Reminder that absolutely nothing good will come from any video game character going to PD.
Reminder that good projects for video game series are already being made and have been made despite said games not being PD.
it'd still be pretty cool if people could profit off their fangames though.
we'd probably get better games out of it too because people would have more incentive to put more effort into their fangames
The only reason people pay those Patron guys to drag their feet is because there's no alternative. If it were legal to make fan-games of whatever, any studio that cared enough could eat Patreon Guy's lunch by swooping in and releasing a competing productn on Steam for $20.
Yeah imagine if they made games out of alice in wonderland, pinnochio, dracula or sherlock holmes I'd bet they'd all be garbage, some dudes grand grand grand grand kid should just be able to collect rent on them for eternity.
It's called capitalizing on a trend. These things were obviously in the works for a good while knowing when Willie would lose copyright since that's public information.
Capitalizing and antagonizing Disney for decades of destroying once-beloved franchises and political lobbying that turned copyright into the abomination it is today
MICKEY MOUSE is not in the public domain. STEAMBOAT WILLIE is.
And as a side note, I can almost 100% guarantee you both of those movies and the game are completely illegal, but unfortunately there will never be a way to prove it in a manner suitable for a court to accept as damning evidence.
See, I have a hard time believing two movies and a game were made from scratch in 48 hours. Chances are the devs/studios behind them worked on these products LONG before Steamboat Willie went public domain, but kept it under wraps.
Using someone else's intellectual property FOR PRIVATE USE is completely legal; using it IN PRIVATE with THE PLANS to make it a commercial product once copyright runs out IS ABSOLUTELY NOT LEGAL.
>moron who is aggressively wrong and can't read calls other people moronic
Mickey Mouse is still Disney property. Steamboat Willie the cartoon is public domain, dumb frick. It'll be real funny watching you morons get sued to shit for misusing Mickey Mouse, because you fell for Yidsney's israelite-jitsu again.
>using it IN PRIVATE with THE PLANS to make it a commercial product once copyright runs out IS ABSOLUTELY NOT LEGAL.
That's not true lol. Why do I keep seeing morons say this? This isn't even remotely true. Where did you get this idea?
Not only are you wrong you're more wrong than you even realize. Not only is what you described not against the law but because of how the copyright laws are people were already openly infringing on the Steamboat Willie copyright last year. John Oliver did it multiple times to see what Disney would do and they didn't bother sending a cease and desist because they knew by the time it went to court Steamboat WIllie Mickey would be in the public domain and the suite would be thrown out. It's amazing how people like you will speak with confidence like this about something you know literally nothing about. Like you probably just made up your position because it SOUNDS right to you. It's not based on anything real.
The "guy in a Mickey mask running around killing people in a Dave & Busters" movie has a few extended shots of an Angry Birds cabinet that's not covered up or edited, could Sega take them to court over it?
It is feasible to assume the presence of an IP that they did not have the legal rights to use helped with the performance of the movie, however so slightly little.
As displayed very clearly in your infographic, infringing on modern versions is still a crime. MICKEY MOUSE is what he's called in modern versions. STEAMBOAT WILLIE is the item that has entered the public domain.
>using it IN PRIVATE with THE PLANS to make it a commercial product once copyright runs out IS ABSOLUTELY NOT LEGAL.
But they weren't using it yet. They might have PLANNED to use it, but they weren't using it.
That is STILL NOT LEGAL. They were conducting business using an IP that they did not possess the rights to use.
Not that it will ever happen but damn what I'd give to see the "creators" of these illegal hate boner ripoff works spend a few years in prison.
>STEAMBOAT WILLIE is the item that has entered the public domain.
There's more than 1 thing that entered the public domain. And he's named 'MICKEY MOUSE' in them. >That is STILL NOT LEGAL.
Yes, it is. Point to a law that says it isn't.
>Being this assblasted about public use of Mickey Mouse
Are you a fricking Disney lawyer doing damage control itt y dude?, what's exactly the hangup here?
>As displayed very clearly in your infographic, infringing on modern versions is still a crime. MICKEY MOUSE is what he's called in modern versions.
If you actually had read the infographic, you'd see it clearly stated that you can use the MICKY MOUSE name, you fricking moron >Can the name be used?
Yes.
You can make a Mickey Mouse game, using a character called Mockey Mouse, and sell it. Yes, it cannot be exactly the modern depiction of it, but it can be Mickey from some older cartoon (including, but not limited to, Steamboat Willie) and be called Mickey Mouse. As long as you make clear it's not affiliated to Disney, it's legal
Duke's Law website says you can call Mickey whatever you want, even Mickey Mouse, just as long as you make sure it isn't confused with Disney because of trademark laws. >Examples of legal uses
"Anonymous' Mickey Mouse"
"Mickey Mouse"
"Steamboat Willie's Mickey Mouse"
"That israelite Marketing Bastard Mickey Mouse" >Examples of illegal uses
"Disney's Mickey Mouse" if you are not Disney
"Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse"
"Buena Vista's Mickey Mouse"
People should stop using the black & white Mickey with the sailor hat (which wasn't even his and Pete takes it back in like the first 20 seconds of the cartoon) as the sole example of "what can be used". The colour poster from
MOUSE is not in the public domain.
Yes, he is.
is a much better example of how much of his most known design is now public.
>using it IN PRIVATE with THE PLANS to make it a commercial product once copyright runs out IS ABSOLUTELY NOT LEGAL.
But they weren't using it yet. They might have PLANNED to use it, but they weren't using it.
As displayed very clearly in your infographic, infringing on modern versions is still a crime. MICKEY MOUSE is what he's called in modern versions. STEAMBOAT WILLIE is the item that has entered the public domain.
[...]
That is STILL NOT LEGAL. They were conducting business using an IP that they did not possess the rights to use.
Not that it will ever happen but damn what I'd give to see the "creators" of these illegal hate boner ripoff works spend a few years in prison.
oh noes you guise! instead of making some clone of a popular thing, these Z-list studios are making mickey mouse horror stuff!!!!!!!!! this is an outrage!!!!!! we must extend mickey's copyright because this stuff is 2tacky4me!
>instead of making some clone of a popular thing
I mean, that's kinda what they're actually doing. The whole "child mascot is actually terrifying and a horror game/movie" trope is way overplayed these days especially in indie games
An IP going public domain doesnt mean shit if people dont care to create fan content for it.
Pokemon has a shit ton of fan games and mods despite very much not being a public domain.
Yeah and? Money doesnt matter if the fans dont create anything worthwhile.
Going public domain wont make Mickey get good content. Let alone content worth the price.
New Left is anti-essentialist by definition. They strive towards the maximum possible freedom of speech for everyone without anyone being able to have a monopoly on truth. If that's "demolishing freedom of speech" for you, you're a religious zealot.
According to who?
Not too well-versed in modern New Left, but it is definitely in line with their thinkers, for example, Chantal Mouffe:
"I certainly do not believe that essentialism necessarily entails conservative politics and I am ready to accept that it can be formulated in a progressive way. What I want to argue is that essentialism is inescapably deficient when it comes to the construction of a democratic alternative whose objective is the articulation of the struggles linked to different forms of oppression. I consider that it leads to a view of identity that is at odds with a conception of radical and plural democracy and that it does not allow us to construct the new vision of citizenship that is required by such a politics."
Feminism, Citizenship and Radical Democratic Politics. In: The Return of the Political. Verso, 1993, p. 75.
>vomits out nonsense
oh sweaty it is time to have a nice day, you're too far gone to exist anymore
5 months ago
Anonymous
I accept your concession, you Black person homosexual.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>I-I a-accept y-your
oh no sweaty, there is no concession here. you just need to have a nice day. you have no present and you have no future. please join the ACK with the rest.
How about one can say anything they want and and the recipient can process said information however they see fit? Simpler than whatever mental gymnastics you just quoted.
> The new left
Lol.
Don't bother trying to confuse people by altering your terminology, we're all wise to your tricks, call your ideology by its true name: Progressivism.
>when we censor you it's to protect freedom of speech >when you want to censor us it's because you don't like freedom of speech
You disingenuous disgusting bunkerturd piece of shit
>saw title >thought it would be funny if they did it on purpose, because "88" has no connection to the mouse >i was right
now i will buy (pirate) your game
>vermin obviously refers to israelites
Based leftoid moron admitting that these hook nosed inbred Semitic subhumans are the first thing that comes to mind when you see the word "vermin"
Japan did this with Danganronpa and it's highly praised here and generally everywhere else too
If it's good it will work, might take a while to see that though
They could use the character as a way to actually call out disneys bullshit (copyright lasting for 100 years is fricking moronic) but instead it'll just be mindless horror slop.
They aren't different. They just can copyright other interpretations of the character. Same as how they can copyright Disney's Pinocchio, even though Pinocchio is public domain.
>Same as how they can copyright Disney's Pinocchio, even though Pinocchio is public domain.
By extension that would mean that since at least one version of the character (Mickey Mouse) is public domain, you'd be legally allowed to make your own interpretation of said character and copyright it as long as it's an interpretation that's unique and substantially different from the versions that are still Disney's intellectual property, wouldn't it?
I'm not a law expert, but I think that's the exact same legal basis by which Disney can take a character from the public domain, make a version of it and then copyright it, isn't it?
Steamboat willy is a movie that Mickey mouse was MC of it. That movie, its the point where the copyright of said character starts, since it´s the first movie with him I guess..
It doesn´t matter its looks, you couldnt create a character called Mickey mouse even if it was a fricking dog since that name was copyrighted. The same thing applies to it´s appearance, you couldnt create a character called Jhon doe with the body of any of Mickey´s iterations, as the copyright covers the image also. In this case, now you can create a mouse with his name, or any character with his appearance. Simple as that.
>since that name was copyrighted.
Trademarked
and no.
That only applies when selling the product
DC can use Captain Marvel within their comics but they cannot sell "Captain Marvel" stuff
well theres really not much you can do with him when the copyright is 95 fricking years old
i don't see anyone ITT thinking of anything either
picrel is the only thing i can think of that would use him well
Copyright should've stayed 28 + 28 years, all the shit products wouldn't be made if not for how ungodly long it takes characters to be released. At least with the original system a beloved work would still have a generation who remembered it before it lost protection and so if they made anything it would be with some care. See Alice in Wonderland
>Copyright should be unlimited because >Because... >I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO OWN CULTURE AND GET INFINITE PROFIT FOREVER ME ME MEEEEEEE
That's how you sound like you little shit.
Why is it always horror? So fricking lame. I guess it takes the least amount of effort. Man, imagine any other genre. I'd take some ridiculous crime drama or even some weird horny shit over this hell, a heist movie or an action mockbuster with Mickey in Vietnam. Just, god damn, literally anything else.
Horror is the easiest way to get loads of your investment back.
Horror is usually the only genre in the box office that remains steadfast in returns, when compared to low budget.
They're cheap to make and people expect a lower quality from them (there have been a dozen jason movies and only 2 and a half were any good).
Its also a good opportunity to farm tallent.
>Nothing but sequels, prequels, remakes, reboots, remasters, and "it's like A, but with an ending like B"
How many years did it thake (You) to reach that conclusion, anon?
Some years ago when I watched an indie showcase event. You know, the ones that were supposed to reject mainstream, take risks and be the innovative force that will awe us.
> Film inundated with Remakes & Reboots > Television inundated with Adaptations > Games inundated with Remakes & Reboots
The bread and butter of every form of media mentioned is to milking an idea barren, then revive it in 20~ years to do it again.
So yes, western media is horribly stagnant and endlessly cannibalizing itself.
Copyright should only last for the amount of time it takes for the original creator to die. Descendants would be eligible for small royalties that become smaller the further removed from the original creator the descendant is until ceasing entirely.
Depends, when you write a book, do the words and structure of the text belong to you?, do only the physical objects known as "books" belong to you and I should be free to copy said text and sell it myself, for the copies are my own books and thus my property regardless of what they may contain?
>A bunch of European myths, legends and works are adapted for modern audiences, guaranteeing continued awareness of different european cultures and historical works throughout history, which makes these works that inform european identity and represent its values relevant today and the day of tomorrow.
I thought you guys gave a shit about the preservation of culture. Guess you actually don't it seems.
Do they actually care about that? Is there artistic merit to wearing underwear or an ice cream bar shaped or designed with pictures of Mickey Mouse? Outside of a branding mascot, when's the last time anyone truly talked about Mickey Mouse in a positive or optimistic light?
>The point is the lack of worthy cultural works and artistic merit
Is the Lion King a "worthy cultural work"?, whatever you answer, I believe it's fair to say most would say yes for one reason or another and in itself t (be it that they like the work, or that they think it's culturally relevant in its role as an actualization of a previous one or by its own merits) and that work is just a reinterpretation of Hamlet with a savannah overlay on it.
Maybe whatever cashgrab movie they had prepared for when the copyright ran out won't be any good, but who are you to say that because you feature elements from public domain, even such recent ones, whatever it is that you produce will lack "artistic merit"?, If dadaist pieces of art could hold said artistic merit a hundred years ago, why can't these works do that as well?
Trying to profit from a relevant topic or recognizable character might run counter to artistic expression in any given work, but to adscribe such intent to all works featuring such characters is smooth-brained in the extreme.
TL;DR: Your work can indeed feature Mickey Mouse and it can still hold artistic merit just like any other work. You do not get to judge what does and what doesn't hold such merit.
They hated him for he told the truth
?si=SifKi54GOgTrp1qt
>be an extremely popular character
>GUYSE HE WILL BE USED EVERYWHERE WHEN PUBLIC DOMAIN, ESPECIALLY HORROR PARODIES
Wow, sure is a huge revelation here.
I expected at least one "mickey mouse is old and alcoholic" movie
there's probably gonna be that, but from the seth rogan rescue rangers angle
That'll inevitably happen. There's a TV show in the works with an older Christopher Robins is a druggy burnout and goes back to the 100 acre wood.
>man carrying thing
shit taste
>man carrying shit
Reminder that absolutely nothing good will come from any video game character going to PD.
Reminder that good projects for video game series are already being made and have been made despite said games not being PD.
it'd still be pretty cool if people could profit off their fangames though.
we'd probably get better games out of it too because people would have more incentive to put more effort into their fangames
You'd think that but it really only incentivises dragging things out for a long as possible while leeching Patreonbucks or adding microtransactions.
well if they were paid maybe they'd be able to afford to hire more devs
The only reason people pay those Patron guys to drag their feet is because there's no alternative. If it were legal to make fan-games of whatever, any studio that cared enough could eat Patreon Guy's lunch by swooping in and releasing a competing productn on Steam for $20.
>video game character going to PD.
Anon, your grandkids will be old before the first copyright expires (ignoring shit that fell through the cracks).
Yeah imagine if they made games out of alice in wonderland, pinnochio, dracula or sherlock holmes I'd bet they'd all be garbage, some dudes grand grand grand grand kid should just be able to collect rent on them for eternity.
It's called capitalizing on a trend. These things were obviously in the works for a good while knowing when Willie would lose copyright since that's public information.
Capitalizing and antagonizing Disney for decades of destroying once-beloved franchises and political lobbying that turned copyright into the abomination it is today
Oh for frick's sake.
MICKEY MOUSE is not in the public domain. STEAMBOAT WILLIE is.
And as a side note, I can almost 100% guarantee you both of those movies and the game are completely illegal, but unfortunately there will never be a way to prove it in a manner suitable for a court to accept as damning evidence.
See, I have a hard time believing two movies and a game were made from scratch in 48 hours. Chances are the devs/studios behind them worked on these products LONG before Steamboat Willie went public domain, but kept it under wraps.
Using someone else's intellectual property FOR PRIVATE USE is completely legal; using it IN PRIVATE with THE PLANS to make it a commercial product once copyright runs out IS ABSOLUTELY NOT LEGAL.
moron
>moron who is aggressively wrong and can't read calls other people moronic
Mickey Mouse is still Disney property. Steamboat Willie the cartoon is public domain, dumb frick. It'll be real funny watching you morons get sued to shit for misusing Mickey Mouse, because you fell for Yidsney's israelite-jitsu again.
He's right though. You can use Mickey, but anything added to his character after that first year of Mickey shorts is not public domain.
classic mickey is still mickey
Technically not. You can't portray Mickey in red shorts, for example. That's still protected.
yes you can.
see:
>Had "Steamboat Willie" as a backup username
>Now it will be overused
Always late to the sinking ship
>using it IN PRIVATE with THE PLANS to make it a commercial product once copyright runs out IS ABSOLUTELY NOT LEGAL.
That's not true lol. Why do I keep seeing morons say this? This isn't even remotely true. Where did you get this idea?
Not only are you wrong you're more wrong than you even realize. Not only is what you described not against the law but because of how the copyright laws are people were already openly infringing on the Steamboat Willie copyright last year. John Oliver did it multiple times to see what Disney would do and they didn't bother sending a cease and desist because they knew by the time it went to court Steamboat WIllie Mickey would be in the public domain and the suite would be thrown out. It's amazing how people like you will speak with confidence like this about something you know literally nothing about. Like you probably just made up your position because it SOUNDS right to you. It's not based on anything real.
Dumb frick hours for you rn huh?
Must be, because you showed up. Why do you think only the Steamboat Willie version of Mickey Mouse is used in all of these? Low IQ Black person.
Oh hold on guys, Doug Walker is tellin' the thread about copyright. POINT AND LAUGH FELLAS!
The "guy in a Mickey mask running around killing people in a Dave & Busters" movie has a few extended shots of an Angry Birds cabinet that's not covered up or edited, could Sega take them to court over it?
?si=cTYqvqt3TrlMFJT6
>video titled "First EVER Mickey Mouse horror film"
Bullshit it is.
Yes, absolutely.
It is feasible to assume the presence of an IP that they did not have the legal rights to use helped with the performance of the movie, however so slightly little.
MOUSE is not in the public domain.
Yes, he is.
>Pete also public domain
Who fricking cares about no rat, homies be missin' out on the real OG Disney pimp.
As displayed very clearly in your infographic, infringing on modern versions is still a crime. MICKEY MOUSE is what he's called in modern versions. STEAMBOAT WILLIE is the item that has entered the public domain.
That is STILL NOT LEGAL. They were conducting business using an IP that they did not possess the rights to use.
Not that it will ever happen but damn what I'd give to see the "creators" of these illegal hate boner ripoff works spend a few years in prison.
>STEAMBOAT WILLIE is the item that has entered the public domain.
There's more than 1 thing that entered the public domain. And he's named 'MICKEY MOUSE' in them.
>That is STILL NOT LEGAL.
Yes, it is. Point to a law that says it isn't.
>Being this assblasted about public use of Mickey Mouse
Are you a fricking Disney lawyer doing damage control itt y dude?, what's exactly the hangup here?
you can call him mickey mouse you just can't make him seem like a modern mickey
>As displayed very clearly in your infographic, infringing on modern versions is still a crime. MICKEY MOUSE is what he's called in modern versions.
If you actually had read the infographic, you'd see it clearly stated that you can use the MICKY MOUSE name, you fricking moron
>Can the name be used?
Yes.
You can make a Mickey Mouse game, using a character called Mockey Mouse, and sell it. Yes, it cannot be exactly the modern depiction of it, but it can be Mickey from some older cartoon (including, but not limited to, Steamboat Willie) and be called Mickey Mouse. As long as you make clear it's not affiliated to Disney, it's legal
Duke's Law website says you can call Mickey whatever you want, even Mickey Mouse, just as long as you make sure it isn't confused with Disney because of trademark laws.
>Examples of legal uses
"Anonymous' Mickey Mouse"
"Mickey Mouse"
"Steamboat Willie's Mickey Mouse"
"That israelite Marketing Bastard Mickey Mouse"
>Examples of illegal uses
"Disney's Mickey Mouse" if you are not Disney
"Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse"
"Buena Vista's Mickey Mouse"
>"That israelite Marketing Bastard Mickey Mouse"
Except this is antisemitic hate speech and is illegal in most of the world.
It's immoral, but not illegal.
Literally illegal in almost all first world countries. Look it up.
