Showing Disney to students

[Disney Guru]

These are great Movies. Why don't they still show them at school ?

[jambo*rafiki]

I remember seeing TLK in Science class, and also Pete's Dragon on the last day of third grade. My science teacher tried to tie TLK to evolution in some convaluted way (something about the Circle of Life) but my 3rd grade teacher didn't bother. They didn't get in trouble (yet).

[feedmelinguini]

I find it disturbing that there are people pushing for the "Sonny Bono-style legislation that would seek to extend the period of copyright to a ridiculously long amount of time. Presently, this is something like lifetime of the author + 50 years.

I wish it were only people pushing for this legislation. Unfortunately, it is past tense. People pushed for the legislation, passed it, and made it law. Americans had to choose between Mickey Mouse and the U.S. Constitution, Section 8 and they chose...Mickey Mouse.

God Bless America.

Lon

P.S. Sorry for the rant!

[2099net]

Americans had to choose between Mickey Mouse and the U.S. Constitution, Section 8 and they chose...Mickey Mouse.

So is America now a Mickey Mouse country?

I have mixed feelings about this. Copyright used to be 50(?) years after the death of the creator. Now I don't really have a problem with that, because the creator will get the full benefit and also have something to leave to his children. Eventually the copyright will expire and everybody wins.

But it's sort of hard when the creator is a company. Do you take the "death" of the creator to be the company going bankrupt? It sounds sort of fair to do this, but a company like Disney is sure to last many years - so basically going by that basis Mickey Mouse will never go out of copyright, so companies just get a set period of time before copyright expires (but Disney is a prime motivator in extending this period, simply to protect their Mickey Mouse shorts).

I think a fair solution for companies would be to run copyright like trademarks. Every 7 years or so, the company has to reregister the copyright and pay a fee. Also in that 7 years, the company must release or make available to the public the item(s) being copyrighted. Failure to do this will result in copyright being lost.

[Disney Guru]

I believe that Schools should still be able to show the Rare Disney Classics to students. So students can know of the magic that we felt as kids. It is a rotten shame that some people are so dumb that they won't let Schools show Disney. Disney needs to take its hand out their pockets and allow schools to show Disney again at school.

[Loomis]

I think a fair solution for companies would be to run copyright like trademarks. Every 7 years or so, the company has to reregister the copyright and pay a fee. Also in that 7 years, the company must release or make available to the public the item(s) being copyrighted. Failure to do this will result in copyright being lost.

I totally agree, but as feedmelinguini pointed out, things have gone in the opposite direction and the 50 year period has been extended.

I had no problem with the 50 year mark, because as you said, it benefits the children of the creator too. However, extending this period would seem to be defeating the purpose of copyright, which is to protect the creator. After that, you are simply creating a monopoly on who can/can't use certain images.

[AwallaceUNC]

Right, I knew that a company can't just exempt themselves, so I guess what I was thinking is that Disney may have just 'declared' themselves exempt, and no one had really pursued anything with it, and just caved? That was the impression my school was under, but I wouldn't put too much stock into their info .

-Aaron

[2099net]

Well, it's complicated. Becasue a lot of Disney characters are Trademarks as well as Copyright. If you aren't seen to be protecting a trademark, there's a chance that somebody can go to court and challenge the trademark. Disney could in fact loose their trademarks! That's the reason why Disney send letters to - for example - hospitals which have Mickey Mouse painted on walls. They have to be seen and have documentation showing that they are protecting their trademark.

So the same could possibly also be said for unauthorised public showings?

[2099net]

I think a fair solution for companies would be to run copyright like trademarks. Every 7 years or so, the company has to reregister the copyright and pay a fee. Also in that 7 years, the company must release or make available to the public the item(s) being copyrighted. Failure to do this will result in copyright being lost.

I totally agree, but as feedmelinguini pointed out, things have gone in the opposite direction and the 50 year period has been extended.

I had no problem with the 50 year mark, because as you said, it benefits the children of the creator too. However, extending this period would seem to be defeating the purpose of copyright, which is to protect the creator. After that, you are simply creating a monopoly on who can/can't use certain images.

Yeah, it was extended to 70? But that's not really the issue. An individual has copyright for the length of his/her life + the extension period. So in effect, if you are an individual you can never not benefit from your creation.

It's different for a company. A company has no "life", so the company just gets the extension period (is this right?). Now obviously, barring a major screw up, Disney isn't going to go out of business anytime soon. So should a company loose copyright when it is still, in some respects, "alive"? I'm torn on this, because I do see the point of view that as long as a company exists it should keep copyright, just like a living creator keeps copyright. After all Disney still keep Mickey Mouse "alive" as a going concern.

But of course that would be opening another can of worms.