WI: No 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act

[NibiruMul]

Disney has long feared the idea of Mickey Mouse being a public domain character. In the past, Mickey Mouse was due to enter the public domain in 2004. However, thanks to the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act, 20 more years were added to copyrights, thus "protecting" Mickey from the public domain for another 20 years. Disney is finally going to lose exclusive rights to Mickey Mouse's early incarnation next year.

But what if the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" had either failed to pass or not been created at all? What would have happened them.

In this alternate timeline, the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act does not pass and Mickey Mouse becomes public domain in 2004. What do you think the impact of popular culture would be live with earlier years of public domain?

 

[Dancing Fool]

In this alternate timeline, the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act

Maybe “intellectual property” more broadly is held as less sacrosanct?

 

[Analytical Engine]

There would be more legal shenanigans to try and extend copyrights through other means.

For instance, a portion of Steamboat Willie being incorporated into a Disney logo from OTL. I suspect Disney would pull something like that earlier, to frustrate attempts at someone making a copy, since it's being used in a more recently copyrighted item.

Also, technically only specific versions of Mickey Mouse and related material would come into the public domain. People couldn't use absolutely anything with Mickey Mouse in it. After all, it's only recently that the entire Sherlock Holmes canon has entered into the public domain in the US.

It's also why that the version of Winnie the Pooh from that horror film has a new outfit. The original version, without clothing, is public domain, but the version of him wearing a red shirt is still under Disney copyright.

 

[EWHM]

If I recall, Australia has a shorter copyright term than the US. So go pay a visit to Project Gutenberg Australia to see what the impact would be in terms of what would now be public domain. Stopping the copyright extension act in 1998 would be a tough ask---because you had basically just diffuse interests going against concentrated ones, AND the diffuse interests hadn't really hardened to outright hatred of the concentrated ones yet. Normally concentrated interests run roughshod over diffuse ones in democratic systems.

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

TV channels like TCM and Cartoon Network's Boomerang becomes less valuable and AMC starts it's channel drift even earlier.

 

[Otakuninja2006]

More creativity.

 

[Geekhis Khan]

It's worth remembering that the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act, a.k.a. the Sonny Bono act a.k.a. the Mickey Mouse Protection Act wasn't *just* about Greedy Eisner protecting profits, but was an industry-wide effort backed by the US government and made in response to 1993 Copyright Extension made by the EU and intended to keep US IP competitive. Disney obviously had a lot of skin in the game and the most "endangered" property (Mickey Mouse) and thus led the fight OTL and thus gets largely blamed by the public, but there was broad support from many sectors in the US. If you want to Butterfly the 1998 CTEA you'd probably need to first butterfly the EU extension of 1993 first.

Copyright Term Extension Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Copyright law of the European Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Even if Disney doesn't support it (which they didn't in the Hensonverse!) WB, Fox, Universal, and everyone else still will.

More creativity.

Blasphemy!!! Burn the witch!!! Stale IP Forever!!!

 

[Dancing Fool]

the version of Winnie the Pooh from that horror film has a new outfit. The original version, without clothing, is public domain,

But if I understand U.S. copyright . . . satire, is it? — has somewhat broader “fair use” provisions than other uses. Then we come to the delicious question of whether a horror film with “Winnie the Pooh” constitutes “satire”! ! !

PS I am not an attorney!

 

[Analytical Engine]

But I understand . . satire, is it? — has somewhat broader “fair use” provisions than other uses. Then we come to the delicious question of whether horror film with “Winnie the Pooh” constitutes “satire”! ! !

It certainly is "transformative".

 

[Pesterfield]

TV channels like TCM and Cartoon Network's Boomerang becomes less valuable and AMC starts its channel drift even earlier.

I think they'll still be important as showcases of the more obscure, discussions, and theme nights.
It'll be a while before the internet gets really good for video and streaming.

I wonder if anything would become a new "Wonderful Life", a film overlooked at the time then becoming immensely popular because it was so cheap to show.

 

[Mark E.]

Two issues Disney can use:

1. Mickey Mouse is a trademark, in various versions. Trademarks do not expire if defended, and Disney is very protective.

2. When films or music is digitally remastered, a second copyright is created, and that lasts another 95 years. So, the big question is, when the old copyright expires, what really become public domain? Attorneys on Facebook never answered my question.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Disney would get _extremely_ litigious about depictions of mickey using stuff that dates later than their stuff done after 1952(using ttl's current public domain).

No more creativity/innovation from the big corpos than OTL since they can just use version of say superman/mickey/mouse/whoever. To make it differnt enough from the parent company's versions probably expect tons of gender/race shifts, ofc.

At least captain marvel would be called "Captain Marvel" and not "Shazam!"

 

[Mark E.]

I wonder if anything would become a new "Wonderful Life", a film overlooked at the time then becoming immensely popular because it was so cheap to show.

That's because the 28-year copyright, granted in 1946, was not renewed for another 28 years, so the film became public domain in 1974. The music is still copyrighted, so there are still fees.

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

I think they'll still be important as showcases of the more obscure, discussions, and theme nights.
It'll be a while before the internet gets really good for video and streaming.

I wonder if anything would become a new "Wonderful Life", a film overlooked at the time then becoming immensely popular because it was so cheap to show.

I wonder if film studios would care enough to remaster/restore old material from their library if so many of their content is in public domain. Warner Bros recently restored a lot of movies including those from MGM and RKO that they own as well as Looney Tunes, MGM, and Popeye cartoons that they own and put them on Max and Warner Archive, as opposed to the unremastered/unrestored TV prints most people usually see.

 

[Analytical Engine]

I wonder if film studios would care enough to remaster/restore old material from their library if so many of their content is in public domain. Warner Bros recently restored a lot of movies including those from MGM and RKO that they own as well as Looney Tunes, MGM, and Popeye cartoons that they own and put them on Max and Warner Archive, as opposed to the unremastered/unrestored TV prints most people usually see.

Unless...noooooo, endless remakes.

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

Two issues Disney can use:

1. Mickey Mouse is a trademark, in various versions. Trademarks do not expire if defended, and Disney is very protective.

2. When films or music is digitally remastered, a second copyright is created, and that lasts another 95 years. So, the big question is, when the old copyright expires, what really become public domain? Attorneys on Facebook never answered my question.

Remixing and Remastering Music in US Copyright Law: Some Reflections after Arty v Marshmello - Kluwer Copyright Blog

In 2019, Artem Stoliarov, a Russian DJ whose stage name is Arty, filed a lawsuit before the US District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that Marshmello’s song ‘Happier’ copied the synthesizer melody from his 2014 remix of OneRepublic’s ‘I Lived’ (OneRepublic is an American...

copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com

US copyright law does not protect remasters, as they lack originality. A 2018 decision from the 9th Circuit, i.e. ABS v. CBS (Case No. 16-55917), confirmed that. In this case the US Court of Appeals held that digitally remastered sound recordings could not be protected by federal copyright law. The issue was whether a remaster, which involved subjectively and artistically modifying the sound balance, timbre, spatial imagery and loudness range, but otherwise leaving the previous record unedited, could be considered original enough to attract copyright. The court held it could not, “unless its essential character and identity reflect a level of independent sound recording authorship that makes it a variation”, which was not the case in this dispute.

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

Unless...noooooo, endless remakes.

?

 

[Analytical Engine]

?

Would endless remakes(TM) possibly extend copyrights over something? Or would they need to be sufficiently different from the original to get around that thing you mentioned with remixing?

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

Would endless remakes(TM) possibly extend copyrights over something? Or would they need to be sufficiently different from the original to get around that thing you mentioned with remixing?

Remakes are derivatives of the original material, so no they won't extent the copyright of the original source material.