5 ms·

Mickey Mouse already is a trademark. So even in public domain you already can't make a cartoon mouse and call him Mickey Mouse. > I think it is unreasonable to

by dtech 5y ago

Mickey Mouse already is a trademark. So even in public domain you already can't make a cartoon mouse and call him Mickey Mouse. > I think it is unreasonable to ask for iconic characters like Mickey Mouse, who still see regular content Why not? Maybe it will encourage creativity and corporations will be forced to create new things. Copyright's only base for existence is encouraging creating creative works after all. Note that you can't use elements still under copyright, e.g. his modern appearance won't be public domain once Steamboat Willie enters it.

hnlmorg 5y ago
> Why not? Maybe it will encourage creativity and corporations will be forced to create new things. Because Mickey Mouse is an icon, a mascot, a trademark, and one that is in active use in new media. So there is some sense in companies protecting that asset. Which is what is happening if these types of characters are covered under trademark law (I wasn't sure if that was the case when I made my earlier post). I might dislike Disney as an org but I also don't think it's fair to say it's "creative" for other people to use that asset but not "creative" for Disney to reuse it. You're setting different standards for different people. > Copyright's only base for existence is encouraging creating creative works after all. Copyright is an English invention and the purpose of it has evolved multiple times over the years. Originally it was intended to prevent scandalous pamphlets rather than promoting creative works. Later it was used like patents where authors could recover the costs of publishing before those stories became free for the masses. It wasn't created to encourage creating creative works because people used to do that long before the printing press, eg by passing stories down by word of mouth. > Note that you can't use elements still under copyright, e.g. his modern appearance won't be public domain once Steamboat Willie enters it. Indeed. But I was responding to the OPs point about how they believed copyright should behave rather than how it currently does.
- larsiusprime 5y ago
  Patents last 20 years. Mickey Mouse has been copyrighted for nearly a century - more than most human lifetimes - how long is “fair” for a government granted monopoly to one of the worlds richest corporations? Especially one busily buying up IP after IP that it did not originally create? The natural conclusion of your principle here is eternal corporate copyright. When would you be comfortable with Mickey Mouse (or anything else) going public domain? 200 years? 300? Should it ever?
  - hnlmorg 5y ago
    > Patents last 20 years. Mickey Mouse has been copyrighted for nearly a century - more than most human lifetimes My point is that Mickey Mouse is a trademark. An Apple patent expiring doesn't allow people to using Apple logos. Likewise a Disney copyright expiring shouldn't allow people to use Mickey Mouse. The cartoons themselves and any characters that aren't still in regular use is fair game. > how long is “fair” for a government granted monopoly to one of the worlds richest corporations? Especially one busily buying up IP after IP that it did not originally create? I agree it sucks, but this is why we need to make sure we understand the difference between content and trademarks. eg anyone can make a movie about Thor since that folk story is public domain. And I agree the copyright on content like the Marvel Universe movies shouldn't be around 100 years (I forget the exact duration, but it's always being extended anyway -- which I also disagree with by the way). > The natural conclusion of your principle here is eternal corporate copyright. No, that's literally the exact opposite of what I'm saying!! I'm saying that the character "Mickey Mouse" should have different rules applied because he is more than just a creative figure. Because he is a trademark. And thus trademark rules should apply to him in addition to copyright rules. However any content with Mickey Mouse in should be public domain after a reasonable period and that period currently is not reasonable. Music has similar distinctions. A song will have different copyrights on it, for the performance, for the writing, possibly any artwork (eg album cover). > When would you be comfortable with Mickey Mouse (or anything else) going public domain? 