8 ms·

The mouse via Steamboat Willie is scheduled to enter public domain? Guess we can look forward to quite eventful three weeks before the end of the year, while D

by yk 3y ago

The mouse via Steamboat Willie is scheduled to enter public domain? Guess we can look forward to quite eventful three weeks before the end of the year, while Disney is frantically trying to prevent that outcome.

nickthegreek 3y ago
They wont. Corridor Crew did a good little video on this topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2dIvUAd5QE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2dIvUAd5QE
sp0rk 3y ago
It's my understanding that they still retain a lot of control over Mickey Mouse indefinitely because he is trademarked as the face of their company.
- mod50ack 3y ago
  There's a distinction between trademark and copyright, and the ability to imply a Disney source and to include Mickey in your work are not controlled in the same way. Using the 1928 Mouse in your work while making it clear your work doesn't originate with Disney wouldn't violate trademark law.
  - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
    that would first of all take a lot of work to make it absolutely clear, a lot of work to use the mouse, and finally a lot of work to fight the lawsuits until it was established that you didn't violate and could do what you were doing. In short nobody but a crazy person or someone with a real deep artistic need that absolutely required that version of Mickey to work would ever pursue it.
    - resolutebat 3y ago
      It took one year from Winnie the Pooh entering the public domain to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh:_Blood_and_Honey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh:_Blood_and_Hon... And AFAIK they were not sued, despite being ever so slightly off brand for Disney.
      - bazoom42 3y ago
        Plenty of Disney characters like Snow White or Cinderella have been public domain all the time without it hurting Disney.
        dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
        I'm working on a "Pedophile Willy" adaptation of Steamboat Willy, complete with raw (stick figure) sex scenes and Willy promoting the "pedophile lifestyle". Lets see how that goes.
        bazoom42 3y ago
        Nobody will care about your stick figures. 1960s underground comix did all that 50 years ago when it was still edgy.
      - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
        OK, yeah I remember seeing that - not seeing the film but seeing it existed. On the other hand that is understood as a property that originally was not Disney. I think as well Disney protection of its characters might be a more ingrained than just normal copyright protectionism - Walt was notoriously a bastard to anyone who messed around with not treating Mickey with the respect he deserved.
- jerf 3y ago
  That's almost the most infuriating thing about their copyright grabs; it hardly even gets them anything of interest. They're not making any money on the actual Steamboat Willie movie. We're still a ways away from anything of even modest commercial interest from Disney entering the public domain, and even when Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs does finally come into public domain, I can't imagine it meaningfully affects their bottom line. The ability to roll into a store and just buy it isn't going to meaningfully affect Disney. Meanwhile, they still have all the trademark control, which itself means you can't really do anything to Steamboat Willie that would "offend" Disney. (I'm going to just leave that vague for now.) Meanwhile, to keep this at-best modestly interesting historical film locked up for those last few marginal drops of IP, they've kept the entire rest of the culture locked up. Hell of a cost society pays just for that. I'd almost rather we just grant Disney copyright in perpetuity if it would shut them up and leave the rest of the culture alone.
  - coldpie 3y ago
    > Meanwhile, to keep this at-best modestly interesting historical film locked up Well, it's not just the film, it's also everything in it, including (that design of) the characters themselves. When that enters the public domain, anyone can use (that design of) those characters for any purpose, including in their own works that have nothing to do with the Steamboat film. I can go make a platforming video game ala Cuphead using those characters and sell it. While I think that's a good thing for society, you can probably understand why Disney doesn't.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      Those characters are trademarked, and Disney has a good case that they are still using those trademarks. Trademark is different from copyright - it doesn't expire, but also has more use it or lose it parts, along with defend it or lose it. Disney is doing both with most of the characters so if you try to use Micky mouse in anything you are likely to lose a lawsuit. Consult a lawyer for exact details. there are things you can do with the characters after this expires, but the rules are very complex and I don't really understand them.
    - 3y ago
jader201 3y ago
> It was close to entering the public domain in the U.S. several times: each time, copyright protection was extended. It could have entered the public domain in four different years: first in 1955, renewed to 1986, then to 2003 by the Copyright Act of 1976, and then to 2023 by the Copyright Term Extension Act (also known pejoratively as the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act”) of 1998. It has been claimed that these extensions were a response by Congress to extensive lobbying by The Walt Disney Company.
- disneycember 3y ago
  So now we can begin to undo all the damage Disney has done by extending copyright beyond any reasonable timeframe, right?
  - bluGill 3y ago
    This undos nothing. We just limit damage to what has already been done for this one film. there are other things still in copyright that wouldn't have been, and that damage is still being done, and will until that copyright expires.
