@JohnnyShoulder They're in the public domain so anyone can make a Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, or Cinderella (and so on) film. Disney would not have needed to license them - which I imagine was part of the appeal in the first place - and cannot claim to own the rights to those stories. They do however own the copyright for their specific adaptations.
@JohnnyShoulder With the Mulan being extra thing, I get Disney's reasoning behind it not being included in the streaming service's regular price but on the consumer end it was hard not to have a "but how is that my problem" attitude. It felt too much like Disney was asking you to pay them twice.
But to be fair, I didn't care all that much about Mulan whereas I might have been more amenable if it'd been something I actually wanted to see.
@nessisonett nah, fairy tales. be a much better world when we can all safely say that.
PSN: frownonfun
Switch: SW-5109-6573-1900 (Pops)
"One of the unloveliest and least enlightening aspects of contemporary discourse is the tendency to presume that whatever one disagrees with must be very simple—not only simple, but also simply wrong." - Elizabeth Bruenig
I don’t get why Disney should be allowed to have the rights to tales like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and the like. Most of them are fairy tales that stretch way back when and have no right being owned by anyone.
Welcome to capitalism. People are already sticking price tags on the minerals found in asteroids and comets, too. Literally everything is a commodity. Once it's standardized for everyone to have devices implanted in their brains to regulate emotion, we'll be paying to unlock extremes of affection, patience, lust, etc. Once the cities of the world are too polluted for people to breathe, we'll be paying for clean air to breathe, like they do in some parts of china.
I watched Mangrove tonight, the first instalment of the Small Axe anthology by Steve McQueen (not that one, the other one). I’d say it counts as the movie thread as it was in all intents and purposes, a movie, despite airing on TV. It was utterly brilliant as I expected it would be. Steve McQueen’s directorial style is as captivating now as it was when he first debuted with Hunger. I’m ashamed to say I probably know more about Black American history than Black British history, despite being from here. It’s just not as heavily discussed and so I’m happy to be educated. It’s an anthology of 5 movies so I’m definitely excited for next week’s instalment.
Apologies for any confusion I caused yesterday. I wasn't specific in my wording; when I said that Disney had to start making live-action remakes of classic films for copyright reasons, I was of course referring to their own adaptations and not the source material.
There's a fifty-year rule in copyright for movies and I believe literature (used to be the same for music, until Cliff Richard got the law extended to seventy). Unless you do something with a particular property, it can be argued "dormant" and its copyright will expire. Disney have now triggered another fifty years on their interpretation of such fairy and folk tales by remaking them; there'll be some complex jargon somewhere in the small print, arguing that the animated and live-action incarnations of certain characters are one and the same from a legal perspective.
@RogerRoger Length of copyright is the life of the author plus seventy years. Cliff Richard was referring to Performers Rights which is different as he did not own the copyright for his songs (having not written or produced them) and can expire within the lifetime of the performer.
"Typical duration of legal copyright protection [...] film, cinematographic work: 50 years from the making of the work, or if made available to the public within the 50 years, (i.e. by publication or performance), 50 years from the date the author first makes the work available to the public.
When the term of copyright protection has expired, the work falls into the public domain. This means that the work, has effectively become public property and may be used freely."
Whilst you're right, some countries have extended fifty to seventy, the Berne Convention of 1886 stipulates that copyright is "the life of the author, plus fifty" and in the context of this discussion (Disney's legal hold on their animated classics) I believe there was the possibility of that line being crossed. It was box office success which triggered the landslide of subsequent remakes, but I'm sure Disney's lawyers aren't exactly disappointed that they've been able to bulletproof themselves for another half-decade.
"We want different things, Crosshair. That doesn't mean that we have to be enemies."
@RogerRoger The Berne Convention is simply the minimum term. Many countries have legislated longer terms of copyright protection, including the US and EU countries. It's interesting that it's media companies such as Disney that successfully lobbied to have the term extended. There's certainly an argument to be made that long IP protections stifle creativity and the ability of people to economically exploit their own work without being heavily sued.
This link outlines the UK's own copyright terms. https://www.gov.uk/copyright/how-long-copyright-lasts Films 70 years after the death of the director, screenplay author and composer
It's worth mentioning that terms based on publication date (such as where copyright is owned by a corporation), have been well extended beyond 50 years.
Obviously Disney is a US company, but the length is generally the same there. Works such as Steamboat Willie will enter the public domain in a few years, creating a headache for them. However, I've no doubt they will lobby for terms to be extended again.
@mookysam I can't find a good "The More You Know" GIF to insert here, so you'll just have to imagine it, but thanks for the education! Certainly answers how organisations such as the Ian Fleming Estate can continue to profit from, and licence, Bond novels. Something tells me Disney (and others) will be pushing hard for the words "in perpetuity" to be added somewhere, even if their remake tactic holds water.
"We want different things, Crosshair. That doesn't mean that we have to be enemies."
@RogerRoger No worries, it’s a topic I find fascinating. I don’t get split ends either. The main issue with the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement, is that countries are forced to sign up to in order to gain WTO membership. Its primary aim is to protect Western European and North American IP. And of course, the US can continue extending its copyright terms into perpetuity at the behest of corporate lobbyists, and other countries will follow suit. The question is should IP ownership be concentrated in enormous companies such as Disney and for such long periods, thus leading to a depletion of truly original ideas? It doesn’t matter whether Disney are in the wrong, their sheer economic power enables them to crush anyone that stands up to them. IP litigation is very costly and most individuals and small businesses simply can’t afford to stand up to Disney - whether they are in the right or not.
Copyright is one thing but when we get into patents, it is quite nefarious as it enables large Western companies such as pharmaceutical firms to patent the natural resources used in medicines, preventing the poor countries that hold the bulk of the world’s natural resources from exploiting them. The medicines are then sold back to them at exorbitant prices. It stifles economic development in poor countries and runs counter to the idea that WTO membership enables development. It doesn’t, it keeps rich countries rich and poor countries poor. Anyway that’s veering well off topic so I’ll stop!
@mookysam Not veering too far off-topic, as I'm sure these issues have formed the basis of a few decent legal thrillers over the years! Not every courtroom drama has to be about murder, y'know.
But I can't foresee Disney doing anything (or allowing anything to happen naturally) that'd jeopardise its corporate influence and omnipresent power. Until money stops making the world go around, questions of whether they should or shouldn't do a thing are unfortunately moot; it's just gonna be the way it is. As somebody with more complaints against than praise for their handling of certain IPs they've recently absorbed, I get how such a reality can be a shame.
"We want different things, Crosshair. That doesn't mean that we have to be enemies."
@RogerRoger I can see it now, a Noir thriller with Mickey Mouse on the stand. He’s smoking of course and is basically Al Capone. The jury have been paid off or intimidated.
The Snyder Cut’s trailer got a new official black and white version which honestly looks amazing. I wouldn’t think of it working at all in B&W but it strangely totally suits it. I’d probably watch the whole thing in B&W if they gave us the option.
Forums
Topic: The Movie Thread
Posts 4,741 to 4,760 of 8,866
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic