Whoopi wants Song of the South released

[Shanti]

There are in Texas too. I see it as a way of talking rather than anything bad about the person.

What's wrong with having an accent, anyway? Mary Poppins had an accent...

Southern accents, both black and white, are part of American culture and nothing bad. If a person thinks a Southern accent equals stupidity, it says more about the listener than about the speaker. William Faulkner, the greatest American novelist of all time, had a heavy Southern accent. So did MLK, Jr., one of world history's most important political activists, and Louis Armstrong, one of the world's best jazz musicians.

I'm a Texan, and an old pastor I know once said, "I liked Lyndon Johnson. He was the only President I ever heard who didn't have an accent."

It's all in the ear of the beholder...

 

[DrunkJam]

Every single person who speaks has an accent. Don't confuse accent with dialect.
I am old enough to have seen SotS.
I see WGs point. But, I suspect that while one might argue that right now, with the heightened racial tensions, is a good time to educate, it might not be such a good time to try with this? Plus, since it's all about the bottom line, I don't think SotS would make disney a lot of money as a DVD release.

 

[ucfknight]

This is a perfect example of why copyrights should end. If we still had reasonable copyright laws, Song of the South would be in the public domain and people who were interested could see it.

Edit: To clarify, I mean copyrights should have a real and reasonable end date, like was the case for most of the country's history. Imagine if one person still owned all of Shakespeare and put them all in a "vault." Look at all the stories Disney has produced based off literature in the open domain, as well. 50 years is plenty of time to make money off of a work of art.

Under current law we'll all be able to watch Song of the South on January 1, 2042. Of course, "current law" is not going to be in effect at that point with Mickey's copyright currently set to expire as the clock strikes midnight on December 31, 2023. It is just about time for Disney to fire up their army of lobbyist to start twisting arms and greasing the wheels with some campaign funds.

 

[jknezek]

Under current law we'll all be able to watch Song of the South on January 1, 2042. Of course, "current law" is not going to be in effect at that point with Mickey's copyright currently set to expire as the clock strikes midnight on December 31, 2023. It is just about time for Disney to fire up their army of lobbyist to start twisting arms and greasing the wheels with some campaign funds.

I wish they would make a carve out for properties still in common use and be done with it rather than extending the whole concept. That would protect Disney's interest, which is legitimate, as well as other intellectual property still in economic use by the creator or the creator's successors and yet release a whole lot of other things. You'd have to define the carve out pretty carefully, maybe set a minimum economic benefit, but there has to be some way to get it to work.

 

[OSUZorba]

I wish they would make a carve out for properties still in common use and be done with it rather than extending the whole concept. That would protect Disney's interest, which is legitimate, as well as other intellectual property still in economic use by the creator or the creator's successors and yet release a whole lot of other things. You'd have to define the carve out pretty carefully, maybe set a minimum economic benefit, but there has to be some way to get it to work.

But then Shakespeare and America The Beautiful would still be under copyright, for example. I think their trademarks would protect them from a logo/merch front and all newer works would retain their copyright. But 100 years is way more than enough time to milk an idea.

If someone came out and made new Mickey material and people like it, good, after 100 years art should belong to the people. People should be able to create movies like Cinderella or Shakespeare in Love or Snow White, etc. Having art in the public domain makes it part of the culture and allows it to be shared, enjoyed and evolve in ways that make our culture better.

Most of the early disney movies that we all love were based on works in the public domain, with infinite copyright it is likely most of those would've never happened. But I think we as a society are better because they did happen.

 

[jknezek]

But then Shakespeare and America The Beautiful would still be under copyright, for example. I think their trademarks would protect them from a logo/merch front and all newer works would retain their copyright. But 100 years is way more than enough time to milk an idea.

If someone came out and made new Mickey material and people like it, good, after 100 years art should belong to the people. People should be able to create movies like Cinderella or Shakespeare in Love or Snow White, etc. Having art in the public domain makes it part of the culture and allows it to be shared, enjoyed and evolve in ways that make our culture better.

Most of the early disney movies that we all love were based on works in the public domain, with infinite copyright it is likely most of those would've never happened. But I think we as a society are better because they did happen.

I don't think Shakespeare would qualify frankly if the carve out required the founder or founder's successor. We can't even agree Shakespeare was a real person. Again, it would have to be carefully designed, but I think Disney has a legitimate interest in the ongoing use of their unique IP. The parks, tv channels, content and more are essentially built on it, and that benefit is ongoing. The bad news from some yahoo in a Mickey costume feeling up people in Times Square would still shade the Disney reputation, whether they legally had control over it or not. Similarly if Mickey was public domain and a rival studio made an adult, or R Rated cartoon series based on the character, that would be very damaging.

