Disney 'Cracks Down' on Mickey Mouse 'Steamboat Silly' Pirates
torrentfreak.com
torrentfreak.com
The OP is rather pointless.
Will we have new versions become public domain every couple years, corresponding to every individually released Movie or TV Cartoon/Short?
They are clearly different cartoons, and the kind of usage that "silly" makes of source material from "willy" is what others are doing now that "willy" is in the public domain.
Is colorizing enough to say they are different?
Then why can't I colorize Steamboat? Isn't that allowed.
You are free to colorize Steamboat Willie as long as you aren't doing so to copy a protected character. You just can't use later versions of Mickey just because they include Steamboat Willie as a character. Similarly, if someone legally releases a Steamboat Willie sequel today, you aren't allowed to copy that sequel just because it uses a public domain character. Its unique creative expressions have their own copyright that vest for that author's life + 70.
Where does the platonic 'form' of a model-T reside?
Can I make re-interpretations of boot-leg era souped-up muscle model-T's? Where is the cut-off on Model-T's.
You say Tomato, I say Potato. They look same to me, as a non-graphic artist, only taking a glance.
Steam Boat is open to be re-interpreted. How much can it be re-interpreted, given they look almost the same already, before you can say it is same.
But it is a strange world, didn't Apple and Samsung just have a billon dollar judgement over "how rounded the corners are on a phone"?
No, "Steamboat Willie" and "Steamboat Silly" are obviously different cartoons.
Specifically, the plot of "Steamboat Silly" involves Mickey pulling out old movies and playing back "Steamboat Willy" to other Disney characters. After a few seconds of clips from "Steamboat Willy," "Steamboat Silly" is a cartoon where a modern-style Mickey chases a 1920s-style Mickey through a completely different setting, with different characters as well.
You clearly haven't looked at the cartoons or trailers, and aren't basing your comments on any factual knowledge whatsoever.
> subjective interpretations.
You are arguing with fact, not making a subjective interpretation. Maybe you looked at the wrong video? Maybe you're just one of those people who likes to argue for the sake of arguing?
Yes, copyright protects artistic works, not individual characters. That means you can use the aspects of characters that appear in works that have entered the public domain, but not the parts that are still protected.
There was a period when anyone could make a Sherlock Holmes story, but you couldn't have Watson get married because that later book was still under copyright. The Wizard of Oz books have been in the public domain for a while, but Dorothy has to stick to the original diamond shoes because the ruby slippers originated in the MGM movie. The same thing will continue to happen with Mickey Mouse and every other character that appeared in multiple works.