Let us sit upon the ground and talk of copyrights and IP rights

[TiggerBouncy]

In just over 5 years - Jan 1, 2024 Mickey Mouse will enter the Public Domain. It doesn't look like there is any stomach in the government to extend the copyrights even further no matter how much pull Disney may have.

Disney also purchased clear and open rights to everything related to Winnie the Pooh from the trust in 2001. Pooh and the hundred acre woods gang enter public domain Jan 1. 2026.

Clearly Disney stands to lose a lot to public domain. There is talk that they may be able to use trademark law to protect SOME of it (namely the mouse himself).

What affect will this have (if any) to Disney in both movies and park experiences? It may be none. After all, almost every Disney Princess is not actually Disney IP. For example, Cinderella has been traced back as far as 7 BC. Snow White was made popular by the Brothers Grimm (although may have existed centuries earlier). No one can claim Disney has any IP over these characters (except maybe their iconic look). Indeed many variations of them exist in modern Hollywood (example Snow White and the Huntsman). Yet Disney still creates new movies and these characters appear in both parks and rides.

So this is what I put to you. Will anything actually change for the mouse and his friends on Jan 1, 2024 or will it go by with pretty much no one knowing any different except scholars and that a few stories may spring up that Disney can no longer squash?

Will our favorite bear and the rest of the hundred acre woods gang still keep their home after 2026?

I guess when you look at this, it puts perspective into the recent Disney acquisitions for new IP that is not nearing an expiration date.

 

[rteetz]

Disney has been asked this question about Mickey during shareholders meetings and such. They know it’s coming and have a plan in order to keep everything. I don’t expect anything to change.

 

[The Pho]

Mickey himself will still be protected by the trademarks, he will not be public domain until the Disney company goes away.
Only the films will be public domain as their copyrights expire.
The other characters should also be protected to a degree under trademark law, but it will likely vary per property. I imagine Pooh will be a little harder to protect to the same degree since there have been other adaptations of the books that Disney doesn't own. I think it'll be more the Disney versions that remain protected and the character itself will go public, just as many of the princesses are public already. I'm not a lawyer though so I don't know the finer workings of trademark law.
And there has been some additional push to extend it all again, just not being publicized to a large extent currently. It'll be interesting to see if the push becomes more publicized. Personally I'm really looking forward to the law expiring and new stuff rolling into public domain as a film collector it will make things way easier for me.

 

[Josh Hendy]

I have no sympathy for Disney in this case.

Consider the term "intellectual property". It says that "intellect" ... meaning your thoughts ... can be someone else's property.

There is no practical or moral basis for anything that goes under that title.

If 100-year or perpetual copyright was actually necessary to stimulate creative and intellectual innovation, then how could it be that Mickey Mouse himself was created under the protection of what Disney Corp now claims is a completely inadequate copyright system?

Will our favorite bear and the rest of the hundred acre woods gang still keep their home after 2026?

I'm just throwing this out there as a hypothetical but ... after the Christopher Robin movie do you think they deserve it?

 

[bonjing]

Disney has been asked this question about Mickey during shareholders meetings and such. They know it’s coming and have a plan in order to keep everything. I don’t expect anything to change.

dun...dun...dun...Conspiracy theory

Maybe this is why the big D is raising prices all around, to prepare for the big fight

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Disney has been asked this question about Mickey during shareholders meetings and such. They know it’s coming and have a plan in order to keep everything. I don’t expect anything to change.

Bob Iger: We are pleased to announce our newest character, with the newly started intellectual copyright window ... Mick E. Mouse!!!!!

 

[soniam]

I don't think it will matter much. Jungle Book has been in the public domain for a while. I don't think the WB live-action version will be able to compete with Favreau's version. A lot of other things are the same. Many studios won't bother trying to compete with Disney on some things. I don't think Mickey will be an issue though.

 

[Moliphino]

I don't think it will matter much. Jungle Book has been in the public domain for a while. I don't think the WB live-action version will be able to compete with Favreau's version. A lot of other things are the same. Many studios won't bother trying to compete with Disney on some things. I don't think Mickey will be an issue though.

