Who owns the work? Does anyone create in a vacuum? We all borrow and mix parts of our culture(read PUBLIC DOMAIN) into our new works. All of Disney's full length feature films are borrowed from our culture (read PUBLIC DOMAIN.) Even Steamboat Willie is a derivative. Our US Copyright laws are a temporary grant of a monopoly over an artistic or literary work for the sole purpose of promoting the creation of these new works into our culture(read PUBLIC DOMAIN.) A new work isn’t mine to start with. I’m always creating derivative works where the original is owned by all of us. New works are derivative works of the public domain. The new work borrowed on our culture and the new work needs to be returned or paid back to our culture. Even the current copyright law states that derivative works are owned by the owner of the original work(s). But as for all the posturing over intellectual property being real or not. I like Thomas Jefferson’s argument the best. If you light your candle from mine, I have lost nothing. Only a lawyer would argue over whether I control the flame on your candle. IMHO: Copyright limited time needs to feel like a limited time to the author. The idea that the author's life plus 70 years is limited is sick. And the idea that 95 years is anyone's idea of limited with regards to a corporation is a sure sign the law is not in the public's interest.

So, Martin- Opinions run the gamut...good. Here's mine: The "creator" of a piece of "intellectual property" needs must retain "copyright" in perpetuity, if s/he so desires. Corporate "ownership" of copyright, unless such corporation is owned by the creator, should expire after two years, and copyright return to the "artist", corporate claims otherwise not- withstanding. (Yeah, s/he "works" for you, but you don't "own" her/him, or the brain used in creating the piece(s).) The way for corp.s to "keep" copyright beyond two years is to purchase the "property" from the creator immediately, upon it's creation...and for a "substantial" sum. Yes, even in animation corporations. With their multi-kajillions of $$$, why not share it with your own workers, instead of just the suits and stockholders? Many small-time artists echo similar sentiments. As for Disney-and-friends suing every little pre-school depicting a Mickey or a Scooby-Doo on their walls...these people are not trying to make a buck from your property...give 'em a break! OK, what they do is not strictly "legal", but it's not as if they're "ripping you off", either. Yep, they are a bunch of brainless "users" of your work, but nobody expects them to be otherwise...they're not in the business of "creating", per se, only keeping their wee charges entertained a bit. Snow White, Littlest Mermaid, etc. "depictions" are Disney-and-friends' "property". Not a problem. But if I depict them my way, and use their names, then those depictions are mine, and none of anyone else's concern. Stories and names are from so-called public domain...if my characters and story differ significantly from the Disney-and-friends' versions, where is the copyright "infringement"? But then, doing so would show how shallow my abilities are that I'm only able to rehash what's been done to death, instead of something new...dare I say "original"? Keep fighting the good fight, brothers and sisters. skoal t

There is one key point people seem to be missing in this debate. Copyright protects intellectual PROPERTY. And though it frequently doesn't exist in the form we think of "normal" property, it is just that, and individual or corporation's Private Property. Imagine if we applied the same standards of ownership that we use for intellectual property to other types of property. "I'm sorry, Mr. Smith, you won't be inheriting your family's ancestral home, it's "copyright" can no longer be renewed. Yes, we realize your grandfather built it by hand brick by brick, and three generations of Smiths have lived there, but it's time for it to be turned over to "the public". Oh? Who are the public you ask? Well, by and large your former home will be occupied by a rather shady band of looters who will abuse it in any manner possible to make a fast buck. You can look forward to seeing this has-been heirloom used as a flop house, an impromptu hotel, a brothel, and likely a crack house, as the copyright on most the other homes in this neighborhood are about to expire as well. Will they take care of it you ask? No, probably not, they don’t care about it. Hey, they didn’t have to build it, or maintain it, and they certainly don’t have anything invested in it, and it has no sentimental value to them whatsoever, but they’ve waited patiently for the copyright to expire, so it’s their turn now! Hey, your family had their fair time!!" The fact is to seize private property from any person, be that person a natural person or a corporation that was built by someone who may now be dead, is fascist and goes against almost everything else in the constitution. It's about time intellectual property be given the same status as any other property. Think I'm being extremist on this matter? Ask yourself, have you ever actually seen an intellectual work treated with any level of respect once it entered the public domain? I certainly haven't. I've just seen them abused in the interest of making a quick dollar. Some people in this forum have complained that copyright feeds corporate greed. Is that somehow worse than feeding smaller, even less moral looter's greed? Even if the corporations never produced anything new (which by and large they do, or they wouldn’t last too long) at least at some point they did produce something! The looters who gobble up public domain works to be packaged for a fast sale, never create anything. Why is it you feel they should be protected, and benefit by requiring the owners of a work to turn it over to them? They profit from someone else‘s labor and produce nothing themselves. Don't try to pawn these people off as "mom and pop operations," they are far from anything so benign. One painful example happened to me personally. My great grandfather published several books of children's stories he wrote himself. They were reasonably successful in their time, and our family preserved the copyright as long as we could, even though no new printings were made during the last 18 years of the copyright; for no reason other than to avoid seeing his stories mangled by someone who has no concern for the intent or value of the stories. Two years after the copyright ran out, exactly what we feared happened. I found one of his stories published in a compilation book, badly edited along with stories from several other writers. Our family was not even consulted, much less asked for permission to publish (AND EDIT!) the story. Alas, we had no recourse, the copyright had expired. Today, I produce children's videos and books, and unfortunately know my grandchildren are likely to experience the same angst I did when my copyrights run out. Even though I am the one who must labor over my books and videos creation, even though I am the one in who’s mind my characters were spawned, nay birthed, even though I am the one who takes the financial risk to create and publish these stories, I am forbidden from leaving them in perpetuity to my children. Assuming my stories meet reasonable financial success during my lifetime, I can only expect someone who I have never met, who has likely no real knowledge of or care for my stories, images and characters, who never shared in the labor or risk of their creation, to scoop them up once the copyright expires and turn them around for a fast buck. Property is property, intellectual or otherwise. No one has the right to take it away from the creators, or those the creator leaves it to. If the creator wants to release the work to the public domain, so be it. Otherwise, it’s his and his heirs, including his company.

