4 ms·
He won't. He's protected by a trademark, I believe.
by hnhg 9y ago
He won't. He's protected by a trademark, I believe.
- humanrebar 9y agoI don't think a trademark can prevent redistributing Steamboat Willie. It can prevent you from making a logo with Steamboat Willie on it, though. Or using it as the unlicensed mascot on your breakfast cereal.
- pizza234 9y agoI've referenced in the last HN Disney discussion an article by Priceonomics that explain a strategy Disney can use to enforce the treadmark (https://priceonomics.com/how-mickey-mouse-evades-the-public-domain/ https://priceonomics.com/how-mickey-mouse-evades-the-public-...): > Even if Mickey’s copyright does expire in 2023, Disney has no less than 19 trademarks on the words “Mickey Mouse” [...] > According a precedent set in a 1979 court case, a trademark can protect a character in the public domain as long as that character has obtained what is called “secondary meaning.” This means that the character and the company are virtually inseparable: upon seeing it, one will immediately identify it with a brand. [...] > In other words, Disney has ingrained Mickey Mouse so deeply in its corporate identity that the character is essentially afforded legal protection for eternity, so long as Disney protects him (trademarks last indefinitely, so long as they are renewed).
- humanrebar 9y agoNothing in that says Disney can block producing derivative works based on works in the public domain. It's simply stating that Mickey Mouse can be a trademark and trademarks can last forever. But trademarks are also subject to fair use, for example when factually describing a product. So a Steamboat Willie YouTube video would be either redistributing a public domain work or it would be a derivative work. And calling it "Steamboat Willie" would be descriptive. I think Disney would have an uphill battle to stamp out all uses of Steamboat Willie. Though they certainly have the money to do so regardless of what the law seems to indicate.
- pnutjam 9y agoTax intellectual property, heavily after set period. Or tax based on value and make it mandatory to license to others at internal costs.
- fnord123 9y agoI'm not a lawyer, but the 1979 ruling seems to be in disagreement with Dastar v Fox[1] (2003) > The Court reasoned that although the Lanham Act forbids a reverse passing off, the rule regarding the misuse of trademarks is trumped by the fact that once a copyrighted work (or even a patented invention) passes into the public domain, anyone in the public may do anything with the work, with or without attribution to the author. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dastar_Corp._v._Twentieth_Century_Fox_Film_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dastar_Corp._v._Twentieth_Cent....
- patcon 9y agoThe steamboat willy identity mark at the beginning of recent disney movies is probably working toward this
- cm2187 9y agoIs Steamboat Willie really valuable to Disney? Kids aren't exactly fighting to watch old black & white cartoons from the 20s and 30s (one could say the same of the masterpieces of 1930s cinema, a minority of cinephiles still watch them but are they really commercially valuable)?
- humanrebar 9y agoI think the value is in preventing Steamboat Willie porn, for example, from harming the brand of Mickey Mouse.
- tinus_hn 9y agoThat is covered by the fair use exception as parody. There are plenty of porn parodies of movies as they are in theatres and there isn’t really a lot the studios can do about it.
- humanrebar 9y agoOK, a brand new Steam Boat Willie web cartoon, then. One with racist content.
- berbec 9y agoYou mean like Disney's 1946 file, "Song of the South"? [1] 1: https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0038969/ https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0038969/
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- icebraining 9y agoExactly like that - try buying that film nowadays. Using copyright, Disney has prevented old stuff like that from tarnishing their brand.
- stult 9y agoTrademark only protects against trademark confusion. Meaning it only protects the owner's right to use the trademark as a unique identifier with respect to certain services and goods. I believe Disney uses Mickey for a trademark so that character may be protected to some extent. Other characters not so much. And in any case, they're only protected to the extent that Disney is the only company that can use them as unique identifiers for goods and services.