Little Mermaid Statue Free To Be After Artist's Estate Didn't Expect Negative Publicity

from the funny-how-that-works dept

On Friday, we wrote about how an artist's estate was going after 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 However, in our comments over the weekend Christopher alerted us to the news that the estate had withdrawn the copyright infringement claim, apparently citing the publicity as the reason. Apparently, being a copyright bully can have a bit of a backlash...
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, denmark, greenville, hans christian andersen, little mermaid, michigan


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Chargone, 4 Aug 2009 @ 2:00am

    how surprising. people don't like it when you complain about stupid things, or attempt to force them to do stuff that makes no sense.

    ...
    ...
    ...

    what world do these people live in?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2009 @ 2:06am

    I've got an idea... let's all carry ID cards!

    (irrelevant to the article)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    Anonymous Poster, 4 Aug 2009 @ 5:00am

    I'm very glad the estate dropped their claim. I'd hope that the last thing in the world they wanted was to be seen as some sort of bully.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2009 @ 6:16am

    I'm sure they were just trying to protect the estate from becoming generic. It's sad that public opinion has once again stood against the right decision.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2009 @ 6:17am

    Re:

    sarcasm tag belongs up there, I went to far emulating a real tag and it was lost!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. icon
    Travis (profile), 4 Aug 2009 @ 7:35am

    Re: Re:

    I was about to flip out when I read your comment :)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. identicon
    Sean T Henry, 4 Aug 2009 @ 7:54am

    Re:

    In related news the Little Mermaid statue came to life yesterday, and beat a Six year old girl for not paying for the the rights to want to be a mermaid.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. icon
    brenadine (profile), 6 Aug 2009 @ 11:52am

    Dropped the case b/c it's probably public domain

    Reason why the suit was dropped is likely because the statue is in the public domain...

    "copy" was installed in 1994
    Original scultpture was unveiled in 1913 in Denmark

    Even if copyright was restored in URAA, they would be required to file a NIE, since the town was using it before the URAA agreement and the 1994 sculptor would have relied on the 1913 sculpture being in the public domain. The town would have a 12-month grace period from the NIE to remove or negotiate with copyright holder under URAA rules for derivative works.

    At any rate, generally, for works created before 1978 the copyright term is only 95 years from publication if copyright is restored under URAA, so 1913+95=2008 so the thing has probably been in public domain in US for a year now...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Advertisment

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.