Ten most lucrative fictional characters

[Jamie Madigan]

This was interesting. (http://biz.yahoo.com/weekend/fictional_1.html) It lists the ten most lucrative fictional characters. They are:

The Top Ten
1. Mickey Mouse & Friends
2. Winnie the Pooh & Friends
3. Frodo Baggins, The Lord of the Rings
4. Harry Potter
5. Nemo, Finding Nemo
6. Yu-Gi-Oh
7. SpongeBob SquarePants
8. Spider-Man
9. Wolverine, X-Men
10. Pikachu, Pokémon

Not too surprising. Near misses include Homer Simpson, Dora the Explorer, The Power Rangers (they're still making that much money?), The Hulk, and Buzz Lightyear.

This bit about the methodology explains why characters like Barbie were left out, and why "Frodo Baggins" and "Wolverine" speak for a whole cast of caracters:

To qualify for our list of the top-earning fictional characters, a property must be both "fictional"--not based on a real person--and a "character" in the sense of having made its debut in a narrative story, be it a book, a film or even a videogame. That excluded pure toys, like Barbie and G.I. Joe.

Earnings were calculated by adding together worldwide toy/merchandise sales, videogame sales, publishing and box-office revenue, and DVD/VHS sales and rental revenue. Actual numbers were used whenever possible, but in some cases we were forced to rely on the estimates of industry insiders. Excluded were advertising and promotional revenue.

Many intellectual properties are managed as a group of characters. In other words, Mickey Mouse speaks for his whole gang--Minnie, Donald Duck, Pluto, Goofy and Daisy Duck, and the earnings of the whole group were considered when we did our ranking. But we only allowed groups of characters when they came from the same story line.

Alas, nobody that started as a video game character. Yet. Also kind of discouraging that only one of the characters is there because of his books (not including comic book characters). Sure, Winnie the Pooh and The LotR cast got their start in books, but they made the majority of their money recently from movies, toys, etc.

[Wholly Schmidt]

I can't believe Mickey and company are still that high on the list. If they meant for them to speak for Disney as a whole, I could understand that, but with the inclusion of Winnie the Pooh as a separate entry (Pooh's owned by Disney too now, right?), they must really only mean Mickey and his specific companions. I guess I can't think of anyone else who would rank higher, but somehow I just had the feeling that society was getting over Disney in general.

Oh, and nobody that started as a video game character? Wasn't Pokemon a game before all else, or did it actually start as a show?

[Jakub]

I can't believe the Mickey entry either. I'd put him below Spiderman, possibly even below X-Men.

[Jamie Madigan]

I just had the feeling that society was getting over Disney in general.
Disney is still huge with kids. HUGE.

Oh, and nobody that started as a video game character? Wasn't Pokemon a game before all else, or did it actually start as a show?
I'm pretty sure he was either a show or a trading card game character first.

[asspennies]

With the movies and numerous TV shows, I'm really surprised Superman isn't on this list.

[DrCrypt]

This list is extremely suspect. And Pokemon was definitely a Gameboy game before anything else.

[XtienMurawski]

Mickey Mouse should be in the public domain by now. Seriously.

"Mickey is a mouse. Donald is a duck. Pluto is a dog. What's Goofy...?"

-Amanpour

[chet]

Why should mickey be in the public domain? I have never understood the arguement that somehow we are being screwed because not everyone in the world can use the mickey mouse characters any way they see fit.

[Jason McCullough]

Why should the government arrest you if you draw something someone else did first?

[XtienMurawski]

Mickey should be in the public domain because of copyright law, mainly, but more to the point because I can't think of a company that has benefitted more from using works in the public domain than the Disney Corporation has (maybe Warner Bros?). It is the height of hypocrisy for them to benefit from so many artist's works (I'm thinking mainly music here) while wringing their hands about having the same laws apply to them.

My friend who works for Disney obviously disagrees, saying while she sees my point, there ought to be an exception for a company/artist that has used the work continuously and still relies upon said work for financial gain.

It's not that "we're being screwed" but rather that a huge corp is getting away with twisting the law.

"They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say...let 'em crash."

-Amanpour

[chet]

Why should the government arrest you if you draw something someone else did first?

But they don't. That is a pretty irrational response Jason.

[chet]

Mickey should be in the public domain because of copyright law, mainly, but more to the point because I can't think of a company that has benefitted more from using works in the public domain than the Disney Corporation has (maybe Warner Bros?). It is the height of hypocrisy for them to benefit from so many artist's works (I'm thinking mainly music here) while wringing their hands about having the same laws apply to them.

My friend who works for Disney obviously disagrees, saying while she sees my point, there ought to be an exception for a company/artist that has used the work continuously and still relies upon said work for financial gain.

It's not that "we're being screwed" but rather that a huge corp is getting away with twisting the law.

"They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say...let 'em crash."

-Amanpour

Huh? So we should screw every single artist in the world, because disney used public domain material?

Okay.

Anyone with a rational reason?

Chet

[XtienMurawski]

Yeah. That's what I was saying.

:roll:

-Amanpour

[Jason McCullough]

Why should the government arrest you if you draw something someone else did first?

But they don't. That is a pretty irrational response Jason.

Excuse me, the original party can sue you for civil damages. Either way, government-enforced.

[chet]

Why should the government arrest you if you draw something someone else did first?

But they don't. That is a pretty irrational response Jason.

Excuse me, the original party can sue you for civil damages. Either way, government-enforced.

Jason if all you do is draw mickey, nothing will happen to you.
Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Please show me one case ever where someone was taken to court just for drawing mickey.

XtienMurawski, I guess it must be, because you haven't been able to add anything more.

Chet

[John Many Jars]

I was wondering where in hell the Peanuts gang were, until I saw that this list is for 2003 alone. If this were an all-time list, I bet they'd be a close second to Mickey and friends. Lots, lots, lots of Peanuts goods sold over 5.5 decades, and the syndication money and royalties on the TV specials will have been very consistent every year.

[Jason McCullough]

Excuse me, "draw mickey and sell it."

[Ben]

Don't you see that as a pretty important distinction, Jason? Actually, both of those?

So you've gone from getting arrested for drawing him to getting sued for selling your drawing of him. That's a lot of travel.

[Jason McCullough]

Well excuse me, but that's what I meant all along.

Point I was rhetorically trying to get at is:

a) copyright only exists to encourage innovation:

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8

b) How on earth does a life of inventor + 100 year copyright result in more innovation than life of inventor + 20 years? The implied incentive choices are absurd.

[chet]

But Mickey is not an invention, what harm is there to your life because you cannot sell pictures of mickey? It is not limiting the well being of the world by not having mickey be in the public domain. If this goes away, all that will happen is the internet will be flooded with mickey and minnie porn.

Why is that you can pass down a house you own, from generation to generation, but the rights of a cartoon character should not be given the same ability? It just doesn't make sense. And you don't think providing for the well being of your family is an incentive?

Chet

[Bub, Andrew]

Wasn't there a daycare in Florida that used Disney characters in a mural and that got them into legal trouble? I mean, I suppose since they used the pictures to, you know, entertain children, that's like selling the pictures, right?

[steve]

b) How on earth does a life of inventor + 100 year copyright result in more innovation than life of inventor + 20 years? The implied incentive choices are absurd.
Isn't an "invention" imply that you come up with something no one else has done? If that's the case, how is that even relevant to copyright?

In theory, copyright would enourage more innovation as you couldn't just re-use other people's works. For example, Disney would have had to come up with original IP instead of using Winnie the Pooh (or they would have had to pay for it). Had they come up with something else, we'd still have Winnie and friends, plus some other new thing.

