Re: Some Thoughts on Copyright Term

On 25 Nov 1998, Tyler Ochoa <tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> wrote:
>
> At bottom, your argument is premised on a "natural rights" argument:
> Disney made it, so they should own it. But Disney borrowed from the
> public domain in making its own works. Your argument can be extended
> even further back in time: Why should Disney be able to plunder someone
> else's work (The Brothers Grimm) without asking permission or paying
> royalties?

Your are is just as free as Disney to adapt public domain material. Producing and marketing require a major investment that deserve security of the law.

I see passion but little reason in the position that Disney "should give back to the public domain." I suspect Snow White in the public domain would mean a market flooded with the cheapest reprints and VCRs tangled with cheap tape.

I have no extra sympathy for a work that relies heavily on potential infringement. Publishers, movie studios and other potential investors reject the majority of works offered to them; such proposals fall on their own so to speak with no "Disney" to blame.

> I am reluctant to continue this debate for much longer, because it is
> obvious to me that we're not going to change each other's minds on this
> issue. But I am curious whether your believe there should be a public
> domain at all; and if so, where would you draw the line? Would you
> simply freeze the public domain as it is now, and never add to it at
> all?

The public domain will continue to expand with facts, ideas, and works written by U.S. government employees even if Disney's works are perpetually covered by copyright.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Mon Nov 30 1998 - 22:12:21 GMT