The humorous point that many people have seemed to miss about the joy of things going public domain is the fact that everyone gets to use them. This may sound silly but Disney should be openly supporting this as they have profited by it. Has any one heard of “Snow White”, “Cinderella”, “Beauty and the Beast”, “The Little Mermaid”? These and MANY more movies are based on stories in the public domain. Imagine what it would be like if the Estate for the Brothers Grimm was still enforcing copyrights… Or maybe even the Estate of Homer…

"...Those who retain their idealism hope for a victory on behalf of the people..." That's communism. "...there is still a profit to made on these films..." By people who wish to rip them off from their owners. "...it is now time for their creation to be turned over to the people..." Why don't you come up with your own cartoon? Mickey Mouse isn't valuable just because of the shape of his ears, but because of the decades of careful marketing and positioning. Take that out of the control of his owners and you destroy him. But I'm sure you'll make a fast buck while you do. How much harder it is to create something.

The biggest concern I see with corporations having more control on copyright is their strength to litigate. It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong, if a large company looks upon your work and claims infringement, you'll become bankrupt trying to defend yourself. That threat is one of the biggest obstuctions to self expression.

All intellectual and artistic work should in the end be in the public domain. Just imagine if there is some sort of instutition that hold the rights to Newton's mechanics theory or Shakespeare's work. In order to make artistic endeavour economically feasible, copy right is a measure that lets the artist profit from their work for a limited time frame. After that period has elapsed, the artist or whoever holds the right should produce new work to generate more profit. As in the case of Mickey Mouse, Disney can still use the image even if it is in the public domain. However for current shareholders of Disney to profit by exclusive rights, the company should come up with new innovations instead of relying on the works of people who has died long ago.

You can argue up and down that the Disney corporation has made enough money off of Walt's creation, but what about when it comes to the independent trying to make it today? The copyright laws designed to protect the intelectual property of major corporations can benefit the little guy, too. Why should I, as copyright holder of cartoons which I financed and produced independently, and my heirs not be allowed to have control over distribution of my own work. If there is any desire out there to have alternatives to the product from the majors media conglomerates, the public has got to show its support financially. Profits from films in the public domain do not go back to their creators, rather to often shoddy video profiteers who don't care to invest in locating and preserving the original films. Look at the examples of the public domain Popeye cartoons on DVD, some of which have had been mangled by re-done audio tracks, or other public domain films that have fallen victim to colorization. Do we really need want to see a color version of "Steamboat Willie"?!? Cheap videos or free internet downloads are great for exposure if you're a struggling unkown, but as an Oscar nominated animator friend of mine said to an internet distributor who was trying to license his film for free, "People die from exposure." I can understand why you would want copyrighted medical patents for life-saving drugs or some kind of astronomical research to eventually come into the public domain for the betterment of mankind- but c'mon, we're talking about cartoons here!

Of course, if copyright were actually based on authorial integrity instead of corporate hegemony, Ub Iwerks would own a nice chunk of the Mouse. Part of the history of art is a conversation between works -- sometimes involving appropriation, subversion, and recontextualization. Copyright law as it currently stands, unfortunately, restricts the conversation to the suits. So the footage of Fred Astaire dancing up the walls and ceiling of a room, instead of being spliced into some inventive collage film, ends up being digitally altered so that he's scooting a vacuum cleaner around, in a high-ticket commercial. The guardians of Astaire's estate (perhaps his relatives -- I'm not sure) showed far less concern for the artistic integrity of the work, than its cash value. Unfortunately, copyright law favors the cash-hounds over the actual creators, especially since so much work is owned outright by a corporation, and not the hands and minds who do the labor of "creation." (During the whole Napster brouhaha, I saw Ice T on a panel about "the future of music." He made the salient point that those downloading the music for free didn't think they were ripping off the artists -- they thought they were ripping off the record companies, who were *already* ripping off the artists -- so in a roundabout sort of logic, they thought they were actually doing good) A couple weeks ago I was talking to someone who had tried out ideas, at the behest of Warner Brothers, for a Marvin the Martian cartoon. The feedback was to make sure Marvin didn't use any guns, and that Marvin be "less fey." Marvin didn't exist as a character for these guys -- he was just an image to be kept in circulation, so that it could be reproduced on all manner of plastic saleable junk. Not a revolutionary insight, I know, but this copyright stuff just makes me want to mutter & fume...