Steamboat Willie enters Public Domain in 2024

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/27/business/mickey-mouse-disney-public-domain.html

Someone gotta make Doom map out of this...

In what new and exciting way will Disney mangle copyright law and otherwise make everything worse? Who can tell, super excited to find out.

Wasn't this supposed to have already happened?! Or did we get another Disno-extension since then?

10 hours ago, mrthejoshmon said:

In what new and exciting way will Disney mangle copyright law and otherwise make everything worse? Who can tell, super excited to find out.

Well, they let - or were not unable to prevent - Winnie the Pooh enter public domain, so fingers crossed.

Did you know the copyright protection act is nicknamed the mickey mouse protection act ?

Inb4 Disney finds another "loophole" or pull some other BS to prevent Steamboat Willie and other old Mickey Mouse shorts from being public domain 🙃

Isn't the loophole that Mickey Mouse is still a trademarked character, so they can exert control that way independent of copyrights?

1 hour ago, Rudolph said:

Well, they let - or were not unable to prevent - Winnie the Pooh enter public domain, so fingers crossed.

Although, hilariously, Winnie the Pooh wearing a red shirt is still under copyright protection.

I've been saying this for a while, but the copyright law is an absolute joke. Even before Disney started all their BS, it has always been a total and complete scam.

Consider patent law for a moment. If someone secures the patent for something they invented, be it a new life-changing medicine, a new production method, or whatever, they have exclusive rights to it for the next 20 years. After that, it becomes property of the public for anyone to use.

But if that same person were to write a life-changing song? Oh, they have rights to it for life, plus 70 years after that to whomever it is bequeathed.

That's insane. Even if we were to ignore how much more difficult it is to secure a patent than a copyright, the fact that as a society are sending the indirect message that the creation of media is more important and thus deserves far more protection than the invention of something new? Please.

Even if you were to take the counterargument that "well, inventions are actually important, people build off of them and they're in the best interest of society to make them as widely available as possible" you'd not only be right, but that argument rings even more true for copyright. Virtually all music, films, games, literature, etc is all based on something that came before, indeed, many of Disney's earlier works borrowed largely from works in the public domain. And as a result of oppressive copyright laws influenced by Big Media™ and foreign treaties, creativity in the modern era is stifled and largely unoriginal.

I think we as the Doom community serve as one of the largest pieces of evidence for this as well. Just look at all the countless projects, mods, levels, whathaveyou, all possible thanks to the source code for Doom being released to the public.

I invite you to imagine a world where Copyright Equality existed. Where all created media only had a 20-year exclusivity period, just like patent law. Think of all the games that we could be taking apart and reverse-engineering. Think of all the 80's music we could use in whatever way we chose instead of having to pay out the rear side in licensing fees for a 40-year-old song. Think of what could be built, think of the newfound freedoms... think of the modding.

Anyway, rant aside, until people are actually serious about reforming real problems like this instead of petty nonsense like whether we set the clocks back or not, this problem will only continue to grow and cause further issues.

Posting before Disney sends a team of assassins to raid the US Copyright Office and take them hostage until they get Boat Mouse out of the Public Domain.

I'm sure they have the money to do so.

One can only hope that Ron DeCovid, as part as his campaign to both stand out from the guy he has been plagiarizing Donald Trump and make Disney pay for not being as awful as he wants them to be, uses his power to undermine Disney's hegemony over IPs.

Copywrite laws are almost as annoying as journalism websites with paywalls.

Posting the eBay link instead of Barnes n Noble because B&N trying to make

some turn-on-your-javascript demands of me; anyhow, may I recommend:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/195454808235

@prfunky You should make the subject of your post more obvious, because for a brief moment, I thought this was some sort of spam and I was genuinely nervous clicking on that URL. XD

35 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

@prfunky You should make the subject of your post more obvious, because for a brief moment, I thought this was some sort of spam and I was genuinely nervous clicking on that URL. XD

Nervous about clicking on a link to eBay?

I'm not sure what people think they would accomplish even if that particular cartoon landed in the public domain. I imagine that they would claim any rendition of Mickey Mouse is just infringing upon a more recent appearance of his. Although Mickey's style has changed over the years, I'm sure there are cartoons, movies, or games where his "original" appearance is still presented.

9 hours ago, Kes Gaming YT said:

I invite you to imagine a world where Copyright Equality existed. Where all created media only had a 20-year exclusivity period, just like patent law. Think of all the games that we could be taking apart and reverse-engineering. Think of all the 80's music we could use in whatever way we chose instead of having to pay out the rear side in licensing fees for a 40-year-old song. Think of what could be built, think of the newfound freedoms... think of the modding.

