Re: Some Thoughts on Copyright Term

On 11/10/98, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Lance Purple <lpurple[_at_]netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > Look at Disney, the ones who screech the loudest for copyright
> > term extensions to keep their early works out of public domain.
> > The first six animated films Walt ever made in 1922 were based
> > on public domain stories from "Kinder- und Hausmarchen" (1918)
> > by the Brothers Grimm.
> >
> > And Disney has kept at it. Here is a list of all 36 videos in
> > their "Disney Classic" series, with asterisks next to the 40%
> > of them which are based on public domain works.
> >
> > * Snow White and Seven Dwarfs (Classics #1)
> > * Pinocchio (Classics #2)
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > The arts are NOT a zero-sum game, and when entities like Disney
> > have profitted so immensely from the public domain, they have
> > an obligation to give materials BACK to the public domain.
>
> Disney's profits flow from considerable investment of money, time, and
> creativity. Their retelling of classics is unique. Why should their
> opportunity (and yours) be cut short?
>
> You too can use Snow White etc. without infringing the Disney
> property. If wish to "quote" some specific text, music, or image,
> you can apply for permission. If permission is denied, you can
> create an alternative. What is the problem?

I think you missed Lance Purple's points which I take to be as follows:

1. the argument that you should be completely original or pay a license fee fails to take into account the fact that many forms of art draw from and build upon previously created art - it's not always the easy case of taking an image or a quote; and
2. as far as Disney goes, if those "classics" had not fallen into the public domain, but remained protected by copyright, Disney may not have been able to invest its creativity (I intentionally leave out the sweat of the brow factors of time and money) to retell those "classics."

Thus, I believe the argument is that Disney profits from the public domain by creating works that are not entirely original, so why shouldn't Disney's works eventually become a part of the public domain from which others can draw.

I'm sure some day a hundred years from now, The Lion King (one of Disney's few original tales) will be considered a "classic." Should the upstart animation studio of the next century be allowed to retell that classic when (and if) it enters the public domain? The Sonny Bonos among us would say that it should never enter the public domain. Regardless of whether you agree with such a position, assuming Lance Purple's facts are accurate, you have to consider that if that position was the law over the last century, many of the Disney classics, in fact, maybe even Disney itself, would not exist today. Personally, I think that would be a great loss.

By refusing to allow further copyright term extensions, nobody is cutting short the opportunity to profit from creative use of public domain materials. There is no reduction taking place. You are just not extending beyond current levels such an opportunity to profit which is legislatively granted.

Benedict A. Monachino
Peabody & Arnold LLP
<bam[_at_]p-a.com> Received on Wed Nov 11 1998 - 13:54:42 GMT