Mickey Mouse Could Soon Leave Disney As 95-Year Copyright Expiry Nears (theguardian.com) 237
schwit1 writes: Mickey will be for the public domain in 2024, following U.S. copyright laws that state intellectual property on artistic work expires at the 95-year mark. When Mickey Mouse first appeared, Disney's copyright was protected for 56 years. The company supported the Copyright Act of 1976 which extended protections for 75 years. In 1998, Disney lobbied for a further extension. It is unclear whether the entertainment giant plans to make another move before 2023 to prevent Mickey from being moved into the public domain. Once copyright expires, anyone wishing to use characters from everyone's favorite rodent will not have to request permission or pay copyright charge.
95-year copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:95-year copyright (Score:4, Funny)
Re:95-year copyright (Score:5, Funny)
Don't remind me. I already called dibs on Minnie.
Rule 34 is now in play.
Re: (Score:2)
Rule 34 was always in play with Disney. You think anyone gives a fuck about copyright when it comes to Rule 34?
Re: (Score:2)
He wants porn involving a 95-year-old mouse?
Re: (Score:3)
Hey! No kinkshaming!
Re:95-year copyright (Score:4, Funny)
"He wants porn involving a 95-year-old mouse?"
MILF, Mice I Like to Fuck.
Re:95-year copyright (Score:4, Funny)
Risky click of the day.
Re:95-year copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
You think anyone gives a fuck about copyright when it comes to Rule 34?
The characters will still be trademarked. Only the original cartoons might become public domain. That only means the cartoons can be shown/redistributed as-is. The characters themselves will still be protected - by trademark law.
Re: (Score:3)
That only means the cartoons can be shown/redistributed as-is. The characters themselves will still be protected - by trademark law.
No. Trademarks aren't substitutes for copyrights. Once the initial Mickey Mouse works hit the public domain, anyone can create new derivative works based on them, including using the characters introduced (Mickey, Minnie, and Pete).
The Disney trademarks will be diminished a lot because once anyone can create Mickey Mouse works, it's a generic mark. On the other hand, Mickey Mouse branded stuff unrelated to works (e.g. the mouse-head ice cream bars) can still enjoy trademark protection.
Renewal fees are needed for long copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
Renewal fees are needed for long copyright there is to much abandonware
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Mandatory registration and renewals. Period. Would solve A LOT of problems with the public domain getting screwed over.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think they would ever miss a renewal or fail to register anything in their entire stable?
Microsoft one day forgot to renew their DNS domain name, so all is possible...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Property tax too, no reason for copyright to be exempt
Re: (Score:2)
There's no need for a tax if the registration fee is high enough. I think copyright should start with 10 years for free as long as a copy is made available to the copyright office. Then starting at year 11, it costs $10 to maintain the copyright for another year. Then it doubles every year after that. Once the holder decides they don't want to pay anymore, the copyright office releases the work into the public domain.
Re:Renewal fees are needed for long copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
For Disney the renewal fees are known as lobbying.
Re: (Score:2)
Renewal fees are needed for long copyright there is to much abandonware
Yep. It's common sense.
(and that's why it will never happen - Disney's lobbyists will be gearing up as we speak...)
Re: 95-year copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Basically steam boat willy era pics are losing protection
Except they won't.
Disney lobbyists will be preparing their new copyright-extension campaign as we speak.
What's needed is to revert the time to 30 years (say) and let people pay a yearly renewal fee if they want to extend it past that.
Re: (Score:2)
We both know how this will play out. They will buyoff many congress critters, and since 2022 is an election year you can expect a fire-sale soon. So no, no one alive today, even people born today, will ever see a copyright expire that is owned by a large corporation (in the US).
Curious how this will work in the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
The character himself will lose copyright protection. Anyone can make original Mikey Mouse cartoons. Anyone can use him in ads. Someone could open a Mikey Mouse theme park.
The original cartoons were silent so his voice might not be freed.
