141

These Classic Characters Are Losing Copyright Protection. They May Never Be the Same. (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

If you’re the creative type and you’re struggling to come up with your next idea, do not fear: some big works, including the original version of Mickey Mouse, are entering the public domain on Jan. 1 in the United States.

And if, on the other hand, you prefer your Disney characters to be cute, cuddly and never-changing, well … you might want to stop reading.

In 2024, thousands of copyrighted works published in 1928 are entering the public domain, after their 95-year term expires.

. . .

The New York Times reached out to some writers, producers and directors to give you a taste of what might be unleashed in this strange new world.

Archive

all 27 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] [email protected] 132 points 6 months ago

Not to worry. It’s public domain! Freedom! Steal away!

This is such a shitty take.

The quote near the beginning of the article is the correct point of view:

“It’s important for the preservation of our cultural record, for meaningful access to older works for inspiring future creativity,” Jennifer Jenkins, the director for the Center for the Study of the Public Domain at Duke Law School, said.

Creative works entering the public domain is the norm. The past decades of Disney paying to get copywrite time extended are abnormal.

The author is using nostalgia and some cherry-picked examples to fear-monger in favor of corporate control over creative works. He might as well be kissing the mouse's boots.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Don't disagree with you on copyright at all. I think you might be misreading the tone of this article though. It seems a lot lighter to me. At least, quoting a bunch of comedians joking around about possible uses of public domain characters would be a weird choice for a scare piece. The author has another recent article with a jokey tone too.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Peter Pan is the only example I can think of as a valid use for these ridiculous copyright lengths.

[-] mindbleach 1 points 6 months ago

"Copyright."

[-] [email protected] 83 points 6 months ago

Wow, that title.
Way to make it sound like a bad thing and not more art becomes public.

Do better NYT.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

The author makes it pretty clear in the article that they all for this being a good thing. You don't get a bunch of creatives to pitch ideas for how they'd rework these old works if you're against the principle of the thing...

[-] [email protected] 45 points 6 months ago

One of the best thread openers from yesterday

[-] [email protected] 31 points 6 months ago

Oh noooo not my soulless corporate mascot v1.0 how will the world ever recover!!?!?

Seriously, what's up with this melodrama?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

I prefer to call it: Imperialist Rat

[-] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago

People need to learn the difference between trademark and copyright.

[-] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago

Archive: https://archive.ph/RnM6X

[-] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago

Is there a difference between that link and the one in the post?

[-] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago

Archive links get rid of paywalls

[-] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago

I know. I included one at the bottom of the post.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

the guy who posted the link has Weed in the name making his post twice as good.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

Just the facts, really. Can't argue with that.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago

https://archive.ph/yLVks

A better article with more examples.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Wanda Gág, Millions of Cats (the oldest American picture book still in print)

Why am I not surprised the oldest picture book still in print is about cats?

edit: oh that was in the original article too, just missed it.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago

Satan! Worshipping! Whore! Mickey!

[-] mindbleach 7 points 6 months ago

'This beloved character might soon appear in subversive contexts!' is a buck wild attitude for any writer who is from Earth. If you grew up on the backside of the moon then maybe you missed the last twenty-odd years of Rule 34. Maybe. But not even in Walt's lifetime were these made-up animals safe from creative perverts.

Tijuana Bibles predate Steamboat Willie. Normal people do not give a shit about copyright. It exists for businesses and people who do business. So long as new stuff keeps coming out and roughly the right people are making some money for making it, the details only matter a little bit, and the free-for-all weird shit doesn't matter at all.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

Disney helped to raise the copyright time. Mickey mouse protection act of 1998. Disney benefited from works in the public domain to create many of its stories and characters, while lobbying to increase the time before its works entered the public domain preventing anyone else from doing what they have been doing all along.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Disney will simply claim that Steamboat Willie Mickey Mouse is a trademark as they have been using it in their properties for the last few years. So I predict that Disney will sue anyone trying to use it so that they can retain ownership.

this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2024

141 points (87.3% liked)

News

21741 readers

3352 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]