kevinmchugh 3y ago
It's been obvious for a few years that Disney wasn't going to pursue extending copyright anymore. It would have been politically difficult at any point in the last few years as the Senate does so little.
- bluGill 3y ago
  More importantly, those who care about the public domain were not paying attention the last time. They are now, so Disney realizes that it will be a harder sell. As soon as they get someone to propose a laws letters will be written. There is one thing more powerful than money in politics and that is votes. Letters to congress are a proxy for votes and so nobody will risk another extension.
- hinkley 3y ago
  The timelessness of those old cartoons has waned considerably. GenX was already getting reruns of Disney and Looney Tunes cartoons that were aimed at Boomers. As the boomers are aging out, a lot of the slices of both domestic life and leisure time in these cartoons are something alien. Women in the kitchen? Hunting rabbits? And with a shotgun? Really? Itchy and Scratchy are Tom and Jerry ad absurdum. The Flintstones were somewhere between Tom and Jerry and The Honeymooners. Most of this stuff does not deserve a replay.
  - bongodongobob 3y ago
    Neither of those things are alien. A world exists outside of whatever metropolis you think is the center of the universe. Millions and millions of people hunt and millions and millions of women are primary caretakers or stay at home moms.
    - chownie 3y ago
      I would say the world shown in those cartoons is alien to viewers of today. There were millions of hunters and millions of stay at home mothers in the 40's during Tom & Jerry's original run, but there's many fewer millions now. Consider: Women jumped from a third working in 1950 to just over two-thirds (of those who have children under 6, even) working as of the year 2000. We've had another two decades and change plus recessions since then, how much smaller could the demographic be?
TonyTrapp 3y ago
They probably realized by now there is not much value left in that old version of Mickey. It's the newer self of Mickey (different looks and character) that brings in the money, but even that is becoming less relevant these days, I think? That's why they have bought so much IP which appeals to more people than Mickey Mouse.
- hinkley 3y ago
  Someone pointed out to me that Winnie the Pooh brings in more money than Mickey, and his copyright is just about the same timeframe. Everyone assumes The Mouse is what Disney is shitting bricks over and it's just as likely it's the silly ol' bear instead.
  - Closi 3y ago
    Hmm I’m not sure - that might be true for movies but is it true for merch? Think of all the Mickey ears that get sold at the parks. Either way there is a boatload of Mickey related revenue still…
    - thfuran 3y ago
      Disney doesn't need to rely on IP protection to maintain a hand in merch sales in their own parks.
      - Closi 3y ago
        Sure, but the claim was that Winnie the Pooh currently brings in more money than Mickey.
    - hinkley 3y ago
      I don’t have the link anymore but at the time I was sent to a breakdown that was above $5B for all Winnie, and around 4 for Mickey and friends. Obviously not nothing, and the fact they are close together doesn’t give Disney a ramp down once PD starts affecting them.
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
What would happen in practice if someone tried to use the public domain Mickey for something? I assume that regardless of the legal status, you'd still have a fun time with Disney lawyers proving in court that you had the right to use public domain Mickey. Is Mickey also a trademark (which never expires) and anything using public domain Mickey would be too similar to their trademark?
- hinkley 3y ago
  Yeah Mickey is a trademark. Now I could remake Steamboat Willy with characters that weren't trademarked. Previously I could not depict either without getting sued.
SirMaster 3y ago
Disney spent the last decade or so growing their business (through large acquisitions) to where Mickey is now just small fraction of their worth. So they likely don't really care anymore. Plus it's only the old, old design of Mickey, not the current version they have been using for awhile that looks more normal to most people these days.
- gostsamo 3y ago
  They trademarked everything they could about him, so it is still a valuable part of the portfolio.
- ssgodderidge 3y ago
  While Mickey may represent a small portion of revenue, it (he?) accounts for a large portion of the Disney brand. It's one of the most recognizable cartoons of all time
  - libraryatnight 3y ago
    When I was a kid Mickey had transcended movie character, he was like the Santa of the Disney world. the M.C. The spirit of Walt in some ways. I think I'd seen maybe one special or fantasia with him actually starring, and even that was after I knew him. My nephews have seen less of him and yet he's still something of a magic benevolent being to them. He represents so much more than a character, I think in a time when they're expanding portfolios they NEED to keep Mickey to stay Disney if they want to - and imo they should want to.
- furyofantares 3y ago
  I was shocked to learn my 7yo daughter associates Disney with Mickey and Minnie. She's watched like one Mickey cartoon on Disney+, and she's seen way more Disney stuff than that. Never been to Disneyland. But somehow to her, Disney === Mickey/Minnie. Branding is wild stuff.
  - jl6 3y ago
    Mickey’s silhouette is still used in various Disney logos, so it’s not too wild a connection to make.
wonger_ 3y ago
The MSCHF art collective had a project a few years ago based on this public domain timing: https://mschfxfamousmouse.com/ https://mschfxfamousmouse.com/ > We are making and selling the idea of a MSCHF “Famous Mouse” artwork now, that will not exist–even as a design–until 2024. If you purchase this artwork, we give you a temporary token with a unique code that can be redeemed for the actual piece in 3 years.

