peer-see

Hey, Emily, did you hear the buzz about Shijingshan Amusement Park in Beijing? It’s that state run park with slogan, “Disneyland is too far.” Apparently they have a bunch of knock-off Disney characters and attractions there, and the English language blogosphere is all bent out of shape about it.

Yeah. I don’t know what they’re so upset about. What’d Disney ever do for them?

They’re calling it a violation of intellectual property rights. Kyle even implied that it was stealing from his “countrymen”.

Here’s one interesting thing about Disney and intellectual property - Mickey was supposed to pass into the public domain a few years ago. He first appeared in 1928. So under the old copyright law of 1976, Mickey Mouse was due to pass into the public domain in 2003. So Disney lobbied to change the law so they could keep their monopoly on all things Mickey.

Is the Disney lobby really that strong?

It sure is. But it had help. It’s no accident that the law was named the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, or that it was sponsored by his wife, who took over his Congressional seat after his death. Congresswoman Mary Bono (R-CA) didn’t write “I Got You Babe,” but she is hoping that she and her children will be able to collect royalties for the rest of their lives.

Won’t they?

That depends on how long they live. The US gives copyright protection for the life of the author plus 70 years. That used to be 50 years before Disney had it changed back in 1997.

Well, I can see how Sonny and Cher are the authors of “I Got You, Babe,” but who is the author of Mickey Mouse?

A guy named Ub Iwerks, who worked for Walt Disney. But he never had ownership of the character. The copyright is held by the Disney Company. With corporations, copyright now automatically expires 95 years after the work’s creation.

Is it like that everywhere?

No, copyright laws are different everywhere. This isn’t my area of expertise, but it’s what I gleaned from a little web surfing: The WTO sets a minimum standard for member countries. The minimum is life of the author plus 50 years, or just 50 years for corporations. Countries are free to give more protection, which the US obviously does, but WTO member countries aren’t required to.

Well then, doesn’t that put Mickey in the public domain in China?

I think so. And not just Mickey, but most of the other Disney icons, too. If you wanted to, you could build your own theme park with public domain Disney characters and invite Michael Eisner to come visit, and the WTO would have nothing to say about it. The big problem with the Shijingshan Amusement Park is that it was using new characters. They had Hello Kitty and Shrek, and some other characters that are younger than 50. Those guys are still protected by the WTO rules, but Mickey, Snow White and Cinderella are fair game.

Characters like Snow White and Cinderella are fair game, anyway, as far as I’m concerned. The idea that a corporation could somehow own the rights to the world’s most famous fairy tales is patently absurd!

Heh heh. You said patently.

Seriously, I think it shows how wrong-headed our current notions of property are. These are FOLK TALES. They belong to the FOLKS. Rather than whining about IP violation, why aren’t people telling Disney to pay royalties to the descendants of the Brothers Grimm or to the people whose stories the Grimms collected.

Well, in this case, it isn’t the really the character of Snow White; it’s the image. Or, really, the thing about the image that differentiates this Snow White from all the images of Snow White that came before.

Lessee…raven black hair and snow white skin and blood red cheeks are all in the original story. That just leaves…a blue dress!?! That’s all they’ve got?!? Well, I guess it wouldn’t be the first time people made a scandal out of a blue dress.

Let’s not start that.

All I’m saying is that by appropriating these folk tales, Disney gives up any possibility of ownership.

Even if the Disney version becomes iconic?

Especially because the Disney version has become iconic. By telling these tales, it’s become storyteller to the world (and made a pretty penny in the process,) so it doesn’t get to charge a fee every time the story gets retold. It’s like the Phrygian mode. There must have been a musician who was the first guy to use that specific arrangement of tones. Does that mean he had a legitimate claim to its sole use? No! Snow White is the same way. Black-haired, pale-skinned, rosy-cheeked maid, magic mirror, poison apple – that’s Disney’s phrygian. The fact they threw in a red bow doesn’t give them sole ownership of anything. Of course, I don’t blame Disney for trying. What the Disney Company really wants is…

Total and complete world domination?

… to maximize profits and protect its assets any way it can. The Disney Company is a corporation, and it has that responsibility to its investors. That’s why it can’t be allowed to set policy. Its only ethic is profit.

And it profits from all kinds of sources. Disney made Rudyard Kipling’s “The Jungle Book” into a movie just seven years after it passed into the public domain. Disney loves the public domain when it’s providing them with free grist for the mill.

That’s the part that really laughable – the accusation that China (as an entity) has in some way wronged America or Americans or the “Disney family” by using iconic images in the public domain which are versions of international folk tales.

Are they really international?

Here’s a test. I’ll tell one, and you tell me when you recognize the story. Young girl – cleans all day for evil stepmother – prince – tiny slipper…

Cinderella!

Nope.

Whaddya mean, “nope?”

Well, you’re sort of right. I wasn’t telling the tale of Cinderella; I was telling the tale of Ye Xian, which is the oldest known version of the story you know as Cinderella. It’s a little different. Instead of a fairy godmother, it’s a magic fish carcass…

Nasty.

…but the idea is the same, though I can see how a magic fish carcass walking around the amusement park might not go over well.

So it doesn’t make sense to beat up on China for “stealing” Cinderella, since the story originated in China.

Exactly. I would go so far as to say that intellectual property protection of copyrights and patents is corporate welfare. It is the use of the long arm of the law to enforce monopolies. And consumers always suffer under monopolies. If it weren’t for the Disney Company we would have better, cheaper Mickeys to choose from.

Personally, I have limited tolerance for so called “intellectual property,” too. As Thomas Jefferson, the President, statesman and guy-I-like-to-quote-a-lot, once said,

“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.”

Whew, Emily! You just finished writing quite a long post. What are you gonna do now?

I’m going to Disney World!

Too far.