Sounds like ^{SOCIALIST NONSENSE!!11} an ideal world, if you ask me. Although I believe that artists, composers, game designers etc are of course entitled to fair pay for their labour, the idea of getting paid in 2022 for a job I did 30 years earlier in 1992 - one I always already paid handsomely for, no less - is actually just complete and utter nonsensical gibberish.

This standard of "pay for work" applies exclusively to work which has results which can be copyrighted, even though it's not at all as if that work as some kind of extra "intrinsic value" over any other kind of job. Imagine still being paid 30 years later for a job I spent maybe 200 hours on MAX half a lifetime ago? It really just doesn't make even one lick of sense on the face of it.

A 20 year exclusive hold on that property (to help ensure someone can't just rip me off after a month and sell the same thing at 90% of the cost) is far, far more reasonable.

11 hours ago, Kes Gaming YT said:

I think we as the Doom community serve as one of the largest pieces of evidence for this as well. Just look at all the countless projects, mods, levels, whathaveyou, all possible thanks to the source code for Doom being released to the public.

Sonic games source codes are not public and still the fanbase has produced a shitload amount of fangames, hacks and hidden demo material that was considered lost for years. So at the end of the day it's mainly about passion towards the franchise. 

9 hours ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

Copywrite laws are almost as annoying as journalism websites with paywalls.

Why is that? If I made a creation, a song for example, I think I should own this said creation, instead of it being drown in the sea of public domain. 

57 minutes ago, Sonikkumania said:

Why is that? If I made a creation, a song for example, I think I should own this said creation, instead of it being drown in the sea of public domain. 

I don't think you got what I was saying - the link OP posted directs to an article by the New York Times, and you can't read it without paying to subscribe to the website. Either that or I'm not getting what you're saying. Sure, you should own your creation, but I think it's pretty fair to let other people use your ideas after 200 years have passed. Just because it's public domain doesn't mean that it's drowned. The only entity that benefits from Mickey Mouse being locked up is Disney. The character isn't going to sink to the bottom of the ocean just because it becomes public domain. As soon as Winnie the Pooh entered public domain, many projects were announced right away - stuff that wouldn't be possible before, such as a Pooh Bear horror movie. Extreme copywrite laws only favor monetary gain and only stifle artistic advancement. There's little reason to be in favor a major corporation exerting extreme control of an ancient character just to fatten their pockets even more. You use Sonic as an example, but the community there only exists because Sega allows it to. If they were dicks about it like Nintendo, most of that stuff wouldn't exist.

27 minutes ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

I don't think you got what I was saying - the link OP posted directs to an article by the New York Times, and you can't read it without paying to subscribe to the website. Either that or I'm not getting what you're saying.

I only aimed to reply towards the copyright law issue. I don't like paywalls either but NYT is the last news source I'd use anyway.

27 minutes ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

Sure, you should own your creation, but I think it's pretty fair to let other people use your ideas after 200 years have passed.

I regard this more of a moral question. Let's consider that the author demands his work never to be put on public domain, and then what happens after 200 years?

27 minutes ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

As soon as Winnie the Pooh entered public domain, many projects were announced right away - stuff that wouldn't be possible before, such as a Pooh Bear horror movie. Extreme copywrite laws only favor monetary gain and only stifle artistic advancement.

Why should art be the dominant force above the law, especially when art is such an abstract phenomenon where not just a single truth or opinion exist as a solid foundation? This horror movie you referred to could have very well been written without the need to include a worldwide known character in the plot, because now it just seems that the author only wanted to use some kind of "shock value" by featuring a children fairy tale character. Would the story be the same without said character, or would there be anything else left but stripped bare bones?

Besides, art itself is always somewhat an strike towards the establishment, a wild untamed beast of a human spirit. If it gains the sponsoring from the establishment, what will it be but mild amusement for the masses? The artist will always find a way to counter any establishment oppose because artists always view themselves as the mistreated adventurers, martyrs of the oppressing law.

32 minutes ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

You use Sonic as an example, but the community there only exists because Sega allows it to. If they were dicks about it like Nintendo, most of that stuff wouldn't exist.

Yeah because I happen to know about Sonic fan material somewhat, though I could've as well mentioned Command & Conquer or Age of Empires. Besides I highly doubt that a culture of fanbase made content would decrease, people have been making these things against all odds all the time.

