It is becoming increasingly clear that Mickey Mouse is being adopted as a
de facto symbol of Palestinian politics.
This poses some interesting questions and possibilities. Regardless of how the Disney Corporation may react or object to this, if the Palestinians are routinely using Mickey's image, then it would clearly become appropriate for people in the U.S. to be able to use Mickey's image as well as a matter of fair use political speech regarding the situation in the Middle East.
Would people really suggest that Hamas should be able to use Mickey's image at will, but that American's wishing to respond in the same language must first get permission from the Walt Disney Company? I doubt that even hardcore copyright apologists would try to argue for such a perverse scenario.
If Disney chooses to do nothing here (or finds that it is simply unable to do anything), then Mickey will eventually become a de facto public domain figure throughout the Middle East. That would potentially lead to a de facto public domain status in the U.S. as well since to enforce a strict copyright on Mickey would then intrude into core political speech.
Perhaps a terrorist organization like Hamas may actually end up doing what our corrupt Congress has failed to do - Free Mickey!
Are you suggesting Hamas represent the pinnacle of libertarian thought when it comes to free use of iconography?
Not everyone who takes liberties is necessarily so eager to grant them.
While Hamas cannot be thought ill of for enjoying cultural liberty, and the US can be disparaged for repressing it, there appear to be far larger issues at stake.
However, associating terrorism with copyright infringement seems to be something that IP maximalists would resort to.
Are you a wolf in sheep's clothing?
What do you hope to achieve on this Hamas/Disney/Anti-Semitic crusade of yours?
Do you think the benefits will outweigh the risks?
Simple. I hope to achieve bringing Mickey Mouse into the public domain. Of course the benefits will outweigh the 'risks'here? What 'risks' are you specifically talking about?? That terrorists will start to use cartoon imagery more frequently? As long as the rest of the public can freely use the same imagery to counter their propoganda - no problem. I think I should be free to use Mickey's image to demonstrate how depraved terrorists are. That is the VERY ESSENCE of having something in the public domain.
Honestly Crosbie, I don't understand your point here. I post 2 items on a topic and suddenly its a 'crusdae' in your eyes. The only one on a crusade here my firend is you. And a very muddled one at that.
I'm just wondering if you are able to persuade people that this is unreasonable suspension of the 'American people's liberty' at work as opposed to vicarious violation of the 'American's people's cultural heritage' - which I suspect is the most likely interpretation.
It would be interesting if other countries adopted a libertarian approach to IP - and enjoyed clear cultural and technological superiority as a result - with the US masochismo manacling its own citizens into a stagnant backwater.
And we mustn't forget that even the US exploited its own violation of UK copyrights for many years (relatively recently).
Should this issue of cultural liberty be isolated from the other contexts in which it occurs? Or perhaps it obtains power by surfing on them?
What if Iceland decided to appropriate some Disney IP for a festival or political campaign? Would that be better? Or worse, because it's not big on controversy?