Re:95-year copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
IANAL, but isn't TFS misleading in that it conflates copyright with trademark? Even if the first movie featuring Mickey is out of copyright, that doesn't necessarily mean you can use him as a character in your fanfic. It just means you can play (and remix?) the movie.
I was under the impression that a trademark can be renewed indefinitely, but you have to actually do the renewal. (And enforce your trademark, and maybe some other things...)
Re: (Score:2)
It does necessarily mean that.
Trademarks are not substitutes for copyrights, and are in fact, inferior to them (and to patents). The expiration of the copyright will diminish the trademark.
Re: (Score:2)
You definitely can use the character in fanfic -- trademark protects a very specific depiction, not the textual description of the mouse. Your graphic novel may have problems.
Re: 95-year copyright (Score:2)
Trademark protects the origin of products. So even though Mickey is out of copyright (when that happens), the trademarks will still mean that you can't sell a depiction of Mickey that appears to come from Disney even though it doesn't. When the copyright expires, you can use the character in new works, but it needs to be the character as used in the original films, not the character as it has evolved into in later films, or you can use an original version as long as it derives from the out of copyright vers
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably substantially less than that. There was an actual economic study on this years ago that settled on 15 years. If you permit different terms for different classes of work -- treat a movie as different from a book, for example -- you can get shorter ones.
For example, a year would probably be quite generous for a newspaper or news broadcast.
Re: (Score:2)
There are tons of musicians who had about a typically short career of a few years and depend on royalties to stay alive.
No there aren't.
If you had such a short career, you probably were not a significant musician at the height of your career, much less now, years and years later as your work falls further out of fashion and is played, reproduced, covered, sync'ed, etc. less and less. And like most professional musicians, if you had a record deal, it's probably a terrible one in which you'll never get royalties to begin with because you're still paying off the expenses and the advance. And even if you are getting royalty ch
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you don't even know where the 28 years -- a very specific, non-round number -- is ultimately derived from.
I assume it came from double 14 years which I believe is based on European law but I have no idea where the 14 ultimately originated from.
Re: (Score:3)
They still have 2 years to bribe enough senators to get it extended another 25 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting they're putting principles over money? Those are some truly strange politicians!
Re: 95-year copyright (Score:2)
Re: 95-year copyright (Score:3)
I would think we're at least approaching the time that they do not. I'm sure they'll do everything they can to keep him alive though.
Re: 95-year copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
There's approximately 300 Mickey Mouse-based shows on Disney Junior.
And all of them except for Steamboat Willie will remain under copyright for many years to come.
Re: (Score:3)
In the abstract, yes.
In this specific case, it kind of feels okay. The mouse is still an active symbol central to the brand.
That's what trademarks are for, and Mickey Mouse will still be a trademark even after the copyright expires.
Re: 95-year copyright (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Trademarks cover the symbol and maybe the name, but not the character. Which I think means others could use the character in ways Disney might find objectionable.
Trademarks cover the likeness of the character and the name of the character. The only thing that copyright expiration changes is that you will be able to sell or distribute copies of the old movies containing that character, and use the trademark descriptively in that context.
Re: (Score:2)
Trademarks cover the symbol and maybe the name, but not the character. Which I think means others could use the character in ways Disney might find objectionable.
Any depiction of this character includes the symbol. That means that given the legal resources Disney commands, they could easily snuff out any conceivable objectionable use of Mickey Mouse.
Trademark vs Copyright (Score:2)
"symbol central to the brand" is what is normally called a trademark, not copyright. Disney might be able to trademark Mickey, but that wouldn't protect the old representations of him.
In addition, while the "character" might be less protected, what really leaves is just the much more rodent like steamboat Mickey, not the modern fat one.
Re:Trademark vs Copyright (Score:5, Informative)
Hi, I'm an IP lawyer.
The case to look at here is Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938). In it, Nabisco lost the SHREDDED WHEAT trademark, which was held to become generic when the patent for shredded wheat cereal and the making thereof, entered the public domain. That is, the patent running out permitted anyone to make and sell shredded wheat, depriving the mark of any ability to identify the source, which it has to have to be a trademark.
