Should Micky Mouse be in the public domain? https://www.yout

>Everyone would get tired of bad foreign mickey mouse impressions

I side with the evil corporations

>>77837188
You're a faggot and I hope you go into medical debt.

What's the worst that can happen?

>>77837093
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiEXgpp37No
>No
>NO

>>77837245
Why is this? Are you saying this is some shit about surgical patents going into public domain?

>>77837258
MOOODS

File: 1435036095810.jpg (45KB, 620x475px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 620x475px

I like "official" Mickey Mouse products but it's not like Mickey being in the public domain would prevent Disney from making them.
Most of "Disney's" fairy tale characters are in the public domain as well, and that hasn't stopped Disney's princesses from standing out.

>>77837326
You make me miss Roasted Bread

>>77837258
>Mickey enters the public domain
>Hundreds (mostly from Brazil and China) make cheap knock off comics and cartoons to gain profit
>Market over saturates with horrible Mickey Mouse movies and comics

>>77837383
I'm glad you possess an immaculate skill for articulation

>>77837258
edgy

>>77837916
Nah it's more bladed than edgy

>>77838027
edgy

File: 1431989713871.jpg (45KB, 387x356px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 387x356px

>>77837093
I don't think this guy really understands the context of why things entered the public domain back in those days. Copyright and companies have changed in the last 100 years.

The way the guy presents the video is so annoying and pretentious that it makes me hope people like him never get to have their hands on Mickey.

>>77837093

Why would a logo be public domain?

cultural icons should become public domain, but the thought of all the terrible things that would outweigh the good i'd rather not

>>77837093
I think a better question is 'Should Minnie Mouse be in my wet dreams?'

Answer: She already is.

>>77838857
The question was "should she be?"

The answer is yes she should.

>>77838474
That's retarded. There are already a lot of terrible things.

Sorta. The oldest stuff should start going public domain, free for use, duplication, whatever.

But can you make new cartoons using Mickey? What if you incorporate things from newer material not in public domain? Mickey may be public domain, but can you use his latest design or may you only make him look as he did in materials in public domain or an original way? It gets so complicated.

Maybe when Disney goes under. So never.

>>77837093
That video is stupid. Are they seriously comparing Mickey to stuff like Sherlock Holmes and Romeo and Juliet? It's fucking Mickey, who cares if Disney gets to keep him? What're they gonna do if they're allowed to use Mickey; make hipster Mickey sjw cartoons?

>>77839647
>What're they gonna do if they're allowed to use Mickey; make hipster Mickey sjw cartoons?

You say that but given the way some people on here complain about Marvel being SJW and complain about Disney putting a halt to Slave Leia merchandise, that it sounds like it's more likely to happen at the company itself than in public domain.

>>77839869
They seem too busy turning Mickey into Spongebob right now

>>77837093

ideally any artf orm should be in the public domain a number of times faster with how quick media consumption is these days

but changing any major laws is like converting to the metric system in america, it's fucking insane since all cars and road signs would have to be modified

realistically no, but ideally yeah

>>77840060
it'd be easier if the USA wasn't such a cluster fucks. If the states were all independent it would be much easier to get things done.

File: 1447722534090.jpg (64KB, 709x538px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 709x538px

>>77837093
Of course it should have.

There are reasons why it's unconstitutional for it to last forever: it stifles creativity. Mankind is at it's best when it has the freedom to tinker and improve an idea.

Think of the internet: there'd be no memes if we applied the law here. Before you get all edgy about frog posters, think about how many things get posted and aren't covered under the parody exception.

It shouldn't be a crime to write a Spider-Man comic or cover a song at a concert. Copyright laws a pay wall for creators; rent seeking at it's worst.

File: 1428726455071.jpg (256KB, 1335x735px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1335x735px

>>77840392
People not being able to profit off of their creativity stifles it far more. Property laws are ultimately a force for creativity.
It also encourages people to be more original since they'll get fucking sued if they don't.

Do you want the entire entertainment industry to turn into 9gag?

>>77840745
>It also encourages people to be more original

Yes, the number of reboots and relaunches from entertainment industries are really a fucking testament to the encouraged originality you claim to champion.

>>77840777
The number or reboots and relaunches are shit-dicks compared to the cock-forests that are memes.

>>77840852
Most memes eventually die out faster. Do you still scream SPARRRTA or say Desu or whatever? Reboots, sequels, and relaunches are going to keep happening because the company relies too much on those franchises and they'll keep pushing that stuff more than creating new stuff anyway.

If "Steamboat Willie" went into public domain, Mickey Mouse would still be a trademarked character, so what would happen? Anybody would be allowed to sell copies of "Steamboat Willie", or give it away for free, but wouldn't Disney have the right to sue anybody who modifies it, makes derivative works, or even uses the name "Mickey Mouse" on the packaging without their permission? Is Disney just trying to extend the copyright on "Steamboat Willie" in order to save on legal expenses?

>>77840918
It means you could post Steamboat Willie up for viewing and maybe do stuff based on it but you couldn't make a comic or cartoon called Mickey Mouse. And you certainly can't use any designs of Mickey that are still under copyright.

