6 ms·

Was there a copyright reason for Disney changing their opening logo sequence to the steamboat willy thing? Some kind of "it's now our trademark" claim?

OedipusRex 3y ago
I think it was to mirror Marvel's intro showing the history of the brand.
- eddieroger 3y ago
  This was my more generous, less cynical take as well. Disney has been approaching their 100 year anniversary (not passed), and Steamboat Willie was the first animated short under the banner of Walt Disney Animation Studios. It makes sense to honor one's first at one's hundredth.
EvanAnderson 3y ago
I've seen a lot of speculation that they've been slowly pivoting Steamboat Willie in preparation to use trademark litigation where copyright will no longer be effective.
- bentley 3y ago
  This kind of thing has been attempted in the past. For example, after the Lego brick patents expired, Lego sued Mega Bloks (in Canada) claiming a trademark over the design of the brick. They lost the case, because the Supreme Court (of Canada) ruled you can’t double‐dip on IP protection by turning a functional (i.e., patentable) design into a trademark. Disney putting Steamboat Willie in their logo is unlikely to actually allow Disney to effectively extend restrictions on the cartoon—but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a calculated move to deter people from reproducing Steamboat Willie after its liberation simply by the implicit threat of expensive litigation from a very large team of lawyers.
  - JoshTriplett 3y ago
    > They lost the case, because the Supreme Court (of Canada) ruled you can’t double‐dip on IP protection by turning a functional (i.e., patentable) design into a trademark. There's case history on that in the US as well.
    - ronsor 3y ago
      IIRC, non-Nintendo-licensed Gameboy games were allowed to reproduce Nintendo's trademarked logo because it was necessary for the game to run. Trademarks are restricted to brand identification only; attempting to use them for anything else will result in trouble and wasted money.
      - bentley 3y ago
        Nintendo did attempt that trick, although the case you’re thinking of is Sega v. Accolade, which as you said, ruled that forcing your competitor to display your trademark unwillingly doesn’t mean you can smack them down for trademark infringement.
      - kmeisthax 3y ago
        The case was SEGA v. Accolade, but the lockout system on the Genesis worked on the same legal theory (e.g. induced trademark infringement equals Doctorowian[0] interpretations of "intellectual property"[1]). For the Game Boy, the problem was that Taiwan[2] didn't have a copyright treaty with Japan, but they did have a trademark treaty, so if you induced pirates to commit a trademark violation you could get them with something. Same idea, but the jurisdiction is different, so all the existing case law about not turning trademark into mutant perpetual copyright wouldn't apply here. [0] "Intellectual property is any law that allows you to dictate the conduct of your competitors." - Cory Doctorow, paraphrased [1] Yes, it's a shitty made-up term to make you confuse four different kinds of law, no I don't care. There's enough negative sentiment around "intellectual property" these days that the Stallmanian position sounds like a defense of it now. [2] It's a country, get over it
  - 8note 3y ago
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  At very best, I'd say Disney might possibly be a tiny bit excited that something from inside Castle Disney is entering the world & will become semi exciting on its own. Sure there'll be bad & ugly & awful things done with Steamboat Willie. But no press is bad press. And there's going to be some press about the things people do with the mouse.
  - wodenokoto 3y ago
    Wasn't "Winnie The Pooh: Blood and Honey" a result of the characters entering public domain? I don't think it really did a lot to bring Winnie the Pooh to peoples mind, and I don't recall anything else based on Winnie coming out.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      That movie ... seems messed up (but was a success, so more is coming). And the only other thing coming out I am aware of, is a Meme, leading to Winnie the Pooh being banned in china.
      - zozbot234 3y ago
        Ironically, the meme is based on the Disney-specific Winnie the Pooh that's very much covered by copyright.
couchand 3y ago
The legal question is discussed in the fine article. > Disney has also started using this logo before some of its films. > If you make your own Mickey cartoon, can Disney use trademark law to interfere? Trademark law is all about preventing consumer confusion – and not about getting in the way of creativity – so it depends on whether people are likely to be misled about the source of your cartoon. As long as no one thinks it is a Disney joint, there should not be a trademark problem.
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  Not only that, but there is specific SCOTUS caselaw opposing the abuse of trademark to create perma-copyright.
sircastor 3y ago
I think it was intended as an indicator of the source. In the mid 2000s, Pixar was beginning to represent Disney animation, and as a result Disney Animation Studios started to take a backseat in the eyes of the public (and the eyes of Disney management). Having some successful pictures (Wreck-it Ralph, Frozen, Big Hero 6, etc.) meant owning the brand and indicating to audiences the source - and hopefully encouraging them to buy tickets to _non-pixar_ Disney films. Call me naive, but I don't think there was anything calculated about it more than attaching a mascot to the studio - like the Luxo Jr Lamp on Pixar films.
- finnjohnsen2 3y ago
  I like this. We tend to automatically assume the worst in these big high profile companies.
  - egeozcan 3y ago
    I do that a lot, and sometimes even consciously, because, if I may be bold, large companies have a lot of people, and among so many people there's surely some evil masterminds. I'm saying this of course with a tongue in cheek but that doesn't mean it's completely false.
- WorldMaker 3y ago
  Also it can be seen as Disney Feature Animation wanting to celebrate a 95th year anniversary of sorts [1]. Sure the anniversary means a lot now to the public domain, but don't forget that it is also still a big anniversary for the company itself and can be a fun reminder of how far the company has come and all the things they've done over that span of years [2]. [1] DFA itself as a division of the company hasn't existed continuously in that 95-year period, of course. It was shutdown by Eisner for a while in favor of cheaper (and mostly outsourced overseas) Disney Television Animation and various dalliances with Pixar. [2] Including the years that Disney thought it didn't need an active Disney Feature Animation department. The Steamboat Willie logo does also feel a bit like an internal political statement in that respect, too, because it kind of also says "this company was founded on Feature Animation".
krebby 3y ago
The Corridor Crew just did a good legal analysis on this a couple weeks ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2dIvUAd5QE&t=533s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2dIvUAd5QE&t=533s Basically the Disney brand has gotten so huge and diversified that a public domain Mickey isn't an existential threat to their business anymore. Terrifying in its own right, but at least we might see an end to the endless copyright extension. Interesting times ahead!
- galangalalgol 3y ago
  Can we go back to death +50 then? Tolkien would be public domain next year. In Canada it was close but they switched to +70 last year.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    That's a term shorter than 1909, before Disney even existed. Seems pretty unlikely. The "life" stuff doesn't make any sense, either; it's always been a genuinely weird term.
    - galangalalgol 3y ago
      In 1909 the US switched from a term of 28 years extensible by 14 if the author lived, to a term of 28 years extensible by 28 if the author lived. It didn't grow to life +50 until 1976. Edit: I think the confusion may arise from the Berne convention. The US did sign, but not until 1988.
  - kmeisthax 3y ago
    Take it up with Germany, they're the ones that pushed life+70 on the EU, who then ratcheted it onto the US...
  - kelnos 3y ago
    That doesn't go far enough. Copyright terms should be on the order of 20 years or so, and should have nothing to do with whether or not the creator is still alive.

