Mickey up for grabs?

radioandy

Member
Original Poster
This is pretty scary...looks like Mickey Mouse could be shilling for other companies one day. Hope he doesn't suffer the fate of Calvin, who became the decal boy with a bladder problem...


Cherished works could be placed in public domain

(Supreme Court-AP) -- Mickey Mouse's days exclusively at
Disney could be numbered.
The Supreme Court will hear a landmark copyright case on
Wednesday that could thrust the earliest images of Disney's
mascot and other closely held creative property into the public
domain.
An Internet publisher is challenging a 1998 law that
extends copyright protections an additional 20 years for cultural
works.
That means movies, plays, books and music are now protected
for 70 years after the author's death -- or for 95 years if
they're created by or for a corporation.
The plaintiffs claim Congress acted unconstitutionally by
extending copyright protection eleven times in the past 40 years.
They argue the founding fathers intended for copyrights to
expire.
But the government and industry officials argue that
Congress -- not the courts -- has the job of balancing copyright
law.
 

goofyguy

Member
It's been a while since my media law class, but I don't believe the this would allow other companies to use Mickey, just the early cartoons. In other words, a company could could release the early shorts on video (because they would be in the public domain), but they couldn't create new Mickey cartoons because Mickey Mouse is a trademark of Disney.

Now, I'm not a lawyer (and I don't play one on TV), so someone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
 

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by goofyguy
It's been a while since my media law class, but I don't believe the this would allow other companies to use Mickey, just the early cartoons. In other words, a company could could release the early shorts on video (because they would be in the public domain), but they couldn't create new Mickey cartoons because Mickey Mouse is a trademark of Disney.

Now, I'm not a lawyer (and I don't play one on TV), so someone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, assuming you are correct, I could see a whole big can of worms with this one because this would mean they could also lift the likeness of him from those cartoons for use on anything they wanted. It seems to me that we could potentially have a flood of merchandise featuring the mouse and other characters that Disney would have no control of...

In any event, I'm pretty sure that Disney will try to keep this in the courts for as long as possible if they loose because every day that somebody else can't use it is a day that they have exclusivity on it. You know?
 

jmarc63

New Member
I thought copyrights could be renewed. Does any one remember in the 80s and early 90s when you could see It's a wonderful Life back-to-back every hour on the hour durring the peroid from Thanks giving to Christmas? I was to understand that the Capra family or RKO ???? had reinstutited that Copyright since you only see the film once or twice now durring christmas.
 

radioandy

Member
Original Poster
You're right about the copyrights being renewed, and I think that's at the center of the legal challenge...that those renewals are unconstitutional. It does seem unfair that - if you're rich and powerful enough to lobby Congress - you can get them to grant exceptions. (Of course, this ranks way down on the list of dirty Congressional bribery.) On the bright side for Disney, I suppose this would end the squabbling over Pooh...wouldn't the classic characters would be up for grabs too?!

Sincerely,
Andy
o o
O (C)
 

JLW11Hi

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by jmarc63
I thought copyrights could be renewed. Does any one remember in the 80s and early 90s when you could see It's a wonderful Life back-to-back every hour on the hour durring the peroid from Thanks giving to Christmas? I was to understand that the Capra family or RKO ???? had reinstutited that Copyright since you only see the film once or twice now durring christmas.

I think it was Ted Turner who did that.
 

jmarc63

New Member
What I relly don't understand here is someones intellectual property has limited protection. weather it be a trademark of a company or not. ownership is ownership. I can't belive that if I create something that after a number of years someone else can come in and make money off of it. It's not like drugs where the inventor or discover of some mircale drug for the beterment of your fellow man has first dibs on recouping there R&D costs by having a monolopy on first sales for a certin number of years then allow the excluscivity to expire so other companys can now manufacture and make money. This just seems ludricris in the case of the anamation charaters
 

Rider

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by goofyguy
It's been a while since my media law class, but I don't believe the this would allow other companies to use Mickey, just the early cartoons. In other words, a company could could release the early shorts on video (because they would be in the public domain), but they couldn't create new Mickey cartoons because Mickey Mouse is a trademark of Disney.

Now, I'm not a lawyer (and I don't play one on TV), so someone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


That is true. They would only be able to use the cartoons (like releasing them).

They would not be able to use the mouse himself (new cartoons, theme parks, etc.).
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom