Well, it's not called bribing, it's called campaign donations or trips or consulting...
Back when Walt made Snow White, copyright laws were 20 years. Plenty of time for an author (artist or whoever) to make their money off their "idea". 20 years was, to me, a pretty good time limit.
Flash forward to last decade where Disney was instrumental in changing that to 70 years... from the date the guy dies. Yeah.
So basically every movie Disney made up until the late 90's could not have been made under todays copyright laws that Disney bribed, er... persuaded, to be changed.
Don't get me wrong, I love IP laws (or at least some form of them), it's crucial to advancement of society and technology, not just arts. No one would work their butts off to create new things if anyone could easily steal them... *cough* china *cough*.
What do I want them to take a look at? The fact they wouldn't be here if all the changes they pushed for were in effect when Walt started drawing mice on napkins. Walt is turnign over in his grave for virtually everything the company is doing.
-Oh and I need to update my sig.
Snow White was published in 1937. It fell under the Copyright Act of 1909. According to the
U.S. Copyright Office:
Federal standards for copyright duration differ substantially under the 1909 act compared with the 1976 act because of the renewal term contained in the 1909 act. Under the 1909 act, federal copyright was secured on the date a work was published or, for unpublished works, on the date of registration. A copyright lasted for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. The copyright was eligible for renewal during the final, that is, 28th year, of the first term. If renewed, the copyright was extended for a second, or renewal, term of 28 years. If it was not renewed, the copyright expired at the end of the first 28-year term, and the work is no longer protected by copyright. The term of copyright for works published with a year date in the notice that is earlier than the actual date of publication is computed from the year date in the copyright notice.
So the copyright protection for Snow White at the time it was created was effectively 56 years, not 20. In 1976, the length of the renewal term was increased to 47 years. Snow White, however, would have been in its second term at this point and, assuming it was renewed (which is a pretty safe assumption) it's copyright protection was "automatically extended to last for a total term of 95 years (a first term of 28 years plus a renewal term of 67 years) from the end of the year in which they were originally secured."
The copyright term of the author's life plus 70 years applied to works "created and fixed in a tangible medium of expression on or after January 1, 1978." That wouldn't apply to Snow White because it was published in 1937. Also the life plus 70 years applies to individuals not companies. "For works made for hire and anonymous and pseudonymous works, the duration of copyright is 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter (unless the author’s identity is later revealed in Copyright Office records, in which case the term becomes the author’s life plus 70 years)."
Don't take any of this as trying to be authoritative on when the copyright in Snow White expires. I wouldn't have a clue.
I'm still confused by your assertion that "every movie Disney made up until the late 90's could not have been made under todays copyright laws that Disney bribed, er... persuaded, to be changed." Perhaps you mean that Disney could not have relied upon the Brothers Grimm story because it would have been under copyright. I don't think so. The last Grimm brother died in 1867 so if the life plus 70 rule had been in effect at that time, the copyright in Snow White would have expired in 1933.
I guess I just don't see the problem. Even if Disney lobbied Congress in 1976 (a time when Disney was not exactly at the height of its strength as a commercial venture) to extend the copyright term, Disney was protecting its IP rights. I don't like paying royalties any more than you do but I enjoy experiencing creative works many of which would not be made but for copyright protection.
