After yesterday’s class, I cannot stop having an internal argument about the Walt Disney Corporation. While I would not consider myself a “Disney Freak”, I would definitely coin the term “Disney Enthusiast” for myself. I believe that Disney does off programming (be it television, radio, theatrical, of cinematic) of good educational value. The ideas, aesthetics, and vision are, I believe, all in good intention. The idea that all programming does have the key theme to “be a good person” does instill a lot of faith in my mind about the human race. However, I cannot help but wonder about the paradox of the reputation the corporation has about being “money hungry”.
After reading the J.K. Rowling case vs. Lexion, I couldn’t help but be offended for the avid fan, as a whole, not just of the Harry Potter franchise. I hope someday, that my work will inspire others to create. I mean, isn’t that the point of art? To use inspirations from the past to bring light to the present? Why shouldn’t someone be able to take Mickey Mouse and incorporate him into a picture without copyright? But, I believe strongly that credit should be given where credit is deserved, but for something so iconic, such as anything being produced by the Walt Disney Corporation, is bound to inspire to inspire millions of artists of any medium.
Now, I’m not saying Disney shouldn’t benefit from the brilliant ideas and creations of Walt. I just wonder where the line is drawn between inspiring young people with the magic and then ruining their dreams. I can only imagine what it would be like to have something of inspiration deplete your want to create. It’s a stretch, I know.
I realize that I am rambling, but I cannot help but wonder, am I the only struggling to find the happy medium in copyright law? I really do understand that we have copyright in order to protect art and to inspire the creation of new art, but it seems like at some point, it crosses beyond the original intent into greed. And that, is where my moral dilemma sets in.
The inspiration for this little journal rant, http://www.thestreet.com/story/10062900/3/disney-wins-in-copyright-case.html
(also posted on Delicious)
Some Rights Reserved
I hear ya. While reading the Harry Potter case, I took a moment to think about Vander Ark, and I really felt bad for him! He started his project out of a love for the books, and look what happened. It makes me think of Jon Pareles’ proposal in (I’m pretty sure it was) Copyright Highway of songs losing their copyright, and therefore becoming part of public domain, after so many copies are sold. While you’re not talking about a song here, it’s still the same idea. I agree that enough is enough at a point, such as with the Happy Birthday copyright situation. And no, I don’t think you’re the only one trying to find that happy medium, so no worries =)
I think both of you guys are seeing the signature difficulty of using exclusive rights to provide incentives for creativity: by default, you’re excluding everyone, including other creators. So the balance you guys (and many others) are looking for is I think some way to carve out space for those creators. Is fair use the best way to do this, or is it even necessary? What aspects of it seem most helpful, and what aspects don’t seem to work as well?
Fwiw, Jonathan Lethem’s essay is a fantastic exposition of some instances of influence that we wouldn’t want to go without, and I think the HP Lexicon might be one more.