First off, some of those were protected by copyright - but copyrights have always been limited and eventually expire.
Second, in the United States limited copyrights are required by the Constitution. Congress is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". There are two big reasons why they are limited:
1) so inventors and writers (for example) have incitive to continue writing and inventing rather than sitting back and raking in money from older stuff.
2) so the general public can have the benefit of mankind's past knowledge without barriers. For example, imagine if we still had to pay extra for all the medicine ever invented in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Copyright is a governemnt grant of exclusivity to people - in other words a monopoly of something where they are allowed to get as much benefit out of their work as possible. Then their ideas become mankinds.
WDFA gets name change
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 8207
- Joined: October 16th, 2004
- Location: Orlando
- Contact:
Oops you're right on that one. I was thinking about Sherlock Holmes.ShyViolet wrote:Also, The Great Mouse Detective was public domain? I thought it was based on the book "Basil of Baker Street"? Didn't they have to deal at all with the author or his family?
But could Basil have been made without Holmes falling into the public domain?
See how so much of our culture depends on ideas eventually being free for everyone to use?
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 9047
- Joined: October 25th, 2004
- Location: Binghamton, NY
Hmm...that's true. I guess I see your point. (Kinda.But could Basil have been made without Holmes falling into the public domain?
See how so much of our culture depends on ideas eventually being free for everyone to use?
)**********************************************
When Eisner was in power, people were much more discerning and critical (to say the least) and there's essays all over the web on every possible Disney fansite that attest to that. Everything was discussed all the time. The good and the bad to come out of Disney. Now because it's Lassetter in charge everything Disney Co. does is perfect and is almost never talked about? I'm not saying Lassetter hasn't done some positive things, or Iger, Catmull, etc...I just don't understand why there's so little criticism and almost no discussion of anything that's going on out there, bar this forum, Ben's Tooning In column and maybe a (very) few other places. It's getting to be almost kind of scary.
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 227
- Joined: February 8th, 2005
- Location: Paris
- Contact:
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 10009
- Joined: September 1st, 2006
Not bad, but for him to be dressed up all the time?ShyViolet wrote:Personally I like this one: http://www.allovio-gallery.com/disney/D ... -mouse.gif
Anyway, I think the reason why I like the logo Mickey, is because it looks kind of retro.-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 9047
- Joined: October 25th, 2004
- Location: Binghamton, NY
I sort of like retro thing too, but couldn't they use 1930s "Brave Little Tailor" Mickey instead--at least he's more rounded and friendly looking. The Ghostbusters Mickey and the Through the Looking Glass Mickey. That's probably my fave version of him, or whenever he's with Donald and Goofy.
Retro Mickey:
I mean he's cute and all but not the Mickey that many people nowadays really know.
Many are cheering around the web about the Sharon Morrill (I do see how they feel and all) and yet this issue is receiving almost no scrutiny anywhere. IMHO this is more important than something like DTV's, which are at the end of the day only a small part of the Disney company. It's Feature Animation--I mean Disney Animation Studios--which is at the heart of everything. The films they make, their name AND logo are all vital.
( In negotiations, didn't Lassetter strongly argue that the Pixar logo, name and culture are all vital and should be protected? I say the SAME should go for Disney too.)
I don't "HATE" the logo, I'm just disappointed.
I like the grand look. Also, Mickey's like 80 years old now! He's got to look a little "sophisticated", right?
Retro Mickey:
I mean he's cute and all but not the Mickey that many people nowadays really know.
Many are cheering around the web about the Sharon Morrill (I do see how they feel and all) and yet this issue is receiving almost no scrutiny anywhere. IMHO this is more important than something like DTV's, which are at the end of the day only a small part of the Disney company. It's Feature Animation--I mean Disney Animation Studios
--which is at the heart of everything. The films they make, their name AND logo are all vital. ( In negotiations, didn't Lassetter strongly argue that the Pixar logo, name and culture are all vital and should be protected? I say the SAME should go for Disney too.
)I don't "HATE" the logo, I'm just disappointed.
Not bad, but for him to be dressed up all the time? Confused
I like the grand look. Also, Mickey's like 80 years old now! He's got to look a little "sophisticated", right?
Last edited by ShyViolet on June 23rd, 2007, 6:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 9047
- Joined: October 25th, 2004
- Location: Binghamton, NY
the Walt Disney signature is not off, it was the way Walt (is said to) wrote it....
The official Disney logo used for years now is much thicker than that one, and the W is much closer together. This is what it should look like: (I think)
Now's also probably a good time to say that (surprise!) I wish they'd stick to the 2d logo. I never liked the 3d one much.
Also, LOVE these Mickeys. Wish they could have used one of them.
