Mickey Mouse Copyright Expiration article

[jtwibih]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed in the past but I found this article on the The Motley Fool interesting. I guess I had no idea that this was a real possibility. What would this mean for Disney? If this is already posted somewhere, I apologize.

http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...-buys-all-the-premium-character-collecti.aspx

 

[merentha]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed in the past but I found this article on the The Motley Fool interesting. I guess I had no idea that this was a real possibility. What would this mean for Disney? If this is already posted somewhere, I apologize.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/09/17/why-disney-buys-all-the-premium-character-collecti.aspx

No way it won't get an extension

 

[old lady]

I hope for so for Disney's sake.

 

[tjkraz]

I'm no expert in legal matters but I've read a number of stories on the public domain issue. Here is one in particular which attempts to highlight differences between a Copyright and a Trademark:

http://animationanomaly.com/2011/07...y-mouse-enter-the-public-domain/#.Ujkn8xbV1jE

Relevant paragraph:

If Mickey Mouse’s films ever do enter (or are acknowledged as entering) the public domain, it will allow people to view them, edit them, remix them and so forth, it will not however, allow anyone to sell any merchandise branded as being “Mickey Mouse” merchandise. Why? Because unless they are officially sanctioned by the Walt Disney Company, they will be in breach of trademark law.

I'm not quite sure where the line would be drawn. Could someone create and sell a "Mickey Mouse" cartoon? Perhaps using the character is OK but it could not look or feel like Disney's trademarked version of "Mickey Mouse."

As for an extension, that could go either way. We aren't just talking about lawmakers (and courts) doing a favor for Disney. Changes to the law would have ramifications for hundreds of years...impacting an endless stream of intellectual property. The laws were put in place for a reason and despite Disney's deep pockets, there's little reason to think they will be easily granted an extension.

All of that said, I think the Motley Fool article misses the mark on a number of points. With regard to Mickey not being featured prominently in recent years, the author apparently overlooked the "Mickey Mouse Clubhouse" series which has produced over 100 episodes for Disney Channel. Also it's a bit of a reach to think that Disney only acquired Marvel and Lucasfilm because they might lose some creative control of Mickey Mouse in a few more years.

 

[crazy4wdw]

Disney just produced a new series of Mickey Mouse Cartoons:

http://blogs.disney.com/insider/art...ng-a-new-generation-of-mickey-mouse-cartoons/

 

[Whatsthegoodword]

This author is nuts if he thinks there is going to be knock-off Mickeys springing up in five years.

Disney has been diversifying because little boys (and big boys) are not that impressed with Mickey NOW. It has nothing to do with the prospect of Universal or Paramount or McDonalds creating a knock-off Mickey.

 

[tjkraz]

This author is nuts if he thinks there is going to be knock-off Mickeys springing up in five years.

Disney has been diversifying because little boys (and big boys) are not that impressed with Mickey NOW. It has nothing to do with the prospect of Universal or Paramount or McDonalds creating a knock-off Mickey.

It will never be open season on Mickey Mouse given Disney's trademark protections. But certain elements could slip into the public domain if laws are not changed.

And there's a large contingent who believes that intellectual property rights should have a finite life. I'm sure Disney will choose the most opportune time to try and push something through with lawmakers, but it's far from a certainty that they will get another extension.

If certain MM works fall into the PD, Disney will undoubtedly take aggressive legal action to protect the character. But there will be limits to what they can legally do.

A couple years ago, a comic book company was sued for using Tarzan and John Carter characters without licensing. Many of those novels are in the public domain, but trademark rights are apparently held by some company for Edgar Rice Burroughs' works. I haven't seen any resolution on that case, yet the comic company appears to still be publishing its works.

If the copyright laws aren't amended Disney will lose SOME creative control over Mickey Mouse, the extent of which remains to be seen.

 

[Bstanley]

Keep in mind, a copyright is on a 'work'. In other words having a copyright on a film cartoon basically means that the entity that created the cartoon chooses how the cartoon will be used, sold, distributed etc. It also covers any unique characters in the cartoon as well, Example: Jerry is a mouse and Mickey is a mouse, but their unique appearances are protected by copyright(yYou can't copyright 'mouse').