The tales that Disney has made famous, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, Little Mermaid and more, are not unique to Disney and can be used, just not Disney's take on it. You can't draw Snow White and the Dwarves the same way Disney does, but you can use the underlying story. But I maintain the IP that is unique and belongs to Disney is different and it is a worthwhile goal for Disney to try and protect it, and for society to understand that they are still very much going concern characters for a specific business and limited to that business's usage.

 

[maltdizzy]

We can't even agree Shakespeare was a real person.

To go on this tangent, there is NO argument on whether Shakespeare was a real person. His life, his bad marriage, his coming and going in and out of royal favor are all WELL documented. 16th century London wasn't pre-historic...there are plenty of written and legal records.

There is a literary conspiracy theory that Shakespeare did not write all that is attributed to him, but that should be weighed against the vast majority of evidence and research that supports Shakespeare's legacy. But the people who claim that he didn't exist should be given no more credence than the flat Earthers.

 

[jknezek]

To go on this tangent, there is NO argument on whether Shakespeare was a real person. His life, his bad marriage, his coming in and out of royal favor are all WELL documented. 16th century London wasn't pre-historic...there are plenty of written and legal records.

There is a literary conspiracy theory that Shakespeare did not write all that is attributed to him, but that should be weighed against the vast majority of evidence and research that support's Shakespeare's legacy. But the people who claim that he didn't exist should be given no more crenedce than the flat Earthers.

Fair enough. I'm not real versed in the theory of it. I just knew there was some kind of controversy about it.

 

[Geoff_M]

I don't think Shakespeare would qualify frankly if the carve out required the founder or founder's successor. We can't even agree Shakespeare was a real person. Again, it would have to be carefully designed, but I think Disney has a legitimate interest in the ongoing use of their unique IP. The parks, tv channels, content and more are essentially built on it, and that benefit is ongoing.

Here's a very interesting video that GCP Grey did about how the US keeps extending its copyright laws in the interests of corporations like Disney... and also looks at some of their arguments for extension:

The tales that Disney has made famous, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, Little Mermaid and more, are not unique to Disney and can be used, just not Disney's take on it. You can't draw Snow White and the Dwarves the same way Disney does, but you can use the underlying story. But I maintain the IP that is unique and belongs to Disney is different and it is a worthwhile goal for Disney to try and protect it, and for society to understand that they are still very much going concern characters for a specific business and limited to that business's usage.

But here's the irony, as Grey points out, if today's copyright laws existed during the life of Walt Disney, MUCH of the public domain story material that Walt used for his films would have been locked away under copyright. Alice in Wonderland, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, The Jungle Book, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Alicefan]

I'm sure there are, but not everyone speaks like that, correct?

Many many do. I don't consider things a stereotype that are still widely used. Not one child would sit down in front of that scene and not understand what those birds were saying. Didn't they just try to push ebonics on us a few years back because cultural speech is never going away, it's evolving. It's not racists, it's cultural differences.

 

[nycdisneygal]

James Baskett did a great job as Uncle Remus and won an honorary academy award. It would be nice if more people could see his work. This movie represents a different time. Its part of history and I think people are too sensitive these days.

 

[Geoff_M]

James Baskett did a great job as Uncle Remus and won an honorary academy award. It would be nice if more people could see his work. This movie represents a different time. Its part of history and I think people are too sensitive these days.

Baskett was a fellow Hoosier and is buried in Crown Hill Cemetery in Indianapolis. He died less than two years after SotS was released. I drive by Crown Hill a lot each Spring and really want to pull in there and stop by his grave and by my respects one of these days. Crown Hill is the 3rd largest non-governmental cemetery in the nation and is huge, which makes the task a bit of a challenge.... but I still want to make the effort.

Crown Hill's web site has a tribute to Baskett on their web site, and it ends with a rather sad note related to the topic of this thread (though they repeat the fallacy that Remus was a "slave"):

James Baskett died from heart disease at the age of 44 on January 9,1948. He is fondly remembered by Disney animators and was a personal favorite actor of Walt Disney. But by the years preceding 1998, the film was one of the few from their catalog which Disney would not sell and it was almost impossible to see his performance. The image of a slave singing “Plenty of sunshine heading my way” and “It’s the truth, it’s actual, Everything is satisfactual” has become offensive to many. To Baskett’s acting credit, he became a Disney Legend in 2010. His portrait hung in Crown Hill Funeral Home, until there were several complaints that The Song of the South was offensive.