by yk 3y ago

nickthegreek 3y ago

They wont. Corridor Crew did a good little video on this topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2dIvUAd5QE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2dIvUAd5QE

sp0rk 3y ago

It's my understanding that they still retain a lot of control over Mickey Mouse indefinitely because he is trademarked as the face of their company.

mod50ack 3y ago
There's a distinction between trademark and copyright, and the ability to imply a Disney source and to include Mickey in your work are not controlled in the same way. Using the 1928 Mouse in your work while making it clear your work doesn't originate with Disney wouldn't violate trademark law.
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago
  that would first of all take a lot of work to make it absolutely clear, a lot of work to use the mouse, and finally a lot of work to fight the lawsuits until it was established that you didn't violate and could do what you were doing. In short nobody but a crazy person or someone with a real deep artistic need that absolutely required that version of Mickey to work would ever pursue it.
  - resolutebat 3y ago
    It took one year from Winnie the Pooh entering the public domain to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh:_Blood_and_Honey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh:_Blood_and_Hon... And AFAIK they were not sued, despite being ever so slightly off brand for Disney.
    - bazoom42 3y ago
      Plenty of Disney characters like Snow White or Cinderella have been public domain all the time without it hurting Disney.
      - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
        I'm working on a "Pedophile Willy" adaptation of Steamboat Willy, complete with raw (stick figure) sex scenes and Willy promoting the "pedophile lifestyle". Lets see how that goes.
        bazoom42 3y ago
        Nobody will care about your stick figures. 1960s underground comix did all that 50 years ago when it was still edgy.
    - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
      OK, yeah I remember seeing that - not seeing the film but seeing it existed. On the other hand that is understood as a property that originally was not Disney. I think as well Disney protection of its characters might be a more ingrained than just normal copyright protectionism - Walt was notoriously a bastard to anyone who messed around with not treating Mickey with the respect he deserved.
jerf 3y ago
That's almost the most infuriating thing about their copyright grabs; it hardly even gets them anything of interest. They're not making any money on the actual Steamboat Willie movie. We're still a ways away from anything of even modest commercial interest from Disney entering the public domain, and even when Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs does finally come into public domain, I can't imagine it meaningfully affects their bottom line. The ability to roll into a store and just buy it isn't going to meaningfully affect Disney. Meanwhile, they still have all the trademark control, which itself means you can't really do anything to Steamboat Willie that would "offend" Disney. (I'm going to just leave that vague for now.) Meanwhile, to keep this at-best modestly interesting historical film locked up for those last few marginal drops of IP, they've kept the entire rest of the culture locked up. Hell of a cost society pays just for that. I'd almost rather we just grant Disney copyright in perpetuity if it would shut them up and leave the rest of the culture alone.
- coldpie 3y ago
  > Meanwhile, to keep this at-best modestly interesting historical film locked up Well, it's not just the film, it's also everything in it, including (that design of) the characters themselves. When that enters the public domain, anyone can use (that design of) those characters for any purpose, including in their own works that have nothing to do with the Steamboat film. I can go make a platforming video game ala Cuphead using those characters and sell it. While I think that's a good thing for society, you can probably understand why Disney doesn't.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Those characters are trademarked, and Disney has a good case that they are still using those trademarks. Trademark is different from copyright - it doesn't expire, but also has more use it or lose it parts, along with defend it or lose it. Disney is doing both with most of the characters so if you try to use Micky mouse in anything you are likely to lose a lawsuit. Consult a lawyer for exact details. there are things you can do with the characters after this expires, but the rules are very complex and I don't really understand them.
  - 3y ago

jader201 3y ago

> It was close to entering the public domain in the U.S. several times: each time, copyright protection was extended. It could have entered the public domain in four different years: first in 1955, renewed to 1986, then to 2003 by the Copyright Act of 1976, and then to 2023 by the Copyright Term Extension Act (also known pejoratively as the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act”) of 1998. It has been claimed that these extensions were a response by Congress to extensive lobbying by The Walt Disney Company.

disneycember 3y ago
So now we can begin to undo all the damage Disney has done by extending copyright beyond any reasonable timeframe, right?
- bluGill 3y ago
  This undos nothing. We just limit damage to what has already been done for this one film. there are other things still in copyright that wouldn't have been, and that damage is still being done, and will until that copyright expires.

kevinmchugh 3y ago

It's been obvious for a few years that Disney wasn't going to pursue extending copyright anymore. It would have been politically difficult at any point in the last few years as the Senate does so little.

