4 ms·

Disney has prepared for this day. They aren’t fighting to extend copyright instead they’ve wrapped mickey with so many trademarks that their iconic brand will b

by josho 3y ago

Disney has prepared for this day. They aren’t fighting to extend copyright instead they’ve wrapped mickey with so many trademarks that their iconic brand will be protected. Besides, it’s only ‘steamboat Willy’ that enters the public domain which has little relevance to today’s Mickey Mouse.

micromacrofoot 3y ago
the speculation (in the very short article) is that Mickey without gloves is in the public domain in 2024, Mickey with gloves is 2025, and Mickey in color is 2035 due to how the character progressed 100 years ago
- _Algernon_ 3y ago
  Is copyright based on the character or on a particular representation of the character? The latter seems utterly stupid to me, but wouldn't be a surprise given the stupidity of copyright law in general. I'd be curious if there is any precedent on this question.
  - btilly 3y ago
    The copyright is on your creative expression. There is a ton of precedent on the issue of how much expression and creativity is required to assert copyright. One of the key questions is whether it is plausible that someone just accidentally duplicated the same thing, or if it is the result of actual copying. Given how iconic Mickey Mouse is, I would be shocked if white gloves and the exact color scheme weren't copyrightable.
  - toast0 3y ago
    IANAL, but as I understand it, copyright covers things that are 'fixed in a tangible medium', which means the representation of the character, not the idea of the character. However, if you base your character on the ideas formed when you observed the representation of the other character, that's a derivative work. For someone like Mickey who has been in many works, if one of the works is out of copyright and you base a new work on that, that's fine (if we ignore trademark concerns). But if your derivative work happens to look a lot like an existing derivative work still under copyright, that's likely going to be seen as infringing the work under copyright. Independent creation is a valid defense for copyright infringemen, but isn't very credible in this case. Trademark has totally different issues. Which will be an issue for selling and advertising derivatives of works Disney uses as trademarks.

by josho 3y ago

micromacrofoot 3y ago

the speculation (in the very short article) is that Mickey without gloves is in the public domain in 2024, Mickey with gloves is 2025, and Mickey in color is 2035 due to how the character progressed 100 years ago

_Algernon_ 3y ago
Is copyright based on the character or on a particular representation of the character? The latter seems utterly stupid to me, but wouldn't be a surprise given the stupidity of copyright law in general. I'd be curious if there is any precedent on this question.
- btilly 3y ago
  The copyright is on your creative expression. There is a ton of precedent on the issue of how much expression and creativity is required to assert copyright. One of the key questions is whether it is plausible that someone just accidentally duplicated the same thing, or if it is the result of actual copying. Given how iconic Mickey Mouse is, I would be shocked if white gloves and the exact color scheme weren't copyrightable.
- toast0 3y ago
  IANAL, but as I understand it, copyright covers things that are 'fixed in a tangible medium', which means the representation of the character, not the idea of the character. However, if you base your character on the ideas formed when you observed the representation of the other character, that's a derivative work. For someone like Mickey who has been in many works, if one of the works is out of copyright and you base a new work on that, that's fine (if we ignore trademark concerns). But if your derivative work happens to look a lot like an existing derivative work still under copyright, that's likely going to be seen as infringing the work under copyright. Independent creation is a valid defense for copyright infringemen, but isn't very credible in this case. Trademark has totally different issues. Which will be an issue for selling and advertising derivatives of works Disney uses as trademarks.