Though I have to admit that the copyright law is not flawless and is very open to corruption as it seems to be the case in all man made. So in other words this debate might be obsolete.

14 hours ago, ETTiNGRiNDER said:

Isn't the loophole that Mickey Mouse is still a trademarked character, so they can exert control that way independent of copyrights?

Yes.

Trademarks last as long as you defend them, so potentially forever.

1 hour ago, Sonikkumania said:

Let's consider that the author demands his work never to be put on public domain, and then what happens after 200 years?

That's exactly the issue here - many people agree that they shouldn't be allowed to do that.

1 hour ago, Sonikkumania said:

This horror movie you referred to could have very well been written without the need to include a worldwide known character in the plot, because now it just seems that the author only wanted to use some kind of "shock value" by featuring a children fairy tale character.

Shock value or not, they wanted to use the character. It wouldn't be the same without a worldwide known character from a fairy tale, that's the whole point. There are plenty of violent films based on classic fairy tales pulled from public domain. Hansel and Gretel, Red Riding Hood, Snow White, etc.

1 hour ago, Sonikkumania said:

artists always view themselves as the mistreated adventurers, martyrs of the oppressing law.

No they don't. That's just how you view artists.

1 hour ago, Sonikkumania said:

I highly doubt that a culture of fanbase made content would decrease, people have been making these things against all odds all the time.

Do you think that this community would not be anywhere near what it is today without the source code for DOOM being released? Do you understand how much that aided the community, and how it enabled them to create the mods that we're all playing now?

11 minutes ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

Do you think that this community would not be anywhere near what it is today without the source code for DOOM being released? Do you understand how much that aided the community, and how it enabled them to create the mods that we're all playing now?

It would probably be in the same place as things like Dark Forces, Shadow Warrior, Turok.

Recreations, not source ports.

We would definitely not be in the same place without the source ports going public, after DOSDoon released, it couldn't be the same, Boom introduced enhancements, which was adapted into MBF, which is supported by zDoom, which thanks to running Brutal Doom, inspired a whole new set of modding, all thanks to the source code release.

I love John Carmack and his firm belief in Open Source and plenty of other things.

26 minutes ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

That's exactly the issue here - many people agree that they shouldn't be allowed to do that.

But why not? The way I see it, the creator should have the ultimate decision.

26 minutes ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

Shock value or not, they wanted to use the character. It wouldn't be the same without a worldwide known character from a fairy tale, that's the whole point.

I get it. My point is that preventing the use of a copyrighted character creates absolutely no barrier to artistic sense in the long run. If the author is unable to come up with an interesting plot without the use of a famous character, then that expresses more of their inability to write than exploitation of the copyright law.

26 minutes ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

No they don't. That's just how you view artists.

Yes, I do, but not by my own views only. I've read authors, artistic themselves as well, bringing this claim out front, thus I have found basis on my view. I know and have spent time with people who are more or less artists. They are no doubt talented people, but their lack of self criticism is close to narcissm in many personalities. This in no way is an direct insult to anyone particular invidual but an expression of my own personal life experiences which I aim to represent in the most unbiased and neutral light as I can.

27 minutes ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

Do you think that this community would not be anywhere near what it is today without the source code for DOOM being released? Do you understand how much that aided the community, and how it enabled them to create the mods that we're all playing now?

No, I don't think and yes I do understand all this very well. I still claim that Doom modding scene would be alive to this day, perhaps not as impressive but alive nevertheless.

3 hours ago, Sonikkumania said:

preventing the use of a copyrighted character creates absolutely no barrier to artistic sense in the long run. If the author is unable to come up with an interesting plot without the use of a famous character, then that expresses more of their inability to write than exploitation of the copyright law.

Ah, yes - because someone creates a story based on existing character that must mean that they are a talentless hack. Understood. Say goodbye to every film based on a book! This is nothing but personal bias based on your personal feelings about certain artists.

3 hours ago, Sonikkumania said:

I know and have spent time with people who are more or less artists. They are no doubt talented people, but their lack of self criticism is close to narcissm in many personalities. This in no way is an direct insult to anyone particular invidual but an expression of my own personal life experiences which I aim to represent in the most unbiased and neutral light as I can.