>>77837093
Nope

>>77840936
And remember, there's a diferene between copyright and trademark. Works have a copyright which is supposed to expire, but characters, their names and their designs can be trademarked, which can be renewed indefinitely as long as their owner stays in business.

>NEETs supporting corporations
The future of America, ladies and gentlemen.

>>77840745
>People not being able to profit off of their creativity stifles it far more. Property laws are ultimately a force for creativity.

The entirety of human existence disagrees with your statement. As I said, the internet is one of the last bastions of unfettered creativity in the world.

so what? this won't stop me from drawing Donald fucking Mickey deep in the ass

>>77837093
Yeah.

I mean, Adolf Hitler's works will become public domain next month.

I don't care about Mickey himself being in the public domain, but Disney's efforts to keep him out of it have had further reaching effects I really dislike. One company shouldn't have total control over such an important set of laws.

>>77840981
I'm not even sure how they'd maintain a trademark on "Mickey Mouse". It's a completely descriptive trademark.

>>77841270
Well if it makes you feel any better, Sonny Bono was the driving force behind the last big push and luckily mother nature took care of him for us.

>>77837392
Mickey Mouse is not that desirable an IP for cartoons themselves. Disney barely does anything with him. The knockoffs would probably be merch, and there's already plenty of that.

>>77839647
It's kind of for the principle. If Disney changes laws to protect mickey, it also extends to actually interesting IPs.

>>77840915
All memes put together will still have less artistic and intellectual merit than fucking transformers.

>>77841170
Laws don't apply on the internet? You don't think anything's going to happen to you if you try selling something copyrighted here?
If you want to see creativity unfettered by copyright look at memes. It's the fucking antithesis of creativity.

I just like the fact that Disney became a big entity thanks to public domain works but tries to keep Mickey & co as their own as hard as they can.

>>77841303
It might involve the title logo and also anything distinguishable about their version of the character. Like for instance, wasn't Mickey's face colored in a peach-color in much later cartoons?

>>77841418
Ironically your belief that putting something in the public domain will result in nothing but memes makes you sound as creatively bankrupt as the people you accuse of being.

>>77841486
On 4chan? No, they don't. Copyright takedown notices are worthless because the material is automatically deleted when the thread dies (well, the archives, but still).

>If you want to see creativity unfettered by copyright look at memes. It's the fucking antithesis of creativity.

Yes, the endless stream of ideas and variations is the antithesis of creativity.

>>77840060
The copyright laws were extended many times without problems. I don't see how shortening them would be an issue.

>The rights of authors are protected within their lifetime and for seventy years after their death

Anon will defend this.

>>77841599
But don't you see? My worthless descendants deserve to milk my hard work for generations.

What else would J.K. Rowling's kids do if they weren't allowed to make hundreds of millions of dollars more off her rotting carcass?

>>77841625
Something created by a 20 year old will be protected at least for 130 years. Not even state secrets get that defense.

>>77837093

Everything that's more than 20 years old should be in public domain.

You want to continue making money, come up with new shit.

>>77841599
Back when that shit was written, sons still used to succeed their fathers in their art, so it made sense to not rob them of their family silver.

>>77840392
>Think of the internet: there'd be no memes if we applied the law here.
If you're trying to get me to agree that Mickey should be in the public domain, it's probably a dumb idea to present a point that would make us side against you.

File: l-105513.jpg (26KB, 337x452px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 337x452px

Oh say it isn't so, I'm not allowed to make a profit off of pre existing characters and ideas? Looks like I'll have to... Do something original, god help us all

>>77844595
I agree, after a certain length of time instead of entering public domain IPs should just become completely unavailable for use by anyone, in order to promote creativity instead of reliance on a brand or parody.

>>77840981
>Works have a copyright which is supposed to expire, but characters, their names and their designs can be trademarked, which can be renewed indefinitely as long as their owner stays in business.
How does that work with cases like Sherlock Holmes then? The early stories are in the public domain so anyone can use Sherlock provided they don't reference the later stories. Why doesn't the Doyle estate just maintain a trademark on the character?

>>77841511
There are frequent stories of Disney trying to enforce copywright on the original versions of any use of the characters the Disney Princesses are based on

>>77841625
>What else would J.K. Rowling's kids do if they weren't allowed to make hundreds of millions of dollars more off her rotting carcass?
>Implying JK Rowling wont leave her kids only enough to get by and won't leave the rest to Lumos

>>77845705
The Doyle estate does have a trademark on Sherlock Holmes, and they've been requiring people to obtain permission from them to make TV or movie adaptations:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150524/17521431095/sherlock-holmes-case-never-ending-copyright-dispute.shtml

>>77845705
>>77846132
They have a trademark but it's more weakened by how most of the Doyle work is in public domain.

With Tarzan though, the Burroughs estate could enforce the trademark because only a small fraction of the original Tarzan stories are public domain.

File: 1444316017896.gif (489KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 1280x720px

>>77837093
>complaining about mickey not being in the public domain when their entire argument is it helps create new things
>implying there's anything keeping people from making their own original works based on mickey mouse right now
pretty shitty argument

Nah, Disney should keep it for as long as they're around.

