15 ms·

Mickey’s Copyright Adventure: Early Disney Toon Is Set to Be Public Property

98 points by swinnipeg 4y ago

swinnipeg 4y ago
https://archive.ph/vAnFb https://archive.ph/vAnFb
kthejoker2 4y ago
Lol at the "time is money" screenshot from Mickey's Christmas Carol, kudos to the graphics folks who found that gem for this article
retrac 4y ago
Copyright in Canada for films is 75 years. So, Disney works before 1948 are public domain here. I can't seem to actually find any of them, though. I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure I'd be within my legal rights to take e.g. an original print of Bambi as released in 1942, scan it, and make it available online for Canadians. I'm also pretty sure I'd get sued anyway. Getting a copy of the original is also something of a challenge for this practically. (VHS and DVD releases are probably subject to a new copyright, remastering is often copyrightable.) If all extant accessible versions of a work are under copyright, then the work being in the public domain is only theoretical.
- vlovich123 4y ago
  AFAIK you don’t need an original print. All versions that aren’t materially different lack copyright and are free to distribute.
  - Sunspark 4y ago
    I would say caution is advised. I have seen it argued that one trick to prevent expiry is to re-record the audio with a new orchestra thus causing it to become a new production.
    - kingbirdy 4y ago
      A new score would certainly qualify as "materially different", to GPs point
      - Sunspark 4y ago
        Yes and no. You can still record the original music again, but with a brand new orchestra. Is it materially different then? From a legal standpoint? From an individual standpoint?
        zarzavat 4y ago
        The answer is yes. There is copyright for the score and copyright for the performance. New performance, new copyright.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
hackernewds 4y ago
The cautionary article by the New York times, clearly entangled as a media company with Disney as well, seems to be doing Disney a favor. As it will most likely appear as a top result for when the inevitable creative artists try to capitalize on this expiration of their copyright.
gcanyon 4y ago
It's pedantic to say it, but copyright is not directly intended to help creators; its purpose is to enrich the public by inspiring creators to produce more. Helping creators profit/benefit from their work is a means to an end. Creative work benefits the public in at least two ways: primarily, by being itself. People like reading the original Harry Potter books. Copyright encourages that by allowing creators to sell their work: Rowling is rich. Secondarily, by inspiring other works. Fifty Shades of Grey started out as Twilight fan fiction. Art inspires more art. Copyright hinders this process. Based on the above, copyright should now be much shorter: on the order of a few years. In the past it took time to extract value from a work. Successful books had dozens of printings. Shipping books around the world was slow. Discovery of material to adapt into film took time. Note, this wasn't universally true: the Gone With the Wind film adaptation happened only three years after the book was published. But take for example the Lord of the Rings books. They were published in the UK in 1954 and 1955, but some sort of copyright issue/loophole caused them to be widely available in the U.S. in the 1960s, before authorized editions came out. When they did become available, authorized editions then had a note that included a phrase something along the lines of, "Those having a courtesy for living authors (at least), will purchase this edition (of the book) and no other." In any case, now with the internet and digital media, the majority of the value for most publications should be available within just a few years of release. As such, the balance between the time allotted for initial value production and the value as material to inspire other works should shift forward substantially. If I were setting copyright law, I'd probably make it something like 5 years automatically, with extensions available yearly after that by filing inexpensive paperwork, up to a maximum of 10(?) years.
- alexb_ 4y ago
  I've heard the suggestion that copyright could be extended after 5 years by paying a dollar to renew, after 6 years by paying 2 dollars, 7 years by paying 4, 8 with 8, etc. If your copyright is so immensly valuable that it's worth paying to renew it, that's fine. The longer you keep something in copyright, the larger your harm to society becomes due to preventing legal fan works and derivatives from being made. The fee to renew would reflect that.
  - 4y ago
Apocryphon 4y ago
If Mickey is public domain soon, does that mean Oswald the Rabbit is already out and due for an epic reboot?!?
- toyg 4y ago
  Oswald has been revived by Disney in the last 15 years, likely just to ensure it remains in the same "dangerous" legal state as "Steamboat Willie" will be (i.e. free of copyright in theory, sure to attract lawsuits in practice and so effectively untouchable anyway).
somat 4y ago
Note that "Mickey: the character" does not suddenly become public domain, Mickey is a trademark of the Disney corporation, and trademarks do not expire. However some specific "Mickey: the film" will go into public domain. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect this means that is will be fine to redistribute specific early mickey films, however any remixes, or reuse of the content, you may find yourself violating Disney's mouse trademark. You would have to successfully argue that your use of Mickey came form a public domain source and does not exist in the same market as Disney's trademark... Good luck on that, you'll need it.
- slim 4y ago
  Steam boat willie : the character will become public domain. You are free to create new stories with steam boat willie as a character.
- toast0 4y ago
  I'm not a lawyer either, if copyright is expired, you're free to make a derivative work. Although, you certainly have to be sure you don't derive from a derivative work whose copyright has not expired. Trademark issues will be tricky, there is a concept of fair use in trademarks, and it seems to me, if you can sell a copy of the film, you must be able to use elements of the film to sell it. If you can create and distribute derivative works, you must be able to use elements of the works to sell them. But maybe we'll just have to have white boxes with 3rd party Mickey (as seen in Steamboat Willie) movies, and boring movie posters too. I expect to see a stream of lawsuits until clear rulings are available.
HelloNurse 4y ago
What is the Mickey Mouse trademark for, exactly? A character is not a product or service. If the trademark forbids anyone but Disney from making cartoons featuring Mickey Mouse, it is obviously an abuse and it should be revoked.
- lbotos 4y ago
  https://trademarks.justia.com/search?q=Mickey+Mouse https://trademarks.justia.com/search?q=Mickey+Mouse Here are US trademarks. The trademark does not stop people from making a cartoon featuring Mickey Mouse, copyright does. We saw this with “Winnie the Pooh”. New horror movie can use the Pooh bear and friends, but can’t use the red shirt as that’s still copyrighted. Trademark stops people from being able to use the name Mickey Mouse or the stylized type version they trademarked.

