so co/ apparently Disney is ruining the public domain, what

This isn't really anything new, and I don't really mind them doing that. I've never really had a desire to do anything with Disney properties, so whether or not I can do anything with them isn't a big deal to me.

>>77876612
I don't want to yell "shill" or anything, cause that's stupid, but at this point it feels more like someones just advertising their video.

>>77876960
I assure you I don't own the video. It belongs to Tru TV and I was just really trying to start a topic

>>77877136
Fair enough.

>>77876693
Fair enough,I'm on the same both. However I am quite concerned about other material, what can the masses do?

>>77876612
So, you want to see one of the best cartoon characters ever shitted on? Some stuff I'd prefer not to be in the public domain. Otherwise we get shit knock off movies.

File: minnie-piano.gif (2MB, 704x474px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 704x474px

I want to public her domain.

If you know what I mean.

I understand why Disney is doing it, I mean I'd like to retain the rights to my golden character for the rest of forever, but i do also feel that characters going public domain is helpful, this way we dont keep getting tired mickey shorts but instead new and creative mickey ideas

Personally, I don't have a problem with something that is in constant use by the owners not going into public domain.

He's not exactly wasting away without someone to take care of him, Mickey Mouse.

>>77877428
true, we can get shitty things. However let's not just talk Disney, the law they created changes the game for all companies and all owners. This means things that may benefit from a public domain space could just be forgotten

Yeah I find there's nothing more unjust in this world than Disney having the rights to Mickey Mouse.

>>77877546
>Personally, I don't have a problem with something that is in constant use by the owners not going into public domain.
I can agree with this, if a company is using it's property then by all means the rights can be theirs.
However what if something isn't used for a set period of time, should it go to public domain, or does it get lost in obscurity ?

>>77877682
Something that isn't used demonstrates a lack of concern from the owners and should end up in the public domain.

I'm not at all sure what benefits there are to that, though.
I was thinking medicine, but most medicines that aren't being marketed anymore are like that because they don't fucking work.

>>77877536
Well the characters going public would force Disney to cultivate new ideas and new IPs instead of rehashing the same things over and over, hell this holds true many forms of companies outside of just Disney

>>77877428
yeah the whole thing came off as "we want to use your stuff" I personally think copyright should be handled privately like if someone wrote a book, each book would say in the beginning "by buying this, you agree to not use this IP for your own gains" and then if someone breaks that agreement they get reprimanded as such. On the other side if fan fiction is diverting profits from the original, the original creators need to step up their game.

>>77877721
However something discarded could be good, just the person who had the idea possibly couldn't properly build on it.
I mean look at the universal monsters, they have had their ups and downs

>>77876612
Oh good, a nice little video I can share with my friends to quickly and easily explain this when I complain about it. Thanks!

>>77876693
Even if I never intend to write or make anything with these characters, it sure would be nice to be able to enjoy and share the old content legally for free like I can with other public domain material instead of it being constantly locked in the vault. I know it's easy to just do that shit illegally, but it's the principle of the matter.

>>77877536
>I'd like to retain the rights to my golden character for the rest of forever

But is it really YOUR character if it's a character you inherited or bought? Walt is dead, after all.

>>77876612
I know a lot of golden age shorts have entered public domain but what about characters? Are Betty Boop and Daffy Duck fair game?

>>77878072
Daffy Duck is definitely still owned by Warner Bros. Not sure about Betty but I'd bet some company bought her and won't let her go.

>>77878072
>Betty Boop
Owned by Fleischer Studios, a subsidiary of Paramount. Remember, Betty is two years younger than Mickey Mouse.

>Daffy Duck
Definitely still owned by Warner Bros.

>>77877595
The problem is less that and more what it does to other non-Disney stuff that should be in the public domain by now.

>All these people on /co/ against the public domain
Jesus how uneducated are people these days? You guys do realize that all your favorite Disney movies were made possible by the public domain, right?

>>77878382
> You guys do realize that all your favorite Disney movies were made possible by the public domain, right?
It's something not a lot of people realize, the public domain is slowly being fazed out, because many companies are fighting it. This can be a big problem as well because it may start to stifle ideas within big companies and prevent new ideas from surfacing as easily

>>77878382
those fairy tales are hundred of years old though

>>77878550

>because it may start to stifle ideas within big companies and prevent new ideas from surfacing as easily

This. Say, you want to make a story, comic, movie or cartoon, even a videogame with a theme that is even remotely similar to something already done by big companies. They'll be well within their rights to sue your ass for all you have because "you infringed on their intellectual property" even though there is nothing you took directly from them or even had their creation in mind when you tried to make your own stuff, they're suing you on the grounds that your product is just SIMILAR to theirs.

