We need a more nuanced copyright system, that takes into account the on going use of a work. I can completely understand the Disney should still have a copyright on the image of Mickey Mouse. But only b/c it is still relevant to their on-going business. The idea of somehow putting a value on a copyright, so the public could conceivably buy it out once it's value falls into an affordable range, that makes a lot of sense, but how to do that fairly?
That's a good point. So the image of Mickey is still protected for them.
I am trying to imagine if I created a company like Disney and a cartoon like Steamboat Willy. Would I want it to go into the public domain after I died if my company were still going strong? If it were not for the company then sure. Let the public domain have it. But the company would be like an extension of myself. In that case I am not so sure.
As an iconic trademarked character, Disney is the only company able to produce new entertainment or durable consumer products featuring Mickey Mouse.
By use of copyrights, Disney can also prevent the legitimate purchaser of a 1928 film reel from turning it into a digital video file.
The difference can be seen more clearly in the character of Peter Pan. The copyright on the original publications have expired in most of the world. But GOS Hospital and Disney can still claim trademark over some elements, inasmuch as they continue to be used in their business. You can write a new novel or play about Peter Pan, but woe to you if you make a new animated film, or use it to promote your children's hospital, or even try to use it to sell peanut butter.
Trademarks do not expire, as long as they are defended. But trademarks are more narrowly defined, and restricted to a particular purpose.
I'm not confusing the two, I'm discussing derivative works which clearly fall under the copyright regime. Trademarks have to do with fraud, i.e. im trying to pass myself off as disney to sell you something. It's completely different.
And yet many of Disney's most successful movies retell much older stories, only possible because those stories went into the public domain. Bit of hypocrisy there.
Those characters and stories were not (substantially) created by Disney though.
Everyone else /should/ be able to make those same stories in similar media. Disney /really/ needs to be more proactive about using their brand name's trademark within advertising as the consumer protection measure as that is the intended to function of trademarks.
That, BTW, is what is stopping others from making a Disney(tm)'s Mickey Mouse(tm) in steamboat willy(c, expired); and not stopping others from making a more generic 'mouse piloting a steam boat' movie.
Whether it is 'just' or not, however you're defining that, it does not align with the way human culture works, and degrades cultural innovation resulting in fewer works of poorer quality. If cultural progress is one of the things you want to optimize for in copyright law, then this is bad policy.
Do you not see how this would rig the system in favor of deep pocketed corporations even more? You basically said it yourself:
"I can completely understand the Disney should still have a copyright on the image of Mickey Mouse. But only b/c it is still relevant to their on-going business."
A more fair system might be to embrace the "property" rights that media companies hold so dear, and charge steadily increasing property taxes on copyrighted works. Any profitable works would be worth paying the taxes to maintain protection, and unprofitable works would return to the public domain where they belong.
If copyrights are "intellectual property" then they should be subject to property tax.
The vast majority of creative works (which automatically receive copyright protection) are worthless. There's no reason why they shouldn't quickly become part of the public domain.
absolute copyright - life of the author + 21 years (too account for minor children)
Derivative work would be treated like trademark after life of authors plus 21. You have to continuously use it in commerce. If you have the James Bond rights, you gotta still be in the business of making James Bond movies. The caveat would be it has to an identifiable brand. Like Trademark, you won't be allowed to license it readily either.
For direct copyright, I'd still banning the commercial distribution of the actual work unless the work falls out of print and is no longer widely available for purchase.
I would do, 30 years, in increments of 10 years. The first 10 'automatic' and registration not required. The two extensions requiring substantial (say a flat filing fee of 100 USD plus 1% per year from creation (per year) of proceeds on use/sales paid as a tax) payment, submission of a 'master copy' of the work (in the clear) and a clear and easily looked up way of determining if that work was in fact extended. Extension searches would, BTW, be free as the database of titles, authors, dates, etc would be public bibliographic information.
