Disney may not own copyrights to Steamboat Willie.

[LoriMistress]

The rodent has higher name recognition than Prez Bush -- 97%. It's like Oprah with a tail. The image alone is worth $3 bil to Disney, the company that sues when anyone even smells a rat. But Walt Disney could be losing it's claim to the creature.

The L.A. Times has published a really interesting story about Mick's copyright. Back in 1929, Disney released its first synchronized sound cartoon called "Steamboat Willie," featuring Mickey with longer arms and smaller ears than the 2.0 version.

On the title card to the toon, it says, "A Mickey Mouse sound cartoon. Steamboat Willie. A Walt Disney Comic By Ub Iwerks. Recorded by Power Cinephone System."

So here's the deal. There's buzz now that Disney may not own the copyright. It could be rightly held by the heirs of Ub Iwerks, the big honcho cartoonist at Disney at the time. Or it could be owned by Power Cinephone System. Apparently, it's not as clear as Walter would want you to think.

Disney without Mickey? Frickin' Goofy.

http://www.tmz.com/2008/08/23/mickey-mouse-road-kill/

 

[rbrower]

That's interesting. Thanks for sharing.

 

[blm07]

Hooray for trashy tabloid stories! Throw them and the factories that print that garbage in the fire!

BTW, Mickey Mouse is way cooler than Oprah ever was. :animwink:

 

[Hammer1310]

From Wikipedia:

Copyright
The film has been the center of some attention regarding the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act passed in the United States. Steamboat Willie has been close to entering the public domain in the United States several times. Each time, copyright protection in the United States has been extended. Many people have claimed that these extensions were a response by the U.S. Congress to extensive lobbying by Disney; others claim that the copyright extensions that Congress has passed in recent decades have followed extensions in international copyright conventions to which the United States is a signatory. (See U.S. copyright law, Universal Copyright Convention, and Berne Convention.) The U.S. copyright on Steamboat Willie will be in effect until at least 2023 unless there is another change of the law. However, it is already in the public domain in Australia[3], Canada[4] and Russia[citation needed], the last due to a non-retroactive enactment of the Berne Convention[citation needed].
In the 1990s, former Disney researcher Gregory S. Brown determined that the film was likely in the public domain in the United States already due to errors in the original copyright formulation.[5] In particular, the original film's copyright notice had two additional names between Disney and the copyright statement. Thus, under the rules of the Copyright Act of 1909, all copyright claims would be null. [5] Arizona State University professor Dennis Karjala suggested that one of his law school students look into Brown's claim, as a class project. Lauren Vanpelt took up the challenge and produced a paper agreeing with Brown's claim. She posted her project on the Web in 1999.[6] Disney later threatened to sue a Georgetown University law student who wrote a paper confirming Brown's claims.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Well.... since the Disney company employed Ub Iwerks and he drew Steamboat Willy at the behest - for money - of the Disney company, the employer would own the copyright.

This is the same setup of why i don't have the copyright to any of my sports photos from my newspaper. Images and art that i created but at the behest of my employer and were paid (very poorly) for them versus what i could get on the free market for them.

Its a senseless lawsuit.

 

[sbkline]

A question and an observation here...

The question is: is it only the vintage, Steamboat Willie Mickey Mouse that may be in the public domain? Or is it Mickey Mouse in all his forms over the years?

The observation is: Public domain means that anyone can use it. No one has a copyright and the product is fair game for anyone to use. Hence the fact that Disney was able to take Grimm's Fairy Tales and make its own version of them. Therefore, the premise of "Disney without Mickey" would be false. Well, I guess the very worst case possible scenario would be that a court would agree that the heirs of this person own the copyright and they could then seek an injunction banning Disney from using Mickey. However, if it is, indeed, in the public domain, then there would not need to be any changes whatsoever regarding WDW, or the Disney company in general, as they would continue to have rights to use Mickey. Only difference would be that other people would have rights to use the character as well.

 

[Ausdaddy]

Well.... since the Disney company employed Ub Iwerks and he drew Steamboat Willy at the behest - for money - of the Disney company, the employer would own the copyright.

This is the same setup of why i don't have the copyright to any of my sports photos from my newspaper. Images and art that i created but at the behest of my employer and were paid (very poorly) for them versus what i could get on the free market for them.

Its a senseless lawsuit.

I don't think there's a lawsuit. Just an argument that Steamboat Willie and its version of Mickey is in the public domain.

A question and an observation here...

The question is: is it only the vintage, Steamboat Willie Mickey Mouse that may be in the public domain? Or is it Mickey Mouse in all his forms over the years?

Just the Steamboat Willie version of Mickey. This argument has been around for a while.

 

[KeithVH]

From Wikipedia:

Copyright
The film . . .<SNIP>. [5] Arizona State University professor Dennis Karjala suggested that one of his law school students look into Brown's claim, as a class project. Lauren Vanpelt took up the challenge and produced a paper agreeing with Brown's claim. She posted her project on the Web in 1999.[6] Disney later threatened to sue a Georgetown University law student who wrote a paper confirming Brown's claims.

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?

 

[darthjohnny]

Here's the full article from the LA Times about it:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-fi-mickey22-2008aug22,0,5927137.story?page=1

I doubt anything will come out of this.

