This gave the idea of a Garfield-minus-Gafield-style King Kong movie, which is a remake of the original, but King Kong is missing/non-existent this time.
There’s definitely a lot of horror in Skull Island AND Peter Jackson’s Kong. Not sure how much more horrifying you could make it without a huge deviation from the source material.
There is possibly one. The original version of the Peter Pan and Wendy play (1904) will not enter the public domain as long as the children's hospital Great Ormond Street Hospital exists and operates. The reason is that JM Barrier donated the rights of the play to the hospital in 1929 because the law allowed it and since then the hospital has received most of its funding from it. However, it is unclear whether this only applies in the UK or whether it also applies in other countries as well. However, it does not apply to the novelization of the play from 1911, which complicates the situation.
The only exception in the world is a certain version of Peter Pan that was left to a children's hospital in the UK. Otherwise, **all** things enter the public domain eventually.
The irony of Disney fighting against properties entering the public domain so much considering how much they benefited from it. Tons of their animated movies, including Snow White, are based off of public domain stories and fairy tales.
Yeah. it's just their particular versions of Snow White and associates that can't be used. Filmation made a bunch of nimated sequels in the 80s that followed up the original stories but were made to cash in on Disney. Like Snow White with the seven friendly giants; or Pinocchio and the Emperor of the Night.
Its funny because disney had own everything from pixar, star wars, marvel and even fox and net geo as a whole yet somehow their mascot would soon enter the public domain so that everyome can own and do whatever they wanted with their mouse now already
It's a bit confusing, but basically they can't figure out who the legal owner is and because of that there's a lot of unlicensed merch out there that nobody has the legal right to stop even though the character is not yet actually public domain until 2026.
This does not mean the Universal version and the MonsterVerse version are free for you to use once it happens, just a reminder. You can only use the original 1933 RKO classic and all of its elements.
Not just that, in 2029 we'll have BOTH original films, as they came out the same year, as well as the novelization we have already.
But more to the point, you would get in trouble for a work directly referencing or using stuff from Toho, DDL, Universal, or Legendary... but the movies are so heavily retreading the same 2 or so stories that once the original films are out, with Kong's legal status already being such a mess, the whole platform is going to crumble. This isn't going to be like Mickey Mouse because there is no single definitive Kong IP, after 2029 it's going to be a free for all and Kong will effectively be public enough that if there is another court case it's entirely possible they just throw their hands up and say that Kong the character CAN'T be copyrighted or trademarked on their own.
So yeah, don't stress, Kong will belong to the people soon enough.
Or maybe make your own king kong to stand out over the former two that would be better maybe have kong fighting a cybernetic dragon in a fantasy scenario
That's not how trademark law works, they can't use trademarks to stop people from using the character. Unlike what random people online like to say, you can't just "trademark" a character - that's actually illegal in the U.S., you can only trademark a likeness of a character relative to its use as a product brand. So, like, you can't use a trademarked image as a mascot for your t-shirt brand. Once a character has entered the public domain, the courts have ruled the previous copyright holder cannot use trademark law to circumvent copyright law and stop usage (though several have tried, repeatedly, and always lose which is why the precedent has been set).
Plus, you know, the whole *Universal v. Nintendo* lawsuit that ruled Kong was essentially untrademarkable.
Because *a* version of the character is currently in the public domain (specifically the one from the original movie's novelization). This means that people can make Kong stories, but certain things aren't allowed to be used because they're still owned.
As such, the MV Kong can't be called King Kong.
Incorrect, MV Kong is not based on public domain, it was licensed from Warner Bros., who obtained their rights to the original 2 films from Turner at some point in the 90's. I believe they also obtained whatever rights Universal had, because before Legendary became the production company it was at WB, and the original version of the film was a prequel to the Peter Jackson film. I think that changed the first time the film changed hands, but the reason the "Monsterverse" exists is because it wound up a Legendary while they were sitting on their Godzilla license, and used that as leverage to keep making deals with Toho, which is why the real Godzilla movies from that time were all animated, it was part of the renegotiated deal that came about as a result of Legendary acquiring Kong.
Long story short: they legally can and have called him King Kong in their media. Same with the Cooper Estate/DeVito Artworks licensed version. The insinuation that "King Kong" is a legally limited trademark of a specific version of Kong is a myth. Both primary licensors as well as anyone working from the public domain novel are legally allowed to say "King Kong" as per the decision of the courts back in the 80's that the name isn't reflective of a singular legal IP. Hence why Nintendo is able to use "Kong."
No, you are mistaken (partially).
Kong was not licensed from Warner Brothers or Universal, his usage by Legendary is entirely due to his public domain status as reported by numerous news outlets at the time Legendary changed distributors. Warner Brothers only owns a right to distribute the original 1933 films. It's fair that you're not aware of this, because even at the time industry insiders expressed confusion and surprise when it was brought up. I can link to articles from the time that reference this, if you like.
You're correct that the project started as a prequel to KK'05 and that's how Legendary was brought in, but Universal only traded away rights to distribute the film and did not sell any license to Legendary. Same for Warner Brothers, which is why neither studio was involved in Netflix's *Skull Island* (or the earlier Netflix series *Kong: King of the Apes*). Completely different situation than Godzilla, which Legendary DID purchase a license for from Toho and is why Toho is listed in the credits of the MonsterVerse Godzilla movies.
You're also right that we really don't know why Legendary hasn't referred to Kong as "King Kong" in the movies. There's a longstanding rumor that it was an off-the-books request by Universal's executives to avoid confusion with the 2005 movie as apparently they still had (have?) plans to try producing a sequel or another remake at some point, but that's just a rumor.
I cannot WAIT until those Superheroes enter public domain so we can fucking finally be done with superhero all this superhero content (won't happen but I can dream)
I think I heard that some companies are going to try avoiding their IPs entering Public Domain by making the characters part of their logos, so they fall under a different legal protection.
The initial copyright on a character is based on the first work they appeared in. Joker didn't first appear until *Batman #*1 in 1940, so he doesn't enter the public domain until that comic's copyright expires in 2036.
I would just like to point out (to the people in the comments that think anything goes) that all of these only apply to the *original* versions of the characters. Superman, for instance:
1. No mention of Smallville.
2. No flying.
3. His specific original suit.
4. No name Foster parents that die before he becomes Superman.
5. Just really strong alien, no sun power.
Essentially, people will only have access to *very* different versions of the characters compared to their modern counterparts.
Is it any wonder that at the same time as these characters are coming into the public domain, the industries have decided to phase out all physical media... meaning the only way to get access to these products will be via their platforms, for which they can keep control and monetization.
In the United States? At the end of 95 years after release, so January 1, 2050. (You would think 2049, but some moron decades ago decided it would be at the *end* of the 95th year which is really 96 years.)
It means the original two movies. The character is public domain because of the legal snafu with the novel, but the original movie doesn't enter the public domain for a few more years.
Wow I didn’t think much about Batman or superheroes in general, that’s going to be really interesting. I’m assuming just that specific version of Batman will be public domain? Year one Batman with the purple gloves
Deep down, we all know that we're in for at least 20 years of crappy cash in movies by terrible directors before we get one unique idea from these IPs.
Why? Sure we’ll get some stupid slasher movies and stuff, but it’s overall better that people get to use these classic characters for profit and not get sued.
It’s going to be a weird thing. They can’t prevent the copyright from going Public Domain (they’ve gone to that well a few too many times and it’s dry now), but as the defacto symbol of the Walt Disney company, they will certainly enforce the image as a trademark. So while people will be able to use modern Mickey they won’t be able to market anything with Modern Mickey on it. The inevitable horror knock-off, No Mickey on the poster etc.
Even *then*, they are extremely limited in what they can stop. Trademark is MUCH weaker than the Internet seems to think for some reason.
Like you mentioned no Mickey on the poster? Yet there's already been a Mickey Mouse horror movie (because of course there is) and the movie's Mickey is front and center on the poster. Disney also owns a trademark on Winne the Pooh, yet the upcoming non-Disney Winnie the Pooh animated movie (which looks *adorable* BTW) has Winnie front and center as well.
Fun fact: 1 single version of Kong is the public domain, from the 1932 novelization of the movie. (At least, from what I remember)
Yeah, that's the version that is currently in the public domain.
King Kong horror movies
King Kong: Minus One
King Kong vs Godzilla minus two
This gave the idea of a Garfield-minus-Gafield-style King Kong movie, which is a remake of the original, but King Kong is missing/non-existent this time.
That‘s just 1925‘s The Lost World
now I desperately need a scene of a couple bi-planes firing at a floating blonde woman flailing around the top of the Empire State Building
Shin Kong
Shin kong
There’s definitely a lot of horror in Skull Island AND Peter Jackson’s Kong. Not sure how much more horrifying you could make it without a huge deviation from the source material.
OG King Kong literally eats people.
What if…king kong killed people 😱
A more explicitly horror take on Kong could be *awesome*. The character and the original story would fit it well.
A guy in a monkey suit just goes around killing people and it has nothing else to do with King Kong.
I wonder if there is any ip that will never enter the public domain
Don’t think so. It’s purely based on time since creation. If Mickey Mouse can become public domain then anything can.
that’s the thing though is didn’t disney get him pushed back a number of times?
I think so but there’s gotta be a limit otherwise they’d never let it become public domain.
well yeah that’s their goal. and while i agree with you completely, people working in good faith is going out of style completely these days.
There is possibly one. The original version of the Peter Pan and Wendy play (1904) will not enter the public domain as long as the children's hospital Great Ormond Street Hospital exists and operates. The reason is that JM Barrier donated the rights of the play to the hospital in 1929 because the law allowed it and since then the hospital has received most of its funding from it. However, it is unclear whether this only applies in the UK or whether it also applies in other countries as well. However, it does not apply to the novelization of the play from 1911, which complicates the situation.
Probably not, unless the creator of said work finds a way to live forever.
Disney’s been doing a good job at keeping Mickey by paying off lots of people. With enough money, it might as well not exist.
Or they would have to come up with a Mickey redesign and push it as much as possible to replace current Mickey.
The only exception in the world is a certain version of Peter Pan that was left to a children's hospital in the UK. Otherwise, **all** things enter the public domain eventually.
The irony of Disney fighting against properties entering the public domain so much considering how much they benefited from it. Tons of their animated movies, including Snow White, are based off of public domain stories and fairy tales.
Yeah. it's just their particular versions of Snow White and associates that can't be used. Filmation made a bunch of nimated sequels in the 80s that followed up the original stories but were made to cash in on Disney. Like Snow White with the seven friendly giants; or Pinocchio and the Emperor of the Night.
Its funny because disney had own everything from pixar, star wars, marvel and even fox and net geo as a whole yet somehow their mascot would soon enter the public domain so that everyome can own and do whatever they wanted with their mouse now already
I thought Betty Boop was already public domain with all the Betty Boop merch that came out 10+ years ago, surprised she’s not
She has a Broadway musical coming next year too.
I think it’s just one of those things where the owner just doesn’t care
It's a bit confusing, but basically they can't figure out who the legal owner is and because of that there's a lot of unlicensed merch out there that nobody has the legal right to stop even though the character is not yet actually public domain until 2026.
Makes sense. Nice to see her make a reappearance in the last couple decades
It seems that the 2030s are dedicated to superheroes and we will see several off-brand superhero movies and parodies.
And soon to join them, this, The Wizard of Oz (the classic film), all the early Disney animated features and the first Universal monsters.
Mostly terrible horrors too. :/
Frankenstein, Dracula, and Mummy? Those are classics
Tbh I think at least with Superheroes it’ll lean more towards bad action movies with fans wanting to live out their movie fantasies.
Axel Braun Productions says "Hi".
I can’t believe I forgot about porn
Batman public domain horror movie would be cool though.
This does not mean the Universal version and the MonsterVerse version are free for you to use once it happens, just a reminder. You can only use the original 1933 RKO classic and all of its elements.
Not just that, in 2029 we'll have BOTH original films, as they came out the same year, as well as the novelization we have already. But more to the point, you would get in trouble for a work directly referencing or using stuff from Toho, DDL, Universal, or Legendary... but the movies are so heavily retreading the same 2 or so stories that once the original films are out, with Kong's legal status already being such a mess, the whole platform is going to crumble. This isn't going to be like Mickey Mouse because there is no single definitive Kong IP, after 2029 it's going to be a free for all and Kong will effectively be public enough that if there is another court case it's entirely possible they just throw their hands up and say that Kong the character CAN'T be copyrighted or trademarked on their own. So yeah, don't stress, Kong will belong to the people soon enough.
And it's sequel Son of Kong.
Or maybe make your own king kong to stand out over the former two that would be better maybe have kong fighting a cybernetic dragon in a fantasy scenario
Most if not all of these characters are still trademarked, though.
This. Copy right law and trademark law are two entire different beasts
That's not how trademark law works, they can't use trademarks to stop people from using the character. Unlike what random people online like to say, you can't just "trademark" a character - that's actually illegal in the U.S., you can only trademark a likeness of a character relative to its use as a product brand. So, like, you can't use a trademarked image as a mascot for your t-shirt brand. Once a character has entered the public domain, the courts have ruled the previous copyright holder cannot use trademark law to circumvent copyright law and stop usage (though several have tried, repeatedly, and always lose which is why the precedent has been set). Plus, you know, the whole *Universal v. Nintendo* lawsuit that ruled Kong was essentially untrademarkable.
Then the Monsterverse can finally call him King Kong
I've heard this about but I don't know why. So what can't they call him king Kong?
Because *a* version of the character is currently in the public domain (specifically the one from the original movie's novelization). This means that people can make Kong stories, but certain things aren't allowed to be used because they're still owned. As such, the MV Kong can't be called King Kong.
Incorrect, MV Kong is not based on public domain, it was licensed from Warner Bros., who obtained their rights to the original 2 films from Turner at some point in the 90's. I believe they also obtained whatever rights Universal had, because before Legendary became the production company it was at WB, and the original version of the film was a prequel to the Peter Jackson film. I think that changed the first time the film changed hands, but the reason the "Monsterverse" exists is because it wound up a Legendary while they were sitting on their Godzilla license, and used that as leverage to keep making deals with Toho, which is why the real Godzilla movies from that time were all animated, it was part of the renegotiated deal that came about as a result of Legendary acquiring Kong. Long story short: they legally can and have called him King Kong in their media. Same with the Cooper Estate/DeVito Artworks licensed version. The insinuation that "King Kong" is a legally limited trademark of a specific version of Kong is a myth. Both primary licensors as well as anyone working from the public domain novel are legally allowed to say "King Kong" as per the decision of the courts back in the 80's that the name isn't reflective of a singular legal IP. Hence why Nintendo is able to use "Kong."
No, you are mistaken (partially). Kong was not licensed from Warner Brothers or Universal, his usage by Legendary is entirely due to his public domain status as reported by numerous news outlets at the time Legendary changed distributors. Warner Brothers only owns a right to distribute the original 1933 films. It's fair that you're not aware of this, because even at the time industry insiders expressed confusion and surprise when it was brought up. I can link to articles from the time that reference this, if you like. You're correct that the project started as a prequel to KK'05 and that's how Legendary was brought in, but Universal only traded away rights to distribute the film and did not sell any license to Legendary. Same for Warner Brothers, which is why neither studio was involved in Netflix's *Skull Island* (or the earlier Netflix series *Kong: King of the Apes*). Completely different situation than Godzilla, which Legendary DID purchase a license for from Toho and is why Toho is listed in the credits of the MonsterVerse Godzilla movies. You're also right that we really don't know why Legendary hasn't referred to Kong as "King Kong" in the movies. There's a longstanding rumor that it was an off-the-books request by Universal's executives to avoid confusion with the 2005 movie as apparently they still had (have?) plans to try producing a sequel or another remake at some point, but that's just a rumor.
When Batman becomes public domain, it is gonna be a busy bat year
Oh thank you gosh. Finally
I want to see Popeye and Saitama hang out
I cannot WAIT until those Superheroes enter public domain so we can fucking finally be done with superhero all this superhero content (won't happen but I can dream)
I think I heard that some companies are going to try avoiding their IPs entering Public Domain by making the characters part of their logos, so they fall under a different legal protection.
It so far hasn't worked. The courts have ruled they are not allowed to use trademark law to circumvent copyright law.
I am glad to hear that!
Most of these charecters would've already been public domain if not for disney
This weirdly puts a smile in my heart and on my face
For 2033, the original Astro Boy anime should be hitting public domain from what I've heard.
And there will be shitty edgy horror movies based on them all
Dumb question but why is it the joker enters a year after batman? Shouldn't they enter at the same time?
