Copyright

>>87401270
Still trademarked.

No. And personally I don't think he should.

>>87401270
I hope Mickey Mouse enters the public domain, but it likely won't happen. Then again, if Trump wins re-election..

>>87401572
Oh no! I can't use the words "Mickey Mouse" in the title when making new material still featuring the character?... Yeah, no, nice try but that's a minor hurdle at best.

>>87401585
What's with you culture hating bastards? The public domain is a necessity and copyright laws in their current state are a joke.

>>87401270
What's the good thing of this?

>>87401270

Disney will never let Mickey Mouse enter the public domain - even if it means destroying the public domain for good. (Which it already kinda is.)

>>87401270
1) only the Steamboat Willie form of Mickey Mouse will enter public domain on that date.
2) Every time that copyright nears expiration, Disney has successfully lobbied congress to pass legislation extending copyright . They have done this successfully at least 3 times in the past 40 years.

It will never happen.

>>87401693

You know how people can make any damn version of a Shakespeare play they want? It's because his works are public domain - meaning people can lift his work wholesale and transplant it into different periods of time, different languages, and so forth without having to worry about things like lawsuits and royalties.

The public domain is an important part of culture because it facilitates the growth of culture - not just in what we can use freely when creating our own works, but in what we can distribute freely without fear of being sued into oblivion. The orignal Night of the Living Dead is in the public domain because the creators forgot to affix a copyright notice to the title card (a requirement for copyright back then); now we can share it, stream it, and use it in any film we damn well please. (Incidentally, the same goes for Manos: The Hands of Fate.)

Without the public domain, we couldn't recycle stories like Romeo & Juliet or Anna Karenina in modern settings/sensibilities. We couldn't have The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

And Disney couldn't have made a shitload of its films without paying for the rights.

>>87401846
But Anon, how are multinational companies with eternal lifespans keep making money forever?

File: Mouse.jpg (99KB, 464x700px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 464x700px

>>87401572
They had that issue with some Mickey comic strips that had lapsed into public domain. Disney tried to stop a third-party from releasing a collection of them by enforcing Trademark. There could be absolutely nothing on book that might make the consumer believe that it was an official Disney product (not even Mickey), making it nearly impossible to actually publish.

They found a way, much to Disney's irritation.

>>87401846
>he wants anyone but Disney producing Mickey Mouse
wew

>>87401942
Walt is dead.

>>87401942
>he wants public domain to die
wew yourself lad

>>87401846 (cont.)

The thing about copyright is that it's a deal between creators and the public - creators receive a distribution monopoly that lasts (x) amount of years before a work falls into the public domain, wherein anyone with the means to do so can distribute it - upheld by the government to further knowledge and the creation of new art. That was the original deal, anyway.

Somewhere along the way, the government decided to lengthen the term of a copyright so creators would have more time to exploit their monopoly for monetary gain, and to hell with the public. As it stands, American copyright now lasts for the lifetime of an artist in addition to seventy years after their death. To put that in perspective, our children's children will likely be the first generation to have public domain access to Michael Jackson's music.

And that's assuming copyright isn't extended again or his heirs/his publishing company/the holders of his copyrights don't use trickery like "remastering = new version of the work = new copyright" to get around the term limit.

Copyright is fucked, yo.

>>87401942
Kill yourself for supporting this coroporate cucking of property rights

>>87401270

Disney will just have them amend copyright laws again. It will be the life of the creator + 1 thousand years. That should be long enough for them to completely utilize Mickey as a character, or at least long enough to build a case to have copyright laws extended further.

>>87401942
But the Disney company will still be able to make Mickey Mouse, they just won't have the sxclusive right to make and distribute Mickey Mouse.

That's really what the Disney company is afraid of, not that people will "defile" Mickey but that someone outside their control will make better use of Mickey than them.

>>87401942

So, for the record, you support infinite copyright and the complete annihilation of the public domain, right?

>>87401833
>2) Every time that copyright nears expiration, Disney has successfully lobbied congress to pass legislation extending copyright . They have done this successfully at least 3 times in the past 40 years.
DRAIN
THE
SWAMP

>>87401270
Everyone knows they'll just lobby Congress to raise the public domain cap again so that they can keep Mickey and Captain America.

>>87401846
>>87402031
This, but I also want to take a moment to say that none of this is really just about Mickey Mouse. See, Disney has been getting the American government to extend the copyright for a long time now because they want to hold onto Mickey specifically (as well as everything that they own made after him), but in doing so NOTHING ELSE made when Mickey was or after can fall into public domain whether Disney owns it or not, because the law needs to apply to everybody. That means that even more obscure shit that nobody remembers that really should be in public domain can't be revived by new creators adopting it. When Mickey finally falls into public domain it will mark the end of an era of Disney constantly extending the limits of the law, which is the only reason that character specifically is important to this issue, though it applies to everything else.

>>87403544

Yeah, just so everyone here knows, the current fight in regards to the public domain is about more than just "getting Mickey Mouse". It's about making sure culture and knowledge - movies, books, magazines, video games, songs, scientific journals, you name it - can be properly collected, stored, and curated so future generations can have access to it and use it however they see fit.

If we went by the "28 years" standard of copyright, anything made prior to 1988 would be public domain now. You know what that would mean? Film collectors could legally distribute the original theatrical cuts of the original Star Wars trilogy for free without Disney/LucasFilm/whoever being able to do a fucking thing about it.

THAT is what the public domain is all about: The right of the public to have unfettered access to culture and knowledge after a creator has had ample time to monetize a given work.

If you oppose that, you're a massive asshole. (And probably a Disney employee.)

Most of Mickeys cartoons are based off public domain shit already, or some repetitive formula of Mickey doing jack shit, Donald getting his ass stuck to something and Goofy dealing with an existential crisis.

He should enter the public domain out of proxy but stop pretending he has anything of value to reap.

>>87404132
It's not about Mickey Mouse. It's about Disney extending copyright laws just so they can keep a hold of him. This has the unfortunate consequence of extending the law for literally every copyrighted piece of work.

>>87404198
Oh I got that part, but people who get excited over the idea of getting to use Mickey Mouse crack me up in a pathetic way.

>>87401572
Trademarks aren't all encompassing. The specific Disney registered trademarks would be protected.

>>87404274
There were some really good Mickey Mouse based video games in the 90s.
Could easily see indie devs using him to make new games similar to them.