 

[Lvsdisney]

Under current law we'll all be able to watch Song of the South on January 1, 2042. Of course, "current law" is not going to be in effect at that point with Mickey's copyright currently set to expire as the clock strikes midnight on December 31, 2023. It is just about time for Disney to fire up their army of lobbyist to start twisting arms and greasing the wheels with some campaign funds.

I hope Disney trademarked Mickey as that is something entirely different.

 

[Lvsdisney]

Here's a very interesting video that GCP Grey did about how the US keeps extending its copyright laws in the interests of corporations like Disney... and also looks at some of their arguments for extension:

But here's the irony, as Grey points out, if today's copyright laws existed during the life of Walt Disney, MUCH of the public domain story material that Walt used for his films would have been locked away under copyright. Alice in Wonderland, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, The Jungle Book, etc., etc., etc.

Not necessarily, Disney would have just paid royalties to whoever owned the copyright

 

[Geoff_M]

I hope Disney trademarked Mickey as that is something entirely different.

However, the courts have held that you cannot use trademark law as an "end run" around copyright law for purposes of keeping a creative work out of the public domain. Disney will certainly be able to prevent people from marketing "Mickey Mouse" branded products for as long as they want, but at some point in time Steamboat Willie should lose copyright protection.

 

[ucfknight]

I hope Disney trademarked Mickey as that is something entirely different.

Yes, Mickey is trademarked, so even if the copyright expires you won't see Mickey at Six Flags or something. But if the copyright law doesn't get changed (as it will because that's what happens anytime Mickey starts getting close to expiring), anyone could release a Blu-ray of Mickey Mouse cartoons as they each reach their copyright expiration date. And then in a few years the Disney animated feature films would start reaching the end of their copyright protection and you would have low budget disk stampers pumping out Snow White Blu-Rays. The streaming services would also be able to stream the works with no payment at all to Disney.

 

[Geoff_M]

Not necessarily, Disney would have just paid royalties to whoever owned the copyright

I never said he wouldn't be able to use any such works, but it would have made it harder for Disney to do so because he would first have to obtain the permission of any such rights holder (who could always say "No"), and then Walt would have had to pay them a royalty. If you know the history of Walt's early years, money was pretty tight... even after such successes as Snow White. It's no accident that for a long time Disney largley used public domain, or original, material for his works. It was only later, when he had the cash in the bank, that he started paying for the rights to use the works of such people as A.A. Milne, P.L. Travers, and J.M. Barrie. Grey's point was that up until that time, much of the material that Disney used in films we love today would have been effectively out of his reach if today's laws were in place back then.

 

[Lvsdisney]

Under current law we'll all be able to watch Song of the South on January 1, 2042. Of course, "current law" is not going to be in effect at that point with Mickey's copyright currently set to expire as the clock strikes midnight on December 31, 2023. It is just about time for Disney to fire up their army of lobbyist to start twisting arms and greasing the wheels with some campaign funds.

I think it would actually be 2036 because the copyright limit is 70 years starts when the artist who created it dies.

 

[Lvsdisney]

I never said he wouldn't be able to use any such works, but it would have made it harder for Disney to do so because he would first have to obtain the permission of any such rights holder (who could always say "No"), and then Walt would have had to pay them a royalty. If you know the history of Walt's early years, money was pretty tight... even after such successes as Snow White. It's no accident that for a long time Disney largley used public domain, or original, material for his works. It was only later, when he had the cash in the bank, that he started paying for the rights to use the works of such people as A.A. Milne, P.L. Travers, and J.M. Barrie. Grey's point was that up until that time, much of the material that Disney used in films we love today would have been effectively out of his reach if today's laws were in place back then.

That makes sense. I misread what you posted as he NEVER could have used the works if they were copyrighted.

 

[middlechild]

In my collection of movies, a copy of a copy of a copy of SotS exists. So I have seen the movie, more than one time.
Given the lack of informed political debate in America today, where flash mobs and deep thinking as well as a dose of healthy skepticism seems missing on so many fronts, there is little doubt in my mind about the crowds protesting this movie.

Many of them would not take the time to look for themselves. Many of them would not recognize the technical achievements in the film.

Note too, that in the Gabler book is a reference to the debate internally before the initial release. The management team had concerns that this screen play was the proper vehicle to bring the folk lore to the public.

As much as I would appreciate a "clean" copy, the Disney organization is better tasked with a whole new vehicle for the tales of Brer Rabbit.