Posted on 05/17/2002 2:50:44 PM PDT by Willie Green
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:30 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
PHILADELPHIA -- An American company can resume producing those grimacing, spiky haired troll dolls because a federal appeals court has decided that the company may have the copyright privileges to produce the dolls.
The trans-Atlantic copyright dispute has spanned decades, with Dam Things from Denmark and Russ Berrie & Co. squabbling over who owns the right to make the lovable little figures.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have power to...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
"Inventions... cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody... The exclusive right to invention [is] given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society."
--Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:334
The key word is 'copyright'. Much like books written by Mark Twain cannot be reproduced by just anyone, nor Mozarts's music freely re-printed, nor can anything that has been copyrighted. Copyrights do NOT have a limited time clause. If the 'Copyright' has been given to the Danish companies, we are indeed in violation of our own 'Copyright' laws. I cannot for example, decorate my Baby Seal Fur covered tennis shoes with the Nike 'swoosh'; despite the fact that the 'swoosh' has been around for beyond the 'patent' timeframe.
Would that not be a violation of the Constitution which stipulates that exclusive rights be granted "for limited times"?
Samuel Clemens' (AKA Mark Twain for those who didn't pay attention in school) works are no longer copyrighted, they are in the public domain.
GLC
IMHO, that period of time far exceeds what the Founders would have considered "for limited times".
20-25 years seems more reasonable.
I'm also not very favorable toward the selling of copyrights to parties who were not involved in the original creative process. Doesn't Paul McCartney own a rediculous number of copyrights including songs such as "Happy Birthday"? Jeez-O-Peet, I don't begrudge the man profits for his own creations, but to collect royalties on other songs that he didn't author??? Doesn't seem right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.