[Squirrel Killer]

The harm comes because eternal IP rights become overly restrictive. Remember Atari's lawsuit against Magnavox over Pac-Man/K.C. Munchkin similaritites? It's not that drawing Mickey will get you sued, it's that drawing just about any talking mouse will get you a stern lawyerly letter from Disney. And frankly, the public domain is an incredible public good, arguing against it is about the most needlessly pro-business, anti-societial stance I can imagine.

Now Chet will take this to mean that I'm advocating against all IP, which is also absurd, there needs to be a balance. Inventors, discoverers, writers, artists, etc... deserve to earn from their labors, but just as they were able to stand on the shoulders of those that came before them, those that come after should be able to stand on their shoulders.

[Jason McCullough]

Chet, the property right to be the only person to make money from a likeness or a story is pretty far from the property right to own a house.

[Squirrel Killer]

Why is that you can pass down a house you own, from generation to generation, but the rights of a cartoon character should not be given the same ability?

Imagine what absolute pricks Shakespeare's heirs could be today if they owned the rights to all his plots.

[Supertanker]

Disney is a perfect example of using public domain works to inspire and create new works. They borrowed heavily from the Brothers Grimm, but they didn't have to license those works.

Lawrence Lessig has written about this in far more detail than I ever will. Here's a transcript of his usual speech (http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2002/08/15/lessig.html). One of my favorite bits is how Steamboat Willie was a ripoff of Buster Keaton's Steamboat Bill, which both came out in 1928. Disney owes its very existence to immediately borrowing from other artists, but they would shit a brick if I tried to release a parody short this year called The Indisputables.

The idea behind limited terms of protection is that after a while, other artists could use the work to to create new bodies of work. There's a public good there that the Constitution recognizes and attempts to protect. What might be created with the Disney portfolio as an inspiration, just as they created from the Brothers Grimm? We won't know for a while yet, but I like to think it is a hell of a lot.

[steve]

The harm comes because eternal IP rights become overly restrictive.
That's a different issue, though.

For the sake of argument, if you limit Disney's ability to sue people over any "talking mouse" that doesn't infringe on Mickey's likeness, why shouldn't Disney be allowed to continue profiting from its creation?

And frankly, the public domain is an incredible public good, arguing against it is about the most needlessly pro-business, anti-societial stance I can imagine.
I'm not sure he's arguing against public domain so much as suggesting it should be a voluntary act on the part of a creator as opposed to something imposed on the holder by the government.

[steve]

What might be created with the Disney portfolio as an inspiration, just as they created from the Brothers Grimm? We won't know for a while yet, but I like to think it is a hell of a lot.
Might there be just as many things created without the Disney portfolio, and might they actually be more original and more interesting? It's not like creativity has dried up due to copyright extensions.

Isn't it more fun that Pixar came up with "new" superheroes for The Incredibles rather than just use, say, Batman and Superman?

[Squirrel Killer]

Isn't it more fun that Pixar came up with "new" superheroes for The Incredibles rather than just use, say, Batman and Superman?

And isn't it great that artists can continue to remake Romeo and Juliet in their own unique vision?

[Supertanker]

Isn't it more fun that Pixar came up with "new" superheroes for The Incredibles rather than just use, say, Batman and Superman?

They are still doing the same thing as Disney did with Steamboat Willie. From looking at the trailers, they take existing heroes and do a little riff on them. I see Superman, Plastic (wo)Man, Kid Flash, and Iceman in there. The jokes seem to depend on the viewers having some appreciation of the previous cultural icons. Disney frowns upon someone doing the same with their characters, yet it continues to be their lifeblood.

[Bub, Andrew]

What about pastiches? Lots of people enjoyed Alan Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (the comic, not the film). That would be a nightmare, having to pay Wells, Verne, Twain, Stevenson, etc.,'s estates. Eventually these characters should become societies property.

EDIT: I just read Supertanker's posts and link. Good stuff. And in The Incredibles Violet (Misappear) is a homage to the Invisible Girl (force fields and all) and the movie takes from Dr. No, Astro City, The Fantastic Four, and so much more. It's hardly an original creation - it depends on the past work for almost everything that makes it a good movie.

[Lloyd Heilbrunn]

No Tarzan, James Bond, or Sherlock Holmes? :(

Either I'm getting old, or the kids these days have no taste....... :D

[Bub, Andrew]

It's just for one year. 2003. No James Bond, Tarzan, or Sherlock Holmes movies in 2003 Lloyd. Btw, I would LOVE to see the James Bond IP leave the hands of the Broccoli family.... There's a character that screams for public domain, if you ask me.

[Andrew Mayer]

Chet:

Intellectual Property isn't the same as money or property.

It's ability to generate income depends on societal awareness. For a while making money using that is fine. Eventually, after being a common part of the public dialogue for 30 or so years, it should enter the public domain.

All of us stand on the shoulders of giants. At some point it's important that we can make Mickey Porn if we want. Creativity doesn't exist in a vacuum, and to say it does is ignorant.

But that's not even the main reason.:
The problem is what do you do if you can't find the holder of the copyright? Millions and millions of pieces of material from the 30s and 40s now exist in a legal limbo, becuase you can't afford to track down who holds the rights (if anyone), and you can't afford to be sued by the legal holder of that copyright (if there is one). What if I find an unidscovered gem from 60 years ago that I want to publish and share with the world? Should I be stopped from releasing anything from that period because Disney hasn't finished making their Mickey Mouse money yet? Does Disney, directly or indirectly, get to control all the content?

There probably could be a middle ground, but it ain't called current American copyright law. The public domain, the common good if you will, suffers mightily for it.

[chet]

Isn't it more fun that Pixar came up with "new" superheroes for The Incredibles rather than just use, say, Batman and Superman?

And isn't it great that artists can continue to remake Romeo and Juliet in their own unique vision?

And isn't tarentino having great fun remaking moder chinese gangster movies? Are those in the public domain? I see influence left and right in all art forms without prosecution. You guys act like if someone made a movie about a robot, there could be no robot movies ever. hell there are cartoons about mice that are not being prosecuted by disney, so that is just more hysteria.

I have no problem with stuff reverting to public domain if the owner does not enforce, or make claim to the property. And since this is civil court, you could go and try to produce work, unlike what seems to being put forth, the police will not come prosecute you because you have put on a play from a forgotten playwright from the 40s. So can we drop this kind of hysterics in the conversation?

And again, saying something is based on public domain, in my eyes, makes no case that it itself has to be public domain. Since mysql is free, does MS SQL have to stop charging? After all the concepts are the same?

Disney has spent years and millions of dollars if not billions, to promote its characters, to create content for its characters, why should someone else be able to come in right now and build "Disney Cleveland: the ultimate theme park"?

Again, if the works fall into unuse, or are not being actively capitalized by the creator or their heirs, I have no problem with having them become public domain, but when artists/companies have created their world around these works, are actively still using these creations, I see no reason why someone else should be able to capitalize on those ideas.

And the concept of,"just think of the great works that could be done if they were just in the public domain", fails me. None of these ideas are so restrictive that a genre or complete category of art is taken away. If you as an artist cannot create your great work, because it has to have mickey mouse as the main character, you may want to reconsider if your work is great or not.

Chet

[chet]

I would LOVE to see the James Bond IP leave the hands of the Broccoli family

Hell, why stop there. Fuck HBO, I want to make Sopranos the movie, DAMN HBO for boxing me in as an artist!!! Don't they know my work is important!!! I will make Tony gay and the entire movie will be him trying to get in bed with his own son. Fucking fat cats at HBO can't see the art in my movie!!!

