CB2001
Master Member
Additional Edit: Duke University’s Law School has a breakdown on what’s entering the Public Domain also: Public Domain Day 2024 | Duke University School of Law
Friendly Reminder: Steamboat Willy version of Micky Mouse, along with several others, will be entering the Public Domain in a day. :D
- Thread starter CB2001
- Start date
Additional Edit: Duke University’s Law School has a breakdown on what’s entering the Public Domain also: Public Domain Day 2024 | Duke University School of Law
Disney is medieval about IP protection.
It's gonna be technically legal to use Steamboat Willie in the same way that it's technically legal to sleep with a mob boss's wife.
If it is anything like the last 4 times it was going to enter public domain, the US president will extend copyright law to cover another 10 years
CB2001
Master Member
Except those times, it was just before it was suppose to enter the Public Domain, not after.
CB2001
Master Member
If I had to guess, probably not. I mean, they've got Star Wars and Marvel, which has probably generated more money in the short term than Mickey Mouse over the long term. In fact, Corridor Digital did a video about it:
joberg
Legendary Member
Disney, along with other companies with a strong interest in protecting IP, has also long lobbied for federal legislation to prolong copyright protection. The most recent extension, 1998’s Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (sometimes derisively called the Mickey Mouse Protection Act), lengthened copyright for new works and extended the renewal term for those published before 1978.
Rebecca Tushnet from Harvard Law Today answers main questions about Copyrights/Trademarks.
HLT: Many of Disney’s most well-known stories and characters — like Cinderella or The Little Mermaid — are themselves derived from older fairy tales. Does Disney own the copyright to any elements of those films and characters?
Tushnet: Disney owns the copyright in whatever expression it contributed. So, that means its particular version of the story, including the visuals, and any surprising, non-standard plot elements. Although, with a lot of these stories, there are lots of variations. Anyone can do their own version of these stories — including something like “Cinderella in space.” What Disney is likely to own is its visuals.
HLT: A few major Disney characters, such as Steamboat Willie and Winnie the Pooh, are now in the public domain, and others are expected to join them in the coming years. What does that mean?
Tushnet: The easiest possible answer is that anybody can definitely reproduce the works that are in the public domain. You can also make your own new derivative works, as long as you’re only using the public domain elements. I think, with the Winnie the Pooh horror movie, what you saw is them very much not using any visuals that were similar to things that are still under copyright, because some of the books were made later.
HLT: Despite being in the public domain, Winnie the Pooh and others remain protected under trademark law, so long as Disney continues to file the correct paperwork. What does trademark protection do, and how might it limit how others can use characters now in the public domain?
Tushnet: This is actually the most complicated issue, because in theory, now that they’re in the public domain, anybody can copy them. And yet, it is quite likely that Disney would sue you for putting an image from a public domain work on a lunchbox. Disney should probably lose that, but it’s going to fight very hard.
The Supreme Court, in a case called Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., said, basically, when something’s copyright expires, other people get to use it, and to use it without attribution, as long as they aren’t misrepresenting the physical source of what they’re selling. But what that means in practice has not fully been worked out, because so few things have entered the public domain in the past 20 years.
I think people should be free to use the materials despite the existence of trademark rights, because trademark law shouldn’t be able to stop you from doing what copyright law allows you to do and is set up to allow you to do. It’s no accident that things go into the public domain. But the contours of that are as yet unclear, precisely because Congress lengthened the copyright term, and so we didn’t get this problem until recently.
HLT: The most recent copyright extension, called the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, made its way to the Supreme Court in 2003. What did the Court say in that case?
Tushnet: What the Court basically said is that when everybody agrees that the result is a limited term of copyright protection, it’s basically up to Congress to decide how long that term should be. And even if every economist agrees that it won’t get us more copyrighted works, it’s still rational for Congress to do it, at least if it thinks there might be some other benefit
HLT: Do you think Disney and other companies will try to push for another extension of copyright protection?
Tushnet: It seems fairly unlikely, given that the backlash to the previous term extension brought together a bunch of groups for the first time who had never understood their interests to be linked. But nothing’s impossible. I will say that, as a big company, the works that are most valuable to you are the ones you just released this year. As if you’re releasing new iterations of a franchise, that seems to be the strategy that companies like Disney are using to enhance the value of their old stuff. So, it’s probably not worth the political capital required to extend the term again. It’s much more important to them to be able to make the next season of “Andor,” rather than to extend the term of copyright of a 1930 animation.
Rebecca Tushnet from Harvard Law Today answers main questions about Copyrights/Trademarks.
