Image of Popeye Enters Public Domain In the EU 229
Several readers wrote in to mention that the copyright on the image of the character Popeye expired in the EU as the year began, 70 years since the death of its creator Elzie Segar. The US will have to wait until 2024, 95 years after Segar's death. Only Popeye's image is free of trademark in the EU; the name "Popeye" is still under copyright by King Features Syndicate. Popeye made his first appearance in a comic strip in 1929 and became hugely popular in the 1930s. The Times claims that Popeye now moves $2.8B of merchandise per year. Le Monde's coverage (in Google translation) mentions the real-life people in Segar's early experience who inspired some of the Popeye cast of characters. Popeye himself was based on the prize fighter Frank "Rocky" Fiegel.
Re:Errmmm... (Score:2, Informative)
From the article:
The 70 years began with the death of the author. The American 95 years began with the initial copyright. Two different dates to initiate things. So the gap between them ending need not equal the difference between 95 and 70. So it was not a math error but a reading comprehension error on your part.
Re:Errmmm... (Score:3, Informative)
From the summary: "The US will have to wait until 2024, 95 years after Segar's death."
So the summary actually has it's maths wrong- it literally says that it's 70 years from Segar's death to now, and ALSO 95 years from Segar's death to 2024. 2024 is indeed when the copyright expires- but it ISN'T 95 years after Segar's death.
Copyright, trademark, patent (Score:5, Informative)
Argh, can't you get your facts straight even in the summary?
A name cannot be copyrighted. It's a trademark. It doesn't expire after a number of years, like a copyright. A copyright is not a trademark, and a trademark is not a patent. Neither is copyright a patent.
Copyright protects certain expression (or a picture). A trademark protects the name it's sold under. A patent protects the idea of a technical solution to some problem.
And now that I'm ranting, there's no such thing as "copywritten" which is seen often. A copywriter does something entirely unrelated to copyright.
A trademark has to be actively protected to prevent the trademark from becoming common language (like using "googling" to mean searching the web or "xeroxing" to mean copying). Neither a copyright or a patent becomes invalid by failure to enforce.
Patenting is always an active act, i.e. you don't get a patent for something just by inventing it. And it's expensive in general. Copyright comes automatically, so there cannot be such a thing as "failure to copyright" (nowadays anyway, it was different decades ago). A trademark can either be registered (which is inexpensive) or obtained by becoming well established (registering it is a safe bet).
Re:Yes, worry! (Score:5, Informative)
We're not talking about "the artist" here, we're talking about a huge media conglomerate. Here's the irony with current copyright law: back when the 17-year copyright was first enacted, the means of production and distribution were far more limited than they are today. Because corporations have much easier access to potential customers, they can make far more money, far faster than they ever could in the past. And yet, there's this insane belief that the copyright needed to be extended. If anything, it should have been shortened to take into account the benefits brought by advances in technology. I dare say those who initiated the idea of copyright ever envisioned multi-billion-dollar corporations creating a stranglehold on the sale and distribution of works that define our culture.
corrections (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Informative)
well, clearly you must know something that i don't. because the application of copyright laws in the U.S. generally favors the interests of copyright holders--particularly extremely rich ones--rather than the public. and the only way to use copyrighted works without obtaining a license from copyright holder is through the fair use clause, which is very vaguely defined [wikipedia.org] and generally of little use if the copyright holder is a major corporation like Disney or FOX. so regardless of the intent of the law, the realities of copyright enforcement generally make fair use a moot point if the copyright holder actually decides to come after you.
case in point, one of the artists on our back catalog is a sludgemetal band called Acid Bath. (they're not particularly well known outside of metal circles, though they have garnered a cult following over they ears.) anyways, they released an album in 1994 (When the Kite String Pops, album artwork by John Wayne Gacy) with a track on it entitled "Dr. Seuss is Dead." so for about a decade and a half we sold merchandise related to this song, assuming it'd be covered under fair use.
well, about a year ago we were contacted by the "Seuss" estate and threatened with legal action if we didn't immediately take down all references to Dr. Seuss from our site and hand over our entire stock of CDs, DVDs, and t-shirts which made any reference to that song title. we were even forced to change the name of the song from "Dr. Seuss is Dead" to "is Dead" on iTunes. should we have taken the dispute to court and fought the charges? i, in my infinite optimism and naiveté, had initially thought so. but that was until my boss talked some sense into me and brought up other such cases which should have been covered by fair use rights & legal parody [findlaw.com] that ended with the verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
perhaps if we were Sony BMG or one of the other Big Four labels we could have stood in chance in court. but we're a small indie label with neither the legal muscle nor the financial means to sustain a long & drawn out legal battle.
You CANNOT copyright a name (Score:4, Informative)
No, it is not, and never was. You CANNOT COPYRIGHT A NAME.
Copyright /= Patent /= Trademark.