|
|
Post by kingkoopa on Oct 17, 2018 0:10:02 GMT
I don't think it is politically motivated.
It's all about brand preservation. Same with the secret Coca-Cola recipe, the Colonel's original recipe, etc. They want to control the standards the licensed characters appear in...and they're a high-end entertainment company, so if you see Mickey Mouse in costume at the parks these day, he's got on a costume likely worth much more than the performer's car.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending it. For instance, within a certain radius of Walt Disney World, Disney-based high school musicals are often prohibited because they don't want the shows to be associated with their brand in case they aren't very good.
Ultimately, public domain is often a murky territory. I work in music and it has caused me LOTS of headaches. Maybe a tune is copywritten, but the lyrics are in the public domain. It'd be great to strike up a balance between awarding the creators/owners and not writing thousands of cease-and-desist letters to new content creators. Sharing your toys I guess. Licensing fees can be ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Oct 17, 2018 5:18:08 GMT
I don't think it is politically motivated. It's all about brand preservation. Same with the secret Coca-Cola recipe, the Colonel's original recipe, etc. They want to control the standards the licensed characters appear in...and they're a high-end entertainment company, so if you see Mickey Mouse in costume at the parks these day, he's got on a costume likely worth much more than the performer's car. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending it. For instance, within a certain radius of Walt Disney World, Disney-based high school musicals are often prohibited because they don't want the shows to be associated with their brand in case they aren't very good. Ultimately, public domain is often a murky territory. I work in music and it has caused me LOTS of headaches. Maybe a tune is copywritten, but the lyrics are in the public domain. It'd be great to strike up a balance between awarding the creators/owners and not writing thousands of cease-and-desist letters to new content creators. Sharing your toys I guess. Licensing fees can be ludicrous. When we get into BIG, BIG money businesses, since Trump is in charge, it is ALL ABOUT money. |
|
|
|
Post by kingkoopa on Oct 17, 2018 5:30:35 GMT
I don't think it is politically motivated. It's all about brand preservation. Same with the secret Coca-Cola recipe, the Colonel's original recipe, etc. They want to control the standards the licensed characters appear in...and they're a high-end entertainment company, so if you see Mickey Mouse in costume at the parks these day, he's got on a costume likely worth much more than the performer's car. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending it. For instance, within a certain radius of Walt Disney World, Disney-based high school musicals are often prohibited because they don't want the shows to be associated with their brand in case they aren't very good. Ultimately, public domain is often a murky territory. I work in music and it has caused me LOTS of headaches. Maybe a tune is copywritten, but the lyrics are in the public domain. It'd be great to strike up a balance between awarding the creators/owners and not writing thousands of cease-and-desist letters to new content creators. Sharing your toys I guess. Licensing fees can be ludicrous. When we get into BIG, BIG money businesses, since Trump is in charge, it is ALL ABOUT money. Yes, you're right. It's all about money, but not all about Trump. Disney will be doing their thing after Trump just like they were doing before. It's about retaining the money they can make from their licenses. I only meant political leaning tweets from Trump or the heiress are small and arguably insignificant potatoes compared to the motivations of corporate profit preservation. Hell, Trump does it with his own brands almost as well as Disney does with theirs. (That's not an attack on either, just an observation about how both's large brands function profitably) |
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Oct 17, 2018 5:38:53 GMT
But this originated as 'Disney should allow Disney's old copyrights to expire'.
Only Trump would consider this ridiculous suggestion, and he would only consider it if he could make some money from it.
|
|
|
|
Post by kingkoopa on Oct 17, 2018 10:01:15 GMT
But this originated as 'Disney should allow Disney's old copyrights to expire'. Only Trump would consider this ridiculous suggestion, and he would only consider it if he could make some money from it. I was going off more of "gov't should interfere with copyright." I'm for as little government involvement in this process as possible. I was only inferring that Trump really has no bearing in any of this. The relationship between copyright and private property (and potential seizure of private property/licenses by the 'public domain') is very complicated when it comes to media. It's been turbulent for 20 years, at least. It'd be a very long judicial chess match if Disney wants to hang on to their licenses...and both sides would have really good lawyers. I think both sides would agree it isn't a fight worth having. Sorry for the boring post. I've lost probably at least a year of my life so far dealing with copyright law and I've heard listeners/viewers many times thinking the legal deck was stacked against them. It's actually pretty cut and dry, so long as you either learn the law or get a good attourney. None of this is political BTW. I'm 100% in favor of everyone having their view. |
|