>>87401270
Disney will just pull the same fuckery they've pulled every time in the past. Those Disney Dollars™ speak louder than a bunch of jilted fapfic writers.

it will be weird for cartoon or comic characters to be public domain.

>>87404495
They never will
The two most powerful entertainment companies in the world own all of the ones that are up in the reasonable future

>>87404274

It isn't just about "getting to use Mickey Mouse". It's about being able to preserve "Steamboat Willie" in the best possible condition, across as many formats as possible, for generations to come.

Look at all the films and books and albums we have floating around in the cultural ether right now. Think about how many of them are all covered by copyright, and have been for as long as you've been alive. Now think about how many films and books and albums aren't available because they were copyrighted and disappeared due to neglect or people just not giving a shit.

The public domain helps prevent that kind of shit from happening. It helps distribute and protect culture from disappearing down a memory hole as it simultaneously allows people free access to said culture. That we're actively SHRINKING the public domain by continually extending copyright is a fucking travesty.

>>87404831
Isn't Disney pretty good with archiving their stuff though? The only thing that is lost iirc is some old Alice and Oswald shorts.

>>87401846
>Manos: The Hands of Fate

Maaan, I haven't thought about that shit in years.

Ur taking me back, anon.

>>87404941

Which is partly my point: Imagine if copyright didn't last a couple of lifetimes and film collectors could've held onto those shorts until they went into the public domain. They likely wouldn't be "lost" these days.

Not everyone archives their shit like Disney does, but a properly functioning public domain would help create a functioning "public access backup", so to speak.

>>87401689
You can't use the new designs, either.

You can show Steam Boat Willie without a license though, if that's what you're into.

>>87401705
You have a generous idea of how long the legislative timetable is here.

>>87405024

Oh, I'll help you with that. A guy who bought a box full of film reels based on the fact that one of them said "MANOS" on the tin lucked the fucking hell out and got his hands on a pristine workprint of the film. He remastered it using funds from a Kickstarter and now the film - fully restored, fully remastered, still fully shitty - is on Blu-ray. MANOS ON BLU-RAY, DAMN YOU. (See http://www.manosinhd.com/ for what that restoration looks like.)

The Blu-ray almost didn't happen because the son of Manos's director tried to hold it up via legal entanglements, but then someone discovered Hal Warren never secured the copyright to Manos, so now the film is in the public domain and you can buy the Blu-ray wherever it's being sold.

And MST3K doesn't have to pay for the rights in re: syndication of its Manos episode. :D

>>87405055

>You have a generous idea of how long the legislative timetable is here.

You underestimate just how far Disney will go to keep Mickey Mouse from becoming public domain.

>>87404941

>Isn't Disney pretty good with archiving their stuff though?

oh man i had no idea that disney was the only creative entity on the entire planet, you're right anon, everything is totally okay.

>>87404941
They've kept everything archived but having it available is a whole different story thanks to their dumb "Disney Vault" system that had no place existing in the 21st century yet they still maintain anyway.

There hasn't been a proper chronological collection of the classic Disney cartoons since the limited edition Walt Disney Treasures dvd sets from the early 2000s that are now out of print and expensive to buy second hand.

If you go to Amazon and search for Mickey Mouse, everything on the first page will be for the newer preschool series because that's all Disney has bothered to keep available to purchase.

The older Mickey shorts going public domain would give others the chance to make proper dvd or blu-ray releases of them and actually keep them out and for a price that isn't insane.

Until that happens, I'll just continue pirating the shorts because Disney clearly doesn't want my money or otherwise they'd have put out a new release by now.

ITT: People who don't understand the difference between copyrights and trademarks

A character like Mickey is a trademark. Trademarks never expire unless they're not enforced. All that copyright means is that some of the early Disney shorts from the pre-WWII period would lapse into PD.

>>87402325
>That's really what the Disney company is afraid of, not that people will "defile" Mickey

You clearly have never visited DeviantArt.

>>87405444

>Trademarks never expire unless they're not enforced.

Not true; a company can lose a trademark by failing to re-register it, whether intentionally or accidentally.

You can pirate all the Disney stuff you want, if you're willing to visit virus-infested Ukrainian websites.

>>87405504
Whatever. Point is that Disney can't possibly lose ownership of Mickey, only that they'd lose the exclusive distribution rights to the 1920s-40s shorts/movies. And since as >>87405267 said, they never bother to rerelease any of that shit anyway...

>>87405549

>they'd lose the exclusive distribution rights to the 1920s-40s shorts/movies

And that's something they'll never let happen.

No matter what.

>>87405593
Doesn't matter. I can pirate all of them in a couple of mouse clicks.

It's actually really easy to find downloads of the Golden Age Disney stuff. Newer stuff like The Lion King is harder unless you visit Russian websites.

Disney have always had extreme, terminal autism about copyrights. There was a story that they once sued a school for putting Mickey picture decoration thingies around.

>>87405861
We should really dox their copyright lawyers. Find out where these guys live, post their home addresses, etc.

Copyright is the reason why modern media is so stagnant nowadays.

>>87401270
I'm waiting for Zorro to enter public domain.

>>87405887
they're probably all Jews who live in Orange County

I wouldn't worry too much. Recently, the major film companies have been trying everything when it comes to making new films, to the point where they make an adaptation of nearly every public domain story.

Eventually, they will run out of things to adapt, and only then will they realize the folly of their ways.

>>87405964
>Recently, the major film companies have been trying everything when it comes to making new films, to the point where they make an adaptation of nearly every public domain story.

>recently

I'm pretty sure Golden Age Disney was 100% adaptions of PD stories.

Best part is how pretty much all of Disney's movies were based on stories that are public domain

>>87405912
The more illogical thing here is that Disney really doesn't use Mickey and friends in any of their recent media. The characters are little more than mascots that haven't featured in any cartoons/movies in decades. It's not as if they're not creating new franchises. Which makes their stubborn retention of Mickey et al more silly.

They'll throw enough money at Congress until they change copyright law so they have him for another 100 years.

Alternately, Disney and Congress will have been bought out by Wal Mart by then.

>>87406153
>Disney really doesn't use Mickey and friends in any of their recent media
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC6qIbU1olyXQe1WOKt8UJ4hErx3D7qt8

>>87406029
He's talking about the trend of studios throwing out reboots of their old series. Like how the trend a few years back was making edgy fairy tale adaptations.

Everyone is running out of public domain things to use.

>>87406153
> Disney really doesn't use Mickey and friends in any of their recent media.
They do though.

>>87406153
Disney not so much but the capeshit industry is _plagued_ by this problem.

>>87406153
there's the clubhouse and the upcoming tv show

File: alan-moore-013.jpg (30KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 460x276px

>>87405912

"To my mind, this embracing of what were unambiguously children's characters at their mid-20th century inception seems to indicate a retreat from the admittedly overwhelming complexities of modern existence. It looks to me very much like a significant section of the public, having given up on attempting to understand the reality they are actually living in, have instead reasoned that they might at least be able to comprehend the sprawling, meaningless, but at-least-still-finite 'universes' presented by DC or Marvel Comics. I would also observe that it is, potentially, culturally catastrophic to have the ephemera of a previous century squatting possessively on the cultural stage and refusing to allow this surely unprecedented era to develop a culture of its own, relevant and sufficient to its times. I mean, I loved the music of the Sixties. I loved the Beatles, the Kinks, and Cream. I wish music could sound like that forever, yet if it did we would never progress as a culture."

>>87401270
Never gonna happen.

>>87401270
I really hope it never happens, we need more original ideas and less bootleg shit. I really don't want to see a fucking hundred mickey mouse movies like the fucking hundred peter pan movies they make every fucking year and will keep making for all the fucking eternity.

>>87407396
You idiot, copyright is what is making everything so stale now.

Disney built their fucking empire on public domain shit.

>>87401622
>if Trump wins re-election..

If Trump wins even ONE election, every corporation gets everything it fucking wants, including limitless copyright. Don't fool yourself.

>>87402995
>DRAIN
>THE
>SWAMP

Oh, my god. You legit think Trump is going to stop a corporation from doing something that helps it hang onto valuable property.

>>87407396
>I really don't want to see a fucking hundred mickey mouse movies like the fucking hundred peter pan movies they make every fucking year and will keep making for all the fucking eternity.

Yeah, because the constant prequeling and sequeling of Hollywood is so much fucking better. Don't fucking delude yourself.

>>87404831
>It isn't just about "getting to use Mickey Mouse". It's about being able to preserve "Steamboat Willie" in the best possible condition, across as many formats as possible, for generations to come.

Disney can always copyright a new restoration of Steamboat Willie to keep anyone else from using it.

What they won't be able to do is keep Joe Schlabotnik from using the 16mm 1937 dupe print he has under his bed. But still, Disney will remain the entity with the largest archive of top quality material.

>>87405111
>>87405024
Holy shit. That's amazing.

>>87408659
>Trump is businessman therefore pro corporations

Stupid fallacies

>>87406526
>there's the clubhouse and the upcoming tv show

And the current one, Disney still releases the Paul Rudish shorts, irregularly but they average out to one a month, or so.

>>87408659
He'll not let them use the government and the peoples money to defend it nor will he allow lobbyists to buy votes for rewriting the laws.

At most he'll tell them it's their job to defend their copyright and they'll have to use their own money.

Which no matter how little that expenditure it always makes them cringe.

>>87408709
>>Trump is businessman therefore pro corporations
>Stupid fallacies

http://evonomics.com/why-being-pro-market-is-not-the-same-thing-as-being-pro-business/

>>87406526
And a new DuckTales cartoon (if that's not what you were talking about)

Oh god, another /pol/ thread hidden behind a cartoon mask!

>>87408850

Right now all the big international corporations are tied up in the global financial markets ponzi scheme all their profits and worth coming from a nonexistent actual worth that isn't just on paper.

Trump is pro business which has become the opposite of corporate culture. Which Hillary is owned by.

>>87402335
desu, i can't understand why do you think that someone else besides the owner should have the right to change the original product.

>>87409121
The original owner died a long time ago. And the original product still exists, they can't change it or anything.

>>87409149
>The original owner
no, you mean the creator, there is still an owner.
again, i can't understand your logic.
if you want to own the franchise or wathever buy the rights.

>>87405154
>oh man i had no idea that disney was the only creative entity on the entire planet

Give 'em a few years

>implying it won't be extended again

You seriously underestimate how powerful Disney is.

>>87401270
No.
Will literally never ever happen.

>>87408625
>thinking shillary would do any better

>>87403890
>THAT is what the public domain is all about: The right of the public to have unfettered access to culture and knowledge after a creator has had ample time to monetize a given work.
that's bullshit, you can argue that about copying a movie or a book an pay no right for it, but you aren't changing a thing about the original concept, just watching or reading something in you house.
what you want is that any retard can get their hands on stuff and change the core of the product because "muh public domain".
create something popular and tell me how everybody will have the right to bastardize it when you die.

>>87401270
You realize you can use Mickey right now and any character ever that you want as long as it's a parody? You can even make money off of it that way.

>>87405030
>"public access backup"
yeah, it's called internet , grandpa

Reminder that Disney will still sue left and right even after the copyright has expired, claiming that you're violating trademark.

Reminder that it will cost way too much to defend yourself unless you're one of the other Big 6 media giants.

Reminder that Disney is cancer and you make the tumor fatter every time you give them money.

>>87409489
>create something popular and tell me how everybody will have the right to bastardize it when you die.
Who fucking cares? You'll be dead.

And this is exactly what disney has been fucking doing for the last 60 years, unless you think Frozen is an accurate adaptation of Snow Queen

Also, have you guys noticed that Disney has started to use the Steamboat Willie animation thing during the openings of their movies?

That's to associate the Disney brand with Mickey itself even more, making it easier for Disney to claim you're breaking trademark if you use Mickey.

>>87409535
I've admittedly never been a huge Disney fan. I don't hate them, I just find them too...Tin Pan Alley for my taste.

Sonny Bono was the guy largely responsible for this. His, ahem, death shortly thereafter proved that there is a god after all.

Why is Disney so scared to "lose" Mickey? are they afraid some.company will associate mickeybwith their brand and thus lose business? because at this point, most people in the world know mickey = disney. Or are they worried that mickey will be decoupled from disney? does mickey even bring in money for them directly?

>>87409795
>Why is Disney so scared to "lose" Mickey? are they afraid some.company will associate mickeybwith their brand and thus lose business? because at this point, most people in the world know mickey = disney. Or are they worried that mickey will be decoupled from disney?

Something along those lines.

>>87401572
Didn't DC comic run into that issue when they tried to sue to skater apparel company for the logo that they themselve stole and ended up having to pay DC apparel for use of THEIR logo?

