IP protection covers three things—patent, copyright, and trademark. Patent and copyright exist to encourage people to innovate; there's less incentive for the s

IP protection covers three things—patent, copyright, and trademark. Patent and copyright exist to encourage people to innovate; there's less incentive for the studio to produce next summer's big action flick if it were legal to copy it as soon as it's released; and there's less incentive to figure out which of many nearly identical, but subtly different contraptions actually work if someone can then take the working one and produce a thousand at some factory. Trademark is different. That rewards not the act of creation, but the ongoing investment in a brand. Do I want a huge quantity of something for above average quality and below average price? Buy Kirkland Signature. Do I want outdoor gear that will be covered no matter what happens? LLBean has me covered. Disney almost surely makes almost no profit off of Steamboat Willy as a film, and in fact according to the copyright laws of the time, it wouldn't be covered today, so Walt probably didn't factor in the 21st century when amortizing his costs. Is there some teenager out there who could create some truly inspiring film by remashing clips from Steamboat Willy? I have no idea, but would love to find out. But a Mickey Mouse mug is more about trademark, and Disney should get to profit off that as long as people want to buy them. And if the teenagers film hurts the trademark, then that's something that could be resolved without an indefinite extension of copyright terms.