The WB version has been sold off to Netflix, so it's not even getting a full theatrical release.

 

[MeridaMonkey]

The issue with Mickey Mouse specifically (if I'm remembering correctly, it's entirely possible I'm mistaken) is that the copyright for MM was owned by Walt Disney personally, rather than the company. Copyright law allows the copyright to remain for the life of the owner + 75 years, after which the copyrighted IP enters the public domain. I don't think there is anything the disney corporation can do to prevent mickey from going into the public domain, the law is pretty clear.

The stories of the early Disney princesses (Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, etc) themselves are public domain, which is why we've seen those characters elsewhere (Shrek, Ever After, the Rogers & Hammerstein musical, etc.) without having for fork over licensing fees to WDI. The copyrights Disney owns are for their particular interpretations of the princesses (Cinderella's blue dress, for example).

 

[The Pho]

The issue with Mickey Mouse specifically (if I'm remembering correctly, it's entirely possible I'm mistaken) is that the copyright for MM was owned by Walt Disney personally, rather than the company. Copyright law allows the copyright to remain for the life of the owner + 75 years, after which the copyrighted IP enters the public domain. I don't think there is anything the disney corporation can do to prevent mickey from going into the public domain, the law is pretty clear.

Well last time they simply had the law changed, and currently are working on changing it again. Maybe that's why Iger wants to run for president.

 

[adam.adbe]

Disney has been asked this question about Mickey during shareholders meetings and such. They know it’s coming and have a plan in order to keep everything. I don’t expect anything to change.

The plan was and is Shanghai Disney.

Disney really aren't worried about trademark or IP violations in the US or Europe, that's just too much risk with little upside for any but the kinds of small below-the-radar players who already flout IP restrictions.

China was a different kettle of fish, and Disney's deal with the Chinese government was all about brining them in as active partners, which sends a clear "hands-off" message to Chinese businesses.

Also, Steamboat Willy will enter public domain, but the likeness of the Mouse is a trademark, and Disney have cannily reused 'old' stylings of their various IPs which muddies the waters heavily in IP disputes, as the argument becomes: which are you copying the original, or the more recent look-alike?

 

[manning]

While a copyright protects works of art from being manipulated by the public, a trademark “protects words, phrases and symbols used to identify the source of the products or services.”

 

[soniam]

The WB version has been sold off to Netflix, so it's not even getting a full theatrical release.

Wow! I hand't planned on seeing it in the theater anyway. I guess that really helps prove my point. I bet WB wouldn't have even bothered, except that they had already started work on it before Favreau's version came out.

 

[Mr. Mickey]

An article on the topic:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...nes-about-overzealous-copyright-holders.shtml

 

[OSUZorba]

I find most arguments for never-ending copyrights to be mostly emotional appeals with regard to Mickey. Corporations are not deciding to make investments based on revenue projections in 100 years, or even 50 years. The vast majority of art is done producing significantly revenue in a few years, and will be completely forgotten in 100, yet people still produce new art.

Companies invest vast sums of money into inventions that can only be patented for 20 years before entering the public domain. As someone that has multiple patents, it makes the idea that companies won't invest without 100 year copyrights seem ridiculous to me. Especially when patentable inventions often take years to get to the market place, and the clock starts ticking as soon as the patent application is filed.

 

[maltdizzy]

The issue with Mickey Mouse specifically (if I'm remembering correctly, it's entirely possible I'm mistaken) is that the copyright for MM was owned by Walt Disney personally, rather than the company. .

Mickey was always considered a "work for hire" for Walt Disney Studios, which was incorporated in 1925 (as Disney Bros. Studio). Otherwise, Ub Iwerks would hold part of the copyright since he designed the character. It is (currently) 95 years from "publication."

Since the American and the European public is rarely concerned with changes to copyright law, and lawmakers generally stockholders in IP-based companies, it'll easily be extended.

 

[AurumPunzel]

I have a feeling he'll still be protected for as long as The Walt Disney Company still exists, particularly since he's an extremely-seminal icon of the company and is still in regular use today.

