After decades of litigation, Mickey and Minnie Mouse have entered the public domain as of January 1. For years, Disney has bullied and sued anyone attempting to use the image of Mickey or Minnie Mouse. They are not alone in such abusive actions. The company led other businesses in endless legislative measures to criminalize copyright violations and massively increase their power over consumers. That is why this is a moment of such significance. However, the draconian copyright laws will continue due to members of Congress of both parties throwing consumers and average Americans under the bus. There will remain an army of thuggish law firms who prey upon anyone who uses other images — threatening ruin in exchange for expensive settlements. Do not blame Disney. It is acting according to its nature. Blame your representatives of Congress.
Mickey and Minnie entered the public domain on Jan. 1 despite the fact that Mickey made his debut in the short film “Steamboat Willie” 95 years ago.
Think of that. This company has been able to brutalize consumers and artists for almost a century due to Congress caving to powerful industry lobbyists. Members have done nothing as average people were set upon by eat-what-you-kill law firms bringing thousands of cases a year.
Moreover, the later images of Mickey remain under copyright protection and Disney is again threatening anyone using such images with legal action: “We will, of course, continue to protect our rights in the more modern versions of Mickey Mouse and other works that remain subject to copyright.”
The Duke Center for the Study of the Public Domain includes these images every year as part of its list of works that are now free for artists to remix and reimagine. That now includes Tigger, who, like Mickey Mouse, made his first appearance in 1928.
This was due despite the worst efforts of Congress, which has extended copyright terms in 1998. That led to a twenty-year period barring releases into the public domain.
In perhaps the most fitting celebration of the end of the long abuse of copyright laws over the image, one filmmaker has released a Mickey-based horror film to celebrate the occasion.
“No Copyright Law: The Real Reason for Germany’s Industrial Expansion?”
A typical collectivist attempt to destroy intellectual property rights. And, to boot, an attempt that butchers history.
The Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain, which did have copyright and patent protections. (Patents are far more important to industrial progress than is copyright.) The IR was perfected in America, which had robust copyright and patent protections.
Further, Germany’s industrial revolution did not begin to flourish until the late 19th century, after it unified, and codified copyright and patent protections.
But when you have a desire to destroy intellectual property, history is merely collateral damage.
“Intellectual property” is a misnomer. Copyright, patent, and trademark are three distinct and limited rights. There is no overarching concept. Copyright is exactly that, the right to make a copy. If I possess a legal copy of a work, I can do what I want with it, regardless of the wishes of the creator, except make more copies.
Copyright and patent are legal monopolies given to reward people for creativity and to encourage the creativity of others. The question then becomes whether the length of copyright will encourage further creativity or extinguish it. There is no need to extend the copyright of Mickey Mouse to encourage the creativity of Walt Disney. He is long dead. Any further creativity associated with Mickey Mouse must necessarily be carried on by others. The question is whether those others should be those associated with the legal monopoly the law creates or those outside it.
“There is no overarching concept.”
You don’t know what you’re talking about. There are various types of IP, with copyright and patents as just two.
No Copyright Law: The Real Reason for Germany’s Industrial Expansion?
By Frank Thadeusz
August 18, 2010 – SPIEGEL International
Did Germany experience rapid industrial expansion in the 19th century due to an absence of copyright law? A German historian argues that the massive proliferation of books, and thus knowledge, laid the foundation for the country’s industrial might.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-law-the-real-reason-for-germany-s-industrial-expansion-a-710976.html
Hitler did that. The greatest economist known to man, fore or since.
“Hitler did that. The greatest economist known to man, fore or since. ”
Though it is not clear what the “that” refers to, this statement makes you sound like a nutcase.
Updated 1/2/24 Lefty Wall of Shame aka The Lefty Turd Farm
Fully rested from her time off over the holiday, Gigi screeches as loud as ever, Trump cheated!! and all the rest, but she dropped a new turd today. Apparently, she isn’t aware that Hunter was, however briefly, in the US Navy.
Not to be outdone, our boy Svelass drops a fresh one as well.
