What part of no...

[Geek King]

Thanks a ton, Disney Corp.
*eyeroll*

Nope, Disney gets a special exemption, based on the fact that the mouse and friends are "American Icons" or some such rubbish. It was voted on as a seperate exemption. Feel free to eyeroll though, Dis has done enough to deserve it.

<mutters dire things about the Miyazaki film library rights>

[Imogene]

It was voted on as a seperate exemption.
<snip>
<mutters dire things about the Miyazaki film library rights>

Ah, really? When we went over copyright law in school, we were told every time Mickey's copyright comes close to ending, Disney goes back to the law makers of Florida and introduces a bill to extend copyright law another 50 years or so.

Okay, John Lasetter, loves Miyazaki, so at least Pixar's putting the money into getting good translations for Miyazaki movies. However, the fact that Disney feels the way to stomp what they see as huge competition is to buy the rights to their movies for leasing in America, to put the movies out for a few days, and then stick them in the Disney vault? Wha-f*ck? I heard after Howl's Moving Castle, Ghibli refused to sell their next movie to Disney. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, Mononoke doesn't fall under Disney's iron fist. I believe it's Sony Pictures. So you can get that particular movie whenever you like.

[Geek King]

Ah, really? When we went over copyright law in school, we were told every time Mickey's copyright comes close to ending, Disney goes back to the law makers of Florida and introduces a bill to extend copyright law another 50 years or so.

Probably right, but the extensions only apply to Disney. Other companies do the same thing for old copywrites that are still in use (Betty Boop, Coca~Cola, Bugs Bunny, ect. ). You'll note how we get waves of commercials using old songs that are fresh out of copyright protections on a regular basis.

And again, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a professional, so I could be wrong. I'm just basing my posts on my limited understanding and some things I've been told over the years.

[blueantoidgirl]

Actually it's a set number of years after the death of the photographer, if they're the ones with the copyright.

Yeah, I think you're right. I was going by what I was told by my managers/training software. The 100 years rule is probably just a basis for us to judge whether or not it's ok to reprint the pictures, as it would be next to impossible for us to determine whether or not a picture taken in 1897 is still under copyright or not.

[Jacen]

75 years, and anything after 1985 is automatically copyrighted. At least thats what I read. I'll have to double check.