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:Don't worry, Olive! (Score:5, Interesting)
Why does the public have rights over and above the creator?
The creator enjoys the protection of the law that *stops* other people making copies of that character. You're already operating from the assumption that an artist has the inherent moral right to stop anyone making copies of his or her work.
Let me make clear that I'm not one of Slashdot's kneejerk anti-IPers. I strongly believe that the time and effort put into creating intellectual (as opposed to physical) works should have the same *opportunity* to be rewarded as physical work or service. Nor do I agree that no-one ever loses out from "piracy". So copyright is (ideally) the protection of *potential* income from intellectual works.
Still, the assumption that the creator should enjoy the protection of the state forever and ever on their works is one some people could reasonably disagree with.
I understand if there is no remaining family but why shouldn't the rights pass to the surviving family much as physical property does?
Regardless of whether some people call it intellectual property, the fact remains that it isn't the same as physical property.
Our culture is built upon the works of previous cultures and their intellectual works. To impose copyright and similar intellectual protection for generations would ultimately have the effect of tying up our current and future popular culture and make it impossible to build upon it in the same way that previous generations have.
Can you imagine how hard it would have been for the creators of Popeye if they hadn't been able to use *any* previous elements, even getting down to the basic structure of the story and the setup? (e.g. Two guys fighting over one girl; sorry, the Greeks have a copyright on that from 2000 years ago, etc.) And yes, IIRC, some people *were* wanting to copyright things down to that sort of level on modern creations.
You probably know (or ought to know) that many of Disney's classic works are based on public domain material and characters that they never paid a cent for. The company is one of the arch-hypocrites when it comes to intellectual property.
My family home can still be in the family in 500 years but my work will belong to anyone that wants to reproduce it for a quick buck.
Your original artwork will still be in the family in 500 years, if they haven't sold it off. You just won't have the right to stop other people making copies of it.
And while you can hold on to the house, you can't hold on to it *and* have the benefit of selling it. Sure, you can rent it out and stuff, so the edges are blurred; but as I said, physical and intellectual property aren't the same thing and can't always be compared. With IP, you can sell copies of it *and* retain the original rights.
I often wonder about releasing some work to the public because in the end the only true way in our society to control your work is to not publish it ever.
That's your choice.
I no longer have the financial need so why not just keep my work for family and friends?
Ditto. Though I'd burn it before you die, as if it's really as important as you seem to think, some descendant will probably release it anyway- likely before the copyright expires in order to make money as well.
It may seem straight forward to non artists but it's an upsetting subject for many artists.
No-one ever said life was perfect. I agree that it's sometimes unpleasant that some creatively bankrupt advertising f*****t can cheapen a piece of out-of-copyright classical music by using it for some lousy product, but that's an unfortunate side effect of something that is desirable on the whole.
Upsetting? Perhaps, but they have to decide whether the trade-off of releasing their work is worth it; they already enjoy the better part of a lifetime's protection in many cases, and that's a lo
Re:Don't worry, Olive! (Score:4, Interesting)
A typical artist will have to try many times before making a profit on something. The recompense for the successful idea pays for the ones that don't pay off. Making art isn't like standing on an assembly line making widgets. It's easy to value the labor per widget, i.e., (hourly wage + other labor costs) / (widgets per hour). But how do you value the years of failure and practice it takes to get a piece of art that succeeds? While 90 years may be a bit on the long side to be able reap some benefit from a work, why should artists essentially get nothing: a pittance for what sells, and nothing for the all the work that didn't, but was crucial in making the piece that works possible? Such a system totally discourages arts.
I have my own business and my rates can seem high to people who don't understand that I don't earn X dollars/hour. That rate must pay staff salaries, rent, taxes, equipment, supplies, more taxes, services and utilities, and a few extra fees and taxes. I make decent money but it's really depressing to look at how little I keep of every dollar that comes in the door. Artists face similar self-employment hurdles -- the works that pay need to cover the works that don't, plus the time necessary to fail enough to succeed again. In art, failure is a huge amount of the overhead.
I would have liked to have been an artist, but I wasn't brave enough. I chose a permanent day job, and to dabble in my spare time. To be an artist, you have to work your tail off to get started, then you have to work like mad to make even a basic living, and then you have to have worry about how everyone seems to feel entitled to your work for a pittance or nothing. It takes a lot of guts to go that route and I didn't have them. Although the art I would have chosen is a physical sort, I do have a lot of empathy for people who make things that can be trivially copied these days. It must seem so pointless to spend so many years eating ramen and working hard to come up with a good idea, just to fulfill the sense of entitlement of the P2P community.
Re:Don't worry, Olive! (Score:4, Interesting)
Fine. Let's suppose you create a work today (book, song, whatever) that winds up being pretty successful. Thanks to copyright, you are motivated to create more works (maybe based off of the successful work, maybe not). Copyright law grants you copyright ownership over the idea for 70 years after your death, however. Assuming you happen to be 30 years old (since I don't know your real age) and that you will die at the respectable age of 80, this means that the copyright will expire in the year 2129. Assuming that every 30 years, a new generation comes into the world, this means that the copyright on your work will expire when your great-great-great-grandkids are born. Exactly how is copyright supposed to motive you to create new works when you're dead, your kids are dead, and your grandkids are likely dead also?
