Hacker News Reader

Comment by michael_dorfman | Hacker News Reader

The headline is very misleading, in my reading.

The case here is not one of taking thing from the public domain and putting them under copyright (as happened, for example, when the copyright terms were adjusted to match the rest of the non-US world), but rather, a dispute about what is in the public domain and what is copyrighted.

The crux of this case is whether the attributes added to the film adaptation of a work of literature (not present in the work of literature) have a separate copyright term running from the release of the film (and not from the original publication of the book.)

grellas, am I reading this right?

View on HN

This case presents a bizarre confluence of elements that have caused courts and commentators to go all over the board with it: you have a copyright on the 1909 book that has long since expired, you have a 1939 film that remains under copyright, you have publicity stills from the 1939 film that depict characters from the film and that are not under copyright, and you have an alleged infringer who crops the images from the public domain publicity stills and puts them on t-shirts along with tag lines from the copyrighted movie ("there's no place like home") and sells them for commercial gain.

The holding here states that the qualities of the characters as distinctively depicted in the 1939 movie are in themselves protected by copyright even though the original characters as depicted in the book are not.

You are correct that this, then, is the "crux of the case" and this is indeed a dispute about what is or in not in the public domain rather than one about a literal taking back of elements of the public domain. Nonetheless, the practical effect of the ruling is to make it hazardous to use public domain characters from older works of literature in new films if such characters have previously been depicted in any film that remains under copyright (which obviously limits what one can do with certain public domain materials on penalty of being sued for infringement).

Thanks, as always, grellas.

But is this really a new doctrine? I mean, clearly the character of Cinderella is in the public domain, but I assumed that the Disney representation was copyrighted by Disney, and that if I wanted to make my own (commercial) representation of Cinderella, I'd need to make sure mine doesn't resemble the Disney version too closely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com