It will scare any new/small creators from attempting to enter the market which will be dominated from then on by these big corporations who basically claimed monopoly on all the ideas.

Is Tarzan really public domain? I remember the first Kingdom Hearts game had special copyright mentions just for him.

>>77878597
And what do you think will happen to Mickey hundreds of years from now? The way things are going nothing from this era onwards will ever enter public domain at all. It is being abolished as a concept.

Also some properties aren't as old as you'd think. Wizard of Oz for example is from the 20th century. And Peter Pan was only about 50 years old when Disney did its adaptation.

>>77877682
>However what if something isn't used for a set period of time, should it go to public domain, or does it get lost in obscurity ?

It probably might as well go public domain. Disney using Mickey Mouse and DC using Superman is one thing, but if there's something that the owners really haven't used in like a decade and have no intention to (other than a half-hearted attempt at trotting it out to keep the rights) it might as well go PD.

Anyone remember that Gaiman vs McFarlane case? What exactly happened there where the judge ruled that Gaiman was owed money due to Medieval Spawn even though arguably Medieval Spawn is a Spawn derivative? Cause I wonder if it could be applied to other characters.

>>77878696
Also without the need to create new property within the companies themselves their creativity will stagnate. Necessity is what breeds invention.

>>77878382
this is fucking bullshit,the novel of 101 dalmatians was only 5 years old when they made the movie

I don't mind if not every retard out there can make whatever they want with Mickey Mouse, he's still being used as a cartoon character in a show, he's not just some book being dusty on a shelf

>>77878857
Only the first few stories were. The Burroughs estate still maintains a trademark and copyright since they've been continuing his adventures in comic strip form.

Dynamite did try to publish non-Burroughs licensed Tarzan and John Carter comics for a while. There was a lawsuit, but it got resolved amicably because Dark Horse gave up on publishing Tarzan (other than archives) and Marvel gave up on John Carter after the film bombed and their comics weren't selling well in the first place.

Let's not forget the hand the Gershwin family had in this whole deal. They're not even direct descendants of George and Ira. Both died without ever having kids. But their remaining relatives and those relatives' descendants weren't about to let George's most popular piece, Rhapsody in Blue, fall into the public domain. They leaned on shit almost as much as Disney did.
I've personally always wondered if there was a little more funny business than usual. There was a resurgence of I Got You Babe as a "genuine classic" in the late 90s instead of the kitschy tune it had been relegated to after its initial release. And I have to wonder if they were trying to convince Senator Bono that the song would be a never-ending cash cow his family could pass down for generations.

But that's getting too tinfoil territory. But seriously fuck the Gershwin family.

>>77877536
I wish cape comics would just go to public domain so anyone can make a batman or spiderman comic forcing marvel and DC to create new heroes and stories instead of rehashing the old ones.

>>77878938
>Anyone remember that Gaiman vs McFarlane case? What exactly happened there where the judge ruled that Gaiman was owed money due to Medieval Spawn even though arguably Medieval Spawn is a Spawn derivative? Cause I wonder if it could be applied to other characters.

Ken Penders certainly tried to with his Sonic donut steels. It ultimately didn't go to court because Archie's lawyers shat the bed, Sega got fed up with them right then and there, and told them to settle now or risk pulling the plug on the Sonic comics (Sega having already been caught up with EA in a separate, Penders-related suit regarding Sonic Chronicles, which had ultimately been dismissed; in addition, they were phasing out most of their American staff in order to make room for Atlus and this came at exactly the worst time for them).

>>77879240
It sounded like Archie lost their papers in a fire or something? It would also explain why that one comic by Harvey Kurtzman, the Goodman Beaver story with the Archie parody that Archie Comics objected to back in the 60's, ended up in the public domain.

>>77878597
I got news for you, Steamboat Willie will be 100 years old less than 13 years from now.

>>77879395

Yes, they lost the contracts in a fire without making backups. Once Penders caught wind of this he claimed he never got a contract at all.

>>77876693
The issue isn't with Disney properties per se, it's that they change laws that apply to other IPs too.

The fact that it's Disney, a company that ripped off most of its succesful movies from stories fallen in public domain, just makes the irony a little bitter.

>>77877721
IP laws for medecine patents are different from other IPs. They fall into public domain easier and earlier.

>>77878550
>>77878696
>it may start to stifle ideas within big companies
There are a lot of factors that make large companies avert to risk in modern economy. It's not like Disney is currently flooding the market with Mickey Mouse material anyway, their originality issues are separate from owning old IPs.

>>77880590
This doesn't only affect Disney, look at companies like Marvel, DC, Sony, and WB
They own multiple properties and retain their rights to specific medias and things they created thanks to the law Disney helped put through, and because they can hold these ideas for so long they may try to fall back to old ideas without growing their own business practices

>>77877428
So it's fine for thousands and thousands of out of print books to rot away inaccessible to the public so long as Mickey is protected.

>>77880678
Again, that's more a product of large companies being avert to risk in general.
Look at WB: they got a new cash cow a few years ago in Harry Potter and they milked it so much it left a dry husk. Same thing with whoever is making those Hunger Games movies.
Hollywood cashgrabs will be cashgrabs, whether they recycle old IPs or new IPs they just bought from recent books. Just look at Jurassic Park, it's a book published in the 80s, the rights were bought, and a film was made. And then 3 other films because the 1st movie made money.

You don't need to own old IPs to whore your IPs out.

>>77877509
She's just mickey in a skirt, eyelashes and lipstick. You like Mouse traps.

>>77881237
>You like mouse traps

holy kek on a cracker

File: 1440786487984.jpg (77KB, 900x805px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 900x805px

>>77876612
Why do people want Mickey Mouse in the public domain? Why are these pretentious pricks even suggesting Mickey is close to the same tier as Romeo and Juliet and Sherlock Holmes? Mickey was already just a generic everyday joe character who got slapped into public domain stories like Alice and Jack & the Beanstalk. Disney had to make Donald in order to have someone edgier and funnier.

Fuck these guys, for once they're making me want to side with corporate Disney.

>>77878072
>>77878140
Character Copyright is NOT the same as Cartoon Copyright.

Mickey Mouse ALREADY has cartoons in the public domain already, but the character is not in the public domain yet, which will happen when Steamboat Willie reaches public domain.

>>77884173
Mickey is more of the target than the prize. He's what's keeping the door to the public domain shut, clogging up generation of other works behind him

>>77884173
Are you fucking stupid? If it's less important than Romeo and Juliet (which is a fucking stupid standard to compare to) then it's all the more compelling why it should be in the public domain.

Do you really think only things with the importance of Romeo and Juliet need to be in the public domain? Are you retarded?

I don't think all the blame can fall on Disney

The rest of the world could've told us to fuck right off when we extended our copyright term. But if I recall correctly, the push for our extension was so strong partly because Europe's term was longer than ours

File: 1085128125125.png (268KB, 494x465px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 494x465px

If Mickey Mouse goes into public domain then warner bros and dreamworks will make shitty movies with them, they're safe with Disney!

>>77885539
That movie was good, though.

I don't know why everyone is freaking out. This happens every time something Disney is about to hit Public Domain. They always get it changed, and always will I expect.

>>77885419
I do agree with this statement, we are also to blame because we sided with Disney and allowed them to keep their rights to products because we didn't fully understand the ramifications

>>77885539
who gave The Three Musketeers such a bad score. That movie is a clear 8.5/10

>>77880455
Again I have no problem with companies not putting their IPs in the public domain, I have no interest in wanting to do anything with them and so I simply don't care about the issue.
>>77877998
I don't really care about the principle either, as long as Disney doesn't start targeting archives of old animation people have up illegally when they aren't offering any reasonable alternatives, then I don't care.

>>77885296
>(which is a fucking stupid standard to compare to)
The video made that point, not me.

Anyway, the video is trying to make Mickey Mouse sound as important as those famous works, when he's really not. Didn't say that was a requirement to be in the public domain, dunno where you pulled that from.

>>77885679
However it's because Disney is changing the policy that people are freaking out., because it affects other companies and other properties and adds less to the public domain in a whole

every show eventually does their own take on a christmas carol, various shakespeare tales, wizard of oz, tom sawyer, etc

if copyright only lasted 50 years, what would everyone be copying?

>>77885805
So basically it's people complaining that they don't have more ideas to copy and recycle?

>>77884173
You focus too much on Mickey. Disney gets the laws changed, the laws prevent EVERYTHING from going public domain. Music, characters, everything,

File: D8D5CDB919B9F3691055B01DA2CE120B.jpg (253KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 400x400px

>>77881237

>>77885805
Yeah Disney has been changing the policy for years it's nothing new and it's not anything super horrible. The only that the public domain really affects is free access and published fanworks. You can actually still get by copying things with different characters on Parody Laws, like Rugrats did with It's a Wonderful Life which wasn't in the public domain when the episode parodying it aired.

I never saw the public domain as something important, and the fact that it's not growing isn't a big deal since people can readily pirate this stuff online with little consequences.

>>77885924
People can copy ideas as long as it's done under parody law standards, they just can't publish fanworks and profit off of them.

