Stop The Presses: Disney Tells Court About The Importance Of The Public Domain

from the that-disney? dept

Thu, Mar 19th 2015 8:17am — Mike Masnick

As you may know, Disney has something of a reputation when it comes to copyright and the public domain. While the company itself is somewhat notorious for taking works from the public domain, putting its own animated spin on it and then claiming copyright as far as copyright will take them, it also was the prime mover in extending the term of copyright back in 1998 in the "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act," which is often referred to as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. It holds that nickname because Disney lobbied heavily for the Act and because it prevented Mickey Mouse from reaching the public domain. As Tom Bell has shown, there's a well-known Mickey Mouse curve that shows copyright extending basically every time Mickey Mouse is about to hit the public domain:

So it's not often you see Disney out there defending the public domain -- and the importance of keeping it vibrant and supported by new things. However, that seems to be (sort of) what Disney is, in fact, arguing in a Supreme Court case known as Kimble v. Marvel. There are, of course, a bunch of caveats here. First, it's a patent case, not a copyright case. Second, it's Marvel, not technically "Disney," but Marvel is wholly owned by Disney. The case involves what appears to be a fairly straightforward question: can a patent holder demand royalties after a patent has expired. The obvious answer to this question is "hell no." And, in fact, that's exactly what the Supreme Court itself said in 1964 in Brulotte v. Thys Co.:

"We conclude that a patentee's use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se."

But, because there can always be questionable rulings, there was another court ruling that (bizarrely) found that you can get a license for something that was never patented if you work out an agreement to that nature (that's Aronson v. Quick Point Pencil). This has made things messy.

In this case, some Spiderman fans patented a an invention of a toy that could shoot webs out of the toy's wrists, a la Spiderman. Marvel bought the patent from the inventors, promising a royalty if the company made such a toy, which it did. The patent expired in 2010 and Disney/Marvel stopped paying. The inventors sued... and have so far lost twice in the lower and appeals courts. The issue is now before the Supreme Court, with the direct question of whether or not the ruling in Brulotte should be overturned. Hopefully, it will not be. Once something is in the public domain it should stay there. And that is exactly what Disney/Marvel is arguing -- in ways that seem somewhat antithetical to the company's stance on copyright. Take this for example:

An essential part of the bargain at the heart of the patent system is that, when the patent term ends, all rights associated with the patent terminate and the patented idea is committed to the public domain for the free and unrestricted use of all. The same policy concerns animate other well-settled patent precedents, including the rule that a licensee may not be required to continue to pay royalties after a patent is invalidated. Private parties are properly forbidden from attempting to evade those congressional judgments.

Just switch out copyright for patents and you see how this looks quite out of place for Disney to be arguing, since it has fought incredibly hard to make sure that the "end" of the copyright term is an amorphous, ever changing concept that is always in the future. And then there's this incredible statement, warning of how horrible it would be if royalties might accumulate forever:

If anything, modern developments underscore the need to protect the public domain from the aggregate toll of patent royalties that would accumulate forever

You don't say, Disney. How very, very interesting...

Hopefully the Supreme Court makes quick work of this and sides with Disney in protecting the public domain on patents. But it will be interesting to see these statements come back up a couple of years from now as Mickey Mouse nears the public domain again, won't it?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, kimble, patents, public domain, spider man, toys
Companies: disney, marvel

75 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

antidirt (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 7:47am

You're conflating two separate things. Lobbying for a longer term has nothing to do with arguing that a licensee isn't required to pay royalties once that term ends. Those positions are entirely consistent. Why pretend otherwise, Mike? I know you hate Disney and want to bash them, but the post makes no sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 8:24am
  
  Re:
  Is it me, or are there a lot of you fighting invisible demons and attacking Mike rather than the points being made this week? A nerve has been struck, it seems.
  