That is ludicrous.



All of us stand on the shoulders of giants. At some point it's important that we can make Mickey Porn if we want. Creativity doesn't exist in a vacuum, and to say it does is ignorant.
Again, no one is saying you can't be influenced by the work. Everyone is, you are right, no one creates in a vacuum, but at the same time, I do not think we are so creatively starved that our only hope is to make works based on someone elses creation.

To use a terrible review - White Squall is nothing but Dead Poets Society goes to the high seas.
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/movies/cgi/moviescreener_long.cgi?id=1761
Okay, i disagree, but in essence, they could make that exactly. They could make the movie Dead Poets society on the high seas, and as long as they did not use the exact same characters it would be fine. So again, i really do not see how this stifles anything but laziness.

Chet

[Andrew Mayer]

Disney has spent years and millions of dollars if not billions, to promote its characters, to create content for its characters, why should someone else be able to come in right now and build "Disney Cleveland: the ultimate theme park"?


Won't happen. Trademarks aren't the same thing. In fact Disney can probably claim tradmark status for the character even if the copyright had expired.

But yes, Disney has spent millions, billions, of dollars. Where did that money come from? Oh, it came from the public... But to hell with the public good if they can't keep paying for Disney's marketing campaigns for all time.

Again, no one is saying you can't be influenced by the work. Everyone is, you are right, no one creates in a vacuum, but at the same time, I do not think we are so creatively starved that our only hope is to make works based on someone elses creation.

What if I want to build on that work? Or use it in an ironic or post-modern way? Or incorporate something subtle about it into what I do?

If Superman went into the public domain tomorrow would it ultimately be better or worse for the character? We'd certainly see some interesting energy, art, and ideas put into it. And DC would still have the "official" Superman. No one can publish a DC comic but DC, and they never will as long as the company continues.

Why can't I, after it's worked for it's creators for years, play with an icon or an idea and do whatever I want to do with it, whether or not that makes me a bunch of money?
Why should you get to be the arbiter of how creativity is supposed to work? Why would you want to be that guy?

[Ben]

But yes, Disney has spent millions, billions, of dollars. Where did that money come from? Oh, it came from the public... But to hell with the public good if they can't keep paying for Disney's marketing campaigns for all time.

Uh, Disney didn't get those millions from taxes. What a ridiculous statement. By this standard, every dollar comes from the public, so long as it has been put into circulation. [/quote]

[chet]

But yes, Disney has spent millions, billions, of dollars. Where did that money come from? Oh, it came from the public... But to hell with the public good if they can't keep paying for Disney's marketing campaigns for all time.

Then don't visit a disney theme park or purchase any of their other products. Pretty simple, if the world got sick of mickey, mickey would not be so valuable. I am at a loss for what you mean by this. Are you saying, since the movie Titanic, made so much money, it should be public domain because all the movie goers somehow paid for that?? Huh?


What if I want to build on that work? Or use it in an ironic or post-modern way? Or incorporate something subtle about it into what I do?

If Superman went into the public domain tomorrow would it ultimately be better or worse for the character? We'd certainly see some interesting energy, art, and ideas put into it. And DC would still have the "official" Superman. No one can publish a DC comic but DC, and they never will as long as the company continues.

Why can't I, after it's worked for it's creators for years, play with an icon or an idea and do whatever I want to do with it, whether or not that makes me a bunch of money?
Why should you get to be the arbiter of how creativity is supposed to work? Why would you want to be that guy?

Huh again? If Tony Soprano entered the public domain tomorrow, would it better for the character? You do know we are talking about characters right? Not actual people held in some tower. Andrew, no one is stopping you from creating a character, who flies, has a cape and saves people. Does fartman exist? Does the incredible gay duo exist? What are those? Creative plays on existing characters, but unlike you, they did not feel that the only way to be creative was to copy the exact character from someone else.

Or is this some super geek thing, some closeted fan-fiction action?

Look at it this way.

We had wolf 3d (don't argue what was first, lets just pretend).

Now lets imagine, in your world, no other FPS shooter could be made, unless they were based on those exact characters. Again, we have to imagine because that is just simply not true. Is that being creative?

I am really at a loss on this idea, that to be creative, you have to lack creativity.

Chet

[steve]

What if I want to build on that work? Or use it in an ironic or post-modern way? Or incorporate something subtle about it into what I do?
(I'm sorta arguing this for the sake of arguing, but anway...)

Why should you be able to build on the work of someone else? Why shouldn't you be forced to come up with your own ideas? What gives you--or Disney--that right?

Parody would still be protected.

I realize Disney is the biggest hypocrite in the world, but they just did what everyone here is supporting.

If Superman went into the public domain tomorrow would it ultimately be better or worse for the character?
I'm pretty sure the character wouldn't care.

But why does anyone care? Nothing DC does, or doesn't do, with Superman should have any impact on those old, original comics. They'll always exist.

I'd rather people put some of these old things to rest and stop "reinventing" them; or, at least if reinvention is being done, it's only by its original creator, or with his or her permission.

Put some of that creative energy into something I haven't seen before. It's like we're asking for endless sequels and more derivative products.

Why can't I, after it's worked for it's creators for years, play with an icon or an idea and do whatever I want to do with it, whether or not that makes me a bunch of money?
If you want to write your own fan fiction or screenplays, you can do that today. Just not for money, or for distribution. Keep that "Batman versus Superman" screenplay on your hard drive, buck-o.

If you think the current copyright is too long, let's flip it around and say it's 1-year. Why is that too soon for it to fall into public domain; based on most of the "it's too long" arguments, isn't any time stifling creativity?

Why should you get to be the arbiter of how creativity is supposed to work? Why would you want to be that guy?
I'm thinking more from the perspective of the creator. If I made Superman, why should you be able to take my work and "reinvent it" for me without my permission, ever?

I understand why copyright is as it is, but I've always felt somewhat weird about the notion that something I make will eventually not be mine, even if I'm alive and could, in theory, still be allowed to control what's done with it.

[Jason McCullough]

Chet, just so I have this straight, your opinion is that if you invent something you should have copyright to it for all eternity?

[Mike Cathcart]

Oh, and nobody that started as a video game character? Wasn't Pokemon a game before all else, or did it actually start as a show?
I'm pretty sure he was either a show or a trading card game character first.
Nope, Pokemon was designed as a game first. Nintendo had a deal with a children's publisher to creat comics based on new games, so a Pokemon comic was released the day after the game was out in Japan. The comic people also did TV shows so after the game did well they asked to make a show based on it. Nintendo was nervous that a poorly made show could hurt the game so the creators of the TV show agreed to play the game a lot before working on the show. Later on Nintendo released Pokemon Yellow to add some stuff to the game from the show.

[Squirrel Killer]

Uh, Disney didn't get those millions from taxes.

What the hell? Where did taxes enter the discussion? The public has provided a market to Disney completely outside of the realm of taxes (ignoring sales taxes and the like). Disney has provided content developed on that which that same public provided them (via public domain). Disney, by seeking to exempt their works from the public domain, are taking from the public domain, but not giving back. Taxes are completely tangental to this issue, at best.

Why should you be able to build on the work of someone else? Why shouldn't you be forced to come up with your own ideas? What gives you--or Disney--that right?

This is a joke, right? If not, it's because those who's work you want to build on almost certainly built their work on someone else's. It's the whole "standing on shoulders" thing.

And isn't tarentino having great fun remaking moder chinese gangster movies? Are those in the public domain?