>>77886188

consider that only until very recently, singing the song 'happy birthday' in a film/show/whatever was a one way ticket to a massive lawsuit, as that song was copyrighted

i believe a court recently struck down the copyright claim though. but still. that song has become a part of our culture, yet nobody was allowed use it in their works without coughing up a fee, so every work created their own retarded birthday song

>>77885419
Europe's copyright term is 70 years, the rest of the world agreed to 50 years as minimum.

The US increased their copyright term to a ridiculous much longer extent and the rest of the world didn't get a say in it.

Really, do you honestly think Americans would care if the rest of the world wanted them to follow world standards?? They can't even do metric.

>>77876612
although the far-reaching consequences of this are more serious than the video's subject matter would suggest, has anyone actually made a better mickey mouse cartoon than disney

>>77876693
>>77885743
90% of art is combining plot elements, settings, and even characters from earlier works. It's a bit more obvious these days, what with remixes and mashups being everywhere, but artists have been doing similar things from when the Romans adapted myths from the Greeks. Art is 10% innovation and cleverness and 90% theft. Wagner couldn't have existed without Liszt and Chopin and the like, who couldn't have existed without Beethoven or Schubert or Bach, and so on and so on going back to the Greeks fucking around with proportions.

So yeah. Maybe I'll never do anything with old Disney shit, and maybe you'll never do anything with old Disney shit, but at some point, someone's going to come up with a fucking amazing idea that must have Mickey Mouse or the whole thing falls apart. And they won't do it because Disney's everlasting copyright will fuck them over if they do.

Copyright should extend until the artist's dead, with an extra 10 or 20 years for any children they might have. Anything more is locking up intellectual property and slowing down the process of making new art

>>77886409
Nobody is allowed to try.

I especially love the precious "If Mickey is in the public domain filthy perverts will have their way with him!!"

Like, no big name company is going to make a Mickey Mouse porno.
You can already make a Mickey Mouse porno and it be protected by parody laws.
And the internet is already flooded with porn of everything, including Mickey Mouse.

It's just the most moronic argument.

>>77886417
They could make a simple Mickey Mouse expy and it wouldn't be a big deal because it would just be a parody of Micky Mouse which is legal. This isn't slowing down the process of making art at all.
>>77886396
People are still doing that, with things like iPhones. iPhones are an ingrained part of our culture nowadays and people still make not iPhones to represent the idea without infringing on rights and still manage to communicate the idea fine.

>>77878998
The law doesn't just apply to big name characters like Mickey though. There are plenty of things gathering dust on shelves because of this.

>>77886514
I think it's moronic that people use Mickey as the centerpiece of the argument, like in the video.

If they wanted to make a point, they should cite lost media that would be valuable to the public domain.

For works retained by author
EU = Life + 70 years
US = Life + 70 years

For works created for a company
EU = 70 years from publication
US = 95 years from publication


>The US increased their copyright term to a ridiculous much longer extent and the rest of the world didn't get a say in it.
>Really, do you honestly think Americans would care if the rest of the world wanted them to follow world standards?? They can't even do metric.

The thing is, when Mickey's copyright expires across the rest of the world we can have a laugh when you guys start flooding the market with derivative works and merchandise

>>77886453
You mean, no animator has tried making one of their own out of fear of Disney's retribution.
If someone made an honest-to-god effort to produce a Mickey Mouse cartoon independent of Disney, then released it on YouTube or some other platform, what the hell would Disney be able to do? It'd just get mirrored and the Streisand effect would magnify public awareness of their manipulation of copyright law.

>>77886671
The market is already flooded with cheap shitty merchandise? Do you think China respects copyright law

>>77886601
There are more ways to use IPs than just parody though.

It's always incredibly creepy how everytime this subject come around the thread get flooded by obvious shills.
I don't even want to image how much Disney spend on this shit.

>>77887172
yeah shills definitely spend their time talking about making disney knockoffs

>>77876612
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKp75AaOnr4

>>77886657
>I think it's moronic that people use Mickey as the centerpiece of the argument, like in the video.

I also noticed that the people against putting something in the public domain only think about Mickey's status and not anything else.

>>77885924
dude... literally every idea ever made is recycled from something else

>>77876612
If they are so worried about creativity than why do they want other's characters?
Just make your own

>>77889405
dude... literally every idea ever made is recycled from something else

One thing is law but if they have a department on getting their creations renewed with in law margins then I don't see the problem office, I mean other than hipster douchebags wanting to be able to pull a Basnksy (Fuck that guy) but they are afraid of lawsuits.

Also I see one evil interest trying to go after another interest. I really see no good side or people to side with, not to mention Tumblr still draws whatever the fuck they want, and fan art is not persecuted.

Historically Mickey Mouse was born because Walt could not use his original creation so he created another character. There is your lesson. In the age of Piracy I am not even sure what making disney shorts public domain even accomplishes.

>>77886514
There is no real argument as to why Mickey Mouse should be public domain either, and people who want to use it already can and have.

The video is retarded, and so is OP.

>>77876693

The problem isn't the Disney properties, it's everyone else's.

Surely you see the irony in a company that made its name by animating classic works in the public domain clamping down on free use of the public domain, though.

>>77889604
I'm more pissed how Mickey Mouse has prevented other properties from entering the public domain.

>>77889604
As others have said, Mickey isn't the issue. Nothing made after Mickey can fall into public domain anymore, because Disney keeps getting years added to the public domain requirement. The result is a whole bunch of old music and shit from around that era that should be free use but isn't.

>>77889604
>>77889674
I don't think you really understand anything about this if your argument against the public domain only hinges on Mickey Mouse, fan art, and pirating things.

>>77889604
Like this guy says: >>77880733
Public domain saves books decades out of print from being lost to the public. People around the world can freely read and translate anything from classic works of literature to obscure things no one ever cared about. It is the strongest force for literacy on Earth.

But hey, so long as Disney gets to hang on to those shorts.

>>77881237
Don't forget bloomers. They're the best bit

I think the threat to disney is overblown like any one on civilized earth doesn't know mickey is disney's boy no matter what anyone else comes out with it wouldn't detract from disney's mickey products. It would always be seen as the "official" one

>>77889116
Well that's what happens when the people arguing in favor of it only focus on Mickey.

File: 1448264650671.jpg (56KB, 537x438px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 537x438px

>>77889346
you're just a recycled idea from your parents

>>77895453
The problem is Mickey is one of the primary reasons the problems started in the first place, so he represents that and people lose sight of the big picture on both sides of the argument because they focus on Mickey.

Disney needs Mickey because they've propped him up as their symbol. But a lot of other stuff from the 30's and 40's and 50's could be better off in the public domain for all the usage they're getting.

I think if nothing else, copyright law needs more stringent "shit or get off the pot" clauses.

And couldn't Disney trademark Mickey? Steamboat Willie goes to the PD, but they keep ownership of new stuff with him.

>>77895925
Sounds like the solution is to give Disney an exception to Mickey and then public domain everything else

>>77896001
That's stupid, and sets a terrible precedent.

Every single work, music or character that should be in the public domain will suddenly be clamoring for eternal copyright.

Super smash bros with Mickey when?! I personally think it's cockshit but I don't have money(a voice) in the matter so if they want to fuck over the law than let them

>>77895978
>>77896001
Disney could trademark Mickey, and it might still work because they're using him as their logo/mascot.

If Steamboat Willie goes into public domain it could just mean that other people would only be able to use the early design with the all-black eyes and not the later designs where Mickey had normal eyes or Pac-Man eyes or whatever. That reminds me, when did they change Mickey's skin color from white to peach? Giving him the peach color would be a way to differentiate Disney's version from the Steamboat Willie version.

A better idea is with DC, they might need Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman, but they could put the Golden Age heroes in the public domain because they spend their time emphasizing the Silver/Bronze Age versions anyway. Anyone see the 75th Anniversary Green Lantern variants? Only two had Alan Scott. That's still one more than Jay. Jay Garrick only showed up on one variant for the 75th Anniversary Flash variants even though Barry Allen was only created 59 years ago. And Earth-2 Society is even farther removed from the GA stuff.

Even if the GA stuff ended up PD, DC would just keep any alterations and modifications to the GA characters they already made since the 60's (Pre-Crisis Earth-2, New 52 Earth-2, Power Girl, Huntress, Jade and Obsidian, the TV show version of Jay Garrick, Stargirl, Jack Knight, the pudgier version of Wesley Dodds, etc).

File: 109248125.gif (2MB, 500x382px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x382px

>>77896647
The problem with that, is Mickey's Surprise Party is in the public domain already.

That features his 'modern' peach skin design.

Once the character is in the public domain, theoretically they should be able to use the design featured in Mickey's Surprise Party too for original content.

The original Night of the Living Dead movie is in the public domain due to a technicality. The copyright notice was printed on the title screen of the rejected title, but was never reprinted on the final version's

How much /co/-related stuff got through to the public domain?

>>77885018
I disagree. Steamboat Willie can pass into public domain and Disney can still retain the trademark on Mickey Mouse.

See the example from 2011 of Betty Boop. A judge ruled that Fleischer still retains the trademark on the Betty Boop name and image, even though most of her early thirties cartoons are in public domain.

As long as Disney markets the Mickey Mouse name and image on merchandise, they'll retain an active trademark.

>>77897622
>How much /co/-related stuff got through to the public domain?

A lot of Golden Age stuff is believed to be public domain, usually stuff from defunct companies. This may even include stuff that DC purchased from such as Fawcett and Quality, but there's debate over how much it is or isn't.

