Re: Some Thoughts on Copyright Term

On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Walt Disney often found other means of expression, with original works like "The Three Caballeros", "Surfin' Mickey", "Herbie the Volkswagen", etc. These works have done rather poorly in the marketplace, with the bulk of Disney's profits coming from derived public-domain works such as "Snow White", "Cinderella", and "The Jungle Book".

Disney did not have to approach the Grimm estate or the Kipling estate to get permission to make these films; and it is quite likely that if he'd been required to do so, the films simply wouldn't have been made. It nearly bankrupted Disney Studios to produce "Snow White" as it was; there's no way they could have afforded to pay royalties to the Grimms too. And it would have taken forever to finish producing "Cinderella", if, say, the Perrault estate was able to constantly demand things like (1) remove the singing mice and (2) show Drusilla actually slicing off a toe in the glass slipper scene, etc.

If copyright were still at 56 years maximum, I might agree with your position. But in my lifetime, the term was abruptly doubled to circa 120 years (depending on median lifespans), and is now at ~150 years. Furthermore, the extensions are specifically crafted to keep anything post-1923 from going public domain, to protect the monopoly rights of wealthy holders such as Disney and the Gershwin estate.

So artists can't simply wait for works to fall into the public domain, and (except for audio recordings) there is no compulsory licensing to guarantee them the right to make derivative works. Do you not think that this is rather unfair compared to the situation that Walt Disney enjoyed in 1938? Shouldn't either: U.S. copyright terms be reduced back to pre-Berne levels; or at least fair-use and compulsory-license rights be somewhat expanded?

(I have no hope at all that the former will happen, but some slim hope that the latter changes might be workable. For example, the right to distribute fair-use copies of any work that has been copyrighted for over 56 years and out-of-print for 28, so the public can at least get access to vanishing 1930's works WITHOUT abrogating any of Disney's preciouss copyrightsses...

And also, extending the compulsory-license right to publish derivative audio recordings to cover all copyrighted materials. If William Shatner has the right to sell his awful cover of Dylan's "Mr. Tambourine Man", why shouldn't new animators allowed to offer up their own versions of "Snow White"? Or their own Star-Trek fanfic? The right for non-audio works could be limited to works older than, say, 28 years ; so that the original author has many years to exploit the idea exclusively before anyone else gets a turn.)

Lance Purple
<lpurple[_at_]netcom.com> Received on Wed Nov 25 1998 - 20:06:32 GMT