[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Ashcroft Accepted forReviewbySCOTUS

On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Richard Hartman wrote:

> Perversion it may be, and yet, it would cover the DisneyCo's
> concerns re. "The Mouse" without having to go to the even
> greater perversion of infinite extension of copyright, which
> is what they have to pursue right now.

Sure, They can trademark one or several images.. For example, the ears or
a single sillouette, or whatever.

> Which then is the lesser of two evils?  Stretching trademark
> protection over the image of a cartoon character who is very
> strongly identified with the owning corporation, or playing
> the "copyright lasts as long as we say it lasts" game?

Neither.. Walt Disney knew what he wsa getting into when he started
playing the game. This is just changing the rules after the fact.

(BTW, what right does disney have *at all* to Mickey Mouse nowadays? Why
must any 'solution' seem to require that there's some exception that
allows Disney to control Mickey Mouse forever?

Why is Mickey Mouse infinitely more important than Santa Clause, seemingly
even for us? Both are a fundamental part of our culture, except out
culture never did get Mickey Mouse in 42 years, as promised.

(I'm trying to imagine Santa under the current copyright regime... He'd
have been copyrighted until I was 4 years old. (I believe Thomas Nast died
in 1906.)