I'm a bit torn when it comes to the subject of copyright of intellectual property such as Disney's Mickey Mouse. I think it's largely because I don't think of something like Mickey Mouse as simply a creation of Walt Disney, but also the effort put in by Disney over the course of many decades to make that character a success. If we consider that characters are mutable works, which means their intention is simply dictated by society's view, could a third-party's use of the character ruin the work put in by Disney? In my mind, Pepe the Frog is an interesting example of what can go wrong when you lose control over your work. Now, I do think that Mickey Mouse's character has far more resiliency than a fairly unknown character from a random French cartoonist, but it is theoretically possible to poison the public perception of Mickey Mouse too.
Although, I think that's arguably touching more on a concept of creative license over a character and not ownership of works. In other words, it's saying Disney should probably retain control over new works containing the character; however, does Disney need to still have control over Steamboat Willie? No, Steamboat Willie is almost 100 years old and should really fall into public domain at this point.
What makes this interesting is that plenty of other things that are copyrighted or patented don't really have that problem as nebulous concepts like "public perception" aren't really an issue. If I patented the light bulb, and argued that it can't expire because GE will make an inferior product, that wouldn't fly because people simply wouldn't buy GE's product. It doesn't necessarily harm my own work. Although, as I was thinking of that, one thing did come to mind... hoverboards. Unfortunately, I don't mean the devices from Back to the Future, but rather the two-wheeled tilt-to-drive devices. What's interesting here is that public perception never really had a time to form for these devices before controversy over cheap, Chinese knock-offs started causing public panic due to battery-related fires. I recall seeing a ruggedized one in Best Buy the other day, and the first thing that came to mind was, "I thought they stopped making these after all the fires?"
Although, I think that's arguably touching more on a concept of creative license over a character and not ownership of works. In other words, it's saying Disney should probably retain control over new works containing the character; however, does Disney need to still have control over Steamboat Willie? No, Steamboat Willie is almost 100 years old and should really fall into public domain at this point.
What makes this interesting is that plenty of other things that are copyrighted or patented don't really have that problem as nebulous concepts like "public perception" aren't really an issue. If I patented the light bulb, and argued that it can't expire because GE will make an inferior product, that wouldn't fly because people simply wouldn't buy GE's product. It doesn't necessarily harm my own work. Although, as I was thinking of that, one thing did come to mind... hoverboards. Unfortunately, I don't mean the devices from Back to the Future, but rather the two-wheeled tilt-to-drive devices. What's interesting here is that public perception never really had a time to form for these devices before controversy over cheap, Chinese knock-offs started causing public panic due to battery-related fires. I recall seeing a ruggedized one in Best Buy the other day, and the first thing that came to mind was, "I thought they stopped making these after all the fires?"