Re: Some Thoughts on Copyright Term

On 11/18/98, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> On 12 Nov 1998, Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > The point is that Disney refuses to replenish the public domain.
> > Whether or not the material they initially drew on is also available
> > to others is entirely beside the point.
>
> Your objective, I gather, being that the main change
> effected by putting Snow White in public domain would
> be that anyone will make and sell copies of any quality
> and without paying royalties.
>
> I don't really see an unauthorized sequel or versions
> of the tale (told for example from the diaries of Sneezy
> and the rest) that might violate Disney's rights if done
> today.

No, the principal objective of putting Snow White in the public domain is so that unauthorized sequels and remakes (and derivative works such as books and games) CAN be made for the benefit of the public without Disney's permission. Disney created the adjectival names and corresponding traits of the Seven Dwarves. Anyone wishing to use Doc, Happy, Grumpy, Sleepy, Bashful, Sneezy and Dopey today has to get Disney's permission, period. I guarantee you that a diary told from Sneezy's point of view would be considered to be infringing under U.S. law.

Tyler T. Ochoa
Associate Professor
Whittier Law School
<tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> Received on Fri Nov 20 1998 - 21:26:22 GMT