>and is illegal in most of the world.
in shitholes you mean
People should stop using the black & white Mickey with the sailor hat (which wasn't even his and Pete takes it back in like the first 20 seconds of the cartoon) as the sole example of "what can be used". The colour poster from
is a much better example of how much of his most known design is now public.
>using it IN PRIVATE with THE PLANS to make it a commercial product once copyright runs out IS ABSOLUTELY NOT LEGAL.
But they weren't using it yet. They might have PLANNED to use it, but they weren't using it.
Are you shitposting for fun?
I can't believe the low hanging fruit got snatched up like that
oh noes you guise! instead of making some clone of a popular thing, these Z-list studios are making mickey mouse horror stuff!!!!!!!!! this is an outrage!!!!!! we must extend mickey's copyright because this stuff is 2tacky4me!
>instead of making some clone of a popular thing
I mean, that's kinda what they're actually doing. The whole "child mascot is actually terrifying and a horror game/movie" trope is way overplayed these days especially in indie games
An IP going public domain doesnt mean shit if people dont care to create fan content for it.
Pokemon has a shit ton of fan games and mods despite very much not being a public domain.
The difference is legally asking for money for your fangame.
Yeah and? Money doesnt matter if the fans dont create anything worthwhile.
Going public domain wont make Mickey get good content. Let alone content worth the price.
This is a nazi game, do not buy it.
ordering 10 copies right now
thanks
lucky for me you're just bluffing
>muh freedom of speech
>Death to Natsees!
What do these people even do for a living
Freedom of speech does not apply to those who want to demolish it, chuddy.
So it doesn't apply to you communist troons? Good to know.
New Left is anti-essentialist by definition. They strive towards the maximum possible freedom of speech for everyone without anyone being able to have a monopoly on truth. If that's "demolishing freedom of speech" for you, you're a religious zealot.
Not too well-versed in modern New Left, but it is definitely in line with their thinkers, for example, Chantal Mouffe:
"I certainly do not believe that essentialism necessarily entails conservative politics and I am ready to accept that it can be formulated in a progressive way. What I want to argue is that essentialism is inescapably deficient when it comes to the construction of a democratic alternative whose objective is the articulation of the struggles linked to different forms of oppression. I consider that it leads to a view of identity that is at odds with a conception of radical and plural democracy and that it does not allow us to construct the new vision of citizenship that is required by such a politics."
Feminism, Citizenship and Radical Democratic Politics. In: The Return of the Political. Verso, 1993, p. 75.
>vomits out nonsense
oh sweaty it is time to have a nice day, you're too far gone to exist anymore
I accept your concession, you Black person homosexual.
>I-I a-accept y-your
oh no sweaty, there is no concession here. you just need to have a nice day. you have no present and you have no future. please join the ACK with the rest.
How about one can say anything they want and and the recipient can process said information however they see fit? Simpler than whatever mental gymnastics you just quoted.
Shut the frick up, pedophile.
You don't need to try so hard, sweetie.
>without anyone being able to have a monopoly on truth
So you'll finally stop israelites from milking muh holocaust? Based!
> The new left
Lol.
Don't bother trying to confuse people by altering your terminology, we're all wise to your tricks, call your ideology by its true name: Progressivism.
And they hated him, for he told them the truth.
Meds
Thought the left couldn't meme.
It's not a meme, you need to take your meds.
Not even that same dude schizo.
I WILL help myself to some of your mom's pussy juice however, nothing better to clear the 'ol throat.
>They strive towards the maximum possible freedom of speech for everyone without anyone being able to have a monopoly on truth
T. Religious zealot
According to who?
>when we censor you it's to protect freedom of speech
>when you want to censor us it's because you don't like freedom of speech
You disingenuous disgusting bunkerturd piece of shit
Since these freakshows are the only ones who ever seem to identify these so called dog-whistles, maybe they're the neo-nazis?
>saw title
>thought it would be funny if they did it on purpose, because "88" has no connection to the mouse
>i was right
now i will buy (pirate) your game
>vermin obviously refers to israelites
Based leftoid moron admitting that these hook nosed inbred Semitic subhumans are the first thing that comes to mind when you see the word "vermin"
>disney wars porg rainbow avatar
holy frick this is like the uber subhuman I hate reddit
Get off your ass and make something good to counteract these shitty low effort knock offs.
