this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
277 points (95.4% liked)

World News

38979 readers
3289 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

This iconic mouse is weeks away fromn being in the public domain Jan. 1, 2024, is the day when 'Steamboat Willie' enters the public domain

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 84 points 11 months ago (4 children)

If Disney doesn't keep illegally extending the copyright dates, continuing to ruin the way copyrights are supposed to actually work, I will legitimately be surprised.

[–] [email protected] 71 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It's not illegal if you change the laws... 🙃

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 38 points 11 months ago (3 children)

illegally

The problem is that they're doing it legally.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Even if they wanted, there is not much time left to change anything at this point

[–] [email protected] 20 points 11 months ago

Not with that attitude...

[̲̅$̲̅(̲̅ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°̲̅)̲̅$̲̅]

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago (6 children)

Mickey Mouse is no longer as relevant in Disney’s dominance anymore. They got bigger cash cows to milk.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 75 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

(sigh) Just a little bit longer and I'll finally be able to release my Steamboat Willy tentacle hentai comic.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 64 points 11 months ago (87 children)

Even with the character in Public Domain, I doubt Disney would be particularly happy with anyone using it.

They can send cease and desist letter left and right, claiming that "the use of the mouse is fine, but the elements X, Y and Z were introduced in a later work of ours that's still protected", even if it's a plain lie.

Trying to take Disney to court is suicide.

The have enough money to hire half the lawyers in the world and make them come up with a lawsuit even if there's no basis for one. They can stretch the lawsuit process to last years, and yet the fees would be but a fraction of a fraction of a percent in their yearly spending. Almost any defendant, meanwhile, would be financially ruined by it, even if they end up winning.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago

claiming that "the use of the mouse is fine, but the elements X, Y and Z were introduced in a later work of ours that's still protected", even if it's a plain lie.

Isn't that exactly what the law says? A popular example with that problem is Sherlock.

load more comments (86 replies)
[–] [email protected] 61 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Donald Duck’s copyright expires in 2029 and we’ll finally be able to walk around pantsless in a sailor hat/shirt without being harassed by Walt Disney’s widow.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 44 points 11 months ago (1 children)

EXPECT legislative-shenanigans, people...

EITHER they'll extend copyright again,

XOR they'll just "conveniently" have copyright apply in court, even-though it doesn't apply on-paper.


Never believe a career-criminal, or Dark Triad entity, has changed, unless you see robust, consistent, years-long, actual, objective proof of that change having-happened.

Extraordinary-claims require extraordinary backing/evidence.

_ /\ _

[–] [email protected] 18 points 11 months ago (2 children)

They don't have to do any of those. They own most of the content pipe so anyone who wants to do their own spin on Mickey is going to be inherently limited on their publishing reach.

Plus with all the acquisitions they've made, the copyright to Mickey and other legacy characters is worth a much smaller portion of their empire.

And they still own the TM.

Basically I'm regurgitating a rather good video recently published by Corridor Crew so go here for more facts and fewer hacks: https://youtu.be/u2dIvUAd5QE?si=IK5wOEpSDOPyIwJz

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 11 months ago (4 children)

I recall an article on Ars Technica, I think from 2017?, talking about how Disney and other big corpos weren't moving pieces to give copyright law yet another push into infinity. The main reasoning was that, unlike the previous times it did (the last one being early 90s), the resistance would be real and vocal, with a possible side effect being a lawmaker reaching the conclusion that "no piece of shit deserves or needs this much time protected by copyright", starting to work in reducing copyright protection

Keep in mind, folks, that we'll only have public access to Mickey and Minnie as they're displayed on Steamboat Willie. Any other versions are still no-go.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 11 months ago (12 children)

. Later forms of the mouse, including the iconic white-gloved version with red shorts, will still be protected by copyright, according to The New York Times.

WTF is this shitty loophole? "Well, we changed his clothes, that's a whole new different character!" This makes no sense. Copyright should be abolished.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 11 months ago (8 children)

I disagree. That would just result in corporations like Disney ripping off independent artists.

But limit it to the artist's life time or perhaps 25 years.

IRC drug patents last only 20 years, and those often cost a lot of money to develop, research and bring to market.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 11 months ago (7 children)

That would just result in corporations like Disney ripping off independent artists.

Fucking thank you.

The whole "copyrights should be abolished" trope is regurgitated by people who have clearly never created anything in their life. For artists, musicians, and other content creators, copyright is vital to our lives.

If you think Disney is powerful now, imagine what Disney would be like if no other creators had any legal protection at all.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (4 children)

The problem is that copyright law is never used by the small artists to protect their work, it's only used by big corporations to put down the small artists, fuck with each other and find loop holes to abuse of it.

There's what it should be for and what it's actually used for.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago

You're approaching a relevant part (that big corporations have an overwhelming power advantage in this "negotiation"), but "small artists never use copyright law" is just wrong:

Without copyright law they couldn't even sell their content (or more accurately: they could sell it, but the big corp could simply copy it and sell it better/cheaper due to the economics of scale).

So without copyright the smaller artists would be even more boned than they are right now.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There should be real punishments for companies that do stuff like issue fraudulent DMCA takedowns.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

It's funny how often that argument comes up in FOSS (Free and open source software) circles where people just claim copyright is fundamentally wrong, but at the same time complain when someone violates any FOSS license (all of which depend on copyright to be enforcable).

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago (5 children)

These two takes aren't incompatible. It is possible to want to abolish copyright, while wanting everyone to comply to existing rules while they aren't abolished yet.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

IMO copyright as a concept makes sense, but it's duration should be significantly shortened. In todays short-lived world most works lose the majority of their financial value after a few years (let's say ~10) anyways. So to allow artists to benefit from their creations while still allowing remixing or reasonably recent content I'd say some sane compromise is necessary.

Either that or massively expand (and codify) what qualifies as fair use: let anyone reinterpret anything, but don't allow verbatim copying.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago

Public domain can get weird. The works of Mozart are obviously public domain. But if I record myself performing some of them, that recording is copyrighted. It doesn't stop you from doing the same, which would also be copyrighted. Now let's say I add a few of my own touches to my performance- which would be a derivative work. You cannot copy those in your own performance without my permission. In effect, it's the changes themselves that are copyrighted.

Once I've made my recording, you can face an uphill battle to prove that you either didn't know about mine, or that it was so obvious that it wasn't creative.

All of this ignores trademark law, which is related but distinct.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I guarantee that on January 1st there will be a ton of Mickey videos on the internet and it will be glorious

[–] [email protected] 19 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And I guarantee that the majority of it will simply copy todays Mickey Mouse as opposed to the one in steamboat Willie.

But that version isn't entering the public domain any time soon.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago

I'm shocked no legislation has been created to increase copyright even longer, but I guess there's still time. Maybe with non-disney mickey mouse works out there, their lawyers will argue that it is damaging and thus a new law should be passed retroactively.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Over Walt’s cold dead body.

uhhhhh… wait, hang on I didn’t mean that

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago

I didn't see here the obvious answer: never.

load more comments
view more: next ›