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/ccf1-mickey.html
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!
Seconded on The Brave Tailor Mickey design.
That's by far my favorite version of Mickey Mouse. An inbetween design (transition from B & W Mickey to Fantasia Mickey) that still looks like a cartoon character and not a little child.
The kid design is my big problem with the later, modern Mickey Mouse.
That's by far my favorite version of Mickey Mouse. An inbetween design (transition from B & W Mickey to Fantasia Mickey) that still looks like a cartoon character and not a little child.
The kid design is my big problem with the later, modern Mickey Mouse.
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 10009
- Joined: September 1st, 2006
I like the Brave Little Tailor Mickey, too. Not a top favorite of mine, but great nonetheless.
Yeah, I guess that's true.ShyViolet wrote:I mean he's cute and all but not the Mickey that many people nowadays really know.
No, he's a timeless cartoon character!ShyViolet wrote:I like the grand look. Also, Mickey's like 80 years old now! He's got to look a little "sophisticated", right?
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25326
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
I was just waiting for someone to make the "Walt wouldn't have been able to make..." argument!
From James' list:
The Adventures Of Ichabod And Mr. Toad
The Sword In The Stone
Both The Wind In The Willows and The Sword In The Stone were based on books which Walt bought the rights to in the 1930s.
If he bought the rights to make these two stories, why couldn't he buy the rights for any other feature from the estate of the authors? Why are such things still popular now, like the rights to Elvis' songs for Lilo And Stitch, etc...no one's waiting for them to go PD.
Anyway...as Vi says, in the case of most failry tales, we can only go by the person who put them down on paper. That's an open debate. But I don't buy that things shouldn't run out of copyright, though expessly creative authored works. Most are a mixture of sources anyway, which is what progresses creativity onwards. But for others to make money off someone else's original idea...it don't make sense for the original authors not to be able to leave that ownership, like property, to their family and future generations. Someone will "borrow" elements and change things to make a new property anyway. It happens all the time. But the originals should stay with their authors.
"But could Basil have been made without Holmes falling into the public domain?"
Yes, of course. Eve Titus either writes to the Conan Doyle estate and requests permission to feature the famous detective in her children's homage book, or she goes ahead and features a "famous detective" with strong allusions to Holmes but never states it explicitly.
"the Walt Disney signature is not off, it was the way Walt (is said to) wrote it...."
Nope. Walt never wrote his signature like that. The famous "Walt Disney" sig was <I>based</I> on the way he wrote his name, but it was much more refined, characterised and smoothed out. If you see a true Walt sig, it's nothing like either the logo, or the new WDAS version. My problem with the new one is that it looks poor and flat against the original rounded version that's been used for so many years. For a company that is famed for bringing things to life, there is no life in it.
From James' list:
The Adventures Of Ichabod And Mr. Toad
The Sword In The Stone
Both The Wind In The Willows and The Sword In The Stone were based on books which Walt bought the rights to in the 1930s.
If he bought the rights to make these two stories, why couldn't he buy the rights for any other feature from the estate of the authors? Why are such things still popular now, like the rights to Elvis' songs for Lilo And Stitch, etc...no one's waiting for them to go PD.
Anyway...as Vi says, in the case of most failry tales, we can only go by the person who put them down on paper. That's an open debate. But I don't buy that things shouldn't run out of copyright, though expessly creative authored works. Most are a mixture of sources anyway, which is what progresses creativity onwards. But for others to make money off someone else's original idea...it don't make sense for the original authors not to be able to leave that ownership, like property, to their family and future generations. Someone will "borrow" elements and change things to make a new property anyway. It happens all the time. But the originals should stay with their authors.
"But could Basil have been made without Holmes falling into the public domain?"
Yes, of course. Eve Titus either writes to the Conan Doyle estate and requests permission to feature the famous detective in her children's homage book, or she goes ahead and features a "famous detective" with strong allusions to Holmes but never states it explicitly.
"the Walt Disney signature is not off, it was the way Walt (is said to) wrote it...."
Nope. Walt never wrote his signature like that. The famous "Walt Disney" sig was <I>based</I> on the way he wrote his name, but it was much more refined, characterised and smoothed out. If you see a true Walt sig, it's nothing like either the logo, or the new WDAS version. My problem with the new one is that it looks poor and flat against the original rounded version that's been used for so many years. For a company that is famed for bringing things to life, there is no life in it.
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 8207
- Joined: October 16th, 2004
- Location: Orlando
- Contact:
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25326
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
It's a hot debate. I'm talking more about creative authored works: music, books, films...
You can't copyright folk tales and much the same could be said about medicine.