Of course not, we're talking about specific works, not genres. Just as an FPSs aren't entirely controlled by id (via your wolf3d example), grindhouse movies aren't controlled by their original makers. But for specific works, why should Shakespheare's heirs still be able to control every production of Romeo & Juliet, Hamlet, Julius Ceaser?

I have no problem with stuff reverting to public domain if the owner does not enforce, or make claim to the property.

Quick question, Chet, do you hold this same opinion for other forms of IP?

And the concept of,"just think of the great works that could be done if they were just in the public domain", fails me. None of these ideas are so restrictive that a genre or complete category of art is taken away. If you as an artist cannot create your great work, because it has to have mickey mouse as the main character, you may want to reconsider if your work is great or not.

This reminds me that the ""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" clause has two, equally important reasonings.

1) Protect the work from copying, so that artists and inventors can make a living by progressing science and the arts, and

2) Enact those protections for only a limited time, so that artists and inventors are encouraged to keep progressing science and the arts. Imagine if Shakespeare had wrote Titus Andronicus and said, "Forshooth, I have writt'n a play that willth keep my family nurish'd for the span of mine own life. Damn'd be to this Hamlet dreck, bring in the wine and 'hores!" Imagine if Stephen King had stopped after... oh wait, that'd support your argument. :wink:

These two competing ideas must be kept in balance, which is why extremists on both sides ("IP rights forever" suits, and "Information want's to be free" zealots) are both wrong.

[Jamie Madigan]

Nope, Pokemon was designed as a game first. Nintendo had a deal with a children's publisher to creat comics based on new games, so a Pokemon comic was released the day after the game was out in Japan.
Huh, interesting. I stand corrected and thanks for the information!

[chet]

SK, let me get this straight. We should place limits on how much money artists make so as to keep them hungry enough to keep producing new work?

Do I even really need to argue against that idea? I think the counter to that notion is so obvious, the counter writes itself.

As for Tatentino, he is not just copying a genre, he is lifting the exact same story lines, which you can do. Even if taming of the shrew was protected, they could have still made the movie - 10 things i hate about you. So I don't see your issue, what that you would not be able to use the exact same words and exact same characters - and that stifles creativity?


So far we have:
1) Because disney used public domain works, so lets screw all other artists (doesn't this also diminish your guys idea of why public domain is good?)
2) Because we have no creativity and we need to use characters from other works.
3) Because the public likes mickey and pays to see him.
4)Because we need to keep artists hungry enough to keep producing new work.

Did I miss any?

Chet

[Damien Falgoust]

I see a common fallacy in this thread: confusing copyright and trademark law.

Copyrights apply to creative works, like books, paintings, films and cartoons. Trademarks apply to those labels that particularly identify a given enterprise -- usually corporate logos, but also characters and other things that indicate "this product was made by this company."

Mickey Mouse will never, ever be in the public domain, because Mickey is a trademark of the Walt Disney Company. Trademarks are perpetual, as long as they are periodically registered. Even after the copyight runs out on "Steamboat Willie," you won't be able to make and sell that Mickey porno cartoon you drew up in your basement because Disney will sue you for misappropriating their trademark.

"Steamboat Willie" is protected under copyright. When the copyright runs out on S.W., you will be able to use scenes from that short without paying royalties to Disney. You will be able to distribute whole copies of the film with no financial penalty.

[Gav]

"Steamboat Willie" is protected under copyright. When the copyright runs out on S.W., you will be able to use scenes from that short without paying royalties to Disney. You will be able to distribute whole copies of the film with no financial penalty.

The one time it's ever been tried in the real world ("The uncensored Micky Mouse", in which whoever-it-was tried to distribute Mickey Mouse comics for which the copyright had already expired), Disney sued, claiming trademark infringement.

The case never went to court, so it's not clear who would've won, but it's not as cut-and-dry as you make it appear.

Gav

[Damien Falgoust]

SK, let me get this straight. We should place limits on how much money artists make so as to keep them hungry enough to keep producing new work?
We already place limits on how much money an artist (and his estate) can make on a given work: life plus 90 years. After that, his estate is SOL.

The policy argument is that this time period is just way, way too long, and that it doesn't promote the creation of artistic works enough to justify the loss of the work to the public domain, and indeed it may inhibit the creation of such works by successful artists who find they no longer need to create thanks to an existing lifelong royalty stream.

I've always felt that copyright terms should be brought in line with patent terms: a flat 20 years, after which the work becomes public domain. That's plenty of time to profit off of the work. I doubt very seriously that any aspiring author would decide to hang up his word processor because his royalty stream might end in two decades.

Of course, I'm open to arguments that that time period is either too long or too short. But it seems to me a reasonable starting point.

[Andrew Mayer]

SK, let me get this straight. We should place limits on how much money artists make so as to keep them hungry enough to keep producing new work?

You're being intentionally obtuse to try and make your point.

We place limits on how long you can make money from an idea before it enters the commons, so that society itself can own the idea, and progress can move forward unencumbered by picayune details of who owns what. So that we don't have to deal with lawsuits over ideas for all eternity. Basically after 50 years or so your ideas are turned into fertalizer for society.

The idea is that we all share this society together. It's the common good. See? Get it?

The
COMMON (we all share things)
GOOD (Ultimately better for society if it is done this way)

Even if taming of the shrew was protected, they could have still made the movie - 10 things i hate about you. So I don't see your issue, what that you would not be able to use the exact same words and exact same characters - and that stifles creativity?

But you couldn't have updatd Romeo and Juliet. In fact who the hell would even care about Shakespeare now, since it was his works entereing the commons that allowed his legacy to flourish.


1) Because disney used public domain works, so lets screw all other artists (doesn't this also diminish your guys idea of why public domain is good?)
2) Because we have no creativity and we need to use characters from other works.
3) Because the public likes mickey and pays to see him.
4)Because we need to keep artists hungry enough to keep producing new work.

1) That's nonsense. Disney has profited from the PUBLIC domain, and now should GIVE SOMETHING BACK to that.

2) Using characters from other works can often INSPIRE creativity. Such as Alan Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. There are of course countless other examples at which you will scoff, because on this point you seem to be afraid to admit you're absolutist position could be flawed in any way.

3) Because Disney has used the tools of the society it exist in to make a shit-ton of money. And in order for that mechanism (our society) to survive it must maintained. To do that you have to give something to society, whether or not YOU happen to think it'll make a difference. In fact much of it won't, but it turns out that humsn society is not a hyper efficient libertarian fantasy land, or at least hasn't been for the last three thousand years or so.

4) Because that COMMON GOOD is considered to be more valuable than feeding the artist's heirs for all eternity. .

[Damien Falgoust]

"Steamboat Willie" is protected under copyright. When the copyright runs out on S.W., you will be able to use scenes from that short without paying royalties to Disney. You will be able to distribute whole copies of the film with no financial penalty.
The one time it's ever been tried in the real world ("The uncensored Micky Mouse", in which whoever-it-was tried to distribute Mickey Mouse comics for which the copyright had already expired), Disney sued, claiming trademark infringement.

The case never went to court, so it's not clear who would've won, but it's not as cut-and-dry as you make it appear.
The law makes a pretty clear distinction between the two. That much is cut-and-dried.

The complicating factor that you note is marketing. Steamboat Willie stars Mickey Mouse. It's hard to market that film without appropriating a Disney trademark. So even when the film is out of copyright, you may have a trademark problem. That's even more true for the comics you note, where Mickey is plastered all over the damn thing.

All I wanted to do was correct a common misconception. When people talk about using a Disney character in their own work, they aren't talking about violating copyright, even though they mistakenly say that's the issue. The issue is actually one of trademark law in that instance.

[Andrew Mayer]

The problem is that Mickey is an extreme example, and Disney can litigate their way out of any corner.

Honestly, if they want to keep the mouse for 90 years, what do I care? That's not even the heart of what's at stake here.

[chet]

Okay, so since Valve made enough money from half-life, I am going to pirate half life 2 just to make sure they have to make a half-life 3?

WHHHAAAAAAAAATTTTTTT????

So how much money does metallica have to make before they stop making music? Or are artists nothing but the public's monkey? Pull some strings and keep working regardless if you want to not? If metallica wants to retire, should we be able to sue them to force them to make more music?

Basically after 50 years or so your ideas are turned into fertalizer for society. But right now, they are instantly being used, they are instantly part of our culture and used in and influece work. I think this idea that they are not, is one of the most annoying hysterical reactions to this issue out of all of them.

1) So businesses are now required by law to give somethign back? Andrew how much money did you make this year? What percentage should we require you give back for the cultural good? After all, your life has been oh so enriched by the public domain...

2) More geek fan fiction in hiding. Not a rational reason to base an arguement, just heart string tugging of the geeks who want to see superman makeout with batman or some other fantasy.

3) So should microsoft now be required to donate windows xp, they have simply used the tools of society and made too much money...

4) Should we limit the length of any inheritence? The Heinz corporation should become a government owned company after 3 generations, because it would help the greater good of the lazy who do not want to work or create on their own?

Answer me this, what has been done so amazingly with the works of mark twain, that has not been done with the works of disney?

Chet

[Andrew Mayer]

So how much money does metallica have to make before they stop making music? Or are artists nothing but the public's monkey? Pull some strings and keep working regardless if you want to not? If metallica wants to retire, should we be able to sue them to force them to make more music?

Just because you take an argument to an illogical extreme (at least that's what I think you're trying to do here) doesn't invalidate the basis of that argument.

Basically after 50 years or so your ideas are turned into fertalizer for society. But right now, they are instantly being used, they are instantly part of our culture and used in and influece work. I think this idea that they are not, is one of the most annoying hysterical reactions to this issue out of all of them.

It's a question of degrees. To what degree can you use that idea to build off of?

1) So businesses are now required by law to give somethign back? Andrew how much money did you make this year? What percentage should we require you give back for the cultural good? After all, your life has been oh so enriched by the public domain...

I know you've heard of taxes. In fact corporations use more of the commons then any individuals, things such as highways, and the mails, and yet for some reasons they pay less. Not that it has anything to do with the IP argument...

2) More geek fan fiction in hiding. Not a rational reason to base an arguement, just heart string tugging of the geeks who want to see superman makeout with batman or some other fantasy.

And why is "Fan Fiction" a bad thing? Why shouldn't people get to live out their fantasies after a pre-determined period. They're paying for it, they're thinking about. Just because they're not a mighty corportation they'll never have any right to play with that material?

Why are you qualified to be the ultimate arbiter of what a "right" and "wrong" use of an idea should be? Especially since the creator has been given a period of time to wring every last damn ounce out of it.

You may not like or respect FanFic, but someone out there may one day yet become a great writer because of it.

3) So should microsoft now be required to donate windows xp, they have simply used the tools of society and made too much money...

It's off the point, but ultiamtely yes. In fact patents don't last as long as IP does, so they have to give up that technology quicker.
Again though, it's not how much they make, it's how long the get the right to be the sole exploiter of that concept.

4) Should we limit the length of any inheritence? The Heinz corporation should become a government owned company after 3 generations, because it would help the greater good of the lazy who do not want to work or create on their own?

That's has nothing to do with what we're talking about at all. I'm happy to continue this discussion, but stop throwing in oranges to support our argument about apples. It weakens your argument since you can't seem to argue within the IP framework without trying to broaden the argument so that it has to cover every possibility.

Answer me this, what has been done so amazingly with the works of mark twain, that has not been done with the works of disney?

It's been continuously and cheaply available to generations of American students so that they can learn about great American literature in our schools.

Next question.

[Jason McCullough]

Doesn't trademark law make half of copyright law useless, then, Damien?

[chet]

First off huh?
Just because you take an argument to an illogical extreme (at least that's what I think you're trying to do here) doesn't invalidate the basis of that argument.

You want to put forth the idea that artists should not be able to make too much money off a creation, so as to keep the hungry. Past that statement, take it to any distance - that they have to work one more hour because Andrew needs their creation, it is an illogical statement to begin with, so going anywhere with it is extreme. Feel free to show a valid example and is not by default taken to the illogical extreme.


Andrew, hate to quote you. Because then I guess it is you going off track, but okay...

1) That's nonsense. Disney has profited from the PUBLIC domain, and now should GIVE SOMETHING BACK to that.

So you are saying they should give back something because they have profited off of public domain, but since public domain is the end all to great ideas, haven't you also profited? Shouldn't you also be required to pay some additional "Public Domain Use Tax" to enrich everyone culturally? yes, i think it is a stupid idea, but you proposed it first, not me.

2) Why should you, the non-creator get to dictate the use? Maybe we should have a contest, and the person furthest removed should be allowed? That just doesn't make sense. For a simple example of why this doesn't work - look at lord of rings. Did you like the peter Jackson movie? Would he have been able to make the same investment into the movie if there had already been 50 other bad versions of the story? Maybe a tony danza version? Because it was protected, jackson was able to dedicate extreme resources to the project, and make the quality movie he did. With no ip protection, he would have had no reason to make that investment.

3) But where do you draw the line? In your world, i have the feeling is 30 minutes later you demand fan fiction.

4) But it does Andrew, 100%. This is an example of how ludicrous your argument is. Sorry for being able to show numerous examples across the spectrum to dismiss your point.

It's been continuously and cheaply available to generations of American students so that they can learn about great American literature in our schools.

So are you saying the books of mark twain are cheaper because they are in the public domain? Checking prices on amazon they are the same price as the other books of their style- paperback etc. Or are you really saying, at your school you never read any modern works because your school could not afford them? Nothing after the IP laws were extended?

Or is that just me taking your point to the extreme again? Should I ignore how invalid your points are just so you of your points can appear to be valid? Am I to be blamed when you make an invalid point to start, and then can't defend it? Feel free to post a point you think you can defend, because so far, I have not see one that is not only valid, but is even sensible to yourself.

Chet

[Andrew Mayer]

First off huh?
Just because you take an argument to an illogical extreme (at least that's what I think you're trying to do here) doesn't invalidate the basis of that argument.

You want to put forth the idea that artists should not be able to make too much money off a creation, so as to keep the hungry.

As I pointed out previously, I never said that.

My argument has to do with time not money. Make all the money you want in X decades. Go!


So you are saying they should give back something because they have profited off of public domain, but since public domain is the end all to great ideas, haven't you also profited?

You're confused. The public domain is a resource, not a product.
If I want to profit off of it I still have to create something with it. Publish the book, make the animation, etc.

To the degree Disney built their intial wealth off the public domain it's all good to me. Without it there would have been no Snow White, no modern animation industry. That's the way things are supposed to work.

Shouldn't you also be required to pay some additional "Public Domain Use Tax" to enrich everyone culturally? yes, i think it is a stupid idea, but you proposed it first, not me.

Uh, no I didn't. If you want to make shit up, that's cool. But I like the system we have. It's worked for a real long time, I just don't think 90 years is acceptable.

2) Why should you, the non-creator get to dictate the use? Maybe we should have a contest, and the person furthest removed should be allowed? That just doesn't make sense.

Yup. Your ridiculous examples don't make sense. I agree.

For a simple example of why this doesn't work - look at lord of rings. Did you like the peter Jackson movie? Would he have been able to make the same investment into the movie if there had already been 50 other bad versions of the story?

If things were different would people do things differently? Yes. Absolutely.

Maybe a tony danza version? Because it was protected, jackson was able to dedicate extreme resources to the project, and make the quality movie he did. With no ip protection, he would have had no reason to make that investment.


Tony Danza? Why is it you have to make up all these impossible extremes to make your point?

How about a crappy animated version (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077869/)? How about two (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079802/)? If there had been one of those would Jackson still have made his version?

It's a system. There's give and take.

3) But where do you draw the line? In your world, i have the feeling is 30 minutes later you demand fan fiction.

I've never said anything less than decades.

4) But it does Andrew, 100%. This is an example of how ludicrous your argument is. Sorry for being able to show numerous examples across the spectrum to dismiss your point.

Making stuff up isn't necessarily giving an example.

So are you saying the books of mark twain are cheaper because they are in the public domain? Checking prices on amazon they are the same price as the other books of their style- paperback etc. Or are you really saying, at your school you never read any modern works because your school could not afford them? Nothing after the IP laws were extended?[quote]

Under your system I couldn't photocopy the book for a poor student, or hand out excerpts.

I'm saying that I can't currently teach a class in early American animation because I'm not legally allowed to show those films in a classroom, nor burn copies of those films so the students can watch them on their own time.

I can't currently teach a class in 30's jazz for the same reason.

[quote]Or is that just me taking your point to the extreme again? Should I ignore how invalid your points are just so you of your points can appear to be valid?

No, but how about real-world examples, and we'll leave Tony Danza out of it.

Am I to be blamed when you make an invalid point to start, and then can't defend it?

No, but you aren't arguing the point, and you're attributing things to me that I haven't said, or ignoring clarifications that undermine your position.

Here's mine: "Works of intellectual property should enter the public domain after a 40-50 year period."

[chet]

Andrew stop with the hysterics and the crazy.

I can't currently teach a class in early American animation because I'm not legally allowed to show those films in a classroomBullshit.

I can't currently teach a class in 30's jazz for the same reason. Bullshit.

THE ENTIRE ACADEMIC WORLD HAS NO CLASSES DEALING WITH MODERN FILM OR MUSIC BECAUSE ANDREW SAYS SO!!!!

Or is that taken to the extreme? How were your first two statements anything but extreme bullshit?

And this is fun.
As I pointed out previously, I never said that.
My argument has to do with time not money. Make all the money you want in X decades. Go!

Do I need to break down how ludicrous this statement is? If you make $10 a day, do you make less money if you only make it for one day vs 10? Or is my using 10 days pushing it to an extreme example for you? Should I use 2 days?

Andrew, let me know when your panties are not in such a bunch and you want to actually discuss it, right now all you keep doing is putting up complete bullshit or these ludicrous statements that have no where to go but be illogical, because that is where they started.

Chet

[Andrew Mayer]

THE ENTIRE ACADEMIC WORLD HAS NO CLASSES DEALING WITH MODERN FILM OR MUSIC BECAUSE ANDREW SAYS SO!!!!

There are some fair use provisions for classroom use. I thought I'd cut out that part, sorry.

But, I still can't give copies of the videos to the students, nor can I photocopy complete works.


Do I need to break down how ludicrous this statement is? If you make $10 a day, do you make less money if you only make it for one day vs 10? Or is my using 10 days pushing it to an extreme example for you? Should I use 2 days?

Does knowing you have a limited time change your choices? I think it does. How you exploit your property is based on the legal framework around it. That's why exploiting IP and earning a salary are two different things.

Andrew, let me know when your panties are not in such a bunch and you want to actually discuss it, right now all you keep doing is putting up complete bullshit or these ludicrous statements that have no where to go but be illogical, because that is where they started.

I'll agree that we should end this. I do think you have a tendency to ridicule anything that doesn't fit nicely into your world view. But that's your online persona, and I enjoy it most of the time. So there you go.

Just remember that I'm arguing in favor of a system that has been implemented world wide for two centuries. There's some value to that.

[DrCrypt]

I'm saying that I can't currently teach a class in early American animation because I'm not legally allowed to show those films in a classroom, nor burn copies of those films so the students can watch them on their own time.

I can't currently teach a class in 30's jazz for the same reason.
What? Have you ever gone to college? You don't see teachers photocopying Tolstoy out for the students to save them a few bucks even though Tolstoy's public domain. There's a pretty standard procedure for students buying their study materials that, according to the current novel I'm reading by famous intellectual masturbationalist Umberto Eco, goes back a thousand years, or about ten Mickey Mouse copyrights ago. When I went to school, I bought all this shit, and almost everything I studied was out of public domain. So I don't get your argument, Andrew - what does not being able to warez Gertie the Dinosaur cartoons have to do with teaching the class? The teacher orders the DVD at the Coop or something. If it's not currently being distributed, he calls up the guys who own the copyright and probably fairly easily gets their permission. Either way, Disney's not going to say "no" to selling a college professor a dozen Steamboat Willy DVDs.

Of course, this is all bullshit anyway. As Chet points out, early American jazz courses are indeed being taught, as well as early American animation courses.

[Duality]

Doesn't educational use fall under Fair Use?

I'm sure Damien F could answer more clearly, but I was always under the impression that education doesn't fall under the for-profit violation that copyrights (in the case of 30s jazz)/trademarks (for characters, etc.) are supposed to protect against.

[Damien Falgoust]

Doesn't trademark law make half of copyright law useless, then, Damien?
That depends on what mediums we're talking about. Certainly for visual mediums like film and comics, you'll have a very difficult time marketing an out-of-copyright work whose main character is a trademark of someone else. That's a nonissue for other types of works like books and music.

Doesn't educational use fall under Fair Use?
Not necessarily. There is no blanket fair use exception for educational use. Educational use must still meet the fair use test applied to any claim of fair use, inquiring as to four factors: (1) the purpose and character of the use, (2) the nature of the copyrighted work (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and (4) the effect of the use upon market.

Educational use is more likely to meet those guidelines than most other uses, but that's still the test. However, there are informal guidelines for educational use promulgated by the Copyright Office to assist educators in staying on the right side of the copyright line.

For more detail on both fair use and educational guidelines, see Stanford's Copyright Basics Page (http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/).

[pms]

SK, let me get this straight. We should place limits on how much money artists make so as to keep them hungry enough to keep producing new work?
We already place limits on how much money an artist (and his estate) can make on a given work: life plus 90 years. After that, his estate is SOL.


Not the case -- their EXCLUSIVE right to make money ends.

[Nick Walter]

SK, let me get this straight. We should place limits on how much money artists make so as to keep them hungry enough to keep producing new work?
We already place limits on how much money an artist (and his estate) can make on a given work: life plus 90 years. After that, his estate is SOL.


Not the case -- their EXCLUSIVE right to make money ends.

Technically true, though I would doubt that we'll see any estates making big $$ on a work 90 years after the author's death. I guess the poor family members will have to content themselves with a 90 year commercial monopoly on a slice of our culture.

It amuses me that the same message board that came out so strongly pro-estate-tax is also so pro-copyright, which is just as big a gravy train for heirs that have done nothing to deserve it except be born into the right family.

Copyright law in this country really needs to change.

