Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Troll Doll Production Resumes
Newsday ^ | May 17, 2002 | The Associated Press

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: copyrights; patents; propertyrights
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


1 posted on 05/17/2002 2:50:45 PM PDT by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
The trans-Atlantic copyright ...

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.

2 posted on 05/17/2002 3:05:20 PM PDT by Hodar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
This troll? He re-invents himself, every day.


3 posted on 05/17/2002 3:06:32 PM PDT by LurkedLongEnough
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
So, does Ross Perot get a royalty now?
4 posted on 05/17/2002 3:13:19 PM PDT by Tony in Hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Copyrights do NOT have a limited time clause

Would that not be a violation of the Constitution which stipulates that exclusive rights be granted "for limited times"?

5 posted on 05/17/2002 3:19:46 PM PDT by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
The limited clause is to prevent inventors from having lifetime exclusive rights to a soon-to-be technology (microwave ovens, vaccines, drugs, auto's) that could become a necessity to life. Copyrights on the other hand, are given to works of 'art' that are outside the domain of necessities. One could live life without hardship, and never read shakespeare, hear Beethoven, see the Mona Lisa, or be beaten with a troll doll. A copyright is basically good forever, and would anyone really want it any other way? Just because a 'book' is old, need not imply that the author's estate should not benefit from it's sale.
6 posted on 05/17/2002 3:33:06 PM PDT by Hodar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Hodar, Copyrights do expire. If I recall correctly, the law is the life of the author, plus 75 years.

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

7 posted on 05/17/2002 3:34:47 PM PDT by GreenLanternCorps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GreenLanternCorps
Thanks for the clarification ... I was under the assumption that they were without limit. Thus, the works of Shakespear, Beethoven, Mozart et al. may be freely copied, distributed and re-printed?
8 posted on 05/17/2002 3:38:16 PM PDT by Hodar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Thanks, Mimi!
9 posted on 05/17/2002 3:39:05 PM PDT by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Er - not exactly. What this means is, you may record, transcribe, or perform the works of Beethoven, and you do not have to pay his estate anything. However, distribiuting recordings of Yo-Yo Ma playing Beethoven is a no-no.
10 posted on 05/17/2002 3:43:28 PM PDT by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GreenLanternCorps
If I recall correctly, the law is the life of the author, plus 75 years.

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.

11 posted on 05/17/2002 3:49:59 PM PDT by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson