Re: Some Thoughts on Copyright Term

On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, Tyler Ochoa <tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> wrote:
>
> 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.

If one has a good idea, why not approach Disney for permission. They might even supply capital and help you market your idea better than anyone else.

If they say no, one's creativity will find some other means of expression just as one walks round the no trespassing postings.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Tue Nov 24 1998 - 22:42:25 GMT