Another example although, thankfully sanity eventually prevailed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You
Such as?
I look at like how a song might be in public domain but that doesn't mean the singers voice is. Likewise for actors vs TV shows.
edit: getting downvoted but no explanation why people disagree. I'd love to hear why
edit 2: there seems to be some confusion about my statement above. I don't like nor agree with how Disney 'steal' public domain stories. I don't like nor agree with how Disney extend copyright. However there is a difference between published works (like the 1920s cartoon exampled above) and a mascot that is a trademark and still in common use (like Mickey Mouse). And that is the only point I'm arguing. You can just assume I'd agree to all the other points about how "Disney is evil" etc because I've made those exact same points myself in other conversations in the past (eg https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26805071)
I've often commented that Disney are hugely hypocritical pushing for lengthened copyright periods and buying up intellectual property when they've built their fortune off public domain works. But such comments are usually replied with "companies don't care about hypocrisy" or something equally trite.
There is a crucial difference between a voice and a character here. Characters (any creative work) are not created in a cultural vacuum.
It's actually especially egregious with Disney too, since their business model to no small degree is grabbing a piece of popular culture and transforming it into a Disney product, the company we know today wouldn't be anywhere near what it is without public domain to begin with. Disney got content from it, it profited from it, and now it must , in my opinion, give back.
There is hubris in the term "creator". Nobody is culturally a creator, merely a transformer.
Oh there will be loads of subtle differences. I wasn't claiming it to be a perfect comparison but rather than illustration of how IP is complicated and how a single piece of work might have multiple different strands of IP against it.
> Characters (any creative work) are not created in a cultural vacuum.
Nothing we create is done so in a cultural vacuum. So I agree with your statement but not really sure how it applies (or even adds anything) to the discussion.
> It's actually especially egregious with Disney too, since their business model to no small degree is grabbing a piece of popular culture and transforming it into a Disney product, the company we know today wouldn't be anywhere near what it is without public domain to begin with.
I made that same point too
> Disney got content from it, it profited from it, and now it must , in my opinion, give back.
Here is my issue. We cannot and should not make specific exceptions for specific companies because we do not like them. I fully agree there needs to be a copyright reform that works for consumers, but it should be applied equally for everyone and not have some rules for one company but Disney has a different set of rules "because they're bad".
> There is hubris in the term "creator". Nobody is culturally a creator, merely a transformer.
This is a philosophical point and one that would be fun to debate in the pub over a pint. However it doesn't add anything to this particular discussion.
> I think it is unreasonable to ask for iconic characters like Mickey Mouse, who still see regular content
Why not? Maybe it will encourage creativity and corporations will be forced to create new things. Copyright's only base for existence is encouraging creating creative works after all.
Note that you can't use elements still under copyright, e.g. his modern appearance won't be public domain once Steamboat Willie enters it.
Because Mickey Mouse is an icon, a mascot, a trademark, and one that is in active use in new media. So there is some sense in companies protecting that asset. Which is what is happening if these types of characters are covered under trademark law (I wasn't sure if that was the case when I made my earlier post).
I might dislike Disney as an org but I also don't think it's fair to say it's "creative" for other people to use that asset but not "creative" for Disney to reuse it. You're setting different standards for different people.
> Copyright's only base for existence is encouraging creating creative works after all.
Copyright is an English invention and the purpose of it has evolved multiple times over the years. Originally it was intended to prevent scandalous pamphlets rather than promoting creative works. Later it was used like patents where authors could recover the costs of publishing before those stories became free for the masses. It wasn't created to encourage creating creative works because people used to do that long before the printing press, eg by passing stories down by word of mouth.
> Note that you can't use elements still under copyright, e.g. his modern appearance won't be public domain once Steamboat Willie enters it.
Indeed. But I was responding to the OPs point about how they believed copyright should behave rather than how it currently does.
The natural conclusion of your principle here is eternal corporate copyright. When would you be comfortable with Mickey Mouse (or anything else) going public domain? 200 years? 300? Should it ever?
My point is that Mickey Mouse is a trademark. An Apple patent expiring doesn't allow people to using Apple logos. Likewise a Disney copyright expiring shouldn't allow people to use Mickey Mouse.
The cartoons themselves and any characters that aren't still in regular use is fair game.
> how long is “fair” for a government granted monopoly to one of the worlds richest corporations? Especially one busily buying up IP after IP that it did not originally create?
I agree it sucks, but this is why we need to make sure we understand the difference between content and trademarks. eg anyone can make a movie about Thor since that folk story is public domain. And I agree the copyright on content like the Marvel Universe movies shouldn't be around 100 years (I forget the exact duration, but it's always being extended anyway -- which I also disagree with by the way).
> The natural conclusion of your principle here is eternal corporate copyright.