So you hung out with some pseudo-intellectual Sex Pistols wannabes and came away with the idea that "artists always view themselves as the mistreated adventurers, martyrs of the oppressing law" and that they are narcissists with no sense of self criticism. I don't find it insulting but I'm sure someone else will. Guess what, a good majority of the people here are "more or less" artists in one way or another. You're using a personal anecdote based on your own personal experiences with some people you met while claiming to have no bias. Actually, this whole tangent serves no overall purpose except to be insulting. Why is your personal view of some artists you met relevant to the conversation? I hung out with Brad Pitt the other day and he was a real asshole, so all actors are always assholes. This is just my personal experience, no bias intended when I label all actors as assholes because of my experience with Brad Pitt. I'm doing you a huge favor by not judging you based on my previous interactions with Sonic fans.

3 hours ago, Sonikkumania said:

I still claim that Doom modding scene would be alive to this day, perhaps not as impressive but alive nevertheless.

As @openxt stated, it would be nowhere near what it is today. You're acting like the source code being released is no big deal because the community would still be alive on life support.

Anyway, I'm done with this debate.

41 minutes ago, Sonikkumania said:

I get it. My point is that preventing the use of a copyrighted character creates absolutely no barrier to artistic sense in the long run. If the author is unable to come up with an interesting plot without the use of a famous character, then that expresses more of their inability to write than exploitation of the copyright law.

Do you believe that Walt Disney came up with the original characters, do not steal, of Snow White and the seven dwarfs, Cinderella and her fairy godmother, Beauty and the Beast, Quasimodo the hunchback and Esmeralda, Ariel the little mermaid, Alice and the white rabbit in Wonderland, or heck, Pocahontas? To say nothing about the lion king or Atlantis...

People don't like to reinvent the wheel all the time. In writing, too. That's why there are stock characters. There are entire genres that are based on constantly reusing the same short cast of constantly-reused character, be it Commedia dell'arte with its all-star cast of Harlequin, Pierrot, and so on; or American comics books where we have several hundred billion stories about Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man.

It's well-known that many authors get their start in fan-fiction. This is because if you write a Star Trek/Harry Potter/whatever else fanfic, you can get an audience from the Star Trek/Harry Potter/whatever else fan community that will provide you with the feedback that any aspiring author craves to hone their work. Whereas if you start directly with your own characters disconnected from any established franchise, it'll be harder to get eyeballs on it since nobody will have preexisting investment in your world and characters.

20 minutes ago, Gez said:

Do you believe that Walt Disney came up with the original characters, do not steal, of Snow White and the seven dwarfs, Cinderella and her fairy godmother, Beauty and the Beast, Quasimodo the hunchback and Esmeralda, Ariel the little mermaid, Alice and the white rabbit in Wonderland, or heck, Pocahontas? To say nothing about the lion king or Atlantis...

By no means. Never said anything like that. Whatever, it seems like I stuck upon a beehive, which I didn't intend.

1 hour ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

Anyway, I'm done with this debate.

Likewise. Don't put words on my mouth. We could've had an official debate, maybe I could've addressed my views in more apolitical sense, regarding that I have honest appreciation towards art and artists, especially those who're talented in graphical field. But with admiring comes realisation of negative values.

Even if that news article is behind a paywall, a couple important things to note while emphasising the obvious that I'm not a US Lawyer, but I did spend a solid month a few years ago reading through US copyright registrations and renewals explicitly for trying to compile a more accurate list of animated shorts in the public domain compared to existing online sources, given that US copyright law prior to 1964/1978 (and after sometime in the 1900s, can't recall the exact year but that's irrelevant) required that registrants had to correctly file entries that lasted 28 years, plus another 28 years for renewing the copyright:

• Trademark law is distinctly different from copyright law and only effectively expires when the trademark holder is defunct, and the likeness of Mickey Mouse will effectively be mandated by Disney (or whoever owns the trademark) ceases to exist
• With that in mind, given the clickbait articles I've constantly seen regarding Steamboat Willie entering the public domain, there's already two Mickey Mouse shorts that are in the public domain and have been for decades - Minnie's Yoo Hoo from 1930 (which was exclusively distributed to Mickey Mouse fan clubs and was not renewed in 1958) and The Mad Doctor from 1933 (which was not renewed in 1961), both of which can be easily found on public domain VHS tapes but I'm only aware of one public domain DVD that has The Mad Doctor. Disney's Treasures DVD collection does feature both shorts, but The Mad Doctor has a modified intro/ending that could technically fall under a renewed copyright explicitly for that version.
• Not related to Disney, but a large majority of Warner Bros cartoons from 1943 that are in the public domain are because they were never filed for copyright in the first place, showing a rather interesting perspective of how some old film had entered the public domain - some of the black&white shorts that were never registered had new copyrights for the redrawn colourisations that were done in the 1960s, but that does not change the public domain status of the original black&white shorts.