>>87409817

Wht do they have to be such assholes about it? I cant even send fucking dick pics because my sorry excuse for a cock looks like those damn 3 circles. I would tell Disney to sue me and screw off, but I dont want to give them any ideas.

>>87409867
Turns out DC forgot to trademark it
>the city of DC

>>87409875
Because they're fucking greedy shitbags.

>>87409795

Not just Mickey, but a whole stable of characters. Between acquisitions and various shorts they'd lose dozens within a few years.

>>87409912

Do all those characters pull in a lot of money for them though? And is the competition from anyone else really that stiff to where some mickey knock cartoon is going to cripple disney? Maybe I'm not edcuated enough to understand inner workings and future damages it could cause disney.

>>87409984
They'd probably lose a bit from mickey merchandise at least but I'm under the belief that the princess merch is what actually rakes in the cash.

>>87409984
Whether they can make money off of them or not isn't important to Disney.

What's important to them is whether or not other people can make money off of them or not.

Even if they themselves cannot profit off of it, they don't want anyone else to even have the chance.

>>87410950
Let's be honest, Walt and everyone else responsible for Golden Age Disney has long since crossed the River Styx. Nobody at the company today had anything to do with Steamboat Willy or Fantasia. It's lowball to profit off of works you had no part in creating.

File: 1418704886526.jpg (45KB, 635x600px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 635x600px

>>87411079
>It's lowball to profit off of works you had no part in creating.

It's the mouse's world. We just live in it.

You can buy all the old Warner Bros. shorts on bargain bin DVD sets but it doesn't harm Warner's ownership of the characters. All it means is that the stuff from the WWII era is now PD, but because Bugs and Daffy are trademarked, you can't just make bootleg merch unless you live in China.

Thus, allowing Fantasia to go PD would not in any way harm Disney's ownership of Mickey. As long as they continue to use the character on merch or in new productions, they do not lose their ownership of him.

>>87411079
The problem is that they see those works as being done by Disney the company rather than the individuals like Walt, Clarence Nash, Ollie Johnson, etc who made them possible. Per se the notorious USSC ruling that corporations are people.

Next time they're gonna lobby to allow copyright to be held indefinitely until the author's bloodline ceases to exist

And then they'll make competitors disappear

>>87411185
>>87410950
You can't really profit off PD works anyway, nothing except the cost of the distribution media.

Personally I don't believe corporations are people, nor do I accept any of these Disney copyright "extensions" as legitimate or legally binding. But then I am not much of a Disney fan anyway and have no particular interest in their media.

>>87405267
>They've kept everything archived but having it available is a whole different story thanks to their dumb "Disney Vault" system that had no place existing in the 21st century yet they still maintain anyway

I agree. Disney have a really stupid, antiquated, 20th century notion of copyright laws that has been rendered moot by the Internet.

>>87411337
Correct. If you're willing to brave Russian websites with viruses, you can pirate any Disney content you want and they can't do jack about it because Disney has no jurisdiction in Russia. Mu ha ha ha ha ha...

>>87401270
>>87401689
Public domain is retarded. Someone has every right to pass a copyright down to a descendent, partner, or organization.

>>87401689
>>87401846
"Culture" doesn't exist. Enjoy your liberal arts degree. Now get off 4chan and go back to flipping burgers.

>>87405919
Isn't it already?
Why else was Batman using it so freely.

>>87411539
>le burger flipping degree meme

Nice to see that opponents of the public domain are even more creatively bankrupt than those using it

>>87401846
>We couldn't have The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

But we also wouldn't have lost girls so it's not all good

>>87411657
So? Less people are aware of Lost Girls compared to LOEG. Fewer talk about Lost Girls.

>>87411539
>"Culture" doesn't exist.
If you're a white American, perhaps.

>>87401270
I am just hoping for more than just the Mouse passing over to public domain. So many other ideas and works are more valuable than that.

https://youtu.be/SiEXgpp37No

>>87411679
>Less people are aware of Lost Girls

And thank God for that.

>>87411539
$1.00 deposited to your account

Wait a shitty second, are you all referencing that episode of Adam Ruins Everything?

>>87401270
Does that include all the Mickey cast like Donald Duck?

>>87411730

I wouldn't have thought so. It doesn't matter anyway. Mickey won't go Public domain

>>87411697
Therefore it's not as bad as >>87411657
delusionally thinks it is.

>>87409494
Dude, this is Disney were talking about, they will sue.

Also we debunked that years ago.

>>87411767
What makes you think that?

>Thinking Disney won't just get the law changed again

2023 when Disney convinces the American government to make to make copyright laws even more shitty

I don't see this happening. This is America we are talking about... I'm sure their lawyers will find a way to prevent this.

>>87411800
Well if Trump can ban Lobbyists and somehow work that into an amendment along with congressional term limits then they might not be able to.

It's less a practical than a philosophical issue. After all, it won't make a whole lot of difference whether or not some old B&W cartoons from the 1930s are PD or not, and even if they're not, you can just pirate them somewhere anyway. The problem is more the precedents set. These include:

1. The idea that it is acceptable to treat corporations as people
2. The idea that laws can simply be changed to suit one's personal needs, regardless of whether that change benefits the greater good
3. The idea that it is acceptable to profit off of works created by your ancestors and which you had nothing to do with

Let's be honest. Disney almost certainly knows that those ancient cartoons aren't profitable or of any great interest in 2016 save for animation buffs like John K. That's not the issue. The issue is that if you change the laws just for them, then logically you have to change it for everyone else as well, and that's not fair.

>>87411892
Banning lobbyists is nice as far as preventing future occurrences like this, but it won't undo the damage already done. We need to reset copyrights to 50 years and if media corporations don't like it, too bad.

>>87411929
Sounds fine to me. Be part of the presidential wrecking ball he'll take to Washington.

>>87409487
>>87408625
I don't trust either Trump or Hillary Clinton to make copyright laws better. Don't forget that Trump is all about his branding. Don't forget that Bill Clinton was the one who signed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998.

>>87411730
Actually this is a good question. I could get Disney trying to keep a hold on Mickey, Donald, and Goofy because they're iconic and Mickey's the mascot. But lesser characters and cartoons make no sense for them to hoard.

I think the same way about DC with their Golden Age superheroes that they either made or acquired from different companies. They've shown efforts to erase or kill some of the characters or alter some of them so drastically that it could be argued they're no longer the same character in those comics.