Only lazy Black folk whine about public domain.
The public domain is where things go to die.
b8
Japan did this with Danganronpa and it's highly praised here and generally everywhere else too
If it's good it will work, might take a while to see that though
>Le spooky version of of something that has recently entered public domain that was originally family friendly
Wow. So original.
Yet you couldnt be the one who did it. Thats why are you shitposting in a basket-weaving forum instead of being "innovative".
>Wow. So original.
Yeah? Name 127 then
Every zombie and vampire game
They could use the character as a way to actually call out disneys bullshit (copyright lasting for 100 years is fricking moronic) but instead it'll just be mindless horror slop.
>There are Disney bootlickers on Ganker
Just delete the board, Hiroshima.
meanwhile the east is yet another millionth shonen about the power of friendship and toon bimbos saying AHO BAKA PANTSU KYAAA
I still don't understand how his steamboat Willie/ Mickey Mouse copyright stuff works in practice
same, isnt steamboat willie still mouse still called mickey? What makes them different?
Holy fricking shit, what this image tells you?
They aren't different. They just can copyright other interpretations of the character. Same as how they can copyright Disney's Pinocchio, even though Pinocchio is public domain.
ok thanks
>Same as how they can copyright Disney's Pinocchio, even though Pinocchio is public domain.
By extension that would mean that since at least one version of the character (Mickey Mouse) is public domain, you'd be legally allowed to make your own interpretation of said character and copyright it as long as it's an interpretation that's unique and substantially different from the versions that are still Disney's intellectual property, wouldn't it?
I'm not a law expert, but I think that's the exact same legal basis by which Disney can take a character from the public domain, make a version of it and then copyright it, isn't it?
Steamboat willy is a movie that Mickey mouse was MC of it. That movie, its the point where the copyright of said character starts, since it´s the first movie with him I guess..
It doesn´t matter its looks, you couldnt create a character called Mickey mouse even if it was a fricking dog since that name was copyrighted. The same thing applies to it´s appearance, you couldnt create a character called Jhon doe with the body of any of Mickey´s iterations, as the copyright covers the image also. In this case, now you can create a mouse with his name, or any character with his appearance. Simple as that.
Meant for
>since that name was copyrighted.
Trademarked
and no.
That only applies when selling the product
DC can use Captain Marvel within their comics but they cannot sell "Captain Marvel" stuff
well theres really not much you can do with him when the copyright is 95 fricking years old
i don't see anyone ITT thinking of anything either
picrel is the only thing i can think of that would use him well
that one was show like in 2021 is more based on the style just like cuphead than making a cash grab for easy money
Copyright should've stayed 28 + 28 years, all the shit products wouldn't be made if not for how ungodly long it takes characters to be released. At least with the original system a beloved work would still have a generation who remembered it before it lost protection and so if they made anything it would be with some care. See Alice in Wonderland
>b-but it's just Steamboat Willie
Who looks 85% like current Mickey Mouse and would be identifiable as Mickey Mouse to anyone without dire autism
It´s not like it has Mickey´s name starring said film...
>Shit would have expired 40 years ago if not for gigaisraelite lobbying
>copyright should be limited because
>because....
>I WANT FREE STUFF ME ME MEEEEE
>Copyright should be unlimited because
>Because...
>I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO OWN CULTURE AND GET INFINITE PROFIT FOREVER ME ME MEEEEEEE
That's how you sound like you little shit.
YOU FALLEN YET??
Why is it always horror? So fricking lame. I guess it takes the least amount of effort. Man, imagine any other genre. I'd take some ridiculous crime drama or even some weird horny shit over this hell, a heist movie or an action mockbuster with Mickey in Vietnam. Just, god damn, literally anything else.
>Mickey in Vietnam
Horror is the easiest way to get loads of your investment back.
Horror is usually the only genre in the box office that remains steadfast in returns, when compared to low budget.
They're cheap to make and people expect a lower quality from them (there have been a dozen jason movies and only 2 and a half were any good).