When the copyright for a particular cartoon expires, anyone can reproduce, distribute, etc the cartoon AND can do what they want with any unique characters as well which would include 1928 Mickey!!

But wait - Disney has Trademarked all the various versions of Mickey (and I imagine most of their characters). Trademark is very different. Trademarks for example, never expire.

So while it might be possible at some point to buy a copy of a 1928 Mickey cartoon without Disney controlling it, until Disney Inc. goes out of business they will continue to be the only company making coats, cartoons, dishes, etc using a 1928 image of Mickey (or any of their trademarked characters).

 

[johnlal]

Mr. Disney certainly made a good living utilizing characters in the public domain. It would be fitting if his own characters went that way.

 

[johnlal]

Mr. Disney certainly made a good living utilizing characters in the public domain. It would be fitting if his own characters went that way.

 

[wiigirl]

I hope for so for Disney's sake.

 

[Q-man]

Keep in mind, a copyright is on a 'work'. In other words having a copyright on a film cartoon basically means that the entity that created the cartoon chooses how the cartoon will be used, sold, distributed etc. It also covers any unique characters in the cartoon as well, Example: Jerry is a mouse and Mickey is a mouse, but their unique appearances are protected by copyright(yYou can't copyright 'mouse').

When the copyright for a particular cartoon expires, anyone can reproduce, distribute, etc the cartoon AND can do what they want with any unique characters as well which would include 1928 Mickey!!

But wait - Disney has Trademarked all the various versions of Mickey (and I imagine most of their characters). Trademark is very different. Trademarks for example, never expire.

So while it might be possible at some point to buy a copy of a 1928 Mickey cartoon without Disney controlling it, until Disney Inc. goes out of business they will continue to be the only company making coats, cartoons, dishes, etc using a 1928 image of Mickey (or any of their trademarked characters).

I think that author has a very poor concept of how much trademarks can be used to stop one offs.

 

[ParrotBill]

I think the major impact is that publishers and programmers no longer have to pay Disney for royalties on the works that have expired copyrights.

This is why we hear "old" songs suddenly get widely used in commercials and as background music... free to perform and use.

 

[Spacedog1975]

I do believe that copyrighted works should eventually enter the public domain, and they should not get perpetual extensions. I believe this mostly because there are plenty of works that remain copyrighted but are not available generally.

For me, copyright law would require that the holder exercise their copyright continously. They couldn't leave something out of print and expect to retain the copyright. If Disney wants the oldest shorts to remain copyrighted, they should have to provide new releases of them on occasion, a blu-ray of Mickey Mouse classic shorts would do the trick.

 

[PuppyJonathan]

Oswald can tell us all about being on the secondary market (since he's lost his clutch from Disney's copyright). Regardless of whether this is illegal or not but: I hope Disney can keep the copyright on all their films. I was thinking about this the other day, I don't want to see a low quality, crappy DVD of Snow White in the $5 bin in Walmart. The Disney films were always treated differently, and when that treatment is gone, the magic is gone. And whenever people say it should go to public domain because they have used so much from it? It's not like public domain existed in the 30's and any source material was based off well-known tales from Europe

 

[PuppyJonathan]

Also, why does everyone think Disney is bad whenever Warner Bros. went crazy over The Butler's name for Lee Daniel's movie: a 1917 short film that is either lost, in public domain, or forgotten

 

[Dreamer & Wisher]

I work in a preschool and there are many boys and girls who love Mickey. Mickey Mouse Clubhouse is very popular with little kids. And Disney makes a lot of Money from merchandise with Mickey my son has Mickey clothes, toys, blankets, sippie cups. His stroller and car seat have Mickey on them.

Disney will do whatever they can to defend their intellectual property. They make a lot if $$$$

 

[rock_doctor]

Mr. Disney certainly made a good living utilizing characters in the public domain. It would be fitting if his own characters went that way.

True and i would assume if the the Grimm brothers existed today they would have had Disney in court but since Walt used stories from the early 1800s...i think he is ok. But i caught the irony...