Click here to return to the Opposing Copyright Extension Home Page.
The Associated Press released on February 2, 1998, an article entitled "Cartoon Copyrights Coming Up" by John Horn, in which the author provides some very interesting information concerning the fight over copyright term extension. He also does a very balanced job of summarizing many of the arguments against this disastrous legislative proposal.
Mr. Horn points out that the film generally assumed to be Mickey Mouse's first public appearance under copyright, "Steamboat Willie", was published in 1928, which of course would mean that Mickey himself would fall into the public domain on January 1, 2004. (Actually, there are good arguments that Mickey is already in the public domain as a result of early Disney failures to appropriately place the copyright notice on his first appearance, but we may concede the copyright as of 1928 for our purposes.) Disney is well known for strongly asserting its copyrights, but what is surely less well known is that a Disney PAC, according to this article, contributed $4,000 to Representative Howard Coble, Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee that had initial responsibility in the House for consideration of term extension legislation (indeed, all intellectual property legislation). The article points out that support comes not just from Disney and the studios--the Writers Guild of America, the Screen Actors Guild, and the Directors Guild of America are behind the extension bills, too, to keep their residuals flowing. (The Writers Guild, however, wants language in the bill to benefit the authors of old screenplays--from movies released before 1960, when writers had no residuals. Extension is fine with them, in other words, as long as they get their slice of what the public is forced to pay!)
Disney is quoted as saying "Copyright extension is a matter that affects some of the greatest artistic and creative properties this nation has ever produced. . . . It is important that the United States and its artists and talent not be disadvantaged in the worldwide market for creative properties." At last, something from Disney that even I can agree with! But the logical conclusion is NOT that we should extend the term of protection. Rather, if we are worried about disadvantaging our creative talents, we will not reward the distant descendants of great talents from the past, which descendants themselves have no creative relation to the work at all, because this deprives CURRENT creative authors of a rich heritage from the past on which to base new current works.
Mr. Horn also quotes a "show business lobbyist" as admitting that the studios will reap a windfall of "jillions of dollars." This windfall, needless to say, does not arise from nothing. Rather, it is the American public that will pay it, in the form of continued royalties, and in the form of fewer current creative works that are available for our reading, listening, and watching pleasure. Mr. Horn points out that Shakespeare was the inspiration for "West Side Story," the Bible for "Jesus Christ Superstar," and Hugo for "The Hunchback of Notre Dame." (The latter example, of course, had Disney itself using the public domain to create a new work--fine for them as long as no one ever uses Disney works and characters in a similar way!) He also mentions the recent spate of Jane Austen films and the new release of an updated "Great Expectations" based directly on the Dickens novel.
As this is written (February 9, 1998) I do not know where Mr. Horn's article has appeared. I did receive a call from radio station CJD (or CJAD?) in Montreal today and was actually interviewed live there to discuss the extension issue. As usual, I was not very articulate, but I hope I managed to get some of the important points across.