>>87411976
>Don't forget that Bill Clinton was the one who signed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998

And as I said, SB died a fitting death and he's now in Hell.

>>87404941
That Music Land package film which had new intros and outtros between short films was also probably lost, since that film was never released on Blu-ray, DVD, VHS, LaserDisc, etc... anywhere. And not a single print was found by fans.

It's pretty much rarer than the legendary Song of the South.

>>87409515
Maybe you should pay attention to what's being said before using snarky buzzwords

>>87412027
What did he do?

I know he is now dead but why is he in hell?
>>87411903
>Let's be honest. Disney almost certainly knows that those ancient cartoons aren't profitable or of any great interest in 2016 save for animation buffs like John K. That's not the issue. The issue is that if you change the laws just for them, then logically you have to change it for everyone else as well, and that's not fair.

We have debunked this more then once you know.

>>87412053
Sonny Bono was the guy who mainly lobbied to extend copyright terms, because of his own silly paranoia about living to see his music stuff go PD.

That really did him a lot of good as they were peeling him off a ski slope with a spatula.

>>87412095
That does not get you into hell, if anything that will get you into heaven if anything.

>>87412121
>>87412053
Not fooling anyone, """"contrarian""".

>>87412139
Dude, what he did was a good thing, seek help.

>>87412053
>We have debunked this more then once you know.
What was debunked?

>>87412174
Nothing.
>>87412154
>>87412053
>>87412135
is just shitposting.

>>87412174
That only animation historians care about old cartoons, the Looney Tunes DVD/Blu-Ray sets are selling in the millions and even got a huge sales push when Joe Alaskey died.

People want reprints of the Disney Treasures and it's proof that everyone wants these old cartoons, not just historians.

>>87412194
No it is not, it is posting facts.

>>87406344
>Everyone is running out of public domain things to use.
Actually the problem is that because of the extended copyright laws it's ever more likely that you're going to get hit with a lawsuit because whatever you just did has some points of similarity with something someone ELSE did in the last 100 years or so. If you stick to remakes, reboots, and obviously Public Domain (like Fairy/Folk Tales, mythology, and classic/older literature like The Three Musketeers) then you don't have to worry about that.

Isn't Mickey already be public domain in the EU?
How could US copyright extensions be valid here?

>>87407396
>the fucking hundred peter pan movies they make every fucking year
In all seriousness: how many have there actually been?

Tarzan has had a few since it came into public domain; but it's hardly been a flood (esp compared with how popular he was as a black and white movie serial back in the day which lead to comics and cartoons and multiple paperback books).

Also: you're forgetting that once something's in the PD you can mangle it however you like because you don't need to get permission from someone's estate.

While some of those will doubtless be abortions that we'll all just agree to forget about don't forget that when people think "Dracula" or "Frankenstein" they almost always think of the Universal Pictures classic movie adaptions with Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff respectively, both of which are divergent from the source material (to point out the one blindingly obvious example: Stoker's Dracula DOESN'T BURN IN DAYLIGHT!).

Or, to keep this /co relevant, Robin Hood + Batman = Green Arrow.

>>87413114
>you're going to get hit with a lawsuit

A recent example example of this is Buck Rogers (1928):
http://boingboing.net/2015/10/16/buck-rogers-and-the-copyright.html

In the article they also mention Sherlock Holmes and Zorro.

>>87413395
That's a somewhat different situation from Disney since Buck Rogers had passed into the PD.

Disney have a history of some very unscrupulous behavior as a company which tends to make one not feel terribly sympathetic to them.

>>87401270
>thinking America will ever have a public domain again
>thinking America will still exist in 5 years

>>87401833
Mickey Mouse is still trademarked so you can't use Mickey anyway, which is why Disney fucking over Public Domain is completely pointless.

Disney should be fucking eradicated.

>>87409489
You're fucking retarded.

>>87406560
Hope this faggot dies soon

>>87413870
Why though? He's totally correct that culture will stagnant if no new media is created.

>>87413896
>"culture will die because superheroes exist and kill creativity!"
>says the writer of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, a franchise that turns public domain characters into superheroes

He's a butthurt old faggot

>>87413576
Aside from copyright nonsense, they also get extremely butthurt over fanart and especially R34 of their characters.

But then, not like they can do jack about the 250,000 Frozen lesbian pics out there.

File: My memories of turtles have been tainted.jpg (104KB, 604x522px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 604x522px

>>87409489
>bastardize
Great argument there buddy, nothing has ever been bastardized to some extent when under copyright protection...

...Except for Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, Daredevil, Spider-Man, Transformers, TMNT....
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzYWzNTB8m0
... Dragon Ball, Inspector Gadget, PowerPuff Girls, Crash Bandicoot, Spyro the Dragon....
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSAthfUGV7Q
... The Simpsons, X-Men, The Fantastic Four and SpongeBob... What were we talking about again?

File: thor.jpg (225KB, 640x971px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 640x971px

So here's a question, has the fact that literally anyone can make Norse mythology comics ever hurt the sales of Marvel's Thor?

>>87411687
Belongs to (((Them)))

>There are people who actually think disney would let the mouse go to public domain
you do realize that disney has the 3rd biggest lobbying group next to the military and israel right?

>>87411687
The mouse is symbolic of a broken system.

>>87401270
Mickey Mouse as a character has no value. He is boring and generic, no real distinguishing personality traits. Stories with Mickey are only interesting in spite of Mickey, not because of him.
Mickey is only worth anything as a mascot and as a symbol.

>>87411787
Maybe you're right.
Maybe he will go into the public domain in 1998.

File: ncBMEyecA.jpg (6KB, 300x250px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 300x250px

I think the problem is that, as a perpetual icon, Mickey Mouse is Disney's logo, and therefore needs to be protected for its investors. He's more than simply a character, he's a brand, like Dow's logo or Monsanto. And as such, the concept that Mickey Mouse himself could become public domain would be like the Dow the Logo went public domain, and it's leaving a lot of potential court drama.

Personally I think it would be a good compromise if the stories Disney made can now be made public based on the old rules of Copyright, but that Disney can make distinctions on a certain form of Mickey being their brand, and therefore part of their copyright.