200 years? 300? Should it ever? Personally I think 20 years is reasonable for the cartoons. For the mascot, he should be trademarked (and is), so as long as Disney are using his likeness.
    - stonemetal12 5y ago
      How does it work for "Sherlock Holmes"? He is in that boat already. The last novel was published in 1927 so still copyrighted, but most of it is public domain. Considering you can still buy the novels you would think his name and appearance would be trademarkable, but shows and movies are in the clear as long as they stick to the public domain part of the lore.
      - iso1631 5y ago
- freejazz 5y ago
  "Because Mickey Mouse is an icon, a mascot, a trademark, and one that is in active use in new media. So there is some sense in companies protecting that asset. Which is what is happening if these types of characters are covered under trademark law (I wasn't sure if that was the case when I made my earlier post)." So they can still protect it under Trademark... what does that have to do with their copyrights?
  - hnlmorg 5y ago
    > So they can still protect it under Trademark... what does that have to do with their copyrights? Nothing. The point was about Mickey Mouse being public domain. If something is trademarked then it is not. I just expressed that point very badly thus leading to discussions conflating copyright and trademark.
    - freejazz 5y ago
      It is in the public domain. You can play the cartoons in your bar, you can sample the recordings, etc, etc. You cannot violate the trademark which is different than violating the copyright which you still do not seem to understand. To violate a trademark you have to TRADE under the MARK. If you aren't purporting to be Disney or to use the Mickey Mouse trademark to confuse customers into thinking you are Disney, then you aren't violating a trademark. It might behoove you to do some minor research on the law if you are going to type pages about it here.
      - hnlmorg 5y ago
        > It is in the public domain. Not by the accepted definition of "public domain": "The public domain consists of all the creative work to which no exclusive intellectual property rights apply." -- Wikipedia Trademarks are specifically listed as a form of intellectual property that does apply within that article as well. > You can play the cartoons in your bar, you can sample the recordings, etc, etc. You cannot violate the trademark which is different than violating the copyright which you still do not seem to understand. I do understand that actually; but we weren't discussing the technicalities of how you violate IP. I was discussing why Mickey Mouse shouldn't be in the public domain. > If you aren't purporting to be Disney or to use the Mickey Mouse trademark to confuse customers into thinking you are Disney, then you aren't violating a trademark. In theory, yes. But companies have successfully upheld trademark disputes where one could reasonably say no confusion exists. Plus the threat of legal action from Disney (even if it wouldn't be upheld) is enough to bend people to their will. So in practice it's not so simple. > It might behoove you to do some minor research on the law if you are going to type pages about it here. That's ironic given your points are more factually inaccurate than mine! Also there's no need for that tone in your post. We are all peers.

by dtech 5y ago

hnlmorg 5y ago

> Why not? Maybe it will encourage creativity and corporations will be forced to create new things. Because Mickey Mouse is an icon, a mascot, a trademark, and one that is in active use in new media. So there is some sense in companies protecting that asset. Which is what is happening if these types of characters are covered under trademark law (I wasn't sure if that was the case when I made my earlier post). I might dislike Disney as an org but I also don't think it's fair to say it's "creative" for other people to use that asset but not "creative" for Disney to reuse it. You're setting different standards for different people. > Copyright's only base for existence is encouraging creating creative works after all. Copyright is an English invention and the purpose of it has evolved multiple times over the years. Originally it was intended to prevent scandalous pamphlets rather than promoting creative works. Later it was used like patents where authors could recover the costs of publishing before those stories became free for the masses. It wasn't created to encourage creating creative works because people used to do that long before the printing press, eg by passing stories down by word of mouth. > Note that you can't use elements still under copyright, e.g. his modern appearance won't be public domain once Steamboat Willie enters it. Indeed. But I was responding to the OPs point about how they believed copyright should behave rather than how it currently does.

larsiusprime 5y ago
Patents last 20 years. Mickey Mouse has been copyrighted for nearly a century - more than most human lifetimes - how long is “fair” for a government granted monopoly to one of the worlds richest corporations? Especially one busily buying up IP after IP that it did not originally create? The natural conclusion of your principle here is eternal corporate copyright. When would you be comfortable with Mickey Mouse (or anything else) going public domain? 200 years? 300? Should it ever?
- hnlmorg 5y ago
  > Patents last 20 years. Mickey Mouse has been copyrighted for nearly a century - more than most human lifetimes My point is that Mickey Mouse is a trademark. An Apple patent expiring doesn't allow people to using Apple logos. Likewise a Disney copyright expiring shouldn't allow people to use Mickey Mouse. The cartoons themselves and any characters that aren't still in regular use is fair game. > how long is “fair” for a government granted monopoly to one of the worlds richest corporations? Especially one busily buying up IP after IP that it did not originally create? I agree it sucks, but this is why we need to make sure we understand the difference between content and trademarks. eg anyone can make a movie about Thor since that folk story is public domain. And I agree the copyright on content like the Marvel Universe movies shouldn't be around 100 years (I forget the exact duration, but it's always being extended anyway -- which I also disagree with by the way). > The natural conclusion of your principle here is eternal corporate copyright. No, that's literally the exact opposite of what I'm saying!! I'm saying that the character "Mickey Mouse" should have different rules applied because he is more than just a creative figure. Because he is a trademark. And thus trademark rules should apply to him in addition to copyright rules. However any content with Mickey Mouse in should be public domain after a reasonable period and that period currently is not reasonable. Music has similar distinctions. A song will have different copyrights on it, for the performance, for the writing, possibly any artwork (eg album cover). > When would you be comfortable with Mickey Mouse (or anything else) going public domain? 200 years? 300? Should it ever? Personally I think 20 years is reasonable for the cartoons. For the mascot, he should be trademarked (and is), so as long as Disney are using his likeness.
  - stonemetal12 5y ago
    How does it work for "Sherlock Holmes"? He is in that boat already. The last novel was published in 1927 so still copyrighted, but most of it is public domain. Considering you can still buy the novels you would think his name and appearance would be trademarkable, but shows and movies are in the clear as long as they stick to the public domain part of the lore.
    - iso1631 5y ago
freejazz 5y ago
"Because Mickey Mouse is an icon, a mascot, a trademark, and one that is in active use in new media. So there is some sense in companies protecting that asset. Which is what is happening if these types of characters are covered under trademark law (I wasn't sure if that was the case when I made my earlier post)." So they can still protect it under Trademark... what does that have to do with their copyrights?
- hnlmorg 5y ago
  > So they can still protect it under Trademark... what does that have to do with their copyrights? Nothing. The point was about Mickey Mouse being public domain. If something is trademarked then it is not. I just expressed that point very badly thus leading to discussions conflating copyright and trademark.
  - freejazz 5y ago
    It is in the public domain. You can play the cartoons in your bar, you can sample the recordings, etc, etc. You cannot violate the trademark which is different than violating the copyright which you still do not seem to understand. To violate a trademark you have to TRADE under the MARK. If you aren't purporting to be Disney or to use the Mickey Mouse trademark to confuse customers into thinking you are Disney, then you aren't violating a trademark. It might behoove you to do some minor research on the law if you are going to type pages about it here.
    - hnlmorg 5y ago
      > It is in the public domain. Not by the accepted definition of "public domain": "The public domain consists of all the creative work to which no exclusive intellectual property rights apply." -- Wikipedia Trademarks are specifically listed as a form of intellectual property that does apply within that article as well. > You can play the cartoons in your bar, you can sample the recordings, etc, etc. You cannot violate the trademark which is different than violating the copyright which you still do not seem to understand. I do understand that actually; but we weren't discussing the technicalities of how you violate IP. I was discussing why Mickey Mouse shouldn't be in the public domain. > If you aren't purporting to be Disney or to use the Mickey Mouse trademark to confuse customers into thinking you are Disney, then you aren't violating a trademark. In theory, yes. But companies have successfully upheld trademark disputes where one could reasonably say no confusion exists. Plus the threat of legal action from Disney (even if it wouldn't be upheld) is enough to bend people to their will. So in practice it's not so simple. > It might behoove you to do some minor research on the law if you are going to type pages about it here. That's ironic given your points are more factually inaccurate than mine! Also there's no need for that tone in your post. We are all peers.