But that's what deal making is for. No good being the owner of Aspirin (and that <I>is</I> a registered mark!) when no one will buy it. Somewhere sometime someone made a deal to market it at reasonable cost. Somewhere along the line someone's making money off of Aspirin.
For instance, do you buy "acetylsalicylic acid", or Aspirin?
You can't copyright folk tales and much the same could be said about medicine.
But that's what deal making is for. No good being the owner of Aspirin (and that <I>is</I> a registered mark!) when no one will buy it. Somewhere sometime someone made a deal to market it at reasonable cost. Somewhere along the line someone's making money off of Aspirin.
For instance, do you buy "acetylsalicylic acid", or Aspirin?
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 8207
- Joined: October 16th, 2004
- Location: Orlando
- Contact:
Sorry - aspirin may have been a bad example. In the US the term aspirin has been the generic term for asa for almost a century!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ge ... trademarks
But why are inventions and discoveries less worthy of protection than creative arts?
Either way, once an idea has been part of our collective conscious for, say, 75 years, and once the originator and his estate have had the benefit of exclusivity for, say, 75 years, what real harm is there is the knowledge passing to the public? And how much progress in the arts and sciences would be stymied by having to get permission and pay for decades old knowledge? And is there no limit? Would the modern day descendants of Newton still be paid royalties for his writings? Want kind of monster bureaucracy would have to be in place to keep track of them?
I think 75 years (for example) is plenty of time to monetize your works for you and your family. If after that amount of time the work is still in use (which, to be honest, is a small amount of the stuff created) it's been part of our lives long enough to be public knowledge.
Can someone point to a downside of information becoming public domain almost a century after its creation or discovery?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ge ... trademarks
But why are inventions and discoveries less worthy of protection than creative arts?
Either way, once an idea has been part of our collective conscious for, say, 75 years, and once the originator and his estate have had the benefit of exclusivity for, say, 75 years, what real harm is there is the knowledge passing to the public? And how much progress in the arts and sciences would be stymied by having to get permission and pay for decades old knowledge? And is there no limit? Would the modern day descendants of Newton still be paid royalties for his writings? Want kind of monster bureaucracy would have to be in place to keep track of them?
I think 75 years (for example) is plenty of time to monetize your works for you and your family. If after that amount of time the work is still in use (which, to be honest, is a small amount of the stuff created) it's been part of our lives long enough to be public knowledge.
Can someone point to a downside of information becoming public domain almost a century after its creation or discovery?
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25326
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Maybe after, say 100 or 200 years. Then the author and his children, plus one generation after, get exclusive rights for a good long period.
I don't think you can count the arts against sciences. Science/medicine is often for the good of mankind and should be available to all...after all, that's how other medicines and discoveries are made, with others building on the work that has come before. And it has to be said that most that enter these fields is because they want to make a difference and help. It's not a field where holding on to rights benefits anyone.
But the arts are different. They don't exist before someone writes a story, comes up with a characyter, pens a lyric or draws a picture. And yet these are copied freely after 75 years? Writing "A Christmas Carol" is not for the benefit of man, whatever its values tell us. If someone wants to put it on nowadays, why not give some proceeds (maybe the percentage drops over time?) to the estate of Charles Dickens? If it wasn't such a good and strong story, then no-one would want to put it on anyway.
They are two different kettle of fish. Authors/creators don't get into their fields for the sake of mankind. They have a talent they want to share and can make money from. Yes, very true that scientists (I'm counting all sorts in that very loose and generic term) also have talents - no question - but they enter and continue in those fields to make a difference...what would be the end goal if they discovered the cure for fatal illness and didn't wan't to share? They'd still certainly be remembered, but for all the wrong reasons.
I don't think you can count the arts against sciences. Science/medicine is often for the good of mankind and should be available to all...after all, that's how other medicines and discoveries are made, with others building on the work that has come before. And it has to be said that most that enter these fields is because they want to make a difference and help. It's not a field where holding on to rights benefits anyone.
But the arts are different. They don't exist before someone writes a story, comes up with a characyter, pens a lyric or draws a picture. And yet these are copied freely after 75 years? Writing "A Christmas Carol" is not for the benefit of man, whatever its values tell us. If someone wants to put it on nowadays, why not give some proceeds (maybe the percentage drops over time?) to the estate of Charles Dickens? If it wasn't such a good and strong story, then no-one would want to put it on anyway.
They are two different kettle of fish. Authors/creators don't get into their fields for the sake of mankind. They have a talent they want to share and can make money from. Yes, very true that scientists (I'm counting all sorts in that very loose and generic term) also have talents - no question - but they enter and continue in those fields to make a difference...what would be the end goal if they discovered the cure for fatal illness and didn't wan't to share? They'd still certainly be remembered, but for all the wrong reasons.