[DrCrypt]

It amuses me that the same message board that came out so strongly pro-estate-tax is also so pro-copyright, which is just as big a gravy train for heirs that have done nothing to deserve it except be born into the right family.
Um, what? What do you mean, they don't "deserve" it? I'm going to jump to my end point first: by that rationale, kids don't "deserve" to go to college unless they pay for it entirely by themselves, because otherwise the miserable fucking social leeches are mooching off of their parents. Hereditary law isn't meant to be some socialist dream scheme; it's meant to make people feel like they are providing for their descendants and giving them a leg up in life.

But that's all moot, because your secondary supposition ("they don't work for it") is garbage. You really don't think that Walt Disney's heirs (and the Walt Disney Company) have put as much, if not more, creative energy in keeping Mickey Mouse a profitable character over the last few decades than it took for Disney to rip off Ub Iwerks in the first place? What about the Tolkein Estate - Chris Tolkein has undoubtedly put as much energy and love into Middle Earth as his father did. He didn't create it; he fleshed it out and made it a franchise.. In both of these examples, the family of the original creators have continued to develop the property. Why should they suddenly be told they can't profit off of their ancestors' works anymore just because some magic, arbitrary odometer suddenly flipped over? I guarantee you it was easier to create Mickey Mouse than it was to sustain a successful business off of him.

The idea that heirs of the creators of profitable characters do absolutely nothing to sustain them is absolute nonsense. The reason we have the 100 year law is because no one could imagine when it was conceived that someone would create a character that was still profitable a century later. The idea that someone could have established a 100 year media empire on a drawing of an anthropomorphical mouse would have been unbelievable to the guys who came up with that law. But that's changed now - we live in a culture where media characters can become immensely profitable cultural icons. Two homosexual midgets wandering around fruity fairy land can become a billion dollar franchise. The world has moved on; the 90 year law is completely archaic.

Copyright law in this country really needs to change.
Of course, none of you guys seem to be able to tell us why it needs to change, just wave your hands about "a single family monopolizing a slice of our culture" and how they don't "deserve it". How does the inability of Ralph Bakishi to make a soft-core porn movie with Mickey Mouse as the virile protagonist monopolize a slice of our culture? If someone could answer that, I'd be happy.

[Nick Walter]

Chris Tolkein put as much energy and love as his father did into Middle Earth? I guess if I had a paycheck machine I'd give it some love too. I do have to give him credit for not letting the brand get trashed by being choosy about what paychecks he accepted (in return for little/no work) but that's hardly equal to the creative effort required to write to invent Middle Earth and write the Lord of the Rings or the Hobbit.

Of course, none of you guys seem to be able to tell us why copyright law needs to stay the same, just wave your hands about "corporate behemoths monopolizing a slice of our culture" and how they "deserve it". How does the ability of Boy Bands to continue cranking out shit pop justify our copyright laws? If someone could answer that, I'd be happy.

[chet]

Nick, I said so. Because they created it and continue to use it. End of story.

If not, why should I be able to own a house? Think of the greater common good if i just opened the doors and everyone who wanted could live there... and what is land ownership but some legal idea created by government.

Chet

[Duality]

Is anyone even advocating a company cease making money on its copyrights/trademarks?

It sounds to me like people are advocating, after a certain amount of time to establish the company's footing, that the copyrighted/trademarked work be open for others to profit from as well.

[Andrew Mayer]

If not, why should I be able to own a house? Think of the greater common good if i just opened the doors and everyone who wanted could live there... and what is land ownership but some legal idea created by government.


Houses and land cannot be reproduced and shared by human society as a whole.
Ideas aren't the same as property or goods.

[DrCrypt]

Chris Tolkein put as much energy and love as his father did into Middle Earth? I guess if I had a paycheck machine I'd give it some love too. I do have to give him credit for not letting the brand get trashed by being choosy about what paychecks he accepted (in return for little/no work) but that's hardly equal to the creative effort required to write to invent Middle Earth and write the Lord of the Rings or the Hobbit.
Nice qualifier there. No, it isn't equal to the creative effort of coming up with Middle Earth. However, if we're comparing the effort required to create Middle Earth with the effort required to sustain it as a business, I'd bet my ass that Chris Tolkein put more man hours into it than his father did. I trust I don't need to remind anyone that the Lord of the Rings wasn't a license to print money before Christopher Tolkein established it as a franchise. You guys sound so clueless as to what it takes to run a business, it astounds me, but I guess that's what happens when you spend all day furrowing your brow over an Excel pareto chart graphing exactly how many magic clams you need to farm to avoid having to whine about "cheap victories" in the next interminable Dom 2 thread.

It sounds to me like people are advocating, after a certain amount of time to establish the company's footing, that the copyrighted/trademarked work be open for others to profit from as well.
Yeah, but they can't explain why other people should be allowed to profit from it. I mean, seriously - why should a company like Disney that has spent the greater part of a century and millions upon millions of dollars keeping Mickey Mouse a popular character by evolving and marketing him suddenly have to give it all up just so one day Joe Unimaginative can profit off of that character's popularity by featuring him in an edgy homoerotic novel?

I think it is great that guys like Alan Moore are reinvigorating public domain characters in pastiches like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. But these are all characters that no one has had sole ownership over for a very long time and most of them were never very profitable characters. I think that as long as someone spends the time, effort and money to guard a character's trademark, they should be allowed to be that trademark's sole profiters. People who rigorously guard their trademarks are fighting the good fight - it is extremely easy to accidentally find yourself in the public domain through inattention. Velcro and zipper were both trademarks that slipped into public domain just by people saying it. Jell-O and Ziplock are also on the precipice of their names passing into the public domain for the same reason. Most of the characters in Alan Moore's League passed out of the public domain long before the 90+ years.

It isn't easy to defend a trademark. People should stop making like these guys are all just sitting in the vaginas of naked women all day long waiting for the checks to roll in.

[Dirt]

How do you seperate the characters from the creators?

Shultz is listed along with Elvis as a high earning dead person. But not Walt Disney?

[Jason McCullough]

This is getting way complicated. Trying to drag this back on topic:

1) In the US, the foundation of copyright law is that section in the constitution.
2) Giving people copyright for all eternity sure seems to disagree with the "for a limited time" phrase granting Congress the power.
3) So what the hell?

[Nick Walter]

This is getting way complicated. Trying to drag this back on topic:

1) In the US, the foundation of copyright law is that section in the constitution.
2) Giving people copyright for all eternity sure seems to disagree with the "for a limited time" phrase granting Congress the power.
3) So what the hell?

I think the reason we wander so far off topic is people like me who want the complete abolition of copyright law because it's silly. Changing technological circuimstances have rendered the concept completely obsolete.

[Nick Walter]

Chris Tolkein put as much energy and love as his father did into Middle Earth? I guess if I had a paycheck machine I'd give it some love too. I do have to give him credit for not letting the brand get trashed by being choosy about what paychecks he accepted (in return for little/no work) but that's hardly equal to the creative effort required to write to invent Middle Earth and write the Lord of the Rings or the Hobbit.
Nice qualifier there. No, it isn't equal to the creative effort of coming up with Middle Earth. However, if we're comparing the effort required to create Middle Earth with the effort required to sustain it as a business, I'd bet my ass that Chris Tolkein put more man hours into it than his father did. I trust I don't need to remind anyone that the Lord of the Rings wasn't a license to print money before Christopher Tolkein established it as a franchise. You guys sound so clueless as to what it takes to run a business, it astounds me, but I guess that's what happens when you spend all day furrowing your brow over an Excel pareto chart graphing exactly how many magic clams you need to farm to avoid having to whine about "cheap victories" in the next interminable Dom 2 thread.