  Anyway, if you have a shred of honesty, I'd re-read the article and locate the actual point being addressed, because you completely overlooked it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    antidirt (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 9:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm happy to discuss with Mike his claim that SOPA will break the Internet. He won't have that discussion. He can't have that discussion. He's all form and no substance.
    
    What point being addressed did I miss? Quote the text you think I didn't grasp.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - James Burkhardt (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 9:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      notice you didn't reply to my linking his explainations of exactly that in the article where that mattered.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 9:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Are you talking about yourself and mentioning Mike? You keep talking about that discussion but all you do is ask why SOPA would break the internet even though people keep pointing you to the article that answers it. I"ll do it again:
      
      https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111122/04254316872/definitive-post-why-sopa-protect-ip-are -bad-bad-ideas.shtml
      
      Stop being an obnoxious moron.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2015 @ 10:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Unfortunately that post is bullshit. It's all FUD.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 11:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Now, are we talking FUD to the tune of 'Piracy costs us billions of dollars in lost profits per year, and the record and movie industries are on the brink of collapse because of it!', or just regular level FUD?
        
        If you think the points raised in the article are wrong, then by all means, provide counter-evidence to support your position. Just trying to dismiss something by claiming it's FUD doesn't actually do anything to support your claim.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        antidirt (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 12:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm happy to discuss each and every one of those arguments directly and on the merits with Mike. He will NEVER have that conversation. He can't back them up. He doesn't stand behind what he says. Never has, never will.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2015 @ 1:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Discuss away, right here. It doesn't have to be some debate. Make your effing point. Oh yes, you don't have one. You're just another clueless f'wit barking for attention while defending what screws everyone over. That's as ignorant as it gets.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Pragmatic, 20 Mar 2015 @ 3:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Antidirt believes that copyright is property. He will not, to the least degree, entertain the notion that Constitutionally, it is not.
        
        So he huffs and puffs, hoping to blow logic and truth down by means of attrition.
        
        It is somewhat entertaining if you're in the right mood but for the most part it's annoying to those of us who are members of the reality-based community.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2015 @ 10:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, the precise question "Is a copyright or a patent 'property'" has not to my knowledge been definitively answered by the Supreme Court, so its status is not clear. That said, it is easy to read the "tea leaves" from dozens of statutes and court decisions at all levels (state and federal), and those "tea leaves" leave me with little doubt that copyrights and patents would be deemed "property" as that term is used in the 5th Amendment. After all, 28 USC 1498 regarding infringements by or for the US is predicated precisely upon the applicability of the 5th Amendment, and in numerous Supreme Court cases intangible rights such as these have been approvingly received and viewed as "property". See, e.g., Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto dealing with trade secrets.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2015 @ 6:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He never has that conversation because chickens clucking is a conversation for you.
        
        You want to spam bawk noises, go to a farmyard.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2015 @ 8:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "He will NEVER have that conversation."
        
        Mike works for a living.
        It's obvious she doesn't...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - RD, 19 Mar 2015 @ 6:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "What point being addressed did I miss? Quote the text you think I didn't grasp."
      
      Every single damn fucking word ever said on this site - there is your quote.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        antidirt (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 12:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL. So you've got nothing. I love this place.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 8:40am
  
  Re:
  Dude, read the article again, slowly. Disney is arguing how a vibrant, dynamic Public Domain is necessary to help further developments and derived works while fighting tooth and nail to extend copyright terms that, sit down, breath deeply... deprive the Public Domain from being vibrant, dynamic.
  
  I know, I know that intellectual work is not your strong point but that's what happened here. Sorry if your head explode out of the effort to understand it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    antidirt (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 9:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    Huh? Where in the article are you getting that? The quotes are about royalties. Can you quote me the text you're referring to?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 9:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Really?
      
