2 ms·
I've referenced in the last HN Disney discussion an article by Priceonomics that explain a strategy Disney can use to enforce the treadmark (https://priceonomic
by pizza234 9y ago
I'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