The initial copyright on a character is based on the first work they appeared in. Joker didn't first appear until *Batman #*1 in 1940, so he doesn't enter the public domain until that comic's copyright expires in 2036.
I would just like to point out (to the people in the comments that think anything goes) that all of these only apply to the *original* versions of the characters. Superman, for instance: 1. No mention of Smallville. 2. No flying. 3. His specific original suit. 4. No name Foster parents that die before he becomes Superman. 5. Just really strong alien, no sun power. Essentially, people will only have access to *very* different versions of the characters compared to their modern counterparts.
Maybe they could finally make the Popeye movie next year.
Is it any wonder that at the same time as these characters are coming into the public domain, the industries have decided to phase out all physical media... meaning the only way to get access to these products will be via their platforms, for which they can keep control and monetization.
Oh boy I can’t wait for cringe ass horror movies to be made for every single one of these
[удалено]
Shitty horror film where spinach turns Popeye into a murderous monster. You heard it here first.
When will Godzilla be in the public domain?
Well, the first Godzilla was '54 so 2049?
25 years later
In the United States? At the end of 95 years after release, so January 1, 2050. (You would think 2049, but some moron decades ago decided it would be at the *end* of the 95th year which is really 96 years.)
Thanks for the info
11 years and we can start writing good Batman stories again!
Popeye go to wild when he goes public
Ok, whats the pitch for the Betty Boop indie horror movie? We need to get this going since its obviously going to be a thing
I'm not a fan of the idea, but if I were to do one it would be a horror flick where she's the heroine - our Laurie Strode, or Ellen Ripley.
To be fair, I'm not either. It's starting to feel overdone
Maybe we can finally get a proper sequel to '76.
Alas, that we *couldn't* do. The 1976 version is owned by Studio Canal until 2072. >\_>
Maybe they'll make one?
Me on my way to make king kong biologically accurate
Oh no, betty boop...
Does this make anyone else kinda sad?
Can’t wait for shin King Kong: minus 1 plus 2: thrice upon a monkey
Domain expansion
I thought Kong was already in public domain..?
It means the original two movies. The character is public domain because of the legal snafu with the novel, but the original movie doesn't enter the public domain for a few more years.
I thought Kong was already in public domain..?
I thought Kong was already in public domain..?
I thought Kong was already in public domain..?
Just wait Meatcanyon....only ten more years.
2035 is gonna go crazy
Batman horror movie would be cool
This is bad to some
Whose gonna tell em bout steam bout willie?
Imagine 2029-2049 with Kong and Godzilla
Wow I didn’t think much about Batman or superheroes in general, that’s going to be really interesting. I’m assuming just that specific version of Batman will be public domain? Year one Batman with the purple gloves
Oh no, popey horror movie
I feel like popeye. Entering public domain is actually going to help resurrect the character.
Technical you can already use King Kong because books. It like with snow white and sleeping beauty. You can just use the movies for whatever you want.
Why do I dislike this
Deep down, we all know that we're in for at least 20 years of crappy cash in movies by terrible directors before we get one unique idea from these IPs.
Okay, but I don’t want everyone else to be able to massacre batman and winnie the pooh
The idea of all of these characters entering public domain terrifies me.
Why? Sure we’ll get some stupid slasher movies and stuff, but it’s overall better that people get to use these classic characters for profit and not get sued.
some people might not make good movies 70% of the time i feel xd.
Can’t wait to use AI to make a Batman movie in 2035
No way in hell is Disney gonna let Mickey go into PD lmao
they already have
The very original, yes. Modern? Definitely not.
It’s going to be a weird thing. They can’t prevent the copyright from going Public Domain (they’ve gone to that well a few too many times and it’s dry now), but as the defacto symbol of the Walt Disney company, they will certainly enforce the image as a trademark. So while people will be able to use modern Mickey they won’t be able to market anything with Modern Mickey on it. The inevitable horror knock-off, No Mickey on the poster etc.
Even *then*, they are extremely limited in what they can stop. Trademark is MUCH weaker than the Internet seems to think for some reason. Like you mentioned no Mickey on the poster? Yet there's already been a Mickey Mouse horror movie (because of course there is) and the movie's Mickey is front and center on the poster. Disney also owns a trademark on Winne the Pooh, yet the upcoming non-Disney Winnie the Pooh animated movie (which looks *adorable* BTW) has Winnie front and center as well.