      That's the portion that reminds us of Disney leading the efforts to extend copyright terms (feel free to click the link for further explanation but be sure to at least READ this article, you still haven't done it):
      
      As Tom Bell has shown, there's a well-known Mickey Mouse curve that shows copyright extending basically every time Mickey Mouse is about to hit the public domain
      
      Then Disney defending Public Domain:
      
      If anything, modern developments underscore the need to protect the public domain from the aggregate toll of patent royalties that would accumulate forever.
      
      You know, the Public Domain isn't restricted to fairy tales.
      
      I would make some acidic joke on the doctors dropping you head first when you were born but I lost the words to your ability to be stupid (or fake it genuinely).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2015 @ 10:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Tom tends to engage in hyperbole, which better suits the attention-grabbing headlines he crafts. Perhaps you can show me where it was that Disney engaged in the preparation and drafting of the Berne Convention, an international agreement that associated copyright terms with the life of an author (See: Article 7 of the Berne Convention of 1886 as originally approved..."life of author plus 50 years"). Back at that time US copyright law comprised a fixed term of years, with a renewal option for a second like term. Under the 1909 Act the term was for 28 years from first publication, with a second 28 year term being available if applied for. The addition of 20 years under the CTEA (AKA, The Sony Bono Act) derived from yet another agreement emanating from the European Union. Perhaps Disney had a hand in preparing that agreement, but it seems unlikely.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Votre (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 10:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you followed the story and machinations behind the Sony Bono Act you'll see it was all about protecting the Micky Mouse franchise. Micky was deamed a "national treasure" and too important a part of our "national culture" to allow the sneaky Chinese to start re-purposing or profiting off it. Anything else that followed was entirely secondary for the legislators that put it through.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        antidirt (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 12:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Tom tends to engage in hyperbole, which better suits the attention-grabbing headlines he crafts.
        
        Mike too, of course. At least Bell stands behind what he says. Mike just runs away. Every time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2015 @ 6:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Someone figured out how to log out, post as a concerned troll, then log back in and pat himself on the back - how precious.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        antidirt (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 12:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        None of those quotes discusses a "vibrant, dynamic" public domain. Regardless, believing in such a public domain is a separate issue than when Disney thinks works/inventions should enter the public domain. One can believe the public domain is important, yet think that terms should be extended/maintained/shortened.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 3:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, because the focus of this article is discussing about Public Domain and not about Disney hypocrisy. Your bullshit was already exposed here so I"m not wasting any more time. Keep being a moron!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Pragmatic, 20 Mar 2015 @ 3:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If the public domain is important, terms should be shortened, since nothing made in the year I was born is going to enter it in my lifetime. Making extended terms retroactive actually robs the public domain.
        
        So, no, you can't believe the public domain is important if you think they should be either extended or maintained as they are. 28 years is long enough.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JP Jones (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 6:51pm
  
  Re:
  The point is that we have two situations. The first situation is one where Disney lobbies heavily for copyright extensions designed to keep their creation out of the public domain. The second situation is, after licensing someone else's patent, Disney is arguing that it's important for creations to enter the public domain.
  
  Of course the positions are consistent, from a greedy "what's best for me" position. They like extensions to intellectual property when it's their intellectual property, but they like when things enter the public domain so they can scoop them up (and then probably try and protect the rights from others).
  
  The point is that it's ironic that one of the biggest lobbyists arguing to extend IP protection for as long as possible is currently arguing in court that they should be able to utilize an expired patent without paying royalties to the creator.
  
  Either way, you are again looking at things purely from a legal standpoint and not from a reality standpoint. This article makes perfect sense to someone who isn't only looking at the legal arguments. Legally, Disney is "correct."
  
  But that doesn't mean they're not still giant hypocrites.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    antidirt (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 12:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    I don't see it. They think when something's in the public domain, a license (contract?) should be unenforceable. That's orthogonal at best to the issue of when something should enter the public domain. Are they interested in what's best for them? Shocker. Who isn't? This post is just desperate, mindless bashing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2015 @ 1:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Mindless perfectly describes YOU.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 8:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I don't see it.
      
