For example, if I wanted to make a Repunzel movie right now, I can. Disney can't stop me. Just because they did their version doesn't mean that they own everything and anything that was, is, and will be Repunzel.
The point isn't that they're going to prevent you from creating new Rapunzel content. The point is that they're going to sue the shit out of you if you create new Mickey Mouse material despite the fact that Mickey should've fallen into the public domain YEARS ago.
Let me repeat this: Mickey Mouse should've fallen into public domain YEARS ago. And because Disney doesn't want to allow people to do with Mickey what they have done with Rapunzel (or more accurately, with Alice or OZ since Rapunzel has long since fallen into folklore territory), they lobby to keep extending copyright laws.
Their creation, Mickey, should be in the exact same place that Rapunzel is NOW. But they won't allow it. If I want to create Zombie Mickey and make a cartoon out it, I can't because Disney will not allow Mickey to fall into the public domain.
Apparently it's okay for the creations of others to fall into public domain to be exploited by others (like Disney), but not the reverse. That's called hypocrisy.
However, since you brought it up, if you crafted a design of, say, the Wicked Witch of the West and another person took your design, used it without your permission, and (arguably more importantly) profited off it, wouldn't you be upset? Or would you be cool with it since the character was from the public domain.
What does this have to do with anything? You're point here depends on characters ALREADY being in public domain. I'm not talking about characters ALREADY in the public domain, but Disney's fight to keep their characters from being in the public domain, while exploiting characters who are.
Those other works are in public domain NOT because there was no copyright law back then, but because there was a time limit on copyrights. Time has been up for Mickey for YEARS, but god forbid some else get to do with Mickey what Disney has done with the numerous non-Disney creations.
THAT'S the issue.
Copyrights are not new. Their origins go back as far as the 16th century.
There's another side to the question. Copyright law is about trying to balance two opposing factors. On the one hand, yes, ideas have to go back into the pool sooner or later. But on the other hand, creators deserve the right to profit from their creations while they're alive, and not to have them taken away arbitrarily. The idea behind copyright expiration was that the copyright would last until after the creators had died. But life expectancy is longer now than it was then, so there is some merit to the idea of expanding the duration of copyrights.
Of course, when the creator is defined as a corporation, something that has an open-ended life expectancy, then it becomes more of a problem. I will grant that. But it's not a completely one-sided question. Maybe copyrights shouldn't be unlimited, but they shouldn't be a mere 20 years either.
Good points and I agree....but I don't recall saying I supported twenty years as a limit...only that I believed that limit was twenty years at one time. Nor have I argued that creators rights should be arbitrarily stripped....after all why would I? I'm a creator as well. And yes, copyrights should not be unlimited, but should be longer than 20 years. I'm fine with "the life of the author".
I'm simply pointing out Disney's hypocrisy on the issue. This is not about "business sense". From that perspective, I understand why they do it. It makes it no less hypocritical.
It all comes from that great creative pool. Yes, it does get trickier with corporate entities being thrown into the picture. It gets even trickier when you throw trademarks in.
I'm not thrilled with some of the new copyright stuff that's come out in terms of "orphaned work" tho. IIRC, there are some scary implications in that. But that's a discussion for another thread.