Svelass aka Mr Peetape 23
Dennis McInlyre 10
Lawn Boy Elvis Bug 7
Gigi the LIAR 5
ATS 3
turdrunner 4
Hunter Biden is not, and has never been, a government employee—-Gigi the LIAR
He encouraged the crowd to march to the capitol. He’s accused of inciting the crowd to do a rebellious action.—-Svelass aka Mr Peetape
Most Confederate soldiers were poor sharecroppers—-Dennis McInlyre aka Mr Alpha Bank
16 Republicans signed an amicus brief.—-Dennis McInlyre aka Mr. Alpha Bank
In Mcdonnell, SCOTUS narrowed the definition of what constitutes a benefit—Svelaz aka Mr Peetape
Gifts and payments to family are not “official acts” with regard to Joe Biden—Mr Peetape
(confusing quid with quo)
The 14th Amendment argument was put forth by the Federalist Society—Mr Peetape
It will be up to a GRAND JURY to decide if Hunter is guilty of contempt—-Svelaz aka
Mr Peetape
2 USC 192 is a congressional rule—Svelaz aka Mr Peetape
Congressional rules trump the 6th Amendment—Mr Peetape
Convictions for tax evasion are rare (its 2 per day)—-Mr Peetape
The inflation rate is coming down and is at 2.5% (it’s 3.1% and steady, 12/12/23)—brandrunner aka turdrunner
Hunter and his lawyer have said they would comply with the subpoena—Dennis McInlyre aka Mr Alpha Bank
The 5th Amendment cannot be invoked in a court or criminal proceeding—Svelaz aka Mr Peetape
Hunter won’t testify. He will plead the 5th. (12/15)—Svelaz, aka Mr Peetape
Hunter wants to testify. He is not trying to hide anything. (12/18)—Svelaz aka Mr Peetape
A President can’t be convicted of a crime unless there is no doubt—Svelaz aka Mr. Peetape
R.C.A.W.T. was a good pneumonic —- Elvis Bug aka The Lawn Boy
(its mnemonic)
Nuclear ICBM’s are more accurate, the closer you are to the target.—turdrunner
Hunter doesn’t have to testify because Comer changed his mind—Dennis aka Mr Alpha Bank
The quid has to be illegal for a quid pro quo to be illegal—-turdrunner
If Joe’s quid results in Hunter’s quo, that’s not illegal—-turdrunner
Inflation was on a rising trend from 2015 until Trump left office—-Elvis Bug aka The Lawn Boy
(1.3, 2.2, 2.5, 1.9, 1.3)
Comer said that the mere presence of shell companies is *proof* of a crime—-Svelass aka Mr. Peetape
Hunter Biden showed up for his hearing today—–Svelass aka Mr. Peetape
Hunter Biden agreed to testify to a public hearing—–Gigi the LIAR
(who did he agree with?)
The Consumer Price Index was indeed at 7.6% when Trump left office—–Elvis Bug aka The Lawn Boy (it was 1.4%)
Archer gave no details about the meeting at the Naval Observatory with Marc Holtzman—-Svelaz aka Mr Peetape
Archer had no idea what was on those phone calls. He admitted it under oath—Svelaz aka Mr Peetape
Evidence isnt permissible unless its incontrovertible—-ATS
Circumstantial evidence alone is not enough to convict——Svelaz aka Mr Peetape
Republicans are the only ones calling for violence these days—-Dennis
Democrats call for violence when the cause is right—-Dennis in the same post
Gas prices spiked because Texas uses crude oil to make electricity—-Gigi the LIAR
AR-15’s ruin the meat—-Dennis
The inflation rate was 8% when Trump left office—-Gigi the LIAR
(it was actually 1.4%)
Biden only released the strategic oil reserve once—-Svelass Mr Peetape
Archer never said it was Joe that was called from Dubai—-ATS
The State of Florida does property tax “appraisals”—-Svelass Mr Peetape
You can’t convict without incontrovertible proof—ATS
Trump was convicted of rape—Svelass Mr. Peetape
The Jefferson County school board has a supermajority of republicans—-lawn boy EB
Trumps attorney forgot to “check a box”——Dennis
An insult or name calling is not a personal attack—-Svelass Mr. Peetape
The DC NG answers only to the President—-Gigi the LIAR
Christianity teaches to treat your fellow man the same way you treat Jesus—-Svelass Mr Peetape
The ideal athlete is 6’2” and 175#—-Dennis
There is no way a fat person can shoot a 67 in golf—-Dennis
“Bright red Alabama is the “wild west”,” (when its bright blue Birmingham that accounts for 95% of the gun violence in Alabama)—-Dennis
That’s why McCarthy didn’t hold a vote. He was going to, but upon realizing he didn’t have the votes he chose not to hold one.—-Mr Peetape
McCarthy never said he didn’t have the votes.—-Mr Peetape.
