Jotari Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 So as of last week Steamboat Willie entered the public domain in the US, meaning the first design of Mickey Mouse is free to use without getting sued. Which is a pretty significant achievement for public domain properties. Of course I still expect Disney to make it difficult for anyone trying to profit off of Mickey, but with each passing year their ability to do so will lessen. In other news about an IP I actually care about, Lord of the Rings might be public domain in New Zealand. I'm seeing mixed results online since New Zealand was considering changing it's copyright law, probably because of this exact scenario since New Zealand has that association with Lord of the Rings. It most certainly wouldn't happen, but I'd be pretty thrilled if New Zealand brazenly gave the middle finger to the Tolkien estate and made a big budget adaptation of The Silmarillian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indigoasis Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 And the funniest part is that there's already a horror movie and video game coming soon. I know stuff like that is planned way in advance to capitalize on the news (the same was done with Winnie the Pooh, after all), but it's hard not to find it somewhat comical, especially since horror is always the first thing to be done with it. About the scariest thing (and this is not even mildly scary) done with Mickey Mouse in (my) recent memory is Epic Mickey from over a decade ago. It'll never happen, but I'd love to see a rerelease of that game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanguard333 Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 48 minutes ago, Jotari said: In other news about an IP I actually care about, Lord of the Rings might be public domain in New Zealand. I'm seeing mixed results online since New Zealand was considering changing it's copyright law, probably because of this exact scenario since New Zealand has that association with Lord of the Rings. It most certainly wouldn't happen, but I'd be pretty thrilled if New Zealand brazenly gave the middle finger to the Tolkien estate and made a big budget adaptation of The Silmarillion. Interesting. I don't think they'd be able to create an adaptation of the Silmarillion; I'm not a big expert on copyright laws, but the original source material being public domain doesn't necessarily mean that it's safe to make an adaptation. The movie The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen ran into this problem: the original comic book had The Invisible Man and Fu Manchu, both of whom are public domain, as characters in it, but the movie licenses for both characters were still held by another studio, so the movie had to write its own version of The Invisible Man and omit Fu Manchu entirely. Incidentally, Canada changed its copyright law last year: it used to be that something became public domain in Canada 50 years after the author passes away, but it was updated last year to 70 to reflect copyright laws in the majority of countries, and a number of Tolkien fans were upset since the works of Tolkien would've become public domain in 2023 in Canada under the old law, and the update meant those fans have to wait another twenty years for it to become public domain in Canada. That copyright law update, by the way, was not made retroactive: anything that already became public domain in Canada under the 50-year rule is still public domain. The Lord of the Rings isn't public domain in Canada, but other series such as James Bond are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotari Posted January 7 Author Share Posted January 7 1 hour ago, indigoasis said: And the funniest part is that there's already a horror movie and video game coming soon. I know stuff like that is planned way in advance to capitalize on the news (the same was done with Winnie the Pooh, after all), but it's hard not to find it somewhat comical, especially since horror is always the first thing to be done with it. The reason for that is because it is so far from the original use of the character that there's no way anyone could conclude it's violating the copyright no matter how much the company tries to stack the court, so to speak. If I make a completely original Mickey Mouse or Winnie the Pooh cartoon where I try to ape the original styling of the character and construct a plot where, say, Mickey and Winnie go to the beach and can't set up an umbrella, then Disney could say I'm plagiarizing something vaguely similar they might have done fifty years ago with the character even if it's a complete coincidence. But a live action horror movie is going to have no angle to come from. Even having Winnie the Pooh in cartoon at all could possibly put you in Disney's crosshairs since it's only the book that is in public domain, not the cartoon, especially if you make the mistake of giving him the iconic red shirt which (I think) Disney were the first to do. 1 hour ago, vanguard333 said: Interesting. I don't think they'd be able to create an adaptation of the Silmarillion; I'm not a big expert on copyright laws, but the original source material being public domain doesn't necessarily mean that it's safe to make an adaptation. The movie The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen ran into this problem: the original comic book had The Invisible Man and Fu Manchu, both of whom are public domain, as characters in it, but the movie licenses for both characters were still held by another studio, so the movie had to write its own version of The Invisible Man and omit Fu Manchu entirely. I'm not so sure about movie rights. I had heard that about the Invisible Man in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, but I thought it was because he was a more recent character. Looking at the dates now though I see that's wrong, it was 1890s, I though Wells wrote it in the 1920s. For the Silmarillion the Tolkien estate could also possibly claim the copyright belongs to Tolkien's son, who published and edited it. And thus the copyright in many countries would extend to some decades after his death, not Tolkien's. 1 hour ago, vanguard333 said: Incidentally, Canada changed its copyright law last year: it used to be that something became public domain in Canada 50 years after the author passes away, but it was updated last year to 70 to reflect copyright laws in the majority of countries, and a number of Tolkien fans were upset since the works of Tolkien would've become public domain in 2023 in Canada under the old law, and the update meant those fans have to wait another twenty years for it to become public domain in Canada. That copyright law update, by the way, was not made retroactive: anything that already became public domain in Canada under the 50-year rule is still public domain. The Lord of the Rings isn't public domain in Canada, but other series such as James Bond are. And I would readily believe that Tolkien is one of the prime reasons why they changed their copyright laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etrurian emperor Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 Rather than the Simerilean I'd be more interesting on a series about the Rise of the Witch King. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanty Pete's 1st Mate Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 It's starting to feel like turning beloved, child-friendly characters into horrific killers is about the laziest thing you can do with them. Maybe it was subversive at one time, but nowadays, they're becoming a dime a dozen (and that's after accounting for inflation). I, for one, am not looking forward to "Bugs Bunny captures and tortures Elmer Fudd, the movie, in live-action". 12 hours ago, Jotari said: It most certainly wouldn't happen, but I'd be pretty thrilled if New Zealand brazenly gave the middle finger to the Tolkien estate and made a big budget adaptation of The Silmarillian. Who, exactly, would be making it? Only Kiwis? The Peter Jackson films were international endeavors. And would they even be able to advertise and release it in international markets? Or would everyone have to set their VPNs to metro Auckland to get a glimpse on obscure-streaming-service-of-the-week? Obviously, I'm no expert on copyright law. And at some level, everything comes down to whoever has the better lawyers. But it's hard to see this as a winning, money-making formula. And that's without getting into the question of whether it would be artistically sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanguard333 Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 11 hours ago, Jotari said: I'm not so sure about movie rights. I had heard that about the Invisible Man in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, but I thought it was because he was a more recent character. Looking at the dates now though I see that's wrong, it was 1890s, I thought Wells wrote it in the 1920s. For the Silmarillion the Tolkien estate could also possibly claim the copyright belongs to Tolkien's son, who published and edited it. And thus the copyright in many countries would extend to some decades after his death, not Tolkien's. And I would readily believe that Tolkien is one of the prime reasons why they changed their copyright laws. Yeah; Universal still owns the movie rights to The Invisible Man despite doing nothing with it and the original novel character having been public domain for decades. I could see them doing exactly that. Most likely; the reason I know about the change Canada made to its copyright laws last year is that, last year, I looked to see if Zorro and James Bond were public domain yet. The answer for both is that they are in Canada, but only because the 50-year rule wasn't made retroactive, and the article that I read about the law mainly talked about Tolkien. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotari Posted January 7 Author Share Posted January 7 27 minutes ago, vanguard333 said: Yeah; Universal still owns the movie rights to The Invisible Man despite doing nothing with it and the original novel character having been public domain for decades. Kind of ridiculous really. The story was made in the nineteenth century for crying out loud. Movies barely even existed at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indigoasis Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 17 hours ago, Jotari said: The reason for that is because it is so far from the original use of the character that there's no way anyone could conclude it's violating the copyright no matter how much the company tries to stack the court, so to speak. If I make a completely original Mickey Mouse or Winnie the Pooh cartoon where I try to ape the original styling of the character and construct a plot where, say, Mickey and Winnie go to the beach and can't set up an umbrella, then Disney could say I'm plagiarizing something vaguely similar they might have done fifty years ago with the character even if it's a complete coincidence. But a live action horror movie is going to have no angle to come from. Even having Winnie the Pooh in cartoon at all could possibly put you in Disney's crosshairs since it's only the book that is in public domain, not the cartoon, especially if you make the mistake of giving him the iconic red shirt which (I think) Disney were the first to do. Ah, now it all makes sense. Thank you. Theoretically, that means someone could put a real mouse in a small pair of shorts and shoes (Stuart Little style), and make a live-action Mickey Mouse film. I can't wait to see that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousSpeed Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 8 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said: It's starting to feel like turning beloved, child-friendly characters into horrific killers is about the laziest thing you can do with them. Maybe it was subversive at one time, but nowadays, they're becoming a dime a dozen (and that's after accounting for inflation). I, for one, am not looking forward to "Bugs Bunny captures and tortures Elmer Fudd, the movie, in live-action". Yeah, I honestly agree with this. I say that is someone who is biased against horror things and considers them spiritually harmful, so that opinion may have less to do with the secular quality or effort of the idea and more so with the perversion of innocence. 21 hours ago, Jotari said: I'd be pretty thrilled if New Zealand brazenly gave the middle finger to the Tolkien estate and made a big budget adaptation of The Silmarillian. "New Zealand" as in, the New Zealand government? A particular studio working in New Zealand? I would be hesitant to say that a big budget adaptation of Silmarilian stories would necessarily be good, and since there is a vague respect for Tolkien compared to Disney (even in myself), I wouldn't want to flip off his estate for something that might stink, even if I am against the general notion of intellectual property. I guess it would just be polite to run some stuff by Christopher or whoever is alive now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotari Posted January 9 Author Share Posted January 9 1 hour ago, RichardVega said: It's noteworthy that Steamboat Willie entered the public domain in the US, potentially opening up new possibilities. As for Lord of the Rings, there are mixed reports about potential public domain status in New Zealand due to changes in copyright law. The situation remains unclear, but it's an interesting development for fans of the franchise. Be up front with me, are you an AI? Because you've just restated my OP in a very AI like fashion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.