No, that's literally the exact opposite of what I'm saying!! I'm saying that the character "Mickey Mouse" should have different rules applied because he is more than just a creative figure. Because he is a trademark. And thus trademark rules should apply to him in addition to copyright rules. However any content with Mickey Mouse in should be public domain after a reasonable period and that period currently is not reasonable.
Music has similar distinctions. A song will have different copyrights on it, for the performance, for the writing, possibly any artwork (eg album cover).
> When would you be comfortable with Mickey Mouse (or anything else) going public domain? 200 years? 300? Should it ever?
Personally I think 20 years is reasonable for the cartoons. For the mascot, he should be trademarked (and is), so as long as Disney are using his likeness.
Trademarks protect the consumer as much as the buyer. The only reason someone would want to put two "golden arches" on their burger joint is to make people think it's mcdonalds. That's bad for mcdonalds the company sure, but it's also bad for the customer who thinks they're getting a certain "standard", and do not deserve a counterfeit good.
The consumer is protected, the company has recognisable authority and the concept exists within public space.
I guess the biggest distinction between Sherlock Holmes and Mickey Mouse (aside the estates that own them) is that Mickey is a design as much as a character. The 3 circled motif is iconic enough that there is an ongoing spat between Disney and Deadmau5 -- though I do side with Deadmau5 on that, if just as a middle finger to Disney :D
I'm not suggesting law should stipulate that fictional characters need a design before they can be trademarked nor that Mickey Mouse shouldn't be trademarkable. Just that there is definitely an unclear grey area and I don't really know the answer to your question. But it is a very good question that gave me pause for thought.
What you're describing is most closely described as trademarks but even there, you couldn't use Apple's name and logo to promote something in a non-competing sector. The best you could do is have a name or logo that was similar but which couldn't be confused with Apple, as well as being in a non-competing sector. Using Mickey Mouse wouldn't to promote new or used cars wouldn't even fly under trademark laws because you're using the trademark rather than a similar but unrelated one.
So they can still protect it under Trademark... what does that have to do with their copyrights?
Nothing. The point was about Mickey Mouse being public domain. If something is trademarked then it is not.
I just expressed that point very badly thus leading to discussions conflating copyright and trademark.
Not by the accepted definition of "public domain":
"The public domain consists of all the creative work to which no exclusive intellectual property rights apply." -- Wikipedia
Trademarks are specifically listed as a form of intellectual property that does apply within that article as well.
> You can play the cartoons in your bar, you can sample the recordings, etc, etc. You cannot violate the trademark which is different than violating the copyright which you still do not seem to understand.
I do understand that actually; but we weren't discussing the technicalities of how you violate IP. I was discussing why Mickey Mouse shouldn't be in the public domain.
> If you aren't purporting to be Disney or to use the Mickey Mouse trademark to confuse customers into thinking you are Disney, then you aren't violating a trademark.
In theory, yes. But companies have successfully upheld trademark disputes where one could reasonably say no confusion exists. Plus the threat of legal action from Disney (even if it wouldn't be upheld) is enough to bend people to their will. So in practice it's not so simple.
> It might behoove you to do some minor research on the law if you are going to type pages about it here.
That's ironic given your points are more factually inaccurate than mine!
Also there's no need for that tone in your post. We are all peers.
That's not violating a trademark. You can research what violating a trademark entails if you are confused.
It had nothing to do with the passage you were quoting. So yes it was nonsensical.
> That guy is conflating violating a copyright with violating a trademark
You keep saying that but I’ve not seen anyone discuss IP violations apart from you.
They didn’t even mention copyright, the OP was discussing trademark preventing Mickey Mouse from being public domain. Ok they lacked eloquence but at least they weren’t making bullshit up like you were.
> I even gave examples. Rather than acknowledge this, he doesn't.
They literally replied to it. Which is more than you deserved given it was a stupid straw man argument.
By the way, what makes you so sure they identify themselves as “he”? Another of many assumptions you’ve made about them today.
Public domain typically does centre around copyright but it’s not exclusive to copyright. So in a way you’re right. But in a more correct way you’re not.
As for the rest of your reply, sure. It’s a tangent but at least you’re semi-accurate.
Here's one reason:
"I look at like how a song might be in public domain but that doesn't mean the singers voice is. Likewise for actors vs TV shows."
Singers voices aren't copyrightable. They could be trademarked. You simply just mistake trademarks for copyrights.
> Singers voices aren't copyrightable. They could be trademarked.
That's my point ;)
> You simply just mistake trademarks for copyrights.
No, I'm not. I was talking about the public domain not copyright in that quote. You're the one conflating two things: If something is trademarked but not under copyright then it still isn't in the public domain.
Though I will accept some blame because I could have made my post clearer.
I do acknowledge my opening post was pretty poorly written. It was rushed so I didn't really compose it properly, more just brain-farted some words into HN. Had I expected the conversation it would then generate I'd have spent more time on it. However that doesn't excuse the barrage patronising strawman arguments you've attacked me with. There's 2 or 3 replies from you just to my OP, never mind deeper in the thread.