98 points by swinnipeg 4y ago

https://archive.ph/vAnFb https://archive.ph/vAnFb

Lol at the "time is money" screenshot from Mickey's Christmas Carol, kudos to the graphics folks who found that gem for this article

retrac 4y ago

Copyright in Canada for films is 75 years. So, Disney works before 1948 are public domain here. I can't seem to actually find any of them, though. I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure I'd be within my legal rights to take e.g. an original print of Bambi as released in 1942, scan it, and make it available online for Canadians. I'm also pretty sure I'd get sued anyway. Getting a copy of the original is also something of a challenge for this practically. (VHS and DVD releases are probably subject to a new copyright, remastering is often copyrightable.) If all extant accessible versions of a work are under copyright, then the work being in the public domain is only theoretical.

vlovich123 4y ago
AFAIK you don’t need an original print. All versions that aren’t materially different lack copyright and are free to distribute.
- Sunspark 4y ago
  I would say caution is advised. I have seen it argued that one trick to prevent expiry is to re-record the audio with a new orchestra thus causing it to become a new production.
  - kingbirdy 4y ago
    A new score would certainly qualify as "materially different", to GPs point
    - Sunspark 4y ago
      Yes and no. You can still record the original music again, but with a brand new orchestra. Is it materially different then? From a legal standpoint? From an individual standpoint?
      - zarzavat 4y ago
        The answer is yes. There is copyright for the score and copyright for the performance. New performance, new copyright.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

hackernewds 4y ago

The cautionary article by the New York times, clearly entangled as a media company with Disney as well, seems to be doing Disney a favor. As it will most likely appear as a top result for when the inevitable creative artists try to capitalize on this expiration of their copyright.