      What a surprise.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JP Jones (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 2:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ok, read this next bit really slowly:
      If anything, modern developments underscore the need to protect the public domain from the aggregate toll of patent royalties that would accumulate forever.
      - Disney Lawyers
      Now, put that into the context of a company that has lobbied heavily throughout it's entire history for extending the duration of intellectual property protections.
      
      Now, go back to the quote where they talk about protecting the public domain from trolls that want their royalties to "accumulate forever." Now think about how Disney has spent millions of dollars trying to ensure that their own ownership of Mickey Mouse accumulates forever.
      
      I know, sometimes irony is a difficult thing to grasp. This is complicated, high level stuff, and it's not something that was even argued in court! I know it's hard for you to accept that there are truths that haven't been determined by court precedent. Sadly, irony is not yet settled case law (but probably should be).
      
      But it's real, and it applies here. You're completely hung up on the details of this specific case, in that the patent had already expired, so clearly the royalties should not continue (which is obvious to you, obvious to Mike, and obvious to the courts).
      
      But that isn't relevant to the irony; the point is that Disney has claimed in court that extending patent protection indefinitely is a bad thing when they've argued for extending copyright protection since the company founded. I know you can't see it, but that's your lack of imagination and intelligence, not Mike's.
      
      Sorry.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 3:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I know it's hard for you to accept that there are truths that haven't been determined by court precedent.
        
        It's funny because it's true!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 8:36am

My irony meter broke. Next we'll see Kim Jong-un talking about the importance of democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Roger Strong (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 8:56am
  
  Re:
  I had that moment 25 years ago, when Queen Elizabeth II gave her annual Christmas Day message to the Commonwealth. This was shortly after Iraq invaded Kuwait.
  
  "Did the Monarch of the British Empire really just give a speech criticizing expansionist imperialism?"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sheriff Fatman, 19 Mar 2015 @ 9:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    Be fair, her reign has a solidly consistent record of decolonisation. When she came to the throne, we'd only just let go of India, and still ruled large chunks of Africa and some significant real estate in Asia. Now the British Empire is more or less some tax havens in the Caribbean, a few sheep in the South Atlantic, and a rock in the Med that we've only kept hold of because it annoys the Spanish so much.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 8:40am

Which will be forgotten when Mickey Mouse is due to go into it again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Roger Strong (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 9:02am
  
  Re:
  Thanks to Washington lobbyists, even those who remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2015 @ 9:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    Those who owns the past controls the future.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 8:53am

We'll see what happens when someone else starts producing web-shooters.

They love the Public Domain as long as they can mine things from it and then claim ownership.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2015 @ 10:33am
  
  Re:
  I wonder if the term "web-shooter" is trademarked?
  
  If it is, then someone will have to market them as snot shooters.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2015 @ 8:57am

"But it will be interesting to see these statements come back up a couple of years from now as Mickey Mouse nears the public domain again, won't it?"

I'm curious to know how that sort of thing actually works in the legal system, since it's not uncommon for a company's lawyers to present a staunch arguement in one lawsuit, and then have another set of lawyers make the exact opposite argument in another suit -- and succeed both times.

While to the outside observer this might demonstrate a clear example of hypocrisy when viewed in the big picture (nonwithstanding the standard response of "that was different") it just seems like a corporation can indeed have it both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 19 Mar 2015 @ 8:58am

Disney copies Public Domain at every opportunity
Pretty much all their Princesses come from Public Domain material, and then they copyright the hell out of their version of story to block other copies.

The reason they are now arguing for Public Domain now is that it's getting harder to find good Public Domain material to copy, produce, and copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 9:29am
  
  Re: Disney copies Public Domain at every opportunity
  The reason they are now arguing for Public Domain now is that it's getting harder to find good Public Domain material to copy, produce, and copyright.
  
  Wow, I wonder why that could be...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
aethercowboy (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 9:03am

It makes me wonder what Disney would be arguing had Kimble tried to patent it after the Marvel acquisition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark B (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 9:06am

This is a contract not a license
From the wording in the article, I read as: the original patent holder sold the patent in exchange for royalties. They did not retain ownership of the patent to charge a license to use it to receive royalties. It is moot whether the patent expired since the terms of the contract were for a sale not a license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2015 @ 11:34am
  
  Re: This is a contract not a license
  I think that makes sense, but the law is unclear on that. At any rate, this isn't about the "public domain", since anybody *other* than Marvel (who signed a royalty contract) can practice the patented invention freely. It's only the people who said they would pay a royalty if they did so that are somewhat restricted (by the agreement they chose to sign).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Coyoty (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 8:56pm
  
  Re: This is a contract not a license
  This is my provisional take on the situation. The provision is whether there was a time period stated in the contract for the royalties. If the contract states a period that extends beyond the patent's expiration, then Marvel should be obligated to pay. If no period is stated, then payments can cease upon the expiration. It's each party's responsibility to know how patents work and put any desired amendments in the contract, and to comply with the amendments.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2015 @ 9:14am

"Just switch out copyright for patents"
Okay. Now switch out Chris Dodd for Mike Masnick, and you'll see clearly that Chris Dodd is absolutely right.

This is a breathtaking escalation of your "arguments from fantasy" method. I like your being obviously out to lunch, so keep it up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2015 @ 5:42pm
  
  Re:
  Where was Chris Dodd even mentioned in the article? Gads, but you're an insufferable nut.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2015 @ 9:25am

The oft repeated statement that Disney is "taking" from the public domain makes it sound as if the company is simply copying existing works that are not encumbered by any copyrights. This is simply not true. Yes, like everyone else the company does look to the past for ideas, but quite unlike so many others the company invests considerable time and effort to take those ideas and create new works of authorship that are incredibly original and make significant contributions to our popular culture.

It is easy to bash the company because its works have benefited from the expansion of copyright terms, but to say it is "taking" things is just plain wrong and misleading to a fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 9:30am
  
  Re:
  It is easy to bash the company because its works have benefited from the expansion of copyright terms,
  
  You say that as though Disney had nothing to do with the expansion.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2015 @ 9:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    In terms of US legislation, it has lobbyists who seek to promote its interests whenever possible. The genesis for the extension of copyright terms, however, did not come from the US. It came from Europe (most notably France), and was ingrained as a provision is various international treaties that for many years (almost a century in the case of Berne) the US refused to embrace.
    
    Ever wonder why we changed our laws back in the 70's? It was because the US long before came to the realization that it was an outlier in the international community in matters of copyright law, and as a consequence of which US authors were quite often getting shafted in foreign markets.
    
    Quite frankly, I happen to believe that the basic concepts embodied in our 1909 Copyright Act represent a better model that what is now the international norm. Unfortunately, once the genie is out of the bottle it is damn near impossible to stuff it back in, so it looks like long terms are here to stay for the indefinite future.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 11:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ever wonder why we changed our laws back in the 70's? It was because the US long before came to the realization that it was an outlier in the international community in matters of copyright law, and as a consequence of which US authors were quite often getting shafted in foreign markets.
      
      Are you claiming that lobbying from the US copyright industries had nothing to do with it?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 4:52pm
  
  Re:
  "It is easy to bash the company because its works have benefited from the expansion of copyright terms..."
  
  You're right, it is easy to bash the company because its works have benefited from the expansion of copyright terms that they spent tons of time and money fighting for.
  
  "...but to say it is "taking" things is just plain wrong and misleading to a fault."
  
  Of course they're "taking" from the public domain, that's exactly what is supposed to happen. They're being criticized for then going to great lengths to prevent others from doing the same thing with their works.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 19 Mar 2015 @ 9:39am

No contradiction here
Disney argues that any royalty arrangement terminates once the respective work enters the Public Domain. But Mickey Mouse never did so and does not intend to do so in future.

