Copyright isn’t forever, in fact it’s whole purpose is to be of limited time. The earliest uses of Micky Mouse have now fallen into public domain because that time is up.
in fact it’s whole purpose is to be of limited time.
I love how you put this. The most recent extension of the term of copyright was the 1998 “Sonny Bono” Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) which delayed (not for the first time) Mickey’s entry into the public domain by 20 years. When the constitutionality of the CTEA was challenged in the courts (Eldred v. Ashcroft) it went all the way to the supreme court, which ultimately found, unfortunately, no merit in the challenge and allowed the CTEA to stand.
The Clause exists not to “provide a special private benefit,” but “to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good.” It does so by “motivat[ing] the creative activity of authors” through “the provision of a special reward.” … The “reward” is a means, not an end. And that is why the copyright term is limited. It is limited so that its beneficiaries - the public - “will not be permanently deprived of the fruits of an artist’s labors.”
Disney has spent a lot of money lobbying for the extension of copyrights. It is not possible to buy extensions on copyrights, but Disney did as close to it as possible. Before Disney, copyrights expired when the author died plus 50 years. In the late 90s, that term was coming up for Mickey, so Disney supported legislation (dubbed the Mickey Mouse Law) that changed it to 70 years. That extra 20 years has now expired, and there is no political will to extend it again.
They can’t buy it back because there is nobody to buy it from, it is the property of everyone now. That said, everything after the earliest uses of Mickey Mouse are still the property of Disney for now, and they can continue to make and sell new stuff featuring him.
You’re misunderstanding the whole point of copyright. But don’t worry. You’re in good company. So does the Supreme Court!
What it means to have copyright protections on a work is that if you go to court, the courts will enforce those rights. The courts decide what to do on the basis of law. And the law that grants copyrights on new works has a built-in expiration date of 95 years after publication for works owned by corporations or 70 years after the author’s death for works owned by an individual. (One detail I’m leaving out here is that if a company makes a work and doesn’t publish it for over 25 years, that 95 years gets shorter.)
Copyright isn’t an inalienable right. The right not to be murdered is an inalienable right meaning that you have that right because people agree all humans deserve that right just because they’re human. To protect people’s lives is an end in itself. Copyright isn’t like that. The constitution specifically says that the purpose of copyright is “to promote … useful Arts.” The reason copyright exists is so that more art is produced. Not because artists deserve some exclusive right to the ideas they produce.
And in fact, the founding fathers’ view was that the major purpose of making art was so others could use, adapt, and build on it. Which is why they built in an expiration date. The idea was that by having a limited time during which they could get the courts to enforce their monopoly (yes “monopoly” is the right term to use here) on their works, artists could profit from their works which incentivizes artists to make works. But if artists made works and those works were never available for other artists to build on, the reason for them to have been made in the first place would be defeated.
So, because the law that grants copyrights has a built-in expiration date, and because that expiration date has expired specifically on Steamboat Willie, the law says those exclusive rights don’t exist any more. There’s nothing to “buy back.”
If Disney, for instance, sold the rights to the Frozen franchise (on which copyright hasn’t yet expired) to Sony, then Disney would have the option later of trying to negotiate with Sony to buy the rights to the Frozen franchise back. But if Disney waited until the year (counts on fingers) 2108 when the copyright would have expired to have those discussions, there’d be no copyright rights to buy back.
Copyright isn’t forever, in fact it’s whole purpose is to be of limited time. The earliest uses of Micky Mouse have now fallen into public domain because that time is up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain
I love how you put this. The most recent extension of the term of copyright was the 1998 “Sonny Bono” Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) which delayed (not for the first time) Mickey’s entry into the public domain by 20 years. When the constitutionality of the CTEA was challenged in the courts (Eldred v. Ashcroft) it went all the way to the supreme court, which ultimately found, unfortunately, no merit in the challenge and allowed the CTEA to stand.
But two of the justices dissented to the majority opinion. And Justice Breyer wrote this in his dissenting opinion about the clause in the Constitution justifying the whole institution of Copyright in the U.S.:
Cant disney just buy it back ignore my ignorence
Disney has spent a lot of money lobbying for the extension of copyrights. It is not possible to buy extensions on copyrights, but Disney did as close to it as possible. Before Disney, copyrights expired when the author died plus 50 years. In the late 90s, that term was coming up for Mickey, so Disney supported legislation (dubbed the Mickey Mouse Law) that changed it to 70 years. That extra 20 years has now expired, and there is no political will to extend it again.
I dunno about you, but personally, there’s a whole shitload of legislation I’ve dubbed " mickey mouse law"… ;)
They can’t buy it back because there is nobody to buy it from, it is the property of everyone now. That said, everything after the earliest uses of Mickey Mouse are still the property of Disney for now, and they can continue to make and sell new stuff featuring him.
You’re misunderstanding the whole point of copyright. But don’t worry. You’re in good company. So does the Supreme Court!
What it means to have copyright protections on a work is that if you go to court, the courts will enforce those rights. The courts decide what to do on the basis of law. And the law that grants copyrights on new works has a built-in expiration date of 95 years after publication for works owned by corporations or 70 years after the author’s death for works owned by an individual. (One detail I’m leaving out here is that if a company makes a work and doesn’t publish it for over 25 years, that 95 years gets shorter.)
Copyright isn’t an inalienable right. The right not to be murdered is an inalienable right meaning that you have that right because people agree all humans deserve that right just because they’re human. To protect people’s lives is an end in itself. Copyright isn’t like that. The constitution specifically says that the purpose of copyright is “to promote … useful Arts.” The reason copyright exists is so that more art is produced. Not because artists deserve some exclusive right to the ideas they produce.
And in fact, the founding fathers’ view was that the major purpose of making art was so others could use, adapt, and build on it. Which is why they built in an expiration date. The idea was that by having a limited time during which they could get the courts to enforce their monopoly (yes “monopoly” is the right term to use here) on their works, artists could profit from their works which incentivizes artists to make works. But if artists made works and those works were never available for other artists to build on, the reason for them to have been made in the first place would be defeated.
So, because the law that grants copyrights has a built-in expiration date, and because that expiration date has expired specifically on Steamboat Willie, the law says those exclusive rights don’t exist any more. There’s nothing to “buy back.”
If Disney, for instance, sold the rights to the Frozen franchise (on which copyright hasn’t yet expired) to Sony, then Disney would have the option later of trying to negotiate with Sony to buy the rights to the Frozen franchise back. But if Disney waited until the year (counts on fingers) 2108 when the copyright would have expired to have those discussions, there’d be no copyright rights to buy back.