> This only applies to the original works, and not to the subsequent adaptations and merchandise, which allows for Disney's incarnation of Winnie the Pooh to still be held under trademark by Disney.
Oh bother.
Oh bother.
Took less than 30 seconds.
"When Khitruk visited the Disney Studios, Wolfgang Reitherman, the author of Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day that won the 1968 Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film, told him that he liked the Soviet version better than his own." [1]
Winnie the Pooh (1969) in Russian with English subtitles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCXegrxlKbI
[1] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh_(1969_film)
The closest equivalent to current television’s programming is the Australian show Bluey.
I'm serious. Try find it if you didn't saw it
This is a terrible conceptual mistake on the part of copyright law.
For instance, look at Dmitri Glukhovsky and his Metro books - be basically allowed anyone to write any books placed within the same universe, still using the "Metro" logo and characters. Dozens of other books appeared, telling the tales of other metro systems elsewhere in the world and how they've dealt with the apocalypse - but the point is, all those other books have only increased the popularity of the original, and expanded it.
The other good example, weirdly, was always Star Wars books - especially pre-Disney star wars was very lenient with what stories could be told, and unless it was just straight up smut it would be allowed - as a result, star wars fans had hundreds(thousands?) Of books telling stories with their favourite characters and new ones but taking place in the universe they loved. Yes Lucas took a cut, but in general you could just write a book about Han Solo and it would be fine.
That's how copyright should work. Why not let other people tell stories with Pooh and the rest?
Here is the but: imagine someone were to publish a story set in your universe where suddenly the nazis took over and everyone liked it.
This is an extreme point, but it's one reason not to allow everyone to use your trademark without prior asking. Because maybe you're not okay with that AND suddenly your a bit famous works are in the same pot with something you wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole aaaand your sales go down.
Today's outrage culture could cancel you, even if you did nothing wrong.
In a better universe I am all with you and I personally would feel honored and flattered if other people would use my created worlds for their works
Whatever valid arguments might exist to restrict speech through copyright, sales going down is not one of them. Otherwise you could lawfully prohibit negative reviews.
And that was my point, not sales going down on their own.
Negative reviews have nothing to do with someone else being able to take e.g. James Bond and making him a homosexual or taking Conan the Barbarian and making him a woman or a sidekick etc.
Drastic or even small changes can always be unpopular and affect the whole franchise. If said franchise is no longer under your control alone, this is an argument pro copyright from the viewpoint of a creator.
Think about e.g. Warcraft. It was supposed to be a Warhammer game. The license was "revoked", so they spun up their own story/world and created a successful franchise.
The thing is, I totally am opposed to copyright and patents, yet I can see where they are coming from and I can see reasons for them.
Going back to my example - among those thousands of star wars books, there are some which are incredibly bad nowadays, sexist, racist, or just pure trash that came and went. I suspect its impact on the actual Star Wars the franchise was zero.
>>Today's outrage culture could cancel you, even if you did nothing wrong.
Maybe, but I don't want to live in a world where worrying about it restricts my choices. If someone wrote a book where the Pooh is now a dictator running a fascist hundred mile forest, and it somehow sold a million copies......then I'm going to laugh at the idiots calling for the original to be cancelled. They shouldn't be given any authority over this, outrage on twitter is cheap.
Also, you don't want to live in such a culture. That is fine. You may create something beautiful and then "donate" it to the public domain.
The choice is yours entirely.
Again, as a consumer I totally understand where you're coming from. As a producer I would think differently (that's simply empathy though, I am not a successful producer)
It is the later extensions that have perverted the concept.
> Prior to the statute's enactment in 1710, copying restrictions were authorized by the Licensing of the Press Act 1662. These restrictions were enforced by the Stationers' Company, a guild of printers given the exclusive power to print—and the responsibility to censor—literary works.
"Licensing of the Press" allowed to control who could print, by lawful threat of violence, and that enabled censorship of ideas. Copyright sweetened that deal to those who owned printing presses: enforcement of scarcity enabled a business model where good content could be kept expensive and money is funneled to the publisher who owns the exclusive right to make copies. For this they agreed to do censorship.
The argument that copyright is a right of the content creators, who were mostly dependent on patrons, and that those creators could only be paid fairly by the publishers if their product was exclusive, was peddled back then and swayed some of the intelligentsia to support the concept, but this was not the core ideal. At the beginning copyright was about entrenching a small circle of collaborators, who got the right to copy, and violently removing the means of production of those printing revolutionary thoughts.
“Among other copied elements, the Springer novels [on which Netflix’s film is based] make extensive infringing use of Conan Doyle’s transformation of Holmes from cold and critical to warm, respectful, and kind in his relationships.” [1]
This is essentially the entire substance of the lawsuit: that creating a new sister character that Holmes felt affection for infringed on their copyright of a single passage in one of the later Doyle stories where Holmes expressed concern for Watson who had gotten shot.
Netflix settled.
[1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6956021-Sherlock.htm...
"When Conan Doyle came back to Holmes in the Copyrighted Stories between 1923 and 1927, it was no longer enough that the Holmes character was the most brilliant rational and analytical mind. Holmes needed to be human. The character needed to develop human connection and empathy."
This seems surprising given:
"I fear that it is at a cost which will give pain to my friends, and especially, my dear Watson, to you." - The Final Problem (1894)
"“My dear Watson,” said the well-remembered voice, “I owe you a thousand apologies. I had no idea that you would be so affected.” - The Empty House (1903)
“Upon my word, Watson!” said Holmes at last with an unsteady voice, “I owe you both my thanks and an apology. It was an unjustifiable experiment even for one’s self, and doubly so for a friend. I am really very sorry.”“You know,” I answered with some emotion, for I have never seen so much of Holmes’s heart before, “that it is my greatest joy and privilege to help you.” - The Devil's Foot (1910)