<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;greenville&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 4 Aug 2009 00:57:19 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Little Mermaid Statue Free To Be After Artist's Estate Didn't Expect Negative Publicity</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0146585745.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0146585745.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ On Friday, we wrote about how an artist's estate was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/0337175728.shtml">going after</a> a small town in Michigan, for daring to have a "Little Mermaid" statue to play up many of the town's Danish ancestors.  There's a famous Little Mermaid statue in Denmark, and the artist's estate (the artist died fifty years ago) apparently thinks all such statues infringe on its copyright (even though this statue was very different).  However, in our comments over the weekend <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20090731/0337175728#c159">Christopher</a> alerted us to the news that the estate had <a href="http://www.thedailynews.cc/Main.asp?SectionID=2&#038;SubSectionID=11&#038;ArticleID=29001" target="_new">withdrawn the copyright infringement claim</a>, apparently citing the publicity as the reason.  Apparently, being a copyright bully can have a bit of a backlash...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0146585745.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0146585745.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0146585745.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>funny-how-that-works</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090803/0146585745</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:26:11 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Copyright Cops Go After Town For Creating Little Mermaid Statue</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/0337175728.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/0337175728.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Dan sends in yet another story about copyright gone wrong.  Apparently the small town of Greenville Michigan has a strong Danish heritage, and wanted to show that off with some artifact representing Denmark.  It chose the iconic Little Mermaid statue, based on Hans Christian Andersen's story, and a similar iconic statue in Denmark.  Apparently, however, the family of the artist who created the statue in Denmark is trying to clamp down and <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124865622123982685.html" target="_new">is demanding a lump sum payment or that the statue be taken down</a>.  The actual artist died in 1959... but thanks to recent extensions in copyright (yippee), copyright now lasts life plus <i>seventy</i> years.
<br /><br />
Of course, I'm wondering if the statue even violates the copyright at all.  While the town says it was inspired by the one in Denmark, the actual statue is different:
<blockquote><i>
At about 30 inches high, it's half the size of the original and has a different face and other distinct features, including larger breasts. "We've gotten a lot of heat about that too," he says
</i></blockquote>
Considering that so much of the statue is different, is it even a copyright violation at all?  Apparently, this isn't the only town that's faced problems over such statues.  The article notes, amusingly, that Vancouver, British Columbia -- after failing to get permission from the artist's estate -- instead put up a statue entitled "Girl in a Wetsuit" and even added swimming fins and goggles to get the point across.  It's hard to believe that this one artist, whose been dead for fifty years, should have total control over statues of mermaids, but that's what today's copyright law gives us.  Isn't it great?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/0337175728.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/0337175728.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/0337175728.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>cultural-artifacts</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090731/0337175728</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>