Personally, I think what would be a good compromise, is that only Disney can have products involving Mickey Mouse, that involve his ears rotating in the fashion that the animation does. The ears are a constant logo presence, and could be the defining characteristic of the brand logically, since their products such as Mickey Bars, Mickey Hats and so forth involve the ears. If you've ever watched a cartoon of Mickey Mouse, you can see his ears are animated in a way to move with the angle to always be facing forward, regardless of Mickey's position, independent from his head. Maybe companies can, instead of claiming a character ad-infinitum, can claim an official trait, if said character is part of a icon for a company. This way, works about the character are public domain in the normal way, but the use of an offical brand can be protected. And a company can only be allowed ONE icon trait to protect, so it has to be important and recognizable. No claiming every element of the character is iconic.

>>87414644
That's what trademarks are for. Mickey is trademarked.

Extending Public Domain literally does not benefit Mickey at all.

>>87408625
That's why they're all supporting Hillary, right? To lose money?

>>87414644
>I think what would be a good compromise
.... NO! That would not be a good compromise, there shouldn't be any compromise! Fuck the Disney the company, who the hell cares about their "iconography"?

Under today's copyright laws, Dracula would not have entered Public Domain until 1982.

>>87405030
Dr Who is a good example of this. Large parts of that seris are lost because the BBC had no interest in preserving it and would prosecute anyone careless enough to admit to owning a copy.

>>87411539
>Someone has every right to pass a copyright down to a descendent, partner, or organization

Sure I don't think creators shouldn't be able to profit from their creations and using a corporation to help with that is just good business sense but... Ultimately extending copyright indefinitely and applying it too broadly will stifle creativity and destroy the very thing copyright was created to protect

Daddy fingers dont care to copyright bullshit, they are our truest heroes.
#fingerlivesmatter

>>87414672
Like explained earlier, trademarks do not expire as long as they're enforced. All that it means is Disney's early cartoons from the 1920s-40s would go PD.

>>87401846
>Without the public domain, we couldn't recycle stories like Romeo & Juliet or Anna Karenina in modern settings/sensibilities.

I don't get it, Superman and Batman aren't public domain but there's a shit ton of Superman and Batman analogues and stories that offer twists and turns to their origin.

>We couldn't have The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
What's stopping Moore from using stand ins? I mean yes the novelty of them being the "real" characters would be gone but what did those really offer to the story?

>>87411539
>Someone has every right to pass a copyright down to a descendent
They should evaporate the second the creator dies, there's no reason some fat faggot descendant should profit from preventing people from using the material.

>>87415518
As explained before. Nobody at present day Disney was responsible for Fantasia or Dumbo, those people are all dead now. Therefore it's bullshit that they should be able to profit from that.

>>87415597
Yeah, totally, but I was more referring to how the descendants of J. R. R. Tolkien for example makes a bunch of cash doing nothing but preventing the material from being used freely.

>>87415624
Of course and that's utter bullshit.

Also I mean, Disney really doesn't profit from those old cartoons so why be so fixated on holding onto them at all costs.

>>87415635
It's their property. Why wouldn't they?

>>87415649
It's not any physical property you tard, it's all just a bunch of special legislation.

>>87415667
>the right to the possession, use, or disposal of something; ownership.
They own it, it's their property. Period. There's no special legislation. Disney made it under the his studios, and now the studio own it. That's it. That's all there is to it.

Using the "there's no physical aspect to it, it doesn't count" means song licenses are completely non existent

>>87401572
>>87405055
People are ignoring these posts because they draw the fun out of shitting on disney so I'll just point them out and at the same time bump the thread so more people will see them.

>>87415649
>>87415731
They can legally. But they shouldn't and that was originally the whole purpose of copyrights.

>>87409121

Because that's how culture works. Everything is a remix. You think Shakespeare came up with Romeo & Juliet all on his own? FUCK NO. Big Willie likely lifted character archetypes and plot details from stories that were around in his time because that's what the fuck artists do. As the old axiom goes, "Good artists copy; great artists steal."

It's not about "changing" the original, it's about remixing it. I'm talking about stuff like DBZ Abridged or Pride & Prejudice & Zombies - stuff that takes an existing work and puts a new "spin" on said work to create a wholly "new" thing.

And that's the deal made with the whole "public domain" idea: After (x) many years of copyright, the creator of a work allows that work to enter the public domain, where it can be distributed freely amongst the masses and used any way they see fit. That's how culture is expanded. That's how knowledge is passed on from generation to generation.

>>87409489

>what you want is that any retard can get their hands on stuff and change the core of the product because "muh public domain".

Yes, and? People have been adapting and changing William Shakespeare's shit since well before I was born, and they'll be doing it long after I'm worm food. Those adaptations and changes and remixes - e.g., Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead - all stem from a single fact: Shakespeare's work is public domain and anyone can do with it what they please.

I mean, what the fuck do you think The Lion King is, some original Disney story? FUCK NO, IT'S HAMLET. DISNEY STOLE SHAKESPEARE'S SHIT.

>>87415950
So then what's the problem? Hamlet is still public domain. You're allowed to do whatever the fuck you want with it if that's all you care about

>>87411375
>>87411337
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBgghnQF6E4

Steamboat Willie on Youtube on Disney's official channel

Public Domain is fine.
It gurantees that a creator gets to enjoy the fruits of his labor for his entire life, and leave behind a legacy for his family to survive on long enough for their children's children to carve out a legacy of their own.

Once the creator is dead and most of the people he toiled for are soon to follow, he doesn't need it any more.

>>87415977

>So then what's the problem?

The problem is that nothing new is going into the public domain. There is shit older than Steamboat Willie that still isn't public domain because of all the fucking copyright extensions. And stuff that was made in our lifetimes - stuff from the '80s and '90s - won't enter the public domain for another hundred fucking years.

We're not only losing out on the ability to archive and distribute works without worry of lawsuits - we're losing the ability to take those works and remix them, adapt them, turn them into something new. We're losing out on a chance to truly expand and protect culture without reliance on corporations and without fear of lawsuits.

And it's all because Disney wants to protect Mickey Mouse.

They're afraid that PD Mickey will end up appearing on condoms or other sick/gross shit.

>>87416070
>leave behind a legacy for his family to survive on long enough for their children's children to carve out a legacy of their own
Since copyright lasts so fucking long this usually only leads to them not continuing that creators legacy and instead sitting around on their asses making mad dosh from preventing the free distribution of the content using legislation.

>>87416127

See: the Arthur Conan Doyle estate and its attempts to keep the Sherlock Holmes character locked up under copyright despite most of the Holmes books being in the public domain.