HLT: Many of Disney’s most well-known stories and characters — like Cinderella or The Little Mermaid — are themselves derived from older fairy tales. Does Disney own the copyright to any elements of those films and characters?
Tushnet: Disney owns the copyright in whatever expression it contributed. So, that means its particular version of the story, including the visuals, and any surprising, non-standard plot elements. Although, with a lot of these stories, there are lots of variations. Anyone can do their own version of these stories — including something like “Cinderella in space.” What Disney is likely to own is its visuals.
HLT: A few major Disney characters, such as Steamboat Willie and Winnie the Pooh, are now in the public domain, and others are expected to join them in the coming years. What does that mean?
Tushnet: The easiest possible answer is that anybody can definitely reproduce the works that are in the public domain. You can also make your own new derivative works, as long as you’re only using the public domain elements. I think, with the Winnie the Pooh horror movie, what you saw is them very much not using any visuals that were similar to things that are still under copyright, because some of the books were made later.
HLT: Despite being in the public domain, Winnie the Pooh and others remain protected under trademark law, so long as Disney continues to file the correct paperwork. What does trademark protection do, and how might it limit how others can use characters now in the public domain?
Tushnet: This is actually the most complicated issue, because in theory, now that they’re in the public domain, anybody can copy them. And yet, it is quite likely that Disney would sue you for putting an image from a public domain work on a lunchbox. Disney should probably lose that, but it’s going to fight very hard.
The Supreme Court, in a case called Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., said, basically, when something’s copyright expires, other people get to use it, and to use it without attribution, as long as they aren’t misrepresenting the physical source of what they’re selling. But what that means in practice has not fully been worked out, because so few things have entered the public domain in the past 20 years.
I think people should be free to use the materials despite the existence of trademark rights, because trademark law shouldn’t be able to stop you from doing what copyright law allows you to do and is set up to allow you to do. It’s no accident that things go into the public domain. But the contours of that are as yet unclear, precisely because Congress lengthened the copyright term, and so we didn’t get this problem until recently.
HLT: The most recent copyright extension, called the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, made its way to the Supreme Court in 2003. What did the Court say in that case?
Tushnet: What the Court basically said is that when everybody agrees that the result is a limited term of copyright protection, it’s basically up to Congress to decide how long that term should be. And even if every economist agrees that it won’t get us more copyrighted works, it’s still rational for Congress to do it, at least if it thinks there might be some other benefit
HLT: Do you think Disney and other companies will try to push for another extension of copyright protection?
Tushnet: It seems fairly unlikely, given that the backlash to the previous term extension brought together a bunch of groups for the first time who had never understood their interests to be linked. But nothing’s impossible. I will say that, as a big company, the works that are most valuable to you are the ones you just released this year. As if you’re releasing new iterations of a franchise, that seems to be the strategy that companies like Disney are using to enhance the value of their old stuff. So, it’s probably not worth the political capital required to extend the term again. It’s much more important to them to be able to make the next season of “Andor,” rather than to extend the term of copyright of a 1930 animation.
Since Disney is publicly traded and those working there do not necessarily own or hold onto stock, they likely don't care. If your position in the company allows you power over decisions and those decisions garner interest from outside parties, they can gather favor or income from pandering to outside interests. The level of corruption at the company is exorbitant. Caring about the success of the company is about as likely as a government official saying no to bribes.
JediMichael
Master Member
My Grandpa was born in March 1928 and will be 96 this year.
Maybe someone will use his likeliness in a horror film.....lol.
Maybe someone will use his likeliness in a horror film.....lol.
In theory, yes.
But I wouldn't dare to go much farther than that.
If you make any new Steamboat Willie adventures then you'd better make a big show of demonstrating that it's different from all the post-1928 Mickey Mouse content. And you'd better keep a good lawyer on speed-dial anyway.
Right, that's how I understand it. I could also make a Steamboat Willie 2 and as long as I keep the characters exactly as is or alter them in a way that does NOT resemble those characters in any later iteration, it should be legal.
JediMichael
Master Member
Yep....
JediMichael
Master Member
I'm already seeing people making memes and jokes with more modern versions of mickey.
I think people are not understanding how this works.
I wonder if Disney is having their lawyers on standee by like a bunch of army guys waiting to fire.
I think people are not understanding how this works.
I wonder if Disney is having their lawyers on standee by like a bunch of army guys waiting to fire.
No, they are too busy fighting all their legal battles with their own staff. Mickey abuse will just be free advertising.
Similar threads
