EU Article 13 - Copyright Everything

[TwiceHorn 31869]

And the flip side of all this is that copyright law was developed initially in the early stages of the printing press.  When the 1976 Act was passed, the biggest threat to copyright holders were photocopiers and cassette and reel-to-reel tapes.  The technology for large scale duplication and distribution is way way way beyond where anyone ever imagined, and with it, the scale of copyright infringement has expanded geometrically.

 

That doesn't mean that the US or the EU has stricken the proper balance, or that copyright law is hopelessly outmoded.  But it has changed the landscape of "securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

[FondrenRoad 4378]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I believe the latter for sure.  But, the trademark issues (I am sure Steamboat Willie is trademarked too) are going to make it a pain in the ass.

I can't imagine anyone reselling Steamboat Willie anyway.  I don't think Disney even sells it at this point.  If people can't make new Mickey films, the copyright on that work almost doesn't matter.

Perhaps it has more to do with characters with more ambiguous trademarks whose films' copyrights expire several years after Steamboat Willie.  Like Snow White, Bambi, etc.  Still even there, its mostly about likeness and Disney could probably win a trademark suit against someone profiting from Snow White toys that bear her exact likeness.  The story itself is already in the public domain.  Others are already free to make their own adaptation.

Copyright expirations seem to be more clear cut with books than they are film.  You can create your own likeness of Odysseus or Sherlock Holmes without running into any trademark issues.  Reproduction and resell of print is also more clear cut.  It isn't like publishers are selling identical copies complete with the initial publishers' logos.  I would think that if someone wanted to resell Steamboat Willie, they'd have to recreate it frame by frame while eliminating trademarks, or at the very least remove Disney's opening and closing credits and perhaps modify the appearance of Mickey himself to avoid trademark issues.  So if the underlying story ends up being the only thing truly under copyright, then they should just let it expire.  

[TwiceHorn 31869]

4 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I can't imagine anyone reselling Steamboat Willie anyway.  I don't think Disney even sells it at this point.  If people can't make new Mickey films, the copyright on that work almost doesn't matter.

Perhaps it has more to do with characters with more ambiguous trademarks whose films' copyrights expire several years after Steamboat Willie.  Like Snow White, Bambi, etc.  Still even there, its mostly about likeness and Disney could probably win a trademark suit against someone profiting from Snow White toys that bear her exact likeness.  The story itself is already in the public domain.  Others are already free to make their own adaptation.

Copyright expirations seem to be more clear cut with books than they are film.  You can create your own likeness of Odysseus or Sherlock Holmes without running into any trademark issues.  Reproduction and resell of print is also more clear cut.  It isn't like publishers are selling identical copies complete with the initial publishers' logos.  I would think that if someone wanted to resell Steamboat Willie, they'd have to recreate it frame by frame while eliminating trademarks, or at the very least remove Disney's opening and closing credits and perhaps modify the appearance of Mickey himself to avoid trademark issues.  So if the underlying story ends up being the only thing truly under copyright, then they should just let it expire.  

Yeah it's fascinating.  I have always been a bit skeptical of the "character" or "likeness" model of trademark protection. But there is an association between various characters and their "originators."  One of the problems, as always, is that the originators have stopped being individuals with finite lives, Homer and Doyle, and turned into corporations with perpetual duration.  The Elvis Presley Estate is a kind of alarming example of an entity with a clear connection to Elvis (it ostensibly represents Priscilla and Lisa Marie etc etc), that has taken on a corporate life of its own and become quite a pain in the ass.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah it's fascinating.  I have always been a bit skeptical of the "character" or "likeness" model of trademark protection. But there is an association between various characters and their "originators."  One of the problems, as always, is that the originators have stopped being individuals with finite lives, Homer and Doyle, and turned into corporations with perpetual duration.  The Elvis Presley Estate is a kind of alarming example of an entity with a clear connection to Elvis (it ostensibly represents Priscilla and Lisa Marie etc etc), that has taken on a corporate life of its own and become quite a pain in the ass.