The other case to look at is Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), holding that trademarks are no substitutes for copyrights; when a copyright is in the public domain, a trademark cannot be used to prevent copying, distribution, preparation of derivative works, public performance or display.
There will be a good bit of litigation around this though, I bet.
Re: (Score:3)
The trademark isn't expiring, and newer incarnations of the mouse are going to remain under copyright. IMO, the fact that Disney itself has reinvented mickey a number of times already and doesn't use the steamboat willie version anymore goes to show the copyright should have expired a long time ago.
Re: (Score:2)
While you're right that they have re-stylized Mickey over the years, I would say that they have also done a pretty good job of keeping Steamboat Willie in the public eye. I'm not sure why they have done that though. Maybe so they can ask for more copyright extensions, because they are still using the character. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to keep using the older character to keep the connection between him and Disney if they know that it will be public domain in such a short time.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's why they'll maintain the trademark. They'll just lose copyright protection for Steamboat Willie.
Re: (Score:3)
getuid() opined:
A 3 year copyright is reasonable. 6 years is long, but still kinda reasonable. A 30 year one is obscene.
Spoken as one who obviously does not make his living creating art.
Meanwhile, speaking for those of us who do - or, most of us, at any rate - a 3-year copyright term would be obscene and confiscatory. 6 years? Only slightly less so.
30 years would not be unreasonable - although it would seriously fuck over those of us who spend a lifetime at our craft, but whose work only achieves widespread popularity late in our careers. It be deeply unfair to us to have to compete with other, cheaply-produc
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken as one who obviously does not make his living creating art.
I could do without commercial "art".
Do art to express yourself. Earn money by making bread and pretzels in your day job.
You presumably get a regular paycheck. We don't.
...so get a job like everybody else? You don't have any claim to be able to live off making art.
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear, I don't have a problem with anyone making a living however they can. I'm actually a proponent of an UBI, and would still work if it came around (albeit less). And I'm ok -- thirlled, actually -- with people living off "my" taxes.
But copyright terms in the two-digit years actively kill our culture. [theatlantic.com] There's no amount of art, literature, music, film or toilet seats nailed to a museum wall that you (generally speaking) could make to make up for that kind of damage.
This isn't how we, as a society, t
Re: 95-year copyright (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
First, there's no such thing as "IP". There's patents, trademarks and copyright. They couldn't be more different: for instance while copyright is designed to prevent you from duplicating, patents are all about duplication, you can even download them online at no cost.
IP is a term designed to do one thing, and one thing only: cloud your judgement when you talk about those three, and shove arguments down your throat to make you accept changes to one because of some diffuse concept of "you should".
Second, yes,
Re: (Score:2)
Terms similar to patents are more reasonable - 20 years.
20 years already deals significant damage [theatlantic.com] to society.
Why do you figure 3 years is too short? It seemed to have been plenty when copyright was "invented" hundreds of years ago, now we have better sales, better distribution, better payment, ... what's there to make us one order of magnitude slower?
Maybe (Score:2)
Maybe Disney will go away before the mouse does.
Re: (Score:2)
> Maybe Disney will go away before the mouse does.
Careful what you wish for. Yes, they are Dicky Mouse, but imagine if evangelicals fill the niche created by their downfall.
Re: Maybe (Score:2)
Sadly (Score:5, Interesting)
Public domain rodent owes its fate not due to the government finally getting a clue when it comes to copyright length, but out of childish political retribution for Disney daring to take a side in the LGBTQ+ culture war. Ordinarily, the Republicans would happily cash their mouse money checks and keep signing off on extending copyright until the heat death of the universe. It's the right thing, for entirely the wrong reason.
add an renewal fee with an big tax on it to fix co (Score:2)
add an renewal fee with an big tax on it to fix copyright
Re: (Score:2)
The unspoken pact between big biz and GOP is "let us Republicans do our troglodyte religious shit and you get tax breaks and freedom to pollute". Disney broke the second rule of Medieval Club.