You can make a royalty contract about Mickey Mouse for 500 years. It will terminate in 500 years or when Mickey Mouse enters the Public Domain, whichever of the two happens first. Probably the former.

If the Spiderman web shooters had wanted to keep royalties for longer, they should have lobbullied Congress for an extension of patent durations timely. Since they didn't, the patent expired, rendering the royalty arrangement moot.

They did not do their homework and did not grease enough corrupt politicians timely. Probably their franchise would not have had the money to do so anyway. Poor losers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2015 @ 9:50am
  
  Re: No contradiction here
  Not do be a d**k but this guy is sort of right.
  
  It's no surprise that Disney considers public domain as a GOOD THING. Disney was, and still is in some aspects, BUILT ON PUBLIC DOMAIN. They love TAKING from the public domain.
  
  What Disney dislikes is CONTRIBUTING to the public domain.
  
  You want good laws, you gotta pay for them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 10:09am
    
    Re: Re: No contradiction here
    Yeah, they love half of the public domain, the part where you can take the ideas and creations out of it for free, and build upon them. What they loathe is the other half, the part where you in turn add your ideas and creations to it so other people can use them and build off of them.
    
    They're parasites basically, taking, but never giving.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - David, 19 Mar 2015 @ 11:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re: No contradiction here
      It all falls into place once you recognize there is the Old and the New Testament of the Public Domain, and they are separated by the death of our savior Walt Disney. All that were alive when he died and returned corporationally to Earth will be forever safe from the Public Domain, and so will all of their subsequent offspring. The rest belong to the old covenant and will eventually fall into the Public Domain from which all Disney stories spring.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 2:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: No contradiction here
      They're parasites basically, taking, but never giving.
      
      Or to put into current parlance:
      
      They are Public Domain leechers, not seeders.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JP Jones (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 2:22pm
  
  Re: No contradiction here
  The article isn't about a contradiction in the facts of the case. As Mike points out in the original article:
  The case involves what appears to be a fairly straightforward question: can a patent holder demand royalties after a patent has expired. The obvious answer to this question is "hell no." And, in fact, that's exactly what the Supreme Court itself said in 1964 in Brulotte v. Thys Co.
  Nobody is arguing that this is wrong or even a contradiction (the opposite, in fact, which is why the case has gone nowhere). There is some case law that makes it slightly unclear (hence the only reason it's in court at all) but Mike pointed that out as well.
  
  The issue is the irony of Disney's statement that "modern developments underscore the need to protect the public domain [from patent royalties] that would accumulate forever." This is from a company that has heavily lobbied for extensions of copyright terms from the more reasonable 28 or 42 years to 75 years or life of the author plus 50 years then to 95/120 years or life of the author plus 70 years. This was specifically designed to prevent its own intellectual property from entering the public domain.
  
  So, for a company that his historically fought tooth-and-nail to prevent their own products from entering the public domain to point out how important it is to ensure other people's products enter the public domain in a reasonable amount of time is hilarious.
  
  It's like North Korea calling out the United States for human rights violations. Technically they're correct, however, their own policies make the accusation ironic considering the stance of the source.
  
  That's all that happened here; Mike called out Disney for encouraging a stance that, historically, they've done everything they can to avoid. It's ironic, nothing more. Disney is going to win their court case (and should). They still have a stranglehold on Mickey Mouse for perfectly legal (but ridiculous) reasons.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Coyoty (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 9:06pm
  
  Re: No contradiction here
  No... If the inventors had wanted to keep royalties for longer, they should have had the contract amended to extend the royalty period.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
limbodog (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 9:44am

This is familiar.
This is not odd at all. It is no more weird than Verizon arguing for Title II one moment, and against Title II the next whenever either suits them. It's not that they forgot the former, it's that they don't actually care about the law, only its effects. One costs them money, the other doesn't, so they go with the one that doesn't.

