Who is Copyright Cat?

Aaaand...we're online!

Ladies and gentlereaders, if I could please direct you to my mission statement, there you will find a thrilling tale of trust and betrayal, heroism and...oh, who am I kidding.  Head over there and read it.

In the meantime, my name is Copyright Cat, and when I'm not ranting and raving about the sorry state of copyright law in the USA and UK, I'm an emerging writer, artist and animator.  Generally speaking, that just gives me more reasons to rant and rave about the sorry state of copyright law.  I'm all for artists being able to profit from their work.  I'm even for artists being able to exclusively profit from their work...up to a point.  I'm not too fussy about where that point is.  Maybe ten years after publication/release.  Maybe fifty.  Maybe the day, minute and second the originator clutches his or her chest and keels over dead in the kitchen.  Oh hell, maybe even long enough to pay for the funeral.  But fifty, seventy, a hundred years (or near enough) after said originator is a maggot-ridden cadaver?  Say what you will, I don't think I'll really appreciate additional revenue once I'm dead.  And my kids?  Well, that's kind of the point.  One of the reasons we're in the economic outhouse we're in is that people don't know how to manage money.  They don't save, they don't invest, and they die leaving their kids nothing but pennies and spiderwebs.  Now, for all I know, I'll be just as dim once I've paid off my student loans, but here's the deal: if I haven't taken steps to provide for them while I'm alive, or at least given them the tools to provide for themselves once I'm dead, then I've done something wrong.

Besides, the very sad fact of the matter is that extended copyright protection has absolutely zip to do with providing for the artist's kids.  The protection is there for publishing houses, studios, and powerhouse corporations like Disney.  Let's say, for example,
J K Rowling were to die tomorrow.  Let's hope not, but we're hypothesising here.  Continuing royalties from book sales would, without a doubt, continue to keep her kids warm and cozy in that Edinburgh castle.  But that's not why the copyright is still there.  It's there so that the publishing house can release new "Memorial Editions" of Harry Potter, and reap massive profit in the wake of poor Ms Rowling's demise.  And, more importantly, so that they can claim every last miserable penny available for continued sale and re-release of Harry Potter, because they'll make damn sure that no one else does.  Even while she's alive, Ms Rowling doesn't really own her work any more.  Sure, she can stop writing for her publishers, but...wait, she's already done that.  She can't pull the work, change the work, offer it to someone else or control who buys the movie rights.  The copyright is not there to protect her: it's there to protect the publisher.

Anyway, a couple more thoughts before I sign off for the night:

• Why does my picture show me having my ass handed to me by what can only be Mickey Mouse on steroids?  

Well, I started looking into copyright law during a search for Disney characters in the public domain - I mean, Mickey Mouse has been around forever, he must be up for grabs by now, right?  Well, no.  Someone at Disney was smart enough to circle the date on the calendar when Mickey was to leave the nest, and, unlike little ol' me, Disney was powerful enough to do something about it.  They lobbied to have copyright law amended, and the net result was that, not only did they retroactively extend Mickey's copyright for another aeon or so, they trademarked his ass so that, even when his copyright finally runs out, as long as Disney is in business, any reproduction of Mickey Mouse will be strictly illegal.  Artists who had been waiting to get their paws on MM derisively named the change the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" - more on that later.

• Then drawing Mickey, even on steroids, is going to get you into shitloads of trouble, right?

Not so, friends!  One minor copyright-related advantage to living in the United States is "fair use" - more on that later, too.  Simply put, it is permissible to use portions of a copyrighted work for purposes of research, citation, commentary or satire.   Mickey-hulk up there is drawn both for satirical and commentative purposes, so I'm okay.

•   But why make Mickey the villain?  It's not his fault!

Okay, try to understand: the Mickey in the picture is not the Mickey you know and love.  That Mickey is chained and bound in the depths of the Disney vault, probably counting the stars on his sorceror's hat.  Think of this as the new, CG Mickey you see in Mickey's Clubhouse, the shiny, squeaky, soulless one.  The one Disney trademarked.  This Mickey represents the power of the corporation to step on the artist.  I drew him as a bodybuilder on purpose: this is a Mickey who has been distorted almost beyond recognition, just for the purpose of maintaining control.

• Not much of a heroine if you're that scared of him, are you?

Well that's just mean.  But the thing is, I am scared.  And Hulk-Mickey can definitely kick my butt.  I'm just one little cat, and with the best of intentions, there's not much I can do on my own.  But what I can do is write, inform, speak my piece and generally make a nuisance of myself.  I'd lay bets that if more people knew how unfair copyright law is to the artists it's supposed to protect, more people would try to get it changed.  One cat can't do much, but a whole pack of meowing, scratching nuisances?  That might make a difference.

And on that note, this is Copyright Cat, signing off.