Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
MRandall25 wrote:Why is it that every thread has been turning into the PDT
Hockeynut! wrote:The gov would love to regulate garbage bananas!
steven tyler wrote:Keep the government out of my front pocket.
pittsoccer33 wrote:This all kind of hit me when I was watching Universals 1925 Phantom of the Opera on TCM, and I realized the print had nothing to do with Universal - it didn't even include their name in the opening credits. Someone else has been allowed to profit off something Universal Studios paid a small fortune for in 1925. I assume TCM was showing this "other" print because either it was cheaper than Universal's or Universal sees to profit motive in preserving a public domain work.
Pitt87 wrote:Its not a greater good question as is with other copyright or patent... its a useful life definition. Mickey Mouse is the standard for useful life, thus the standard should help define the law, not arbitrarily become subject to the law it helped to define. There may come a time when MM becomes less relevant, and at that time he will no longer be the standard. Can you imagine the damage to TWDC if they lost the copyright to public domain?
relantel wrote:pittsoccer33 wrote:This all kind of hit me when I was watching Universals 1925 Phantom of the Opera on TCM, and I realized the print had nothing to do with Universal - it didn't even include their name in the opening credits. Someone else has been allowed to profit off something Universal Studios paid a small fortune for in 1925. I assume TCM was showing this "other" print because either it was cheaper than Universal's or Universal sees to profit motive in preserving a public domain work.
I didn't see the beginning but I watched a bulk of this the other night after we got home from Altoona.Pitt87 wrote:Its not a greater good question as is with other copyright or patent... its a useful life definition. Mickey Mouse is the standard for useful life, thus the standard should help define the law, not arbitrarily become subject to the law it helped to define. There may come a time when MM becomes less relevant, and at that time he will no longer be the standard. Can you imagine the damage to TWDC if they lost the copyright to public domain?
The MM discussion seems to be describing a trade-mark. Which is a completely different topic/process/law. Companies are hounds to protect their trademark even when the cost of infringement is small, they'll spend to protect it to avoid devaluing of their mark. Failure to defend it could lead to loss of the mark - such as when the trade-marked name becomes so common as to lose their trade-mark - Zerox had this problem - most people call a copier a zerox machine whether Zerox made it or not.
Think of it as the broader idea/intellectual property can be patented/trademarked, while the individual work is copyrighted. If an author dies, the spouse or other successor (either testate or via intestate succession) has the right to file on behalf of the estate. My uncle filed one last year on a piece written by his late piano teacher, on behalf of his widow. I myself have copyrighted several musical and poetic works of my own - but I have no IP to trademark.
pittsoccer33 wrote:(though I realize the irony in that Snow White was made from a public domain story)
Factorial wrote:Copyrights should actually go to the person/people who create the product (e.g. the cartoonist, etc that had a part in the creation/design of Mickey).
relantel wrote:Failure to defend it could lead to loss of the mark - such as when the trade-marked name becomes so common as to lose their trade-mark - Zerox had this problem - most people call a copier a zerox machine whether Zerox made it or not.
nocera wrote:The best part about Night of the Living Dead being in public domain: Lots of legal DVD options, legally online everywhere. Worst part: Romero never made a dime off of it.
I don't think I'll feel too bad if Disney stops making money on one Mickey short. They'll be fine.
tifosi77 wrote:First, there is no patent issue here.
tifosi77 wrote:First, there is no patent issue here. Patents are for inventions, and can be physical products, machines or processes, or improvements thereto.
columbia wrote:Obviously not in this particular case, but surely you are aware of the patent law suits in the software industry.
Shyster wrote:Why are books, songs, photographs, and other creative original works due so much more protection than tangible inventions?
tifosi77 wrote:columbia wrote:Obviously not in this particular case, but surely you are aware of the patent law suits in the software industry.
I certainly am; my company has been a co-defendant in many such suits in the 4 1/2 years I've been here.
Pitt87 wrote:tifosi77 wrote:columbia wrote:Obviously not in this particular case, but surely you are aware of the patent law suits in the software industry.
I certainly am; my company has been a co-defendant in many such suits in the 4 1/2 years I've been here.
I guess youto indicate that you are somehow on the right side of the matter. While there is a level of frivolity in some of the more well-known cases, my company tends to be plaintiffs in these cases with many of them bearing from direct competitive pursuit. The reason there is a patent process that includes a term is to avoid perpetuity, and considering IP to be a civil matter where the only type of penalty is monetary, the claims are reasonably black and white.
Pitt87 wrote:tifosi77 wrote:columbia wrote:Obviously not in this particular case, but surely you are aware of the patent law suits in the software industry.
I certainly am; my company has been a co-defendant in many such suits in the 4 1/2 years I've been here.
I guess youto indicate that you are somehow on the right side of the matter. While there is a level of frivolity in some of the more well-known cases, my company tends to be plaintiffs in these cases with many of them bearing from direct competitive pursuit. The reason there is a patent process that includes a term is to avoid perpetuity, and considering IP to be a civil matter where the only type of penalty is monetary, the claims are reasonably black and white.
tifosi77 wrote:But I'm curious; are you arguing that it would be appropriate to extend the length of a patent to match other IP rights? Or that copyright is far too generous? Should there even be IP protection?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests