Whoopi wants Song of the South released

[maltdizzy]

I think it would actually be 2036 because the copyright limit is 70 years starts when the artist who created it dies.

If created by an individual artist/author, then yes, 70 years from the death of the individual. But corporation IP is considered "work for hire" and expires 95 years after publication. Since Disney is (and always has been) a corporation, the later applies. As far as the copyright office is concerned, Walt Disney is no more important to Sleeping Beauty than any of the ink and paint women, they all created it for the stockholders.

Steamboat Willie was released in 1928, that means the short becomes public domain in 1923... then people can use the short, and it's storyline for their own work. That does not mean they can create new material with Mickey Mouse (only reuse parts of Steamboat Willie). Whether the copyright of the character is protected in newer films is something that is unsettled law. In some countries, a character remains copyrighted until the last instance becomes public domain; people are still fighting over ownership and royalties from Tarzan, Zorro, Wizard of Oz, etc. because their last books are not yet in public domain. A few countries even tweak (or ignore) their copyright law to protect works they consider "culturally" theirs. Plus, Mickey Mouse is protected separately as a register trademark, which can be renewed indefinitely.

 

[Geoff_M]

Plus, Mickey Mouse is protected separately as a register trademark, which can be renewed indefinitely.

I'm not a lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but if I'm Disney I wouldn't sleep too easily on the notion that Mickey being trademarked will prevent early Mickey Mouse shorts from being freely used in the Public Domain. The most noted case regarding the use of trademarks to try and apply protection to a work whose copyright had expired is the case Dastar vs. Twentieth Century Fox. The SCOTUS ruled 8-0 against Fox's trademark claim for protecting the work. The late Justice Scalia wrote in the ruling:

To hold otherwise would be akin to finding that (trademark law) created a species of perpetual patent and copyright, which Congress may not do.

We missed a good opportunity to get a better handle on the question of Mickey as a trademark with a 2015 lawsuit over the character of Sherlock Holmes. The estate of Conan Doyle sued Miramax over the film "Mr. Holmes" that was based on a book not written by Doyle that featured the detective later in life in his retirement. Most of Doyle's Holmes stories are in the public domain since they were written before 1923, but his last 10 work are still copyrighted since their publication dates fall within the period of time that Congress retroactively extended copyrights. The Doyle estate made two claims: 1) Sections of the new book, and film, appeared to lift elements out of some of the Doyle works that are still under copyright, and 2) "Sherlock Holmes" is a trademark of the estate and thus cannot be used in any work without permission of the author's estate. Unfortunately, the courts never got to weigh in on the claims when the estate and Miramax announced a mutual settlement and the suit was withdrawn. The parties were silent about the issue of trademark, but the electronic version of the book that the film is based on now contains an acknowledgement that it "contains copyrighted material by kind permission of the Conan Doyle estate."

This also isn't the first time that Doyle's estate were involved in the US courts over a claim that they owned Sherlock, Watson, et al lock-stock-n-barrel. In 2013, the estate was sued by an author, after the estate threatened to sue Leslie Kilnger who was preparing to publish a collection of Holmes-inspired stories unless a $5K "licensing fee" was first paid. Here too Doyle's estate claimed sole ownership, though it was based on the fact that they owned the rights to the last 10 books and the depictions of Sherlock in those books were part of Holme's broader "complex character" that would be infringed upon. The courts consistently found against the estate, and the SCOTUS refused to hear an appeal by Doyle's estate. The court also criticized the estate because their legal threats against anyone that wanted to publish new Holmes works that were not derived from the 10 works still copyrighted has "no legal basis" and were effectively "extortion" and made them cover Klinger's legal fees. Though the Conan Doyle estate didn't raise the issue of trademark in this case, the appeals court considered "dilution of trademark" as a possible concern by the estate and dismissed it.

 

[Lvsdisney]

@maltdizzy and @Geoff_M This is all very fascinating!! Thanks for clarifying. I had only heard of the 70 years an didn't realize there was another copyright for corporations.

 

[Geoff_M]

One more observation, when Congress passed the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" in 1998, it retroactively extended the copyrights of any work created in, or after, 1923. Take a guess when the Disney Brothers Cartoon Studio was founded... 1923. Talk about effective use of lobbying dollars!

 

[ucfknight]

I think it would actually be 2036 because the copyright limit is 70 years starts when the artist who created it dies.

That's only for works published after January 1, 1978 which fall under the Copyright Act of 1976. Anything published December 31, 1977 or earlier falls under the Copyright Act of 1909.

As others have noted above, for works from 1978 and newer the "70 years after last surviving author's death" only applies for individuals who do a project on their own. For works done "for hire" for a company the work is protected for 95 years from when it was published or 120 years from when it was created (whichever is shorter)

However, none of that applies to what we are talking about because anything published earlier than 1978 falls under the Copyright Act of 1909. That Act has no "death of author" provision. Works are protected for a set length of time from when they were published. Originally that Act protected copyrighted works automatically for 28 years from when they were published and then you could file for a single 28 year extension. So your work could only be protected for 56 years. That means the first Mickey Mouse cartoons (published in 1928) would start to lose their copyright protection in 1984 under this law.

The 1970's had arrived and a lot of earlier films were in danger of losing their copyright protection. Step in Disney's (and other Hollywood studios) lobbyists.....

In 1976 (as part of the work for the Copyright Act of 1976), Congress amended the terms for any works falling under the Copyright Act of 1909 to extend protection to 75 years from publication for any work published in 1923 or newer. That 1923 date was chosen because any work published 1922 or earlier would already be in public domain by the time this Act went into effect in 1978 based on the 56 year protection afforded to those works. Congress could not pull a public domain work back into copyright protection.

So with this, Mickey Mouse was safe for now. His protection expiration went from 1984 to 2003.

Years go along and 2003 is coming up quick. Plus works from 1923 would fall out of copyright protection at the end of 1998.

Queue the political arm twisting and campaign fund money transfers again....

In October 1998 Congress passed (and the president signed) the Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act which extended protection for works published after 1922 (and before 1978) to a term of 95 years from publication.

So, with this, Mickey's protection went from 2003 to 2023.

And that's where we sit today.... for now. The first two Mickey Mouse cartoons, Steamboat Willie and The Gallopin' Gaucho, will lose their protection at the end of 2023. With that 2023 date looming, and with 1923 works set to lose their copyright at the end of next year, expect the political lobbying efforts to go into full force soon to pop another extension on the expiration date.

 

[mcjaco]

You know, I remember seeing this movie on youtube, and I don't think the movie is racist at all. It's a little bit sensitive, but I don't think it's that bad. I know Disney trying to learn their mistakes, but I think hiding Song of the South is ahuge mistake IMO. I'm glad Whoopi is on our side and I hope one day Disney will release the film again, even though there will be some doubts that'll happen. Maybe we might see it again with a new ceo in 2019, I hope.

I too have a DVD copy of SofS from a Laser Disc. I watched not that long ago, and it honestly didn't strike me as racist....just a little less sensitive, which I'd argue can be found in a lot of movies from that time.

The movie doesn't do much for me, other than bring back memories of seeing it in the movie theater as a kid, and skipping out singing zip-a-dee-do-dah. The music, and the Brer stories carried it.

 

[circus4u]

I too have a DVD copy of SofS from a Laser Disc. I watched not that long ago, and it honestly didn't strike me as racist....just a little less sensitive, which I'd argue can be found in a lot of movies from that time.

The movie doesn't do much for me, other than bring back memories of seeing it in the movie theater as a kid, and skipping out singing zip-a-dee-do-dah. The music, and the Brer stories carried it.

I think the only English version released was on a laser in Japan. Right channel was English and left channel in Japanese (?).

 

[ucfknight]

I think the only English version released was on a laser in Japan. Right channel was English and left channel in Japanese (?).

That was the only English version that could be played directly on US televisions (which use the NTSC standard as does Japan).
There was an English language version released in the UK on VHS. It was encoded in PAL, of course, and not NTSC so could not be played on US equipment.

 

[manning]

I think the idea that you can't handle a piece of fiction that was written in a different time is ridiculous...people need to grow up.

Exactly

 

[manning]

I believe what Whoopi wants people to realize is that while you may call the lyrics stereotypical, it is historically accurate. Why hide from the past when you can learn from its mistakes?

Shame on you. You make too much sense.

 

[manning]

Living in Alabama, there are people here that still speak like that, both white and black.

I'm from Illinois and a few years ago, at the alabama/Florida US 231 welcome center. There was an elderly man (white) who spoke in old fashion deep south dialog.
Had a hard time understand what he was saying, but found it fasinating.

 

[manning]

Every single person who speaks has an accent. Don't confuse accent with dialect.
I am old enough to have seen SotS.
I see WGs point. But, I suspect that while one might argue that right now, with the heightened racial tensions, is a good time to educate, it might not be such a good time to try with this? Plus, since it's all about the bottom line, I don't think SotS would make disney a lot of money as a DVD release.

I'm from the Chicago. Back in the 50s I was in North Carolina and they thought I was from England. I was station in Oklahoma. Their southern accent was different from North Carolina.

 

[manning]

That's only for works published after January 1, 1978 which fall under the Copyright Act of 1976. Anything published December 31, 1977 or earlier falls under the Copyright Act of 1909.

As others have noted above, for works from 1978 and newer the "70 years after last surviving author's death" only applies for individuals who do a project on their own. For works done "for hire" for a company the work is protected for 95 years from when it was published or 120 years from when it was created (whichever is shorter)

However, none of that applies to what we are talking about because anything published earlier than 1978 falls under the Copyright Act of 1909. That Act has no "death of author" provision. Works are protected for a set length of time from when they were published. Originally that Act protected copyrighted works automatically for 28 years from when they were published and then you could file for a single 28 year extension. So your work could only be protected for 56 years. That means the first Mickey Mouse cartoons (published in 1928) would start to lose their copyright protection in 1984 under this law.

The 1970's had arrived and a lot of earlier films were in danger of losing their copyright protection. Step in Disney's (and other Hollywood studios) lobbyists.....

In 1976 (as part of the work for the Copyright Act of 1976), Congress amended the terms for any works falling under the Copyright Act of 1909 to extend protection to 75 years from publication for any work published in 1923 or newer. That 1923 date was chosen because any work published 1922 or earlier would already be in public domain by the time this Act went into effect in 1978 based on the 56 year protection afforded to those works. Congress could not pull a public domain work back into copyright protection.

So with this, Mickey Mouse was safe for now. His protection expiration went from 1984 to 2003.

Years go along and 2003 is coming up quick. Plus works from 1923 would fall out of copyright protection at the end of 1998.

Queue the political arm twisting and campaign fund money transfers again....

In October 1998 Congress passed (and the president signed) the Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act which extended protection for works published after 1922 (and before 1978) to a term of 95 years from publication.

So, with this, Mickey's protection went from 2003 to 2023.

And that's where we sit today.... for now. The first two Mickey Mouse cartoons, Steamboat Willie and The Gallopin' Gaucho, will lose their protection at the end of 2023. With that 2023 date looming, and with 1923 works set to lose their copyright at the end of next year, expect the political lobbying efforts to go into full force soon to pop another extension on the expiration date.

Looks like copy right protection will be indefinite. Come 2023 and another set of terms will apply.

 

[DrunkJam]

I'm from the Chicago. Back in the 50s I was in North Carolina and they thought I was from England. I was station in Oklahoma. Their southern accent was different from North Carolina.

I'm from Wales. I gave up while IN USA many years ago, and now just tell people there I am from England. Quite often they guess Australia, it's funny really, but, as a trained linguist, even if you speak Received Pronunciation, that *is* an accent of it's own.

 

[mdsouth]

Agreed. I don't see them releasing anything to the general public. I could see this being discussed as a college course somewhere, if it's not already.

My daughter's 8th grade Social Studies teacher has a VHS copy of the movie and showed it to the students in class along with the reading and discussion of To Kill a Mockingbird. Parents had to sign a permission form for the students to view the movie, otherwise they could opt out and the student would have read an article and been out of the room during the movie. The book and movie combined with the class unit on the time period gave my daughter I better understanding know than before. The movie can be used for educational purposes effectively.

Brer Rabbit and Brer Fox stories originated in African-American folktales that were passed down long before Disney got hold of them. Netflix had a collection of Brer Rabbit stories on not that long ago.

Exactly.

 

[Geoff_M]

Looks like copy right protection will be indefinite. Come 2023 and another set of terms will apply.

There's one small problem:

Article I Section 8. Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

At some point our courts are going to say that constantly moving the goal line every time it draws near with regard to copyright protection is "gaming the system" and put a stop to the practice as being unconstitutional.

 

[ucfknight]

There's one small problem:At some point our courts are going to say that constantly moving the goal line every time it draws near with regard to copyright protection is "gaming the system" and put a stop to the practice as being unconstitutional.

Jack Valenti, the late long-time president of the Motion Picture Association of America, famously suggested that copyright terms be extended by congress to "forever less one day" to try to get around the "for limited times" clause.

 

[Nathan Banks]

I think they should remake it with some homages to the original and make it more up-to-date. It's silly that such iconic characters & song(s) suffer due to the rest of the films issues.

 

[hildarumpole]

Don't want to get anyone in trouble, but a gift shop in Savannah sells the DVD, in case anyone is interested. Back in the 1980's I attended a special screening of the film. A film historian and crew member gave a presentation on this historical context of the stories, Disney's issues in making the film, and technical aspects of the process. They also held a discussion following the showing. I don't recall anyone thinking it was racist or inappropriate. Mostly people just liked seeing the old Uncle Remus stories come to life. Some people have made a career in finding offense in everything. Time to stop indulging them. Release the film.

 

[Geoff_M]

Jack Valenti, the late long-time president of the Motion Picture Association of America, famously suggested that copyright terms be extended by congress to "forever less one day" to try to get around the "for limited times" clause.

Yes, but perhaps in a couple years when they try and up it to 120 years (or such) the courts will stop the continual gaming of the system. I think they will only get so many bites at that apple.