>>87416115
>We're not only losing out on the ability to archive and distribute works without worry of lawsuits

Not at all. As long as Chinese/Eastern European upload sites exist, they can't do jack.

Well, the video game community has been excellent with archiving ROMs of old games although only a few companies (notably Nintendo) actively try to stop them.

>>87401270

>implying disney will allow it

you underestimate the power of the corporate whores of disney

>>87416212
All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. They got away with it so far because no one had the guts to say anything.

File: 1463357388160.jpg (12KB, 236x236px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 236x236px

>disney buys marvel for the sole reason that now mousketeers will defend any anti-disney argument on co
well played

>>87416233
>hurr durr I don't know how copyright law is written
There is literally nothing stopping Disney from renewing their copyright for another few years, just like every other time the deadline on one of their properties has approached.

>>87415518
well some fat faggot shouldn't profit from writing shitty fanfiction of my material just because I died

>>87416285
Did you even read what I posted? They got away with it before because nobody said anything or stood up to them. If I were in Congress, I, unlike Sonny Bono, would have told them to eat shit.

>>87416306
But how will artfags get any self-worth?

>>87416306
just like disney does every other year?

>>87416241
They also own Star Wars.

I love Star Wars. I hate Disney.

>>87416306

You'll be dead; you won't be around to give a fuck.

The copyright thing might be easier to overlook if Disney did not have a history of being incredibly lawsuit-happy to the point of even persecuting websites with fanart/fics. But given all that, I have a very, very difficult time feeling any sympathy to them as a company.

>>87416333
I'm not saying it's any better when they do it but they're the ones with all the lawyers.

>>87416318
Did YOU read what I wrote? anyone and everyone, from you sitting behind your computer right now up to any given Congressman up to POTUS up to fucking God himself, could tell Disney to knock it off. And then they'd do it anyway, because given the way the copyright laws are written it would be impossible to stop them from renewing their license unless someone wrote brand new copyright laws, and that's not happening any time soon.

>>87416422
Uh huh. Might does not make right though.

>>87416460
>And then they'd do it anyway, because given the way the copyright laws are written it would be impossible to stop them from renewing their license unless someone wrote brand new copyright laws, and that's not happening any time soon

Huh? All you'd have to do is put your foot down and say "Mmmmnah we're going to fix copyright terms at 50 years. Deal with it."

>>87416488

50 years would still be way too much. Halve that amount and we've got something reasonable to work with.

>>87416503
50 is fine since generally speaking, you can assume the original creator(s) of something are dead by the time it expires or elderly and close to death.

>>87416488
The trouble here is that the "you" in that statement means "the majority of a group of 536 politicians, most of whom don't know or give a fuck about copyright law and are easily bribed".

>>87416536

Nah, son. 25 is ideal - it gives the creator/copyright holder more than enough time to properly exploit their government-granted monopoly on distribution and creates an incentive for that creator to make new works. (Hell, I'd argue for less than 25 years, but that'd be WELL outside of the Overton Window of copyright discussion.)

>>87416604
Maybe they don't know, but people who do know/care about such things said nothing. I mean, did you recall any protests on the Washington Mall about this? I don't.

If enough people raised a stink, this might have not happened.

>>87416488
So I checked my notes and it turns out I was fucking wrong like a goddamn idiot and unlimited copyrights are not constitutional, but at the same time, where exactly do you plan on finding the congressman or supreme court judge who both:
>Can't be convinced to let the mouse copyright slide by Disney's literal army of talented lawyers
>Can't be bought off by Disney's unfathomably deep pockets

>>87416711

Back when the Mickey Mouse Protection Act was passed, copyright was the domain of policy wonks. No one in the general public gave a shit.

But now that we live in a time where we all break copyright laws at least three times a day, people are giving more of a shit. But it still doesn't matter what the general public has to say on the matter because the government and corporations both believe longer copyright is better copyright, AND YOU CAN'T. CHANGE. THAT.

>>87401270
What's all this hub-bub about?

Can't Disney just purchase the copyright again?

>>87416764
>But it still doesn't matter what the general public has to say on the matter because the government and corporations both believe longer copyright is better copyright, AND YOU CAN'T. CHANGE. THAT.

Again, if enough people protested and raised an issue about it, they would reconsider. I mean, Jim Crow went on for 100 years until there was enough opposition to end it. That's why I said, evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

>>87416858

>if enough people protested and raised an issue about it, they would reconsider

How the fuck are you gonna get enough people to give enough of a shit about copyright that they'll march on Washington? (And copyright isn't even comparable to slavery, so please never make that comparison again.)

File: headlikeanorange.gif (732KB, 250x222px) Image search: [Google]

732KB, 250x222px

>>87416858
>I mean, Jim Crow went on for 100 years until there was enough opposition to end it
>evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

>>87416825

Copyrights are no longer "renewable". It's life + 70 years (or 95 years for a work-for-hire work/copyright held by a corporation). Of course, record labels are trying to get around this sort of thing by remastering and re-releasing albums, then claiming a whole new copyright term on the album - old and "new" versions alike - based on the re-release.

>>87416858

Are you 12?

>>87416910
Like >>87416764 said, people are gradually getting more informed than they were in the 90s. I think when 2023 comes, if Disney tries it again, that there will be blood. You can only get away with something so many times. For example, Jeffery Dahmer killed and ate 17 people but finally a guy got away from him and told the cops.

>>87416952
Are you?

>>87416988

Are you functionally retarded, or are you just an underaged faggot?

>>87417011
>>87416952
>>87416936
I can see now that I picked this guy apart so thoroughly that he has no choice but to fall back on lazy ad-hominems.

Or he could be a Disney employee for all I know.

File: dis cobra.jpg (14KB, 216x122px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 216x122px

>>87416988
>Jeffery Dahmer killed and ate 17 people but finally a guy got away from him and told the cops.
>Having anything to do with Disney's copyright
Guys I think we're being baited

File: gotj.gif (2MB, 390x277px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 390x277px

>>87416988
>that there will be blood

>>87417056
Nah, artfags aren't creative enough to create bait. They just want to copy what other people did and pass it off as "culture"

>>87411723
Are you attempting to shame people for watching that show? Because so far the only one outed is you

>>87417089

So you're saying you're not creative, gotcha faggot.

>>87416988
>>87416858

What in the actual FUCK does Copyright law have to do with Jim Crow or Jeffrey Dahmer?

>>87417053
Yeah...but I don't see how copyrights are at all on the level of slavery or serial killers.

Just Saiyan...

>>87417134
No, I'm creative. Which is why I'm well aware if I make money on that, you're goddamn certain I want my family/company and only them to make bank on it after I die.

>>87417144
I was more just using those to illustrate a point. Yes, Disney got away with manipulating copyright laws because nobody said anything. Yes, they got away with lynching blacks for 100 years because nobody said anything. And that stopped only because some courageous people eventually did say something.

>>87417206

...Disney lynched blacks for 100 years? HOW TH'FUCK

>>87417206
I can kind of see where you're going, although the example you used was a little extreme desu.

File: 13 - Of Feline Bondage.VOB_snapshot_00.16_[2016.10.18_10.48.45].jpg (79KB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 853x480px

when the fuck are they going into the public domain?

>>87414907
Jesus

>>87417252
When Disney stop lynching niggers apparently

>>87417206
>Yes, Disney got away with manipulating copyright laws because nobody said anything. Yes, they got away with lynching blacks for 100 years because nobody said anything

You kinda phrased this poorly.

>>87417271
>>87417220
See here. This guy was able to bend it into something different than you intended.

>>87416910
If it were the 1890s you'd say how many people care about niggers to march on Washington.

So does Disney pay off Congress to change the law, or what? What's stopping Congress from saying "fuck you, we've extended the law for you enough".

Anyway, I don't think they can get away with it again in 2023 (at least I hope not, but maybe I'm overly optimistic). People are more tuned into this kind of stuff in the Internet age which they weren't in 1998. I mean, back at that time, they also signed into law the DMCA which was a complete joke.

>>87417387
I genuinely don't know. I'd think the only Congressmen who might directly care about Disney are the ones from FL and CA, in their backyard.

Sonny Bono however definitely had cynical self-interests in mind, he was paranoid about living to see his music go PD.

>>87417426
Like I said, his untimely death not long afterwards is proof that God does exist.

>>87417482
But he died before the act was passed. It was his wife that ended up pushing it through

>>87408625
>>87408659
>implying the President has that kind of power
>implying Congress and the Senate wouldn't band together to stop just about anything Trump tries to pass

>>87417532
It depends on the party composition of Congress and the forcefulness of the president. The nearest we had to a dictatorship was FDR who was not only a strong president, but one whose party had a complete dominance of Congress his whole administration.

Ronald Reagan was never quite able to pull off all of his small government agenda because the opposition party controlled Congress and he wasn't a combative guy who liked to fight people.

>>87417482
>>87417526
I just looked him up, he looked like a fucking douche.

>>87401270
Why is /co/ full of disney drones. These companies are not your friends, and are only in it for the money.

>>87417703
Not drones, they're Disney marketers/employees.

>>87416306
If they make a work, even a "shitty" one, that's profitable, they are far more deserving than the retard children you had that never did anything for the work at all.

Copyright should be "Until Creator's Death + 1 year" or "28 years", whichever comes last.

>>87417735
>>87417703
Why is /co/ so full of bitter neets who want to destroy disney not for personal profit but out of simple irrational malice?

>>87418006
because /co/ is a part of 4chan. A larger than average percentage of NEETS, a ton of self-hating and self-important people mixed in one place, a ton of better people who hate what they love because of autism, and a lot more.

>>87418006
>>87418049
guys come on, it's pathetic enough to suck a corporations cock in public like this but giving each other a good hard jerk at the same time is over the top

>>87417964
this

What do you guys think of super hero comics entering public domain? You can kiss that continuity and character development goodbye.

>>87418475
so no change?

>>87418475
No you couldn't, because new stories would always still be under copyright, and you'd still have the parent companies making content. People can write Sherlock stories but that doesn't mean they're canon.

This post is nothing but mousenigger nonsense.

File: df4fb8_5663498.jpg (151KB, 904x1280px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 904x1280px

>>87418006
>only neet want to destroy Disney
lol, even normies deep down know Disney isn't all good and loving.

>manos
>huh, that sounds familiar
>see reference to a film called Child Bride in the wikipedia article
>"The movie is perhaps best known for the topless and lengthy nude swim scene by 12-year-old Jennie"
>it's public domain and can be downloaded uncut from Internet Archive
wat

>>87401270
Not champagne but I'll be happy.
And not because X or Y can now make more Mickey shit, but for 2 reasons:
-it's the start of a process that will affect tons of other IPs, a process that Disney was blocking. Many non-trademarked IPs will enter public domain fully.
-it will ultimately allow the legal diffusion of more pieces of media (not just Steamboat Willy) without buying rights, and that's great for online libraries and their users, giving access to high quality content for free legally.

>>87403544
This, I'm not sure why some people think it's actually about Mickey.

>>87419446
Yeah, back then people understood that nudity doesn't instantly equate to porn.

>>87404941
They don't distribute them properly in the case of Song of the South notably.

>>87416306
Fan fictions like ALMOST ALL Disney Movies?

>>87410016
Their Snow White is only a couple of years younger than Mickey.

>>87416306
>well some fat faggot shouldn't profit from writing shitty fanfiction of my material just because I died
they can and will, the only duiffrence is they need to work for you.

bow down to mickey mouse

Can my scrotum become pubic domain?

>>87416422
>I'm not saying it's any better when they do it

Yeah right

>>87418475

Dumbass. Most of the development of the characters was done from the 50's onwards. When something goes into public domain it's usually for those particular years (like for instance if Superman went into public domain it would just be the early Golden Age stuff), not the entire thing.

So DC would still have Silver/Bronze Age Superman, Byrne Superman, and New 52 Superman, etc to fall back on, all of which still have vastly significant differences from the early Golden Age Superman. Even Earth-2 Golden Age Superman is different because he's an older Superman who has Power Girl as a cousin (Power Girl didn't get created until the 70's).

>>87417735
No theyre not, /co/ is immensely irrelevant to the mouse, they're just contrarians and fanboys.

File: index.jpg (10KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 275x183px

>>87401270
You understand that copyright and trademark laws are no longer required to go into the public domain by law, right?

Corporations can simply renew their IP's in perpetuity.

what is, "Its never going to happen?" Alex

>>87414907
>Dracula would not have entered Public Domain until 1982.

w e w

>implying the literal copyright nazis who wrote the book would allow mickey to fall into public domain

LOL

>>87413870
I'm sure a lot more people will miss him than ever do you. You sad little boy.