But the thing about Homer and Doyle is that the reader or the screenplay writer is free to put their own touch on the appearance of Holmes or Odysseus.  For sure, if you ripped off the story exactly from Robert Downey Jr's Sherlock movie, you'd lose a lawsuit.  However, you can come close to matching the "likeness" of Downey's portrayal as Doyle's descriptions of the character are well developed.  You could even cast Downey himself if he didn't have an "I'll never play Sherlock for another studio" clause in his contract.

And again, book reprints of public domain works are well understood and defined.  What would a true reprint of a public domain film entail?  We mostly have works like Chaplin's The Kid which are really only used for public showings, but I do wonder how their credits and packaging differ from the original theatrical release when they are resold.  Still, these movies make little to no profit and are mostly reproduced for preservation.  In 100 years, how valuable will Infinity Wars be anyway?

I do think "likeness" is almost more important than story or content.  Elvis is an interesting example.  There are countless impersonators profiting from both his likeness and his songs, and his estate does try to track them down and collect royalties.  At some point, I'd be fine with his likeness being protected while his songs enter the public domain for others to remake.  Another interesting thing about Elvis is that he didn't write any of his songs.  The performance and interpretation are really whats "his."  I suppose he likely owns the rights to many of them though.  He is vastly different from Doyle and Homer though.  He's more like the best actor of the day playing Odysseus in Athens' biggest theater.  

The real kicker is that Disney has probably profited more from public works like Grimm's fairy tales than any other company in existence.

Edited September 13, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[TwiceHorn 31869]

13 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

But the thing about Homer and Doyle is that the reader or the screenplay writer is free to put their own touch on the appearance of Holmes or Odysseus.  For sure, if you ripped off the story exactly from Robert Downey Jr's Sherlock movie, you'd lose a lawsuit.  However, you can come close to matching the "likeness" of Downey's portrayal as Doyle's descriptions of the character are well developed.  You could even cast Downey himself if he didn't have an "I'll never play Sherlock for another studio" clause in his contract.

And again, book reprints of public domain works are well understood and defined.  What would a true reprint of a public domain film entail?  We mostly have works like Chaplin's The Kid which are really only used for public showings, but I do wonder how their credits and packaging differ from the original theatrical release when they are resold.  Still, these movies make little to no profit and are mostly reproduced for preservation.  In 100 years, how valuable will Infinity Wars be anyway?

I do think "likeness" is almost more important than story or content.  Elvis is an interesting example.  There are countless impersonators profiting from both his likeness and his songs, and his estate does try to track them down and collect royalties.  At some point, I'd be fine with his likeness being protected while his songs enter the public domain for others to remake.  Another interesting thing about Elvis is that he didn't write any of his songs.  The performance and interpretation are really whats "his."  I suppose he likely owns the rights to many of them though.  He is vastly different from Doyle and Homer though.  He's more like the best actor of the day playing Odysseus in Athens' biggest theater.  

The real kicker is that Disney has probably profited more from public works like Grimm's fairy tales than any other company in existence.

Some quality observations here.  In a lot of senses, copyright is a pretty easy IP to manage because its scope is pretty literal:  either you have copied (the whole thing or an identifiable chunk) or you haven't.  It does get a little hairy  in non-literal infringement scenarios that arise in music sometimes (the screenplay versions of this always seem to fail, probably because ordinary people are more familiar with plots and plot devices than common musical elements).

But likeness and character is super-squishy and it's hard to know when or if a line has been crossed, particularly if the copyright in the underlying artwork has expired.

 

Quote

The real kicker is that Disney has probably profited more from public works like Grimm's fairy tales than any other company in existence.

That's a fantastic observation and commentary on this whole situation.  Except I am not 100% sure of its ramifications.

Edited September 13, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[FondrenRoad 4378]

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's a fantastic observation and commentary on this whole situation.  Except I am not 100% sure of its ramifications.

I think its just the time honored American tradition of benefiting from an open door and then trying to close it behind you.