>>77846790
>implying there's anything keeping people from making their own original works based on mickey mouse right now

There is: the risk that Disney will sue for violating their trademark.

>>77846790
>complaining about things going into the public domain because it wouldn't create new things
>even though all it means is them relying on the same fucking brands over and over

>>77844673
Yeah, I think it's one thing if DC needs Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman (since they're central to the company), and another thing if they need to keep Jay Garrick, Alan Scott, Al Pratt, and others from the 40's they barely use in their original form under copyright and trademark.

Let's take Alan Scott for example. If the original Golden Age comics featuring Alan Scott went into the public domain, DC would still have a Green Lantern franchise, because their Green Lantern franchise is centered around Hal Jordan (and maybe John Stewart), and that version of Green Lantern is drastically different than what was established by the Alan Scott stuff. DC would also get to keep specific things they did to change Alan from the Silver Age onwards. So while people could hypothetically use Alan in this public domain scenario, they can't use Hal or John, and they can't use Jade, Obsidian, or the New 52 version of Alan who's connected to The Green.

File: sonic-the-hedgehog-game-9.png (177KB, 1024x1344px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1024x1344px

>>77846890
Isn't Sonic the Hedgehog based on Mickey Mouse and Felix the Cat? Felix isn't in the public domain either iirc. You can be inspired from copyrighted works without violating trademarks.

File: 1381647353122.gif (714KB, 253x253px) Image search: [Google]

714KB, 253x253px

>People are actually defending Disney help make it so that IPs are longer in the grasps of corporations than become public domain
>When Disney relied on Public Domain to make a majority of their successful animated films

>>77847025
The funny part is when they do original stuff like Wreck-it Ralph, it's actually pretty good. Disney doesn't even need public domain stories to be good at what they do.

>>77837093
>Micky
You can't even fucking spell it right
He's 87 fucking years old of course he shouldn't be in the public domain

File: 347244618.jpg (12KB, 177x278px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 177x278px

>Mickey needs to be in the public domain because he has such inspiring stories such as....

File: 345345.jpg (22KB, 300x289px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 300x289px

>now that creativity is locked away

is this fucking nigger for real?

>>77838452
Exactly. Disney was shortsighted by making him their logo.

>>77846962
I think he's more based on the "styles" than the actual characters. There are massive grey areas in intellectual property, and policing it is a horrible ordeal that has driven many insane (Richard Stallman). It would be too weird if Sonic's creation was that analogous to Sonichu.

>>77845744
Isn't that more from people's designs being derivative of DIsney's?

>>77847207
No, it's the smartest thing they could have done. Their logo is a trademark, they can renew it indefinitely. Mickey Mouse will never be public domain, but "Steamboat Willie" can be. Ultimately, Disney just finds it easier to keep lobbying the US government to extend the copyright on "Steamboat Willie" than to file hundreds of trademark infringement lawsuits over people using Mickey Mouse's name and image to distribute "Steamboat Willie".

Disney also uses a clip from "Steamboat Willie" as the logo of Walt Disney Animation Studios:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKCMut6jOHM
but if "Steamboat Willie" becomes public domain, the only effect this will have is to prevent anyone else from using this clip as a logo for anything else.

>>77837093
I personally think that specific works should enter public domain at fixed times, but that IPs should remain with their owners if said owners are still using them on a regular basis. This way, works like Steamboat Willie and Action Comics #1 would fall into the public domain (and anyone can reprint them), but this will also keep the IPs (Mickey Mouse and Superman, respectively) in their owners' hands, preventing others from diluting the brand by, say, legally and publicly making and selling Mickey Mouse porn.

>>77846890
See: Deadmau5

Why should anyone own the rights after the creator is dead? People owning the copyrights are just leeches. Even if multiple Mickey cartoons emerged, Disney would still make the most profits because they're the true successors to the legacy and people know it. Their Mickey cartoons would get even better with competition.

>>77847692
The big question is, how loose is the definition of "derivative work"? If Steamboat Willie is public domain, can I only distribute it completely unmodified? Can I make colorized Steamboat Willie, or music video Steamboat Willie, or gag dub Steamboat Willie, or a comic using screencaps of Steamboat Willie?

>>77847521
For the most part, but you occasionally hear of them going after Cindarellas who are blonde and wear a blue dress

>>77847798
A gag dub should fall under "parody" and be fair use anyway (as well as certain implementations of the screencap comic idea, like Darths and Droids or DM of the Rings), not that this has stopped some (see all the Abridged Series takedowns on YouTube). Otherwise, likely completely unmodified (aside from obvious necessities to get it to function, like translating the analog film to data in order to upload it to YouTube, or using whatever kind of paper you have on hand to reprint a comic rather than the kind that was originally used). Clearly, the idea still needs quite a lot of kinks worked out, and I'm not really qualified to do that, but I still think that, in general, it could work.

>>77843405
That sounds like a task.

>>77847208
A lot of creative work isn't actually done in a vacuum, it's just they got to make it less obvious.