What many of you (including JT) apparently don’t understand is that the author’s copyright is simultaneously created along with the publisher’s copyright. That’s why Performance Rights Organizations (ASCAP, BMI, etc) always total all rights to equal 200% (100% of the author’s copyright and 100% of the publisher’s copyright). When I legally create a song, even before I file a legal record of the copyright, I own 100% of the author’s copyright and 100% of the publishing copyright. A “work for hire” only differs in bestowing the author’s copyright to the employer, as well as the publishing right. In industry speak, it is the job of the publisher to “exploit and protect” the copyright to the furthest extent the law allows. For all who cry sour grapes about Disney, there are many more creators & publishers who hold them up as great examples of how to fully exploit a copyright, because without vigilant protection measures, a copyright soon looses value. I personally dislike a lot about the direction Disney’s business model has taken in recent years, but I’m still in awe of their legal moves to ferret out violatiors of their rights.
“looses” not loses
thomas
brit
foreigner
Go suck a coddled egg
How or why is it “abusive” for the holder of a copyright to enforce their rights against those who would pirate away the value of their intellectual property, developed and promoted by the owner, all of which gives it value that someone else wants to take for free? OR, Turley, is this just you shoveling chum to the disciples because of DeSantis’s war on Disney?
Where would plagiarism fall on this spectrum?
PS read the comments, the chum isn’t raising the fish.
You are truly an imbecile. No way you are female. No woman ever pretended to know so much who was so goddam stupid. Pick a male pseudonym.
The abuse is in the way the costs of lawfare are instituted upon the little ones, those you claim, by demoncratic party affiliation, to totally support. Funny how you didn’t know that.
I have never understood to disparity between (the 95 for pseudonymous works or 70 years after the death of the author) extended copyright exclusivity privilege and the (20 year after filing) patent exclusivity privilege. As an engineer dealing with both expressive (copyrighted) and conceptual (patented) American law protecting intellectual property is decidedly out of kilter. As a holder of several patents, I personally am very comfortable with the patent exclusivity privilege as a reasonable compromise between the competing interests of the patent holder and that of society at large. I wholeheartedly agree with Prof. Turley that the 1998 copyright reforms went too far and were driven for the benefit of corporations such as Disney to protect their income stream and not by any realization of benefits to the American public.
@Arnold
And you’re forgetting about FRAND when it comes to licensing patents which doesn’t apply to copyrighted material.
-G
Perpetual Copyright
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_copyright
The US government has that in their special access programs and the MIC
That is a good point. In the development of standards, there have been cases where the technology underlying the draft of a proposed standard was patented but not disclosed (or the FRAND terms established) to the industry standards committee until after approval. Since most standards organizations that I dealt with were dependent on volunteers, this is a continual learning process.
I don’t know if there exists a patent FRAND analog to the copyright.
Professor Turley ushers in 2024 with an unhinged rant about copyright laws. Copyright laws are largely designed to prevent companies & individuals from making money & profiting from the sale of products which reproduce logos, images, & works without the permission from the creators of the original material.
Host of televised baseball games typically recite the all-too familiar refrain: “Any rebroadcast, reproduction or other use of the pictures and accounts of this game without the express written consent of Major League Baseball is prohibited.”
In Professor Turley’s world, Major League Baseball is presumably brutalizing consumers by employing thuggish law firms to bully & sue anyone attempting to use the pictures & accounts of the games without the express written consent of MLB. Think of that.
Happy New Year, everyone.
What’s funny is the national past time ballgames used to be broadcast for free on the big three abc cbs and nbc and anyone with rabbit ears and a TV could get those games for free, including all the football league games, because it was considered a “public thing” and part of the national ethos and was supported with tax dollars in major cities and the public airwaves.
Then the demons of disaster, profit, selfishness, and hatred took over. The Congress was bought off. The haters of the USA and American Dream decided only they will get that American Dream and screw the entire public fan base.
Just another sad tale in the hole the monsters dug into the USA.
This reply is not about this post. It is about your disgusting support for free speech that causes people to take action that is harmful to others.
Your support for the orange man should include what a fricken A hole he is and you should do everything in your power to reign in this person that is causing grief for our country. Get a grip, free speech stops when it causes action. He is calling for action that is harmful. Throw the bum in the slammer for a very long time, take his phone away, This is not the country our founders had in mind.