gcanyon 4y ago

It's pedantic to say it, but copyright is not directly intended to help creators; its purpose is to enrich the public by inspiring creators to produce more. Helping creators profit/benefit from their work is a means to an end. Creative work benefits the public in at least two ways: primarily, by being itself. People like reading the original Harry Potter books. Copyright encourages that by allowing creators to sell their work: Rowling is rich. Secondarily, by inspiring other works. Fifty Shades of Grey started out as Twilight fan fiction. Art inspires more art. Copyright hinders this process. Based on the above, copyright should now be much shorter: on the order of a few years. In the past it took time to extract value from a work. Successful books had dozens of printings. Shipping books around the world was slow. Discovery of material to adapt into film took time. Note, this wasn't universally true: the Gone With the Wind film adaptation happened only three years after the book was published. But take for example the Lord of the Rings books. They were published in the UK in 1954 and 1955, but some sort of copyright issue/loophole caused them to be widely available in the U.S. in the 1960s, before authorized editions came out. When they did become available, authorized editions then had a note that included a phrase something along the lines of, "Those having a courtesy for living authors (at least), will purchase this edition (of the book) and no other." In any case, now with the internet and digital media, the majority of the value for most publications should be available within just a few years of release. As such, the balance between the time allotted for initial value production and the value as material to inspire other works should shift forward substantially. If I were setting copyright law, I'd probably make it something like 5 years automatically, with extensions available yearly after that by filing inexpensive paperwork, up to a maximum of 10(?) years.

alexb_ 4y ago
I've heard the suggestion that copyright could be extended after 5 years by paying a dollar to renew, after 6 years by paying 2 dollars, 7 years by paying 4, 8 with 8, etc. If your copyright is so immensly valuable that it's worth paying to renew it, that's fine. The longer you keep something in copyright, the larger your harm to society becomes due to preventing legal fan works and derivatives from being made. The fee to renew would reflect that.
- 4y ago

Apocryphon 4y ago

If Mickey is public domain soon, does that mean Oswald the Rabbit is already out and due for an epic reboot?!?

toyg 4y ago
Oswald has been revived by Disney in the last 15 years, likely just to ensure it remains in the same "dangerous" legal state as "Steamboat Willie" will be (i.e. free of copyright in theory, sure to attract lawsuits in practice and so effectively untouchable anyway).

somat 4y ago

Note that "Mickey: the character" does not suddenly become public domain, Mickey is a trademark of the Disney corporation, and trademarks do not expire. However some specific "Mickey: the film" will go into public domain. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect this means that is will be fine to redistribute specific early mickey films, however any remixes, or reuse of the content, you may find yourself violating Disney's mouse trademark. You would have to successfully argue that your use of Mickey came form a public domain source and does not exist in the same market as Disney's trademark... Good luck on that, you'll need it.

slim 4y ago
Steam boat willie : the character will become public domain. You are free to create new stories with steam boat willie as a character.
toast0 4y ago
I'm not a lawyer either, if copyright is expired, you're free to make a derivative work. Although, you certainly have to be sure you don't derive from a derivative work whose copyright has not expired. Trademark issues will be tricky, there is a concept of fair use in trademarks, and it seems to me, if you can sell a copy of the film, you must be able to use elements of the film to sell it. If you can create and distribute derivative works, you must be able to use elements of the works to sell them. But maybe we'll just have to have white boxes with 3rd party Mickey (as seen in Steamboat Willie) movies, and boring movie posters too. I expect to see a stream of lawsuits until clear rulings are available.

HelloNurse 4y ago

What is the Mickey Mouse trademark for, exactly? A character is not a product or service. If the trademark forbids anyone but Disney from making cartoons featuring Mickey Mouse, it is obviously an abuse and it should be revoked.

lbotos 4y ago
https://trademarks.justia.com/search?q=Mickey+Mouse https://trademarks.justia.com/search?q=Mickey+Mouse Here are US trademarks. The trademark does not stop people from making a cartoon featuring Mickey Mouse, copyright does. We saw this with “Winnie the Pooh”. New horror movie can use the Pooh bear and friends, but can’t use the red shirt as that’s still copyrighted. Trademark stops people from being able to use the name Mickey Mouse or the stylized type version they trademarked.