There's people that believe the Charlton Comics from the Silver Age might be public domain because their copyright notices were inaccurate (they didn't fix this till like maybe the early 70's). If that's true it would mean Captain Atom, Ted Kord, and The Question might be PD.

T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents was believed to be public domain in the 80's due to lack of copyright but then there was a lawsuit over something and somehow one guy held on to the rights to the characters. People still debate whether the decision was in the right or dubious.

>>77897622
>>77897778
I dont think thats how copyrights work. Everything is under copyright regardless what you stated or written on it.

>>77897691
I don't care if you disagree, you're factually wrong.

Trademark is not the same thing as copyright.
It doesn't matter if a work is trademarked, it will still fall into the public domain when it's out of copyright.

And Betty Boop the character is still under copyright, like Mickey Mouse, it doesn't matter is some or all of her cartoons are in public domain, that's a separate entity to CHARACTER copyright.

>>77885419
You can't exactly say no to the US or China on economic matters.
Unless you want to get kicked out of the WTO

>>77885924
There's also the fact that they can't be published freely by anyone but Disney.
And no it's not just about goddamn profit, many works in the public domain are published by shit like the free internet library or whatever it's called, and still get published by large companies which profit from them.
It would be a huge loss to legal free content if things created after 1933 never went into public domain.

File: mug.jpg (32KB, 478x395px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 478x395px

Realistically, this is just corporations being Jews for trying to milk the IPs they own for as long as they can, but the major reason companies pushed this was to hold onto music and movies, it seems dumb to make the point be about characters when there's more to it than that
Also, don't be stupid and defend this, most of the money Disney has made from films is from riding off of the stories of public domains like The Snow Queen, Snow White, Peter Pan, etc so this is pretty hypocritical of them to pull

>>77887172
It's not shills, it's just contrarian idiots who think they always have to side with large corporations to not look like hippies.

>>77878696
>remotely similar
That's not how that works. That's not how that works at all.

File: 1381233613311.jpg (15KB, 460x375px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 460x375px

Okay this shit makes me mad. Not the copyright stuff, I was aware and mad about that for awhile.

But reading this thread.

What do you gain when you are indifferent or supportive to Disney's actions? What spineless douches you are. The reason they're capable of this is because there are so few people fighting back.

Them: "I want your shit. Give it to me."
You: "AWWWW MAAAAAAN. I liked it but I guess the rest of my eternity goes on without it. Shucks."

And why? Because you don't want to sound gay because you stand up for something? What the fuck. Do us a favor and enter the noose.

>>77898225
>rawwwrrr if you do not agree with my opinion you're a coward and you should hang yourself!
This is like the post-ification of some shitty strawman comic

>>77898275
No it isn't.

>>77898275
You really should kill yoursefl

>>77898275
Is this your 1st day on 4chan?

The companies will realize their mistake when they run out of original content and have to resort to constantly returning to public domain material.

Recently, they made a movie just called "Victor Frankenstein". There will be a time when a movie company can't just take an existing public domain story, slap an offbeat title on it, and call it a day. And when that comes, they'll beg to lower the public domain time down so they can adapt 30s and 40s novels.

>>77900687
They can already adapt those, dummy, they just have to pay for the right to do so.

>>77901105
Unless it happens to already be owned by a company that wants to sit on it rather than allow the competition to use it.

And instead of them having their pick from everything from that time being free, they'll probably be more likely to go for whatever is cheapest or easiest to obtain.

>>77877721
>I'm not at all sure what benefits there are to that, though.
You ever play abandonware, bro? Imagine if the rule of abandonware applied to movies.

Rifftrax is already pretending it does with the Star Wars Holiday Special, which Disney won't sue them for because they actually do want to abandon it.

>>77888324
>unrealistic body image
It was great up until that bullshit. No one wants to look like a fucking cartoon character, except that one chick who wanted to be Jessica Rabbit.

>>77877726

>SvTFoE
>Gravity Falls
>Wander Over Yonder

Disney is one of the companies that's actually pretty good at coming up with new IPs. Mickey Mouse going public domain would be a shitfest.

>>77897622
>>77897778
>>77897957
Night of the Living Dead is definitely in the public domain. It's notoriously known as such. George Romero himself has said he's lost so much money as a result of it, but acknowledges that it being the public domain earned him famed, recognition, and the funds to make further films.

The Charlton characters were bought by DC so they're not in the public domain anymore.

>I dont think thats how copyrights work. Everything is under copyright regardless what you stated or written on it.

That's a more recent thing. Laws back then were different and so a film such as Night of the Living Dead could easily lapse into public domain. Now however, you're right, a creative work is owned by the creator or company that creates it without a proper patent or copyright.