 

[Geoff_M]

The issue with Mickey Mouse specifically (if I'm remembering correctly, it's entirely possible I'm mistaken) is that the copyright for MM was owned by Walt Disney personally, rather than the company. Copyright law allows the copyright to remain for the life of the owner + 75 years, after which the copyrighted IP enters the public domain. I don't think there is anything the disney corporation can do to prevent mickey from going into the public domain, the law is pretty clear.

The stories of the early Disney princesses (Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, etc) themselves are public domain, which is why we've seen those characters elsewhere (Shrek, Ever After, the Rogers & Hammerstein musical, etc.) without having for fork over licensing fees to WDI. The copyrights Disney owns are for their particular interpretations of the princesses (Cinderella's blue dress, for example).

Here's my favorite video tutorial on the subject of copyright duration:

I don't think there is anything the disney corporation can do to prevent mickey from going into the public domain, the law is pretty clear.

A lot of people thought the same thing back in 1997 before Disney successfully led the charge to persuade Congress to extend things again and tack on another 20 years of protection. Personally, I wouldn't bet against the Mouse this time around either.

 

[tlmadden73]

To me -- Mickey Mouse - as an icon of a company - should be protected as long as the company exists.

I feel that people who are excited to see Disney icons go into the public domain just hate "greedy" corporations and feel they are freely profiting off the work of some artist. But, if it wasn't for those greedy corporations -- a lot of that art wouldn't ever see the light of day and become as popular as they are.

What good would he going to the public domain do? Sure . .some people and companies could use Mickey's name and likeness and sell some merchandise for a while, but then the controlled "look and feel" will get muddied, and the icon will not be as popular and then no one will want to buy it -- a lose for the consume and a lose for the companies involved.

A company that can protect its IP has incentive to do quality work with that IP because they can make money from that IP -- thus keeping the IP under control and "pure". What's wrong with a company making profits from an IP that they continually put work into (even if the original creator is long gone?).

Without copyright protections to IP -- you won't have things like Star Wars or Mickey Mouse last for GENERATIONS and instead will just be lost in time as just "another" sci-fi story or cartoon. Companies will just want to make new stuff so others can't just freeload off of their hard work of a public. We, the consumers won't have these long-lasting IPs that we know and love - because no one will have control of them.

 

[OSUZorba]

To me -- Mickey Mouse - as an icon of a company - should be protected as long as the company exists.

I feel that people who are excited to see Disney icons go into the public domain just hate "greedy" corporations and feel they are freely profiting off the work of some artist. But, if it wasn't for those greedy corporations -- a lot of that art wouldn't ever see the light of day and become as popular as they are.

What good would he going to the public domain do? Sure . .some people and companies could use Mickey's name and likeness and sell some merchandise for a while, but then the controlled "look and feel" will get muddied, and the icon will not be as popular and then no one will want to buy it -- a lose for the consume and a lose for the companies involved.

A company that can protect its IP has incentive to do quality work with that IP because they can make money from that IP -- thus keeping the IP under control and "pure". What's wrong with a company making profits from an IP that they continually put work into (even if the original creator is long gone?).

Without copyright protections to IP -- you won't have things like Star Wars or Mickey Mouse last for GENERATIONS and instead will just be lost in time as just "another" sci-fi story or cartoon. Companies will just want to make new stuff so others can't just freeload off of their hard work of a public. We, the consumers won't have these long-lasting IPs that we know and love - because no one will have control of them.

The problem is it isn't just Mickey. Sure big IPs might be helped by on going protection, but how much music from the 1930s can be bought in a store?

Ironically, it is Disney that shows why things should enter the public domain. The majority of their classic movies were based on stories from the public domain. They were able to take it and make it better.

If there was undieing copyright, someone would still own Shakespeare and the numerous offshoots of it wouldn't be possible. It wouldn't be taught as much in schools, et . Same with Beethoven, Bach, etc.

Copyright is supposed to end so others can improve on the previous work and so culture and history can't be removed from society. Just like patents. It has nothing to do with preventing companies from profitting.