites that the song lyrics are sold on merchandise. The daughters of poet Edith Newlin are suing CBS, Warner Bros, and others claiming copyright infringement for her poem, "Warm Kitty".

The situation is not a simple copyright infringement case of Warner Brothers not obtaining any permission. The poem was created in the 1930s by Newlin, but she granted permission to Willis Music to be used as lyrics in their songbook Songs for the Nursery School. Warner Brothers obtained permission from Willis Music in 2007 for the song to be used in the show. Willis Music is also named as a defendant.

14 of 349 comments (clear)

  1. Oh give me a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For fuck's sake, it's 2016 and a fucking child poem from 1930 is still copyright protected?

    Has the world gone fully retarded?

    1. Re:Oh give me a break by portwojc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe the copyright for that last 95 years. So 2025 is when the copyright expires. We'll find out before that if that will enter the public domain since a certain mouse is set to expire in 2023.
       

    2. Re:Oh give me a break by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Statute may define copyrights to such lengths, but make no mistake, copyrights in mid industrialized countries are now effectively infinite.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Oh give me a break by steveg · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's 95 years for corporate authors. Individual authors are life plus 70. If the author died in 2004, then the copyright will expire in 2074.

      Yes, it's too long, and it's silly.

      --
      Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
    4. Re:Oh give me a break by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The music company did not have authority to grant CBS the rights. The lyrics clearly stated who owned the copyright. CBS could have easily figured this out.

    5. Re:Oh give me a break by DRJlaw · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's 95 years for corporate authors. Individual authors are life plus 70. If the author died in 2004, then the copyright will expire in 2074.

      No, it's really not. You can't apply the terms established by the October 1976 copyright act, with subsequent extensions, to works published before that date. You get to apply the terms established by the 1909 copyright act, with subsequent extensions. It's all horribly complex, but...

      For a work registered or first published in the US between 1923 and 1963, and renewed, the term is indeed 95 years after the publication date.

      Lawyer ouuuuuuut...

    6. Re:Oh give me a break by Sowelu · · Score: 5, Funny

      If copyright ended on the creator's death, it opens up a whole new world of possibilities for the unethical re-publisher.

    7. Re:Oh give me a break by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > since a certain mouse is set to expire in 2023.

      Spoiler alert: It won't.

  2. Re:A slashdot favorite! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did you know people with aspergers are unable to detect sarcasm?

  3. Fucking copyright vultures by sootman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm all for copyright, but set it back to 14 years, and no extensions. As far as I can tell, the current system allows for just two things:
    1) People can take from the public domain but never contribute
    2) People can profit off their dead ancestors' work.
    Neither is particularly good for the public at large.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  4. Re:A slashdot favorite! by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If a TV show like that offends you, you're the one with a problem.

    You're taking offense because of your own personal issues, not because the show is 'insulting' you in some way.

    Considering a couple of the actors have actual geek cred and all you have is a slashdot account, I'm really not sure why you're getting pissed off instead of being thankful.

    Its not about the 'best' of a culture any more than Fresh Prince of Bel Air, Honeymooners, The Simpsons, Family Guy or any other TV show.

    ITS A FUCKING FICTIONAL COMEDY OF COURSE IT PICKS ON STEREO TYPES AND YOU JUST CONFIRMED ITS RIGHT TO DO SO, Sheldon.

    Seriously, you just gave the show even more cred by making these this stupid post.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  5. Re:GOOD! by Aaden42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A copyright statement in a 1930's vintage book may have become inaccurate in the intervening 86 years. If Wilis subsequently acquired full ownership, existing copies wouldn't be retroactively updated. Don't believe everything you read.

    All parties will have to show up in court with the text of whatever agreements they may have, and the sum total of those (as sussed out by 12 idiots) will determine who owns what and who owes whom.

    Either that or they settle out of court...

  6. My solution for copyright extension by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While I'm not in favor at all of endlessly extending copyright, I feel that the Bono Act missed two very important points.
    1. If people/companies can't be bothered to remember to file for an extension, tough. Tough tough tough. That's how it was in the past. The current situation where they just get extended automatically won't resolve the issue sometimes where certain old things (ie. photos) may be under copyright but nobody has any idea at all how to find anybody who actually owns the copyright to try to license it.
    2. If these copyrights are so valuable then why on earth is the federal government giving extensions away for free? That makes no sense.

    Here's my proposal. OK, if the current terms aren't enough (ie. perhaps Disney comes to mind here), then at expiration allow the copyright holder to apply for a 10 year extension. The price? $100,000. Then when that expires, let them apply for another 10 year extension at 10 times the price of the previous one. So the next extension is $1 million, then $10 million, then $100 million, then $1 billion, then $10 billion, and so on. Eventually even Disney won't pay for it anymore. Could Disney really justify to its stockholders paying $10 million to renew the copyright on the oldest version of Mickey Mouse for 10 more years? Maybe not. But I'm pretty sure that once it reaches $1 billion that nobody is going to want to do that. Exponentially rising costs allows the copyright holder the opportunity to renew if they are willing to pay for it, which I think is fair if these copyrights are so valuable that they just must be extended. Since few will agree to pay even $100,000 in my solution, stuff will at least finally enter the public domain. If it makes anybody feel better, the recent EU copyright extension was so contentious that I can't imagine there's any real political will in Europe to ever extend that beyond what it is now.

  7. Re:A slashdot favorite! by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It does actually. There's nerd chic now. People in the past who would never ever be called nerds are calling themselves that. The definitions of "nerd" in the past practically required them to be outcasts. I'd say a lot of the new nerds are really recovering nerds, able to fit in with mainstream culture better.