I definitely support copyright protections, but would like to see them significantly scaled back in length. I'd like to see them reverted back to what they were in the time of the Founders: 14 years initially with an optional one-time 14 year extension. I would probably support a 20+20 rule, but not much beyond that. There could be a phase in period for existing works starting with the oldest works and working forward. It would give artists plenty of time to make money off of the idea. Using the previous example, your work created today (when you are 30) would go into the public domain in the year 2037 when you are 58.
This would also solve the problem of abandoned works: They would either not be renewed after the first term or would naturally expire after the renewal term.
Re:Don't worry, Olive! (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd rather see different treatment of active and abandoned works than a blanket duration. Something like if a work or a legally made derivative of it hasn't been available for (legal) purchase to the public (possibly with a restriction that it has to be at a sane price, exact threshold to be decided in court) for 10 years (or maybe less) the work enters the public domain. Anyone who cares can easily keep his copyright to the maximum duration but someone who doesn't will lose it. Might even make some copyright holders who want to hold onto their rights re-release old materials that would have been unavailable otherwise.
I'd make sure to include derivatives so in order to keep something like a character you wouldn't have to republish the first incarnation. Of couse the derivative chain only includes the elements that still appear in the sold works, a character that has been abandoned within a setting would be abandoned too.
IMO a restriction like that would make copyright only restrict access to things that are still being used and open up a lot of old material to the public that wouldn't be preserved otherwise (and really has no commercial interest attached so it just gets protected by accident when the durations get extended rather than with any intent on using the copyright). Probably easier to get implemented than a general shortening of durations because if it's abandoned by this system that would be because there is no commercial interest in keeping it alive and therefore no reason to oppose it.
I do think it's somewhat fair that Disney gets to keep Mickey Mouse and such still because it is a quite rare feat to make a work that has any relevance even 10 years later but their duration is pushing it.
Either way I think the derivative chain being enough to protect something would also make it easier for prospective users since currently when an old version goes out of copyright any derivatives (such as later stories, character changes, etc) remain copyrighted and someone trying to write a story with such a character would suddently find out that most of what makes up the current image of the character is actually much newer and still covered (and I expect most people to find that part out the hard way).
Re:Finally... (Score:3, Interesting)
i used to think similarly, but you're ignoring certain realities of business and the legal system.
first of all, licensing copyrighted works is not always a viable option. if you're familiar with Acid Bath, then you know what kind of subject matters they sing about and the type of lyrics they use. i don't think the Seuss estate is likely to grant a license to use their character's name in a song about IV drug use & rotting corpses, and that uses the f-word 18 times [sing365.com], in an album that is illustrated by a convicted serial-killer/cannibal/pedophile/necrophile [wikipedia.org].
even if we were somehow able to convince the Seuss/Geisel-estate to grant us a license to use their character, it's unlikely that the album would have remained profitable--all for a single song title. frankly, the lyrics have very little to nothing to do with Dr. Seuss. so in retrospect, from the perspective of the label, the smart thing to do would have been just to change the track title and remove the 4 occurrences of "Dr. Seuss" from the lyrics. but we're not in the habit of censoring our bands, and i don't think they'd really appreciate being forced to run all of their new material by a copyright lawyer before being allowed to perform a song or record an album. i don't know, that just doesn't seem conducive of a healthy creative environment IMHO.
lastly, the only merchandise we sold containing an actual depiction of the Dr. Seuss character did have major alterations--it was an original design commissioned by the label & the band depicting Dr. Seuss looking strung-the-fuck-out, smoking a joint, and with a needle in his arm. but as i said, there's no fixed metric for determining what is considered fair use and what is not. it's always judged on a case by case basis. and frankly, we don't have the money to engage in a court battle with a multi-million/billion-dollar corporation. if ABC backed down [tv.com] from a copyright dispute against the Geisel estate, then that tells me that we don't really stand much of a chance.
i mean, in an ideal world, the law would always be interpreted in accordance to its intent. mentioning "Dr. Seuss" in the song title or lyrics of a metal album is not likely to devalue the Geisel estate's IP or otherwise damage them financially. so we should have had nothing to worry about. and in an ideal world, money would also mean nothing in a court of law, and any average joe could take on a major corporation like Disney or Sony BMG in court and win. but that's not the way the world works, and people who are in the right are unfortunately often forced to settle out of court.
as to your last question, i've never been in a band or worked with Acid Bath, though i did meet Sammy Duet at a Goatwhore (the band he formed with Ben Falgoust of Soilent Green/Paralysis fame after Acid Bath broke up) show when they were signed to Rotten Records, which is where i work. unfortunately, Acid Bath broke up a couple of years before i started working at the label around my senior year in high school. but i can tell you this much, Dax Riggs, who wrote most of the songs, is not the type of person to associate with lawyers. heck, he's refused to work with even record labels since Agents of Oblivion split up--and not for a lack of offers. in fact, Dax's antiestablishmentarian views is the primary reason why Acid Bath (minus Audie Pitre, obviously) has never reunited.
oh, and one last thing. i think it's worth noting that FOX owns the copyrights to both, The Simpsons and Family Guy, so that's probably not a good example to use. South Park's parody of Family Guy and The Simpsons are probably more appropriate to this discussion, but Comedy Central has a lot more money to spend on lawyers than we do.