For anyone working as a creator for a company, be aware that they maintain the rights to anything you create for them.

>>77901990
>For anyone working as a creator for a company, be aware that they maintain the rights to anything you create for them.

Unless you're Ken Penders. Then they're stuck having to look the other way in regards to your donut steels.

>>77898225
>What do you gain when you are indifferent or supportive to Disney's actions?
Really, I just want to annoy the pretentious fucks like those that made the video in the OP. Even if he's right, the way he presented the video is so damn obnoxious that it made me hate them.

>>77903108
Well congrats because you're human garbage we'd be well rid of.

Because they "corny" and "pretentious." What are you, fucking 8?

I wasn't kidding earlier. Kill yourself. With all your friends who cheer you on in your fashion of life. Get them in a room and burn the house down.

>>77876612
It's not really about the public domain, it's about killing competition. Movies with popular or recognized characters, have an advantage when attracting viewers. By reducing the number of characters at the public's disposal, Disney can reduce the amount of new competitors that appear. As a hypothetical, if Mickey had been public domain, someone would have put him in their movie idea by now, and it might have been successful enough to fund more projects on the back of that success.

If Micky Mouse were public domain, Disney wouldn't be the evil corporation it is today.

>>77903153
All you're doing is validating my point.

>>77897957
Nope. Read up on copyright history. What you say is true only for stuff that was published after 1989 (by then you didn't need to worry about forgetting the copyright notices since it was automatic).

Stuff published after 1922 but before 1978 that didn't have a copyright notice (like the original release of Night of the Living Dead) and were never registered are usually considered to be in the public domain.

A lot of people make that mistake and assume that copyright was always automatic for a century when that really wasn't the case.

>>77901990
>The Charlton characters were bought by DC so they're not in the public domain anymore.

That's not how it works, assuming the debate going on has some validity to it. If it's true that Charlton didn't register at the copyright office (one person went to the Library of Congress and didn't find any records of copyright registration for 60's Charlton comics) and the copyright notices in their 60's comics were invalid (the notices in the 1960's comics usually said "international copyright secured" which isn't the same as saying "copyright 1965 Charlton") then they might be as public domain as Night of the Living Dead right from the start.

If it's true, then it means that the Charlton heroes' 60's adventures could be public domain, but DC would have the rights to at least the post-1977 stuff (the 1980's Charlton Bullseye issues of Blue Beetle/Question team-up and a Captain Atom story come to mind).

>>77903429
Yes, as an epic /b/ro seeking "the lulz", I'm sure I'm validating your point.

>>77903108
Well since you like these guys so much here's one for /v/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i08CVkBxvBM

>>77904118
to be fair, Adam kind of has a point there. Until recently games were mostly marketed to males.
I think games being marketed to other genders is fine, however I think the biggest problem we have with this new marketing scheme as it is right now is the fact that there the self entitled people that demand too much change too quickly from certain games, and they could be better served actually just enjoying the new IPs and existing IPs that already cater to them

>>77904118
Oh jeez, his real face is even douchier.

Hopefully they'll extend the copyright indefinitely.
You little shits aren't entitled to anything.

>Oh no, new ideas aren't entering the public domain, I'll have to be... ORIGINAL!

>>77904118
So what is the relationship between that man and that black kid?

Public domain is not good because it liberates. It's good because it kills. I want Mickey Mouse to die. I want Superman to die. I want Star Wars and Star Trek to die. I want all those "properties" that pass hands from people long divorced from their creators to stop existing and draining resources from fresh things that could be created if finance and writers' pool was not stuck on trademarks.

>>77904706
it's just how the show works. The show is called Adam Ruins Everything. He randomly butts into someones lives for a short period of time to educate them about something. It's mostly just a facts show on Tru TV

>>77904703
>I'll pretend that I read the thread and make another drive-by response!

>>77904668
Hopefully when you're done sucking corporate cock they won't jizz in your eye

>>77904928
You can make original ideas without stuff being in the public domain to use. There's no exception.

>>77904827
But is it always the same kid?

>>77905159
nah a different person each episodes, could be a lady about to get married, a guy afraid of everything, mostly just anyone that represents the target discussion

>>77905144
So you'll ignore how hypocritical is it for Disney to be the main push for copyright to be infinitely extended despite most of their major works adapting things from the public domain?

So you'll ignore that originality in Hollywood is worse than ever with constant sequels, prequels and remakes despite, more more accurately because copyright is the way it is?

>>77886097
mouse trap is the greatest board game of all time
prove me wrong
protip: you can't

>>77905300
>So you'll ignore how hypocritical is it for Disney to be the main push for copyright to be infinitely extended despite most of their major works adapting things from the public domain?

