Disney may not own copyrights to Steamboat Willie.

[sbkline]

Not the characters, just the film. But by association anyone could use that film, and thereby WDC's iconic character, however they wanted. I don't think it would apply to anything but the film itself. For example: if a band wanted to play clips from the movie during their video they could, or a politician could use it for a campaign video, but you couldn't start selling a line of Mickey figures. (not saying you want to :lol

Yes, but like I said, this would render as total garbage the line from the article which says "Disney without Mickey". It's not a matter of Disney no longer having Mickey, as they would still be free to use Mickey just as they do now. Rather, it would be a matter of others being able to use Mickey or, as you said, the films, without Disney being able to sue them.

 

[sbkline]

It would not matters... There are such things as 'uncontested claim'... Basically, if YOU (meaning the plantiff) believe your copyright is infringed upon, you have a set amount of time to say so.. If not, it's assumed property....It's not a small window. but it's certainly smaller than 75 years..

In other words.. this story is pure BS.



Just FYI, there are a lot of real estate laws that are similar.. Basically.. if I build a house in the middle of a piece of property, and no one contests it within 'X' amount of years as being on their property.. Then the property is shifted (beneath the dwelling) to the builder/owner of the home..

Whats worse? Lets say they built the house in the middle of 25 acres.. (miles from a nearby road).. once they lay claim to the property and the time has elapsed, you, being the owner of ALL of the property surrounding that dwelling must provide them with a servitude for access to their property from yours!

We all think that Disney is a horrible tyrant for suing, or threatening to sue, a daycare, nursing home, etc, for having murals of the characters. But your example reminds me of why they're being reasonable, even though we may think they're being horrible. In real estate, there is something called an easement, which you alluded to in the final sentence of your post. It's when someone uses your property without your permission for a certain period of time, and you don't challenge them on it. Eventually, you forfeit your right to excercise dominion over your property, even though you may still own it in title. Or you may continue to have limited dominion over it, but you can no longer legally prohibit those people from using your property the way they have been for all this time.

Disney has people all the time trying to use it's copyrighted products and, if they don't protest and protect their right of ownership, then people may acquire an "easement" (or whatever term it may be called in this context). Just as I may come across as being a grouchy neighbor when I tell my neighbor not to let her kids play in my yard, but I'm doing so to protect my right of dominion over my property lest, at some point, they acquire an easment which allows them to play in my yard whether I like it or not.

 

[Hammer1310]

We all think that Disney is a horrible tyrant for suing, or threatening to sue, a daycare, nursing home, etc, for having murals of the characters. But your example reminds me of why they're being reasonable, even though we may think they're being horrible. In real estate, there is something called an easement, which you alluded to in the final sentence of your post. It's when someone uses your property without your permission for a certain period of time, and you don't challenge them on it. Eventually, you forfeit your right to exercise dominion over your property, even though you may still own it in title. Or you may continue to have limited dominion over it, but you can no longer legally prohibit those people from using your property the way they have been for all this time.

Disney has people all the time trying to use it's copyrighted products and, if they don't protest and protect their right of ownership, then people may acquire an "easement" (or whatever term it may be called in this context). Just as I may come across as being a grouchy neighbor when I tell my neighbor not to let her kids play in my yard, but I'm doing so to protect my right of dominion over my property lest, at some point, they acquire an easement which allows them to play in my yard whether I like it or not.

Never had a problem with them protecting their trademarks, daycare or not. (not saying this just to argue with you either)

Daycare centers are often given a pass by most since they make their business taking care of our children. We show them pity about things most businesses would be crucified for. If the local grocery or sprawl-mart painted a Mickey and Elmo mural on their building we would assume they were doing with permission. So how is it that people defend private schools and daycare businesses when they do the same? (Inside the business is a different matter to me, you might not agree) They are in it to make money too right? Or do they not charge for their services? Sure they do, so why do we look the other way or get mad at Disney for making them stop?

Sorry to stray from the op, just thought sbkline had a good point.

 

[KeithVH]

Makes you wonder about the real story and whatever happened after Berkley Breated decided to take on the mouse. Yeah, I know it's a Jim Hill link but I can't post the panel jpg's in this forum and the Bill-as-assassin (sent by Esiner of course) was a real hoot when it came out.

And while I don't trust Jim Hill at all, Disney doing a Breathed book would be cool.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Key section of the LA Times story:

Ironically, the company has mounted international efforts to claim some characters for the public domain -- such as Bambi and Peter Pan -- even as it defends Mickey Mouse. Many of Disney's most famous figures were the creations of others, including Cinderella, Pinocchio, Pooh and Snow White, though it has vigorously protected its depictions of them.

In such battles, Disney has been known to employ arguments every bit as arcane as anything raised against it by Brown.

Disney uses whichever arguments advance its own interests, even when they contradict each other. They've benefited from public ownership of other people's creations, while fighting to rewrite copyright law to keep their own characters in-house. Steamboat Willie is almost 100 years old. There's no good reason why that cartoon and its version of Mickey shouldn't belong to everyone.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Yes, but like I said, this would render as total garbage the line from the article which says "Disney without Mickey"

I wouldn't get too hung up on the wording of the TMZ story. It's just a gossipy summary of the ideas, trying to reach the "sexiest" conclusion without serious analysis. The LA Times story linked to later in the thread gives the subject more serious treatment.

 

[MousDad]

Whatever Disney property falls into the public domain, the only thing being lost would be that particular artistic expression. The characters, as such, and the names, are not and have never been protected by Copyright.

So if Steamboat Willie goes P.D., it's that particular artwork that is lost. All subsequent renderings are still protected, as they remain in term, and as they are unique from the Steamboat character.

So technically, it would be possible for them to never lose copyright in at least a portion of the pictoral expression of Mickey Mouse, as long as the design was substantially changed every 95 years. In this sense, it's possible that Copyright protection would never be lost.

This does raise an interesting issue in regards to copyright protection for derivative works. Copyright in a derivative work only protects the new authorship. So essentially, it would be foreseeable in the future for TWDC to only own part of a particular rendering of Mickey Mouse (any new pictorial expression that is still under protection), but not part of the drawing that is in public domain.

This means that Disney's lawyers will have plenty to do for a long time. Let's say, for instance, that they do own only a portion of the rendering as described above. If someone infringes on a rendering that contains some public domain material, Disney can still sue for infringement of the portion under protection, even though the other portion is p.d.

Just so everyone's clear, all the above refers to U.S. Copyright Law. There are state laws in relation to copyright as well, and I'm sure many in California. Of course, none of the above refers to Patents and Trademarks.

 

[flynnibus]

OK taking ANYTHING Wiki says with a frakin' large grain of salt, I'm wondering if this is (a) verifiable and (b) what people think of any company that would do something like this? how would such a suit even be possible? And no one is outraged at the though of such a thing?

Before we hate on wiki - it would help if you read the LA Times article - because that is exactly what that wiki reference is taken from