News Mickey’s Copyright Adventure: Early Disney Creation Will Soon Be Public Property

[castlecake2.0]

I don't agree, but that's just my opinion. Mickey is the icon of the TWDC. It would be like Apple giving up the Apple logo. It's really irrelevant though as the trademark protections basically cover most of what Disney would be concerned about once the copyright expires.

I agree with you. If the company is actively using the character it doesn’t really seem right that all of a sudden it’s up for grabs for anyone to use.

 

[TsWade2]

You know, I was worried first about Mickey Mouse entering a public domain meaning that Disney is getting rid of Mickey Mouse and friends, but I did some research and found out that despite of Steamboat Willie version of Mickey Mouse enter the public domain, Mickey Mouse is still the trademark of Disney and he and his friends will last forever. So I feel better about that. But, whatever you do, don’t believe what you heard on . They keep saying Mickey Mouse is going to be retired or Mickey will be replaced by Hannah Montana or something like that. Such fiddlesticks and nonsense!

 

[AEfx]

I don't agree, but that's just my opinion. Mickey is the icon of the TWDC. It would be like Apple giving up the Apple logo. It's really irrelevant though as the trademark protections basically cover most of what Disney would be concerned about once the copyright expires.

Well, no one is saying they have to "give anything up" - just that they don't have exclusive use of it.

Copyright law and public domain are meant to balance between creators controlling their creations, and the greater good for the public/arts in general. They were not designed for corporations to exploit in perpetuity, they were designed to give authors (the actual human beings) and their heirs ample time to profit. And in this case, they didn't call the modern updates to the laws, extending the time period enormously, the "Mickey Mouse Act" for nothing, as Disney spent a pretty penny to make it all extend this long. And the creators heirs are long gone from the company.

The issue that is now pressing is when these laws were written, there was no concept of the modern marketplace where something that is copyrighted can be perpetually trademarked at the same time. They know there is no way in heck that either side of the political aisle is going to get behind any copyright extension again (the 90 years is already bordering on the absurd).

This is why Disney has been promoting all the "vintage Mickey" merchandise and likenesses the last few years. To prove that they still use "that version of Mickey" for merchandising should they ever need once the actual copyright is gone, as one of the provisions of keeping a trademark in perpetuity is that you continue to actively exploit it. It could be argued that if they didn't, then they weren't exploiting "that Mickey", so they would no longer have a trademark on it. (It goes into the weeds a bit there, especially when you take into account the precedent set by the Superman cases, where a character isn't a single entity, but different versions of that character hold different rights based on when they were created/began use.)

The truth is, it isn't really going to affect that much. Basically, if you want to make homemade cartoons of Mickey from that era and distribute them on, say, YouTube or wherever, there is nothing Disney can do about it. But Universal or Warners isn't going to start making Mickey shorts to compete with Disney.

To be honest, it's not really Disney that has much worry in terms of being hurt financially by someone else exploiting the characters at this point. It's really going to be a bigger issue in another eight or ten years when the comic book characters start to go to public domain. Marvel is set for a good long while in most cases, but it's Superman/Batman/Wonder Woman that are next up on the block. Given that fan films (some of pretty high quality) are already being made regularly, particularly for Batman, once people can actually make them and sell them for profit, it's going to be a very different (and interesting) ballgame.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Well, no one is saying they have to "give anything up" - just that they don't have exclusive use of it.

Copyright law and public domain are meant to balance between creators controlling their creations, and the greater good for the public/arts in general. They were not designed for corporations to exploit in perpetuity, they were designed to give authors (the actual human beings) and their heirs ample time to profit. And in this case, they didn't call the modern updates to the laws, extending the time period enormously, the "Mickey Mouse Act" for nothing, as Disney spent a pretty penny to make it all extend this long. And the creators heirs are long gone from the company.

The issue that is now pressing is when these laws were written, there was no concept of the modern marketplace where something that is copyrighted can be perpetually trademarked at the same time. They know there is no way in heck that either side of the political aisle is going to get behind any copyright extension again (the 90 years is already bordering on the absurd).

This is why Disney has been promoting all the "vintage Mickey" merchandise and likenesses the last few years. To prove that they still use "that version of Mickey" for merchandising should they ever need once the actual copyright is gone, as one of the provisions of keeping a trademark in perpetuity is that you continue to actively exploit it. It could be argued that if they didn't, then they weren't exploiting "that Mickey", so they would no longer have a trademark on it. (It goes into the weeds a bit there, especially when you take into account the precedent set by the Superman cases, where a character isn't a single entity, but different versions of that character hold different rights based on when they were created/began use.)

The truth is, it isn't really going to affect that much. Basically, if you want to make homemade cartoons of Mickey from that era and distribute them on, say, YouTube or wherever, there is nothing Disney can do about it. But Universal or Warners isn't going to start making Mickey shorts to compete with Disney.

To be honest, it's not really Disney that has much worry in terms of being hurt financially by someone else exploiting the characters at this point. It's really going to be a bigger issue in another eight or ten years when the comic book characters start to go to public domain. Marvel is set for a good long while in most cases, but it's Superman/Batman/Wonder Woman that are next up on the block. Given that fan films (some of pretty high quality) are already being made regularly, particularly for Batman, once people can actually make them and sell them for profit, it's going to be a very different (and interesting) ballgame.

The Disney features entering the public domain will be a bigger problem as they will lose the monopoly on distributing them and the revenues that come with that.

 

[AEfx]

The Disney features entering the public domain will be a bigger problem as they will lose the monopoly on distributing them and the revenues that come with that.

True - thankfully, it will come in predictable, cascaded waves as each film expires. And as that starts to happen in the decades to come, it will be very interesting to see what the media consumption landscape is like, and if, ultimately, it really ends up mattering. Certainly physical media is going to continue it's decline - and one wonders in, say, 2040 how much they actually can continue to profit on Cinderella at that point, for example.

The irony with classic Disney, of course, is that Walt himself took advantage of public domain works for the large majority of those films. So, given they have a had such a good long time to profit off of them, I think it's only fair the public has their turn - Disney has made enough money on Snow White over almost a century now that it's OK for everyone to just be able to enjoy it for free from then on. (I know I've paid them at least $100 in different editions of just that one over the past 30 years, LOL.)

On that note - I see some folks here thinking it's all about maintaining that profit, when the actual intent of public domain is to support the creative arts and cultural development. For example, "Wicked" would not exist if not for public domain. Nor would many of those classic Disney films. Imagine if there was still a Shakespeare copyright - a quarter of the entire Western film canon of the last century would never have been made, LOL (and think what our lives would have been like had they never been able to make "10 Things I Hate About You").