It's not ironic if you look honestly at the motivations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 10:04am
  
  Re: This is familiar.
  Pretty much. They're for a vibrant public domain here, because it saves them some money. When it comes to actually upholding their part of the 'deal' and putting stuff into the public domain though, suddenly 'Eternal copyright is the only proper duration for it, won't you think of the zombie writers and artists?!'
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Votre (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 10:31am

The only reason Disney is arguing for Public Domain is because they routinely harvest it for their own creations. So while they're all for PD when it comes to their taking something, they're adamantly against it whenever it applies to them.

That's called "enlightened self-interest" in some circles.

Sometimes you just have to stand back in amazement over the sheer balls of a whole-hearted thief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2015 @ 10:44am

So anyone can now make and sell web shooters. If the original patent owners actually made the product instead of trolling, then they could now make and sell the product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2015 @ 11:37am
  
  Re:
  "So anyone can now make and sell web shooters." Yes, except, Marvel might have to pay royalties if they do so (depending on how the case is ultimately resolved), because they signed a contract saying as much.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2015 @ 12:41pm

Everyone knows that current copyright laws are a Mickey Mouse scheme, just as everyone knows that patent laws are Just Plain Goofy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DB (profile), 19 Mar 2015 @ 1:06pm

I think that Mark B has the essential argument.

The inventor sold the patent. Part of the sale agreement was a payment when the invention was used. It was the equivalent of a patent royalty, but it was not exactly that since they transferred the patent.

Disney/Marvel waits until the patent expires, and starts selling a toy with the feature. They ignore the terms of the sale contract and don't make the additional payment. When taken to court their defense is that the invention is now public domain and they are free to use it.

Disney wants this to be a patent case. The inventors want this to be a simple contract case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2015 @ 3:01am

Did they finally run out of the public domain to copy from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pragmatic, 20 Mar 2015 @ 3:45am

They fight like hell for the public domain when it's in their best interests. When it's not...

Let's be sure to call them out about this when the copyright on Mickey Mouse is due to expire and they're wheeling out the orphan granny kittens, etc. to justify extending the term. Again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2015 @ 10:01am
  
  Re:
  Keep in mind that the current copyright terms in the US conform to the maximum allowed under international treaties to which the US is a party. Future extensions under US law, if any, would require convincing treaty parties that a longer term is appropriate, amending the treaties, and then enacting enabling legislation in the US. Much, much easier said than done.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2015 @ 1:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    Haha, maximum? International treaties? Governments regularly cocksuck each other over copyright terms, claiming that longer terms are needed to remain "competitive" or something. What do you think all those political donations were for?
    
    Funny how you lot insist on doing everything on the up and up, but you'll keep all your discussions and dealings secret and insult anyone that calls you out on it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coyne Tibbets (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 8:55am

Disney strategy, simplified
"You deserve not to be paid because you were stupid enough to let your intellectual property right expire."

"That is why we will never let our intellectual property right expire, because we want to charge for Mickey forever."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheogorath (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 2:25pm

Very interesting to hear of Dibsney arguing the following: If anything, modern developments underscore the need to protect the public domain from the aggregate toll of copyright royalties that would accumulate forever.
Change the word 'copyright' back to 'patent' and it becomes clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FRM, 8 Jan 2016 @ 2:29pm

Disney is tottaly spreading their web and they need to hold control on all rights. It's really not a big deal to take charge for Kailo Ren.
The faster world developing the more flexible have to become patent legislation. It's an issue all around the world - where is rights of owner stops and where they are but breaking morality of needs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
silverscarcat (profile), 12 Jan 2016 @ 1:23pm

NOW Disney's for the Public Domain? PISS OFF, DISNEY! Pay the royalties for the rest of this person's life and 7 decades after they die.

Seriously, WTF? They should have to pay royalties to use someone's IP for the rest of time just like the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]