[gaff33]

Part of the problem is derivative works. I don't think even Disney cares too much if people stream Steamboat Willy - but if MGM Studios wants to create a new Mickey Mouse film that could be a problem for them.

Still I have little sympathy - it's hard to argue that endless Twilight fan-fiction did the franchise any harm. And there's plenty of non-canon James Bond films that have no impact on the main franchise.

[nicoburns]

That's only a problem for Disney. The rest of the world gets to benefit from an explosion of creativity, and more available content.

I definitely support a short copyright period (say 10-20 years). Beyond that, as the original creators of the characters, any further 'official' content/stories created by them are likely to be popular if they are any good (and would be subject to their own copyright period). But if someone else takes on those characters and manages to produce great stories with them. Well fantastic, let's allow them to, and reward them for it.

[clort]

Pretty sure that Disney will have trademarked Mickey Mouse and therefore a lack of copyright would be irrelevant anyway.

[Iv]

Also there are a lot of franchises where, arguably, fans do a much better job than heirs.

I am bitter that Zelazny's heirs killed Amber RPG, one of the best of the time.

A lot has to be said on Dune and LOTR heirs as well. And don't get me started on Tintin, currently managed by the surviving second husband of Hergé's wife...

[goto11]

The concept of "canon" does not have anything to do with copyright.

[leephillips]

I can think of two: the Casino Royale with Woody Allen, and Never Say Never Again. Any others?

[goto11]

Those are properly licensed. They are not derivative works or "fan fiction" any more than the Broccoli produced installments.

[sireat]

Hilariously 50 shades of Gray started as Twilight fan-fiction.