The Disney in the 1950s that made most of their movies based on public domain work is different than the Disney today. The Disney today makes more original movies that aren't based on public domain works than the old Disney did (Lilo and Stitch, Wreck it Ralph, Big Hero 6, etc.).

It's not my fault the people at Hollywood are too lazy to make up their own original characters and original adventures. There's lots of fresh ideas to take from the modern world, just as old public domain works took ideas from the world they were made in.

>>77905417
>The Disney today makes more original movies that aren't based on public domain works than the old Disney did (Lilo and Stitch, Wreck it Ralph, Big Hero 6, etc.).

This would mean something if they didn't do stuff based on public domain works at all in the last few years as opposed to making Tangled and Frozen.

>>77905417
>It's not my fault

Actually if you support the current copyright laws, yes, you are partially responsible, you contrarian piece of shit

File: 1443555232441.png (429KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 640x480px

>>77904668
>I like whatever LITTLE SHITS don't like! Grr I hate em I hate em I hate em.
Alright guys y'know what's fucking BALLER? Oxygen.

If Disney takes away our oxygen I'm gonna be so fucking pissed you guys.

Guys, guys.

As protest, let's all start breathing a lot. Right now. And let's see what they're gonna do about it.

>>77904668
Okay you know who is being really entitled?

Disney.

Walt Disney is dead. Y'know, the creator?

The company feels entitled to a character they had no hand in creating. They are in fact, a creation of Walt Disney as well.

Creations squabbling over creations. "NOOOO NOT THE PUBLIC DOMAAAAAIIIIN"

>>77905806
Because I don't believe you need the public domain.

Hell, I think it's a handicap.

>>77905978
Going for the world record of foolishness?

>>77905996
He's baiting at this point

>>77906063
Ah but what's the point?

>>77886770
> Streisand effect would magnify public awareness of their manipulation of copyright law
Yeah it sure worked with VIACOM.

>>77905996
>>77906063
You really don't though. Lots of good movies aren't based on pre-existing public domain stories. Pixars a shining example of it.

I'd like to propose an amendment wherein actively used IPs are kept with a 10 year grace period between works is allowed before the property falls to public domain.
The worst that could happen is a new shrek/land before time/saw/ect. movie being made every decade.
Pros? Cons?

>>77906498
Extensive copyrighting is what causes flooding of shitty adaptations. Why be original if you can hold monopoly on some property and milk it.

Imagine if Conan-Doyle Inc was a thing that publishes shitty Schlock Homos stories monthly because they can and fans addicted to labels would eat up everything.

File: 1445855119756.jpg (21KB, 476x323px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 476x323px

>>77906578
So, basically you're saying we're getting tons of shitty adaptions because there's not enough stuff for these lazy hacks to milk? I kind of get that now.

It sounds like the bigger problem is that if more stuff went into the public domain, it would be more stuff people can freely use... but would it stop them from being lazy hacks and making shitty adaptations of said stuff?

If that's the case, can we just nuke Hollywood?

>>77906677
What I'm saying is that I support public domain because it will put intellectual properties out of their misery.

Some would make new stuff with old characters because they feel they will make something new, but important thing is that large conglomerates will not be able to buy out and mutilated characters and stories that should be more retired.

I support public domain because it will lead to less derivatives, not more.

There's no other options because hackery is safer and more profitable and more profitable always win in capitalism. The same way OSHA regulations needed to be implemented so companies that save money of employers' safety would not bankrupt those who care.

>>77906677
And I forgot to address your actual comment

> it would be more stuff people can freely use... but would it stop them from being lazy hacks and making shitty adaptations of said stuff?
No. Because if you don't hold characters and settings hostage, if you don't have monopoly on official content, there's no point in making shit.

>>77906565
So a company sitting on a IP that should be in the public domain releases a yo-yo with an image of the thing on it and they get to keep it for 10 more years.

There's no way that system can work good.

>>77905417
>fresh ideas
>Big Hero 6
Loooool.

>>77906444
Eh?

>>77907438
Ever wondered why people abruptly stopped making those edgy spongebob parodies ?

>>77907469
No..?

>>77886671
And the funny thing is, their characters going into public domain would actually HELP them.

>100 different companies are making Mickey Mouse stuff now
>Disney works it's ass off to prove that he is still theirs, and makes the best film
>everyone starts to go "okay, I'll only bother watching Mickey Mouse stuff from Disney, the rest suck"
>fans are made the legitimate way

>>77876612
The Trans Pacific Partnership really screwed public domain even more.

>christmas carol falls into the public domain
>mr. magoo cartoon retells the story as a special christmastime treat for their fans
>accidentally creates the idea of a christmas special episode

this is why public domain is a good thing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq1oJJ9M784