bluGill 3y ago
More importantly, those who care about the public domain were not paying attention the last time. They are now, so Disney realizes that it will be a harder sell. As soon as they get someone to propose a laws letters will be written. There is one thing more powerful than money in politics and that is votes. Letters to congress are a proxy for votes and so nobody will risk another extension.
hinkley 3y ago
The timelessness of those old cartoons has waned considerably. GenX was already getting reruns of Disney and Looney Tunes cartoons that were aimed at Boomers. As the boomers are aging out, a lot of the slices of both domestic life and leisure time in these cartoons are something alien. Women in the kitchen? Hunting rabbits? And with a shotgun? Really? Itchy and Scratchy are Tom and Jerry ad absurdum. The Flintstones were somewhere between Tom and Jerry and The Honeymooners. Most of this stuff does not deserve a replay.
- bongodongobob 3y ago
  Neither of those things are alien. A world exists outside of whatever metropolis you think is the center of the universe. Millions and millions of people hunt and millions and millions of women are primary caretakers or stay at home moms.
  - chownie 3y ago
    I would say the world shown in those cartoons is alien to viewers of today. There were millions of hunters and millions of stay at home mothers in the 40's during Tom & Jerry's original run, but there's many fewer millions now. Consider: Women jumped from a third working in 1950 to just over two-thirds (of those who have children under 6, even) working as of the year 2000. We've had another two decades and change plus recessions since then, how much smaller could the demographic be?

TonyTrapp 3y ago

They probably realized by now there is not much value left in that old version of Mickey. It's the newer self of Mickey (different looks and character) that brings in the money, but even that is becoming less relevant these days, I think? That's why they have bought so much IP which appeals to more people than Mickey Mouse.

hinkley 3y ago
Someone pointed out to me that Winnie the Pooh brings in more money than Mickey, and his copyright is just about the same timeframe. Everyone assumes The Mouse is what Disney is shitting bricks over and it's just as likely it's the silly ol' bear instead.
- Closi 3y ago
  Hmm I’m not sure - that might be true for movies but is it true for merch? Think of all the Mickey ears that get sold at the parks. Either way there is a boatload of Mickey related revenue still…
  - thfuran 3y ago
    Disney doesn't need to rely on IP protection to maintain a hand in merch sales in their own parks.
    - Closi 3y ago
      Sure, but the claim was that Winnie the Pooh currently brings in more money than Mickey.
  - hinkley 3y ago
    I don’t have the link anymore but at the time I was sent to a breakdown that was above $5B for all Winnie, and around 4 for Mickey and friends. Obviously not nothing, and the fact they are close together doesn’t give Disney a ramp down once PD starts affecting them.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

What would happen in practice if someone tried to use the public domain Mickey for something? I assume that regardless of the legal status, you'd still have a fun time with Disney lawyers proving in court that you had the right to use public domain Mickey. Is Mickey also a trademark (which never expires) and anything using public domain Mickey would be too similar to their trademark?

hinkley 3y ago
Yeah Mickey is a trademark. Now I could remake Steamboat Willy with characters that weren't trademarked. Previously I could not depict either without getting sued.

SirMaster 3y ago

Disney spent the last decade or so growing their business (through large acquisitions) to where Mickey is now just small fraction of their worth. So they likely don't really care anymore. Plus it's only the old, old design of Mickey, not the current version they have been using for awhile that looks more normal to most people these days.

gostsamo 3y ago
They trademarked everything they could about him, so it is still a valuable part of the portfolio.
ssgodderidge 3y ago
While Mickey may represent a small portion of revenue, it (he?) accounts for a large portion of the Disney brand. It's one of the most recognizable cartoons of all time
- libraryatnight 3y ago
  When I was a kid Mickey had transcended movie character, he was like the Santa of the Disney world. the M.C. The spirit of Walt in some ways. I think I'd seen maybe one special or fantasia with him actually starring, and even that was after I knew him. My nephews have seen less of him and yet he's still something of a magic benevolent being to them. He represents so much more than a character, I think in a time when they're expanding portfolios they NEED to keep Mickey to stay Disney if they want to - and imo they should want to.
furyofantares 3y ago
I was shocked to learn my 7yo daughter associates Disney with Mickey and Minnie. She's watched like one Mickey cartoon on Disney+, and she's seen way more Disney stuff than that. Never been to Disneyland. But somehow to her, Disney === Mickey/Minnie. Branding is wild stuff.
- jl6 3y ago
  Mickey’s silhouette is still used in various Disney logos, so it’s not too wild a connection to make.

wonger_ 3y ago

The MSCHF art collective had a project a few years ago based on this public domain timing: https://mschfxfamousmouse.com/ https://mschfxfamousmouse.com/ > We are making and selling the idea of a MSCHF “Famous Mouse” artwork now, that will not exist–even as a design–until 2024. If you purchase this artwork, we give you a temporary token with a unique code that can be redeemed for the actual piece in 3 years.