Normally I object to poo flinging, but when done with Dr Crypt's style it really is a thing of beauty :D


I think that as long as someone spends the time, effort and money to guard a character's trademark, they should be allowed to be that trademark's sole profiters. People who rigorously guard their trademarks are fighting the good fight - it is extremely easy to accidentally find yourself in the public domain through inattention. Velcro and zipper were both trademarks that slipped into public domain just by people saying it. Jell-O and Ziplock are also on the precipice of their names passing into the public domain for the same reason. Most of the characters in Alan Moore's League passed out of the public domain long before the 90+ years.

It isn't easy to defend a trademark. People should stop making like these guys are all just sitting in the vaginas of naked women all day long waiting for the checks to roll in.

I'm sure drug dealers put a lot of effort into growing their business too. Doesn't make that right either.

[Dirt]

Does this mean that DrCrypt will trash Stephen King's writing ability to his dying breath but will guard with his dignity and honor someone else's right to continue making money off of "It" and "The Stand" after King dies?

[Damien Falgoust]

What about the Tolkein Estate - Chris Tolkein has undoubtedly put as much energy and love into Middle Earth as his father did. He didn't create it; he fleshed it out and made it a franchise.
The single greatest obstacle to Peter Jackson bringing The Hobbit to the silver screen will be Christopher Tolkien. He also refused to allow Jackson to create a LOTR museum in New Zealand utilizing props and such from the films. Indeed, Christopher Tolkien did not want the recent films made at all, and the only reason they were made is because Tolkien pere sold the film rights in the 1960s.

In short, Christopher Tolkien has been more of an obstacle to the creation of a popular LOTR franchise than a help. You're choosing a bad standard-bearer for your position.

But of course, all of this misses the point. Copyright isn't supposed to be a about safeguarding eternal cash cows -- it's supposed to be about encouraging the creation of creative works. And I'm sorry, but I have a very hard time believing that anyone sits there in front of a word processor and thinks, "gee, I'd write this novel, but my great-grandchildren might not be able to make a buck off of it, so I'm going to pursue a career in real estate instead."

A flat twenty or thirty years should be plenty. Why should we treat the creative minds behind literary works any better than the creative minds behind tangible widgets? Why should artists get longer protections than inventors?

[DrCrypt]

Does this mean that DrCrypt will trash Stephen King's writing ability to his dying breath but will guard with his dignity and honor someone else's right to continue making money off of "It" and "The Stand" after King dies?
Yes, it does. Sorry if you think that's ironic or something. I don't think King didn't earn his money - I just think he's a bad writer, that people who like him are basically illiterate and that someone being popular does not equal them being good or timeless. What is that famous made-up Voltaire quote again?

The single greatest obstacle to Peter Jackson bringing The Hobbit to the silver screen will be Christopher Tolkien. He also refused to allow Jackson to create a LOTR museum in New Zealand utilizing props and such from the films. Indeed, Christopher Tolkien did not want the recent films made at all, and the only reason they were made is because Tolkien pere sold the film rights in the 1960s.

In short, Christopher Tolkien has been more of an obstacle to the creation of a popular LOTR franchise than a help. You're choosing a bad standard-bearer for your position.
Right. In your opinion, of course. Maybe Chris Tolkein honestly thinks the Peter Jackson films are fucking terrible? To be honest, I'm not that far short of that opinion myself. Certainly they were the most maudlin interpretation possible. But making decisions you personally agree with isn't the point - the point is that he has been given the legal right to the franchise and he has worked hard to promote it as best he sees fit. He's earned his money. Whether or not you agree with the decisions he's made as to the franchise is totally besides the point. We're not talking about quality of decisions here, we're discussing whether or not someone who a) has legal right to manage a trademark and b) someone who has worked for most of his life to promote that trademark should suddenly have the property/income of their family/company stolen away just because Nick Walter wants to publish stories in which he fucks Frodo Baggins up the ass while he wears the "one ring to rule them all" half-shaft down his Glamdring.

[Jason McCullough]

I think you're using the wrong frame, Crypt. The actual way things work out right now is that you and your descendants own the right for all eternity, which doesn't strike me as much better.

[Supertanker]

But of course, all of this misses the point. Copyright isn't supposed to be a about safeguarding eternal cash cows -- it's supposed to be about encouraging the creation of creative works.

I like the way Lessig conceptualizes it, which is to call copyright a right to suppress the speech of everyone else. You get a period of time to suppress everyone else's speech about the copyrighted work, then it's free game.

[Damien Falgoust]

The single greatest obstacle to Peter Jackson bringing The Hobbit to the silver screen will be Christopher Tolkien. He also refused to allow Jackson to create a LOTR museum in New Zealand utilizing props and such from the films. Indeed, Christopher Tolkien did not want the recent films made at all, and the only reason they were made is because Tolkien pere sold the film rights in the 1960s.

In short, Christopher Tolkien has been more of an obstacle to the creation of a popular LOTR franchise than a help. You're choosing a bad standard-bearer for your position.
Right. In your opinion, of course. Maybe Chris Tolkein honestly thinks the Peter Jackson films are fucking terrible? To be honest, I'm not that far short of that opinion myself. Certainly they were the most maudlin interpretation possible.
My words were not laden with a value judgment of the quality of the films. You talked about building a franchise. I think you'd have a hard time suggesting that Jackson's work hasn't exposed Tolkien's work to a wider audience, expanding the scope of the LOTR franchise.

The simple fact is, Chris Tolkien has done more to stymie the spread of Tolkien's work than he has to encouage it.

Further, the work he has done -- compiling the shards of his father's work into The Simarillion and The History of Middle Earth -- would itself be subject to copyright as derivative works. Chris Tolkien would still be protected under copyright law for those creative contributions he made to the franchise even if the terms were shortened. He just couldn't continue to hold a monopoly on reproduction of those works he had nothing to do with -- specifically, LOTR and The Hobbit.

But making decisions you personally agree with isn't the point - the point is that he has been given the legal right to the franchise and he has worked hard to promote it as best he sees fit.
What a marvelously circular argument: Chris Tolkien should have the legal right to monopolize reproduction of his father's work because he has a legal right to monoopolize reproduction of his father's work.

The question isn't whether or not Chris Tolkien has that legal right -- clearly, he does. The question is whether the law should confer upon him that right for 90 years after his father's death.

He's earned his money. Whether or not you agree with the decisions he's made as to the franchise is totally besides the point. We're not talking about quality of decisions here, we're discussing whether or not someone who a) has legal right to manage a trademark and b) someone who has worked for most of his life to promote that trademark should suddenly have the property/income of their family/company stolen away just because Nick Walter wants to publish stories in which he fucks Frodo Baggins up the ass while he wears the "one ring to rule them all" half-shaft down his Glamdring.
Most of the folks in this thread aren't talking about getting rid of copyright entirely; we're just talking about shortening copyright terms to some sane length of time. And that's the real issue: how long is long enough?

How far do you take your point, Crypt? Should Chris Tolkien's great-grandkids have the right to veto any work derived from the Lord of the Rings? What about Charles Dickens' descendants?

And you didn't answer the principal question I posed: why should we treat artistic producers better than inventors? If 20 years is enough for a patent, why isn't it enough for a poem?

[Damien Falgoust]

Also:
...(a) has legal right to manage a trademark and b) someone who has worked for most of his life to promote that trademark...
COPYRIGHT, goddammit, not TRADEMARK.