Betty Boop (the dog version) and Pluto are now public domain
>>151959055So what can we do with them now they are public domain? Aside from horror aspect content, I mean.
>>151959088Remix them into something distinct without worrying about getting sued by lawyers with more time and money than sense.
>>151959088idk maybe i actually do want betty boop to kill people
>>151959088Betty Boop live-action porn filmed with authentic period-accurate cameras.
Public Can't Be The Domain.
Joe Palooka is also public domain now
>>151961041And Humphrey and Little Max
>>151959293Cameras were good, film wasn't. People have loaded century-old cameras with modern film and results were pretty much the same as modern cameras.
What the absolute fuck is the deal with respectable and/or normal posters suddenly starting to use almost random emojis in their postsSomething's fishy
I can't wait for the new Betty Boop But She Do Da Murders movie.
>>151959088Nothing.Because the public domain doesn’t mean anything since trademarks still exist and make it impossible to use characters unless it is a horror “parody”.
>>151961960Wrong.Trademark is not a substitute for copyright and works using public domain characters explicitly do not have to be parody.Example, this was selling at my local kmart.
>>151961960Get BTFOed you fucking misinfo shill. Betty Boop is public use and Disney can't stop us.
Whenever I see people get excited for this day, all I think of is just a bunch of vultures trying to pick at a freshly dead corpse.
>>151962127>Betty Boop is public use and Disney can't stop us.This is what I mean by Vultures. Disney didn't own Betty Boop you retard.
>>151962246Look at the bullshit that her copyright caused and tell me that is a good and just system in actionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Boop#Lawsuits_and_recent_ownership
>>151962246I'm glad it makes a greedy ghoul wannabe ip hoarder like you mad.Public domain isn't death, its freedom and life
>>151962320Choking on corporate dick won't get you paid unless you've got a contract with them. Remember that when you support systems that are for corporations not actual humans.
>>151962291Without copyright, if you create something successful, a corpo could steal it then and there as nobody has a right to what they create.
>>151962343Not wanting the modern American to touch stuff I like is not choking on corporate dick.I have seen more than enough to know that retards shouldn't gain access to shit the Looney Tunes or the Great Gatsby.
>>151962371That's not what's happening in >>151962291It's people trying to fuck each other using legal bullshit in ways it was not intended to be used. Fracturing copyrights down into individual uses so it can be sold piece-meal is what happens when you try to squeeze more money out of something finite. You cut it up into smaller pieces and sell them at the cost of the whole.
>>151962115Wait what? You can use a public domain character's name on the cover even though it's trademarked? Isn't that illegal?
>>151962473No. They need to argue their case and vice versa if they sue you over it. A trademark lawsuit is a process.
>>151962115There was also this book from Drawn and Quarterly from 2024
>>151962246Oh no, I can make adoptions of the Maltese falcon now, im such a vulture
>>151962343I just want to see everyone who isn't like me die, I don't care if I have to sell my soul to corporations to make it happen. I'm literally driven only by self-destructive spite.
>>151962436Yeah but that is what would happen without copyright. Given the choice between copyright and no copyright, the former is the better option. It ain't perfect but its better than nothing.
>>151962246I like it because of easily accessible books and movies
>>151962371This is covered by trademarks
>>151959257People go for the retarded "abluhbluhbluh muh purity of characters now they'll be a slasher" but Betty is an actual obvious fit for one, now? She'd be a great scream queen. Especially if done a bit tongue in cheek.
>>151962473The general gist is the point of a trademark is simply to make sure the trade is not mixed up. That cover might stretch it a bit for me, but end of the day, it's pretty clear that's not Disney's Pooh- there's no Disney logo anywhere, the characters don't look right, there isn't even the recognisable red shirt. In theory, it's perfectly fine- the issue's always been, if Disney sues you regardless, you then need to be able to argue this on court and not just go instantly bankrupt from fees etc. Disney, weirdly enough, seem so far to have decided to not be too heavy handed with trademark against any public domain use though.
>>151963957I think it is to avoid a second king kong, mega corps want to avoid in court settlements.
