4 ms·
They presumably meant trademark, not copyright. I.e., if you use Steamboat Willie in anything that Disney could plausibly make with Steamboat Willie, they could
by tga_d 3y ago
They presumably meant trademark, not copyright. I.e., if you use Steamboat Willie in anything that Disney could plausibly make with Steamboat Willie, they could argue that the character isn't being used as a character, but to imply endorsement by Disney, violating the trademark.
- BizarroLand 3y agoI'd take that bet. I know 3 different law firms with deep pockets that know that when Disney loses the case they will have to pay all of the lawyer fees. After all, that portion of Mickey Mouse will also be entering public domain, so Disney won't own Mickey exclusively anymore either. Same as the non-red shirt version of Winnie the Pooh.