Funny how you monsters did the same thing to Reagan and both Bush’, more so to W. I figured out a long time ago it’s what you blabbering idiots do every time, no matter what.
Now you’ve socially steroid pumped your blabbering fully predictable horse manure and still no one believes you.
“The company led other businesses in endless legislative measures to criminalize copyright violations and massively increase their power over consumers.”
Can you explain this power that WDC has over me because I cannot freely use its work product as my own?
Was the worst use of this was when the Rolling Stones sued Verve (Pipe) over a couple bars in Bittersweet Symphony? When I hear that song my dislike for the stones goes up +1.
Until Congress repeals AUMF, ends insider trading and pensions for itself, and requires IDs for voting, I’d prefer it to do absolutely nothing.
I have to agree, one of Turley’s worst, and I love Turley. He does nothing to define what is abuse in the context and why. Why should’t the creators be able to protect and defend their creations professor? How about something more illuminating than a hollow rant?
You have absolutely no understanding of the concept of a copyright, which is meant to protect the original creator for a limited period of time. Artistic monopolies are no better for the economy than any other monopoly, which is what Disney has effectively accomplished with the Mouse.
Can you illustrate for us the impact the economic monopoly of mickey mouse?
@Anonymous
It isn’t about Mickey Mouse, it’s about the fact that when in the public domain, people do things with Mickey Mouse rather than moving on and creating something original which basically nullifies their point. ‘Innovation’ my ***. Someone had to imagine and create Mickey Mouse in the first place in order for the copyright crows to have their grievances. This is an absurd argument, and it’s not the first time I have been of the opposite viewpoint of the Professor, personally. I’ll say it again: if you support this, by all means, send me your weekly paycheck and then fork over your pension and social security. I’d be happy to take them without lifting a finger or contributing anything to your life, and no, I am not leaving your family with a damn thing. I’ll take your house too, if that is in the bargain, since you deemed I am not deserving of making a living with my own unique contribution to humanity.
And do please expound on how much you would enjoy a world in which no one gives you anything that adds beauty, depth, anything new, or indeed, meaning to your life, no novel ideas, just regurgitation based on whatever has gone before, and then complain about how gray your world is. No, thanks. The Soviet Union did this with their banning; North Korea, Iran, Cambodia, and Saudi Arabia – they continue that tradition and nevertheless people smuggle things in because they cannot stand feeling so dead inside all of the time. There is a point at which we are all in peril of become entitled, and this is one of them. Get out of your 21st century, social media fueled comfort and boosheet for even half a second; you are automatically more privileged than half the world just by virtue of the physical space that you occupy. It is not the fault of people that create things that you are lazy and stuck, nor is it their responsibility to coddle you back into comfort. This applies across the political spectrum.
There are times, though infrequent, when the Professor’s generational wealth pops up and says, ‘Hello!’. Is a part of those in opposition also waving their hand at us? Sure seems that way. Go blow.
I understand what theft is. I also understand what hyperbole is.
Simply because someone steals a mickey image, that doesn’t mean they have undermined the economic integrity of Disney, nor does it mean that their having the copyright creates some damaging economic ‘artistic’ monopoly.
PS there are some very significant examples of artists granting an effective free license to their work which was beneficial to the artist – the Grateful Dead are an excellent example.
Not sure how I feel about this one. It is about time for Mickey to enter the public realm, but Mickey Mouse is so closely related to Disney, I do not see how this does not hurt their reputation. I guess if the Three Stooges can be in the public domain, then so can Mickey. Does that count for Bugs Bunny too?
As a person who has, as an artist, created a logo for our family business and characters for a book that I have written and illustrated plus countless other imagery created in the course of running that business I would not want anyone benefiting from my creations because they chose to copy that image and use it for financial gain. I am on the side of the lawyers and creators. I have had to deal with persons copying my designs and it is not pleasant to try and reclaim your creations from artistic “snash & grab” thugs who want to use your designs without recognition or remuneration – especially when it is a competitor.
@whimsicalmama
Very much agreed. Anyone in opposition is free to send me their paycheck each week and then gift me with their pension and social security for *their* life’s work. The inability to understand this by those who claim to oppose socialism or redistribution is a real head scratcher.
Copyright actually empowers innovation as people must create novel ideas. This should not be difficult to understand or support. 99% of creators are not mega corporations like Disney. Anti-trust law is what is actually called for, and those crowing about copyright are often the biggest abusers of monopolistic practices.