They're still cashing those checks (Score:2)
One of the major complaints on the left has been all the corporations offering to pay for their staff to get medical care out of state in the wake of Roe v Wade while still donating tons of money to the folks trying to criminalize that medical care.
Re: (Score:2)
But people appear to prefer to pigeonhole things into political camps based on what they disagree with.
Re: (Score:2)
Public domain rodent owes its fate not due to the government finally getting a clue when it comes to copyright length, but out of childish political retribution for Disney daring to take a side in the LGBTQ+ culture war.
Not in the least. If Disney were going to try for another retroactive extension, they would've been working on it years ago. Instead they haven't even tried; they're not trying even now.
Weirdly, this hasn't stopped Republicans from announcing bills (and even enacting laws) to punish Disney for not wholeheartedly supporting the Republicans and their agenda at every turn.
It's the right thing, for entirely the wrong reason.
No, the right thing would be substantive copyright reform applied to everyone. This isn't even that; it's too narrowly focused and too du
Re: (Score:2)
But Disney influence is waning. The last copyright law was named the Sony Bono act, which no one knows because he and his has been partner are only of intent to drug addicts. I donâ(TM)t know if there is any other works that can be used t
Re:Sadly [Death to Mickey Mouse] (Score:2)
Only mention of death in the discussion, but Subject is the joke I was looking for... Now off to be disappointed by the Funny mods (or lack thereof).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I still stand by my original assessment. Disney has a not-so-hidden agenda that takes them into direct political confrontation that involves children. I can't imagine a more fraught position for a business to be in; that's the "loss" to which I am referring -- loss of a presumption of trust. That's almost always a losing proposition for any business.
But time will tell. Perhaps Disney will abandon its customer base of the last 95 years, and come out the other side with a whole new one. Not likely, but one ca
Bigots? WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you understand that the law DeSantis signed said NOTHING about homosexuality, transgenderism, etc?
The law said that the schools cannot sexualize children. Teachers cannot push transgenderism, homosexuality, OR HETEROSEXUALTIY or indeed ANY DAMNED SEXUALITY on little kids (not ANY gender identity, not ANY sexual orientation). The law does not favor, nor disfavor any particular sexuality, rather it just says, effectively, "knock it off... ALL of it!". This is NOT ANY form of "bigotry" - it's a pushback aga
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody was "pushing" any of these things on children. It was a totally made up moral panic designed to score political points rather than address any actual problem. The "grooming" nonsense was absolutely driven by bigotry, the irrational fears of LGBTQ "corrupting" the youth.
Setting that aside, the law is a gag order that prevents teachers from even answering honest questions about sexuality. If little Suzie asks why Mary has two mommies, the teachers are essentially banned from saying anything about it. T
Trademarks, though... (Score:5, Insightful)
Disney still trademarks every incarnation of Mickey and their other characters, so no, you won't be able to use the image of Mickey completely without reservations.
Re: (Score:2)
Disney still trademarks every incarnation of Mickey and their other characters, so no, you won't be able to use the image of Mickey completely without reservations.
So certainly one could redistribute the Steamboat Willie cartoon (with Mickey Mouse) that is about to fall out of copyright.
And you could certainly not make a cartoon staring the latest 3d incarnation of Mickey Mouse [wikipedia.org]*
But could you make a character named Mickey Mouse if it were clearly inspired by the Steamboat Willie incarnation? Could you make an advertisement with an unnamed black and white image from the cartoon? Or a depiction of that character?
I can also imagine TV shows making a satirical MM derivativ
Re:Trademarks, though... (Score:5, Interesting)
So certainly one could redistribute the Steamboat Willie cartoon (with Mickey Mouse) that is about to fall out of copyright.
And a few others, like Plane Crazy and the Gallopin' Gaucho.
But could you make a character named Mickey Mouse if it were clearly inspired by the Steamboat Willie incarnation?
