Will we see another copyright extension in 2018?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Does Disney really make much use of Steamboat Willie qua Steamboat Willie any more? Somehow I don't think it does.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I see nothing wrong with Mickey still being copyrighted. Disney actually uses that patent, and still does, voluminously so, so it isn't like society is being shortchanged or whatnot. That being said in general I think a further 20 year extension would not be a good idea and some more measured approach would be preferable for sure.

Just because Disney still uses it doesn't mean they should be able to take it out on the rest of us.

Just because Disney has been using Mickey for a long time doesn't mean that they should lose the copyright. I think whether something is actually being used should matter. Also, Mickey does belong to Disney, and they've used Mickey a lot. I don't see how it makes sense equating Disney getting money for Mickey's use as somehow robbing the rest of us.

[IceAgeComing]

I see nothing wrong with Mickey still being copyrighted. Disney actually uses that patent, and still does, voluminously so, so it isn't like society is being shortchanged or whatnot. That being said in general I think a further 20 year extension would not be a good idea and some more measured approach would be preferable for sure.

Just because Disney still uses it doesn't mean they should be able to take it out on the rest of us.

Just because Disney has been using Mickey for a long time doesn't mean that they should lose the copyright. I think whether something is actually being used should matter. Also, Mickey does belong to Disney, and they've used Mickey a lot. I don't see how it makes sense equating Disney getting money for Mickey's use as somehow robbing the rest of us.

but that's a trademark you're talking about, not copyright

[Goldwater]

Trademarks are different things to copyright. All Disney would loose is the royalties for publishing Steamboat Willie, not the use of Mickey as a trademarked figure for their own purposes.

So when expiry on the first batman comics run out, you can start printing, selling and scanning them online without harm, but you wouldn't be able to start selling Batman merchandise.

Ah, right, that makes sense.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Does Disney really make much use of Steamboat Willie qua Steamboat Willie any more? Somehow I don't think it does.

Not really, but they do make a healthy revenue from sales and royalties from their classics - Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo would all be in the public domain or on the threshold if the copyright had not been extended.

There is a lot of murky business that goes on here as well. Arthur Conan Doyle's estate is pretty notorious, in that it has control of like three Sherlock stories, but pounces on all adaptions to try and claim they're lifting elements from the copyrighted tales. So most adaptors end up paying them off preemptively.

[SteveRogers]

I see nothing wrong with Mickey still being copyrighted. Disney actually uses that patent, and still does, voluminously so, so it isn't like society is being shortchanged or whatnot. That being said in general I think a further 20 year extension would not be a good idea and some more measured approach would be preferable for sure.

Just because Disney still uses it doesn't mean they should be able to take it out on the rest of us.

Just because Disney has been using Mickey for a long time doesn't mean that they should lose the copyright. I think whether something is actually being used should matter. Also, Mickey does belong to Disney, and they've used Mickey a lot. I don't see how it makes sense equating Disney getting money for Mickey's use as somehow robbing the rest of us.

The idea behind limited terms for copyrights (which most people don't realize is actually enshrined in the Constitution) is that a company like should not have a permanent monopoly on art that has been around long enough to become a permanent part of our culture. Yes, Disney makes use of Mickey Mouse, but maybe someone else could be using him in a new and creative way at the same time. Think of all the great public domain characters: your Draculas and Frankensteins and Sherlock Holmses; Anyone who wants to can write a story using those characters and as a result we get a rich tapestry of different takes on these characters. But we haven't gotten any new public domain characters since 1923. Our generation is essentially the first in our civilization's history to not inherit any art from our predecessors.

And to be clear, Disney won't lose Mickey Mouse. As others have pointed out, they'll still have the trademark. Moreover, the copyright does not run with the character Mickey Mouse, but on each individual work that he appears in. Its the copyright on Steamboat Willy that will lapse first. Disney will still hold the copyright to subsequent appearances of Mickey.

I can explain it better in terms of Batman. If the first Batman comics become public domain in 2033, you can start writing and publishing your own Batman stories using the basic concepts of the character introduced in those first stories. Bruce Wayne; billionaire; dead parent; dresses like a bat, etc. But you won't be able to adapt character attributes or story points introduced in the Nolan Batman trilogy or Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, at least not for many more decades when those copyrights lapse.

[Kingpoleon]

I see nothing wrong with Mickey still being copyrighted. Disney actually uses that patent, and still does, voluminously so, so it isn't like society is being shortchanged or whatnot. That being said in general I think a further 20 year extension would not be a good idea and some more measured approach would be preferable for sure.

Measured approach?!?!?!?!?!

Moderate Hero!

[The Mikado]

1/6th of the way through the 115th Congress and absolutely no action on this front.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Can someone explain how the laws actually work because I'm reading that Steamboat Willie won't enter public domain until 2024.

[Illiniwek]

You bet it will be extended. Special interests won't let this get away from them.

Can someone explain how the laws actually work because I'm reading that Steamboat Willie won't enter public domain until 2024.

In 1998, copyright protection for works published before January 1, 1978, was increased to a total of 95 years from their publication date. Steamboat Willie was first published in 1928, so +95 will take us through the end of 2023.

Everything published now is life of the author +70, or the earliest of 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication for corporate works of authorship.

[The Mikado]

So...we're now a third of the way through Congress and no legislation on this topic has been introduced. I think it's quite likely that we'll hit Jan 1st, 2019, see the works of 1923 turn public domain, and that'll cause a panic with copyright holders that might see the next Congress try to take action.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So...we're now a third of the way through Congress and no legislation on this topic has been introduced. I think it's quite likely that we'll hit Jan 1st, 2019, see the works of 1923 turn public domain, and that'll cause a panic with copyright holders that might see the next Congress try to take action.

Doubtful that there will be an increase.

The Mickey Mouse Protection Act back in 1998 was presented as a way of harmonizing US copyright term with that of other countries, notably the EU.  As it is, the US now has the longest copyright terms of any major country, especially on corporate works.  The only significant exception is Mexico which has Life+100 years, but didn't increase the term for already copyrighted works when it extended the length back in 2003. TPP had threatened to increase copyright term for corporate works from 70 in most signatories to the lengthy 95 year term the US has, but that would have just made things worse elsewhere, not here and Trump scrapped TPP.

Plus, unlike 1998 there are major companies today whose business model is negatively impacted by lengthy copyright. You aren't going to see Apple, Facebook, or Google lobby Congress for longer copyright. They'll lobby to keep things as they are, or maybe even loosen copyright and reduce the term for corporate works from 95 to the 70 that the EU has.


Other countries have no interest in lengthening copyright term.

[The Mikado]

Either way, I'm pretty confident that THIS Congress won't pass anything. I think the question becomes purely whether things entering the public domain again on New Years Day, 2019 scares the s**t out of certain companies and makes them redouble their efforts in the next Congress.

[The Mikado]

Update: one year left on the clock, and there's been zero effort for Congress to move on this.

I'm thinking that 3/4ths of the people polled in this thread three years ago were wrong on this.

[Illiniwek]

Literally just finished my semester's long legislative advocacy project on this topic (sigh). I still would be very shocked if this doesn't happen sometime next year. But I do understand why there may be some hesitation. None of the justifications from the last extension really work today. For example:

1998 -> life expectancy is growing, we need to account for this so authors get their full royalties they deserve
2018 -> life expectancy has actually dropped in the last 20 years...  plus the life expectancy adjustments last time exponentially over-adjusted

1998 -> we have to lengthen the term to meet european/international standards
2018 -> well, we currently meet international standards. further extension would only go to ruin consistency

But we will see... I for one, am sick of writing the phrase "copyright term extension". I think I am going to take a nice long break.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Copyright should be 35 years.

[Dr. MB]

Copyright should be 35 years.

Agree (or until the author's death plus 5 years), also I don't think a work should be copyrighted if you don't say it's copyrighted.

[Former President tack50]

I see nothing wrong with Mickey still being copyrighted. Disney actually uses that patent, and still does, voluminously so, so it isn't like society is being shortchanged or whatnot. That being said in general I think a further 20 year extension would not be a good idea and some more measured approach would be preferable for sure.

Iirc Mickey himself would still be copyrighted. The only thing that wouldn't would be the actual Steamboat Willie film. But Mickey himself is a trademark which probably can be used by Disney forever.

[The Mikado]

I'd personally be down for 30 years with an option to renew for 30 more for a small (actually small, like $500 or so) fee. That way, the vast, vast majority of works that no one actually cares about would become public domain when people forget that dad wrote a book back in the day because it's been out of print or whatever. That'd also put the maximum time for works that people actually DO care about at 60 years, which is, IMO, a very reasonable time.

[The Mikado]

Bumping this four year old thread to say all the people predicting we would were dead wrong. Works from 1923 enter public domain on January 1st, first time public domain has expanded in over 40 years.

[The Mikado]

Public domain day is tomorrow, for the first time in 40 years. All the people who voted yes here were wrong.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Incidentally, while there won't be another copyright extension in the US anytime soon, the 70 year term seems to be becoming standard: Japan and Canada have both extended their copyright terms this year, which will take quite a few famous individuals - Steinbeck, Huxley, Orwell, Fleming, Hemingway, Frost, Plath, CS Lewis, Upton Sinclair, Cocteau, TS Eliot etc of the public domain.

[HillGoose]

I hope!

[The Mikado]

Public domain day is tomorrow, for the first time in 40 years. All the people who voted yes here were wrong.

Bumping this thread AGAIN. Works entered the public domain on Wednesday, just like they did a year before. Everything from 1924 is public domain in the US, people.

It's amazing how wrong so many people were earlier in the decade when people were more sure Congress would extend copyright. I think the mistake was thinking that Congress would be capable of passing anything whatsoever, which they no longer can do.

[John Dule]

"Intellectual property" is a horrible concept that needs to die.

An opinion generally professed by those whose ideas don't warrant copyrighting.