 

[BiggerTigger]

Not to go off track (and too lazy to do the research) if Steamboat Willie (Mickey Mouse) would be in public domain, then wouldn't Oswald, the Lucky Rabbit, the predecessor to Mickey, be in the public domain as well? Further more, if he was in public domain, why the trade with Universal for the rights to Oswald again?

Of course, I haven't done the research on copywrite (sorry no interest at this time), did the laws change for copywrite laws for all animated works or professional works?

 

[Hammer1310]

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?

Ok, Lauren's paper:
http://www.public.asu.edu/~dkarjala/publicdomain/Vanpelt-s99.html

Hedenkamp's paper:
http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarj...main/HedenkampFreeMickeyMouseVaSp&E(2003).htm



As for proving threats of a lawsuit from Disney.....meh. Not a suprise considering the stink Hedenkamp was raising and how many years of lobbying by Disney he could undo.

 

[teebin]

Thank you Sonny Bono, for hitting a tree on a ski slope. He introduced this modification to the copyright law. It is now called the Mickey Mouse law. The copyright law was 75 years before they mucked with it. Surely enough time to make your money from the product. That was the law. Then they changed it to protect their lobbied butts. It is a case of bad bad Washington, DC being paid off by the lobby of Disney and others. It should never have happened. Most of old Disney should be in the public domain. Like most of the great books, characters are today.

And let me add... engineering patents run out, pharmaceutical patents run out (generics for $4 bucks at walmart) are good for the American public and yet good for the original scientists, designers, artists and engineers. If they were great good products, then they made their money a long time ago.

 

[tomdnh]

If someone had really deep pockets(ie Bill Gates) they could make it interesting

 

[sbkline]

I just wonder what kind of effect this would have on the Disney Company and WDW in particular if the copyright were to run out and the characters enter into Public Domain. Certainly, Disney would no longer be the only one entitled to make money off the products, but they would still continue to have the right to operate their theme parks based on these characters and to sell merchandise with these characters on them. In short, they would still rake in lots of money on them. Not as much, perhaps, as before, since other people would be able to use them and make money off them as well. But Public Domain means that Disney wouldn't "lose" the rights to these things...they would simply be sharing the rights with everyone else.

I suspect that I'm not the only one who wonders how this would effect our beloved WDW, but if I'm thinking correctly, then even if all the characters were to go into the Public Domain tommorrow, then you could still buy your Steamboat Willie Waterglobe at WDW next week. Or your Pooh Pajamas from the local Disney Store, or your plush Donald Ducks at Epcot, etc. Am I right?

 

[SeanC]

What about trademarks? The actual cartoon of Steamboat Willie may pass into public domain, but the character may also be trademarked, no? And this would be a different set of laws altogether?

EDIT: The character is trademarked and the protections are in perpetuity as long as the character is in use by the company who holds the trademark which would create an interesting conflict if the cartoon itself was in the public domain and someone other than Disney tried to profit from it.

 

[Hammer1310]

Thank you Sonny Bono, for hitting a tree on a ski slope. He introduced this modification to the copyright law. It is now called the Mickey Mouse law. The copyright law was 75 years before they mucked with it. Surely enough time to make your money from the product. That was the law. Then they changed it to protect their lobbied butts. It is a case of bad bad Washington, DC being paid off by the lobby of Disney and others. It should never have happened. Most of old Disney should be in the public domain. Like most of the great books, characters are today.

And let me add... engineering patents run out, pharmaceutical patents run out (generics for $4 bucks at walmart) are good for the American public and yet good for the original scientists, designers, artists and engineers. If they were great good products, then they made their money a long time ago.

Championing accidental death? Nice. :lookaroun

I think a case can be made for Disney keeping the copyright, partly because little correlation can really be drawn to patents. Where the shelf-life of patents ultimately benefits us as consumers with the lower costs you mentioned, how is the greater good served by making Disney and Iwerks' original product public domain? In very few cases in entertainment is a company so intrinsically linked to it's original work than with Disney and "Steamboat Willie". Mickey has been the face the company since the beginning and unlike so many other companies has always remained so. He is for all purposes unchanged as he is just as recognizable in SW as in modern films and company logos.
What would be gained by the general public (and other corporations) having access to his likeness through the film? While other films and literature from the era may pass into the public domain unnoticed, Disney has a right and perhaps a duty to protect it's icon however it sees fit (within the law). There are many who wished they could or had done the same. Just ask George Romero, who's original horror classic "Night of the Living Dead" mistakenly slipped out of copyright protection. To date there are dozens of companies releasing alternate tape and DVD versions of the film (in color, with alternate soundtracks) with no rights or permissions needed.
The modern era seems to have bred a generation convinced that all content should be free of ownership. Download-able, transferable, resell-able and totally free. All noble ideas but just not very realistic or respectful of their creator.

 

[Hammer1310]

I just wonder what kind of effect this would have on the Disney Company and WDW in particular if the copyright were to run out and the characters enter into Public Domain.

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

 

[hardcard]

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!

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Hooray for trashy tabloid stories! Throw them and the factories that print that garbage in the fire!

BTW, Mickey Mouse is way cooler than Oprah ever was. :animwink:

Yep.

Mickey is Disney...They are not going to take it away now.

 

[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're not talking about Disney believing its copyright has been infringed and, therefore, having a set amount of time to defend its claim; we're talking about the issue of the copyright itself expiring such that Disney would have no legal claim.