|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 02:49 PM EDT |
I, for one, believe the theory that US copyright will be extended perpetually as
long as Legislators have nightmares about Mickey Mouse being used in campaign
ads for their opponent.
Disney is probably not above a little blackmail (Walt Disney might have been but
Disney Inc is another story), their business model is based on selling our
grandchildren the same cartoons we watched (which are based on literature our
great-grandfathers read), and their copyrighted characters are far more
dangerous than any amound of campaign cash.
I'd go so far as to say that a candidate who legitimately threatens Disney may
as well take his party off the ballot for the next election or two. The cast of
Disney could make the AARP campaigns look impotent by comparison.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 11:52 PM EDT |
It is, but the usual extensions to copyright when Mickey Mouse is about to come
out of copyright has probably led to it being used as a derogatory adjectival
term for something being used in a way not [originally/properly] intended;
especially when detrimental to the masses and as such it is often seen as
pathetic or boastful, and especially when connected to the US. Examples:
Mickey-mouse court ≡ Kangaroo court
Mickey-mouse patent ≡ patent so ridiculous it should never have been
issued.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