Its also a good opportunity to farm tallent.
well that shit takes longer to make so give it some time
Disney sponsored astroturf to try to get the public opinion against public domain. Same with the Pooh slasher film.
you know he would make a great main character for a sonic type game
>Nothing but sequels, prequels, remakes, reboots, remasters, and "it's like A, but with an ending like B"
How many years did it thake (You) to reach that conclusion, anon?
Some years ago when I watched an indie showcase event. You know, the ones that were supposed to reject mainstream, take risks and be the innovative force that will awe us.
> Film inundated with Remakes & Reboots
> Television inundated with Adaptations
> Games inundated with Remakes & Reboots
The bread and butter of every form of media mentioned is to milking an idea barren, then revive it in 20~ years to do it again.
So yes, western media is horribly stagnant and endlessly cannibalizing itself.
obviously they made the game in advance and waited you fricking cretin
Copyright should only last for the amount of time it takes for the original creator to die. Descendants would be eligible for small royalties that become smaller the further removed from the original creator the descendant is until ceasing entirely.
Imaterial things cannot be property, therefore there is no such thing as intelectual property, pirate everything!
Depends, when you write a book, do the words and structure of the text belong to you?, do only the physical objects known as "books" belong to you and I should be free to copy said text and sell it myself, for the copies are my own books and thus my property regardless of what they may contain?
it took you another horror rip off of a disney character to come with that realization?
>only the west
dumb weeaboo
>Thing, anything, happens
>"The VVest has fallen. This time for real"
evry fricken tiem.
Copyright is a stupid set of laws that shouldn't exist.
>The West is creatively bankrupt.
Always has been.
>A bunch of European myths, legends and works are adapted for modern audiences, guaranteeing continued awareness of different european cultures and historical works throughout history, which makes these works that inform european identity and represent its values relevant today and the day of tomorrow.
I thought you guys gave a shit about the preservation of culture. Guess you actually don't it seems.
its crazy that people will bootlick FOR FREE a billion dollar company
God I can't wait for the mickey mouse porn games, I want to see that cartoon mouse gaped and aped
Does this mean the mouse will have to put in effort into the stuff they put out now or is it garbage all the way down
>Does this mean the mouse will have to put in effort into the stuff they put out now
lolno.
Why would they, it's the Disney logo on the cover that sells whatever garbage they put out, not the mouse itself.
forced cetitan
Why do homosexuals care what people do with the Steamboat Willie ip?
>NOOOOOOOO THEY'RE MAKING HECKIN HORROR GAMES
So? Good for them I suppose.
That's not the point. The point is the lack of worthy cultural works and artistic merit. Only Disney gives a frick about that homosexual mouse.
Do they actually care about that? Is there artistic merit to wearing underwear or an ice cream bar shaped or designed with pictures of Mickey Mouse? Outside of a branding mascot, when's the last time anyone truly talked about Mickey Mouse in a positive or optimistic light?
>The point is the lack of worthy cultural works and artistic merit
Is the Lion King a "worthy cultural work"?, whatever you answer, I believe it's fair to say most would say yes for one reason or another and in itself t (be it that they like the work, or that they think it's culturally relevant in its role as an actualization of a previous one or by its own merits) and that work is just a reinterpretation of Hamlet with a savannah overlay on it.
Maybe whatever cashgrab movie they had prepared for when the copyright ran out won't be any good, but who are you to say that because you feature elements from public domain, even such recent ones, whatever it is that you produce will lack "artistic merit"?, If dadaist pieces of art could hold said artistic merit a hundred years ago, why can't these works do that as well?
Trying to profit from a relevant topic or recognizable character might run counter to artistic expression in any given work, but to adscribe such intent to all works featuring such characters is smooth-brained in the extreme.
TL;DR: Your work can indeed feature Mickey Mouse and it can still hold artistic merit just like any other work. You do not get to judge what does and what doesn't hold such merit.
the only version of mickey I want to come back
>taking the piss of a shit company
>BANKRUPT, BANKRUPT!!!11
eat a dick, disney shill
>The West is creatively bankrupt.
Was for 100+ years, Disney was famous for adaptation of fairy tales that originated in the 16 century