Many people have this one exactly backward.
What is the difference between my building a home and leaving to my children? Should they be worried that 70 years from the construction, anyone can occupy that home? People are not seeing this from the side of the creators of these images and products.
Once a copyright is created, protection generally lasts for 70 years after the death of the author and in some cases 95 years from publication
so what is your point? How long should copyright last?
Forever… for comparison; If I used my skills to build a home for my family should my family’s claim to that property, if I leave it to them in my will, become available for public use after 70 years? What is the difference between an image that I create or the brick and mortar building that I create?
That’s all very odd. Just yesterday or the day before I freely used Charles Schultz’s Linus and Snoopy images in a Youtube New Year’s post — which I also posted here in Turleyville — and as always happens, youtube checked to see if there were any copyright infringement issues before posting my usage of the Peanuts’ imagery and reported to me that there were no copyright issues — and the images I used were no older than from 1966, same as the Star Trek theme song recording I used with those Peanuts images:
I know that the onus for copyright infringement is on the creator of the property to go after those stealing their intellectual property. Disney was very adept at following up on this but others are not. Just because you got away with it doesn’t, necessarily, mean that it was OK, just that no one spent the energy to pursue you or didn’t care if you used it.
It’s a curious situation. I did a version of the following FJB video using a longer cut from the Laurel & Hardy movie from 1937, and Youtube informed me that it was a copyright violation and refused to publish it. But when I shortened the movie clip used, it passed Youtube’s copyright test. So apparently someone is still interested in whether to allow usage of Laurel & Hardy video clips and/or how much usage constitutes some sort of infringement:
The Peanuts copyrights are owned by the Charles M. Schultz Foundation, which is a non-profit. They are not ungenerous with usage rights – I know this because I reached out to them for permission to use a quote of Lucy Van Pelt’s in my first novel, which they granted for no fee.
Disney, on the other hand, is a for-profit concern, known for muscling their way into extended protections of their copyrights, searching actively for violations and pouncing, and currently experiencing some rockiness as the public trickles away from their newer products, turned off by strident wokeness and lamely constructed content.
Comparing the two is sort of like putting Linus up against The Incredible Hulk – they just aren’t the same.
So basically, it seems that copyright violations are in the eye of the beholder.
I’d say rather some are more jealous of and some more generous with their rights than others.
It is time for a wholesale rewrite of copyright and patents. What we have at present stifles innovation and imagination. The copyright laws and patent laws were there to protect the originator of the idea and the artist. Not to give perpetual rights and privileges. The limits need to be constricted and the law reconstructed for all. Innovation and imagination is the breath of life for the true American Dream. Take the restraints off so that we can soar again on minds unconstrained.
I take it that you have never created an image that someone else has used for financial gain from which you received no remuneration. How is this any different from someone created a home for themselves and then having someone claim use of it after 70 years or the death of the creator? “What is your definition between images and brick and mortar constructions – each has intrinsic value but intellectual property isn’t protected the way actual property is and why isn’t it?
It’s different because a home is lived in by a very limited number of individuals whereas writing or an invention is mass distributed to public by simple COPYING.
So it is extremely different, very different, and not the same at all. An analogy would be your daddy designed and built a home then someone else did a tour and went off somewhere and built a similar home.
In another sense, it is different because no one came to your biz or your logos and took them away from you and prevented you from using them, as would be the case with your house analogy.
You really aren’t that stupid, I’ve seen a lot of your other posts.
Congratulations on starting the year with your worst blog ever (IMHO). The true abusers of copyrights are running virtually unchecked on YouTube, TikToc & Facebook. Save me from your ivory tower free speech nonsense. As a copyright holder myself, I see you as my enemy.
How much greed is too much greed ?
How did the Founders get it so wrong ?
How are the arbitrary number of extending years since (1790) 28 years, (1818) 42 years, (1867) 57 years, (1906) 67 years, (1923) 75 years, 95, 105 years justifiable in any rational sense ? (fore and aft years, whatever, retroactive extensions) ….
It just keeps growing like a virus. I support creators but where’s the legislative sense ? It seems no one has any real argument, it’s all up for grabs and they just make up funny numbers as they go along.
You so funny. The “virus” is more and more entitled morons not possessing creative bones in their bodies but inexorably increasing their demands that they should be entitled to something they never had a hand in authoring.