Yes.
Could you make an advertisement with an unnamed black and white image from the cartoon? Or a depiction of that character?
Yes, but with limits. Also expect extensive litigation.
The sine qua non of a trademark is that it is a source identifier. That is, things marked with the trademark can be relied upon to ultimately emanate from (or be authorized by) a single source. For example, a computer with the APPLE logo and the MACBOOK name on it must be made by or at least under the supervision and control of Apple. A computer that merely has the word COMPUTER printed on it could come from anywhere, however; that word does nothing to indicate the origin of the product. We call such a mark a 'generic' mark.
Everyone is free to use generic marks.
While you might think that a generic mark is the generic term for the product -- BLUE JEANS for blue jeans, for example -- it's also possible for a fully protected mark to stop functioning as a source identifier in the minds of the public and to become generic, a process known as 'genericide.'
ELEVATOR, ESCALATOR, and TRAMPOLINE used to be trademarks and now they're generic. ASPRIN also, but it's a special circumstance. Some marks have famously flirted with genericide for a long time: KLEENEX for paper tissues, or XEROX for photocopiers. (Xerox, like a number of other businesses on the edge of the cliff, will advertise the proper use of its mark if only to build a foundation for its argument that it isn't generic. My favorite was "You can't xerox a xerox on the xerox" referring to the mark's use to mean 'photocopying,' 'photocopies,' and 'photocopiers.')
But the generic mark that's interesting here is SHREDDED WHEAT.
Long ago, there was a patent on shredded wheat cereal and the machine used to make it, and Nabisco (which owned it) was the only company that could make and sell cereal using the SHREDDED WHEAT trademark; the patents were the basis of it being the sole source. When the patents expired, Kellogg's started making it too, and called theirs KELLOGG'S SHREDDED WHEAT. The Supreme Court held that when the patents expired, they dragged the trademark down with it -- if there was no longer a sole source for shredded wheat, the trademark couldn't function.
This is what will happen with the MICKEY MOUSE trademark... in part. Since there will no longer be a copyright protecting the character (at least in its original 1928 incarnation -- attributes introduced later, like the voice or changes in appearance remain protected until the works that introduced them also fall into the public domain), there can no longer be a single source, and so can no longer be a trademark.
But that really focuses on the market for creative works and maybe close ancillary goods.
There's nothing that prevents one from using a public domain character as a trademark so long as it doesn't interfere with the use of the character for more creative works (because trademarks -- even famous marks -- are not substitutes for copyrights). For example, in the US, PETER PAN is used as a trademark for both peanut butter and bus lines, but it's a public domain character here.
So Disney can retain the MICKEY MOUSE trademark for, for example, mouse-head-shaped ice cream bars, but can't stop you from making a movie starring the character, and possibly some merchandise featuring it. (There's a fine line between using a trademark as a brand and using it as mere artwork)
Re: (Score:2)
Steamboat Willie. Great pornstar name. Or movie name.
Whelp ... (Score:3)
Let's offer Disney up new alliteratively-named mascots, starting with ones Ubuntu probably won't use, like, "Lickey Louse" ...
NOT TRUE... anyone wishing to use characters... (Score:5, Insightful)
> Once copyright expires, anyone wishing to use characters from everyone's favorite rodent will not have to request permission or pay copyright charge.
The mouse and other various characters are trademarked. Trademarks don't expire if the holder defends against infringement. This was actually used as a red hearing during the SCOTUS trial where suit was brought about unreasonable copyright periods to keep existing law from being overturned.
Steam Boat Willie, the story and the cartoon, would become available for free use and derivative creation however.
Re: (Score:2)
But new original artwork, using the likeness of Mickey is OK, I think? So, if I draw something that looks exactly like Micke
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically, using the likeness of Mickey as he appeared in Steamboat Willie. Distinctive features that have evolved would be covered by the copyright of the time it came out.
Re: (Score:2)
The easiest way to look at it is that you can use any part of Steamboat Willie as you like (once copyright has expired) but you could not make a new movie featuring Steamboat Willie (or Mickey Mouse) as that character is still under trademark restrictions.
So yes, you could make t-shirts with frames from Steamboat Willie on it but you wouldn't be able to make a t-shirt with a newly created image of Mickey Mouse (due to trademark issues) nor a frame from a Mickey Mouse movie that came after Steamboat Willie u
Even derivatives are tricky (Score:3)
Yes, just because the first appearance of a character enters the public domain, doesn't mean it's open season. The original Sherlock Holmes stories have been in the public domain for decades, but the rights holders still make life difficult for anyone trying to create derivative works by claiming certain aspects of Holmes' character were not revealed until later works (not even written by Sir Conan Doyle) that are still under copyright. However, expect dollar stores to soon be full of Mickey Mouse DVDs fe
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it. (Score:2)
My money is on extension because of Pooh (Score:2)
Winnie the Pooh lost it, and the next thing we knew some kind of bizarre horror movie was made. They gave Disney a black eye and a gift on a silver platter simultaneously. The lobbyists will be in every congress office with a giant poster showing the most gruesome images. "You're going to let this happen to Mickey Mouse??? What will you tell the parents???"
Re: My money is on extension because of Pooh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hm... I wouldn't put it past Disney to try the Lovejoy Gambit [wikipedia.org]. And it might work, not because it's a tenable argument, but because they're f$$$ing Disney.
diseny can just say play that movie & never ge (Score:2)
diseny can just say play that movie & never get any more new diseny movies again.
Re: (Score:2)
That the state is not responsible for raising their kids. That's what they did in Soviet Russia, do you really want that?
SHUT UP ABOUT THIS!!!! (Score:2)
The last thing we need is Disney waking up to this and starting a second round of copyrights forever nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah yes, slashdot, where Disney gets all its inspiration.
I wonder (Score:2)
Why would Mickey leave Disney? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There would be very, very few animated Disney movies if it had.
Disney has no problem profiting from public domain content, but not giving back. Over here, we call that a sponger.
what to do with an expired copyright (Score:2)
Legacy of the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act (Score:2)
Modern Times ...all would have passed into the public domain by now.
Criss Cross
It Happened One Night
Wizard of Oz
Gone With The Wind
Casablanca
The Third Man
Rope
It's a Wonderful Life
Citizen Kane
Maltese Falcon
Arsenic and Old Lace
If Disney does this we'll boycott them! (Score:2)
Disney is like our Dominatrix but without the sexual component.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm cured from Star Wars with what they did to it. And I never really was into Marvel. Come to think of it, maybe I'm not really the target audience, I still think what some people slap together on YouTube has more entertainment value than their drivel.
They'll probably still make copyright claims. (Score:2)
Only for specific renderings (Score:2)
Only renderings of Mickey Mouse that are more than 95 years old, will be public domain. Any more recent depictions will still be under copyright.
Steamboat Willie (Score:2)
What this means is the 1928 cartoon Steamboat Willie, which was pretty much the first to feature Mickey Mouse, will be in the public domain. Mickey Mouse (the trademarked character) will not be public domain, but that specific artistic work (that one cartoon) will be. Then over time more and more individual cartoons will become public domain as well. It's safe to say Disney makes next to nothing off those older cartoons at this point in time. The last couple decades has really seen a decline in the popular
Just in time ... (Score:2)
Betting Disney will bribe enough people (Score:2)
to extend the copyright another 50 years...
In other words (Score:2)
It's time for another Disney campaign contribution to push it to 120 years.
No influence. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that it is written into the US constitution that copyrights need to be for a limited time.
Article I Legislative Branch
Section 8 Enumerated Powers
Clause 8 Intellectual Property
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
So far the extensions have been deemed to fall within this limited time frame. The more times you extend the copyright period though, the harder it is to justify the copyright period as limited. Eventually it will be obvious that you are trying to make the copyright period indefinite simply by continuing to extend it.