OedipusRex 3y ago

I think it was to mirror Marvel's intro showing the history of the brand.

eddieroger 3y ago
This was my more generous, less cynical take as well. Disney has been approaching their 100 year anniversary (not passed), and Steamboat Willie was the first animated short under the banner of Walt Disney Animation Studios. It makes sense to honor one's first at one's hundredth.

EvanAnderson 3y ago

I've seen a lot of speculation that they've been slowly pivoting Steamboat Willie in preparation to use trademark litigation where copyright will no longer be effective.

bentley 3y ago
This kind of thing has been attempted in the past. For example, after the Lego brick patents expired, Lego sued Mega Bloks (in Canada) claiming a trademark over the design of the brick. They lost the case, because the Supreme Court (of Canada) ruled you can’t double‐dip on IP protection by turning a functional (i.e., patentable) design into a trademark. Disney putting Steamboat Willie in their logo is unlikely to actually allow Disney to effectively extend restrictions on the cartoon—but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a calculated move to deter people from reproducing Steamboat Willie after its liberation simply by the implicit threat of expensive litigation from a very large team of lawyers.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  > They lost the case, because the Supreme Court (of Canada) ruled you can’t double‐dip on IP protection by turning a functional (i.e., patentable) design into a trademark. There's case history on that in the US as well.
  - ronsor 3y ago
    IIRC, non-Nintendo-licensed Gameboy games were allowed to reproduce Nintendo's trademarked logo because it was necessary for the game to run. Trademarks are restricted to brand identification only; attempting to use them for anything else will result in trouble and wasted money.
    - bentley 3y ago
      Nintendo did attempt that trick, although the case you’re thinking of is Sega v. Accolade, which as you said, ruled that forcing your competitor to display your trademark unwillingly doesn’t mean you can smack them down for trademark infringement.
    - kmeisthax 3y ago
      The case was SEGA v. Accolade, but the lockout system on the Genesis worked on the same legal theory (e.g. induced trademark infringement equals Doctorowian[0] interpretations of "intellectual property"[1]). For the Game Boy, the problem was that Taiwan[2] didn't have a copyright treaty with Japan, but they did have a trademark treaty, so if you induced pirates to commit a trademark violation you could get them with something. Same idea, but the jurisdiction is different, so all the existing case law about not turning trademark into mutant perpetual copyright wouldn't apply here. [0] "Intellectual property is any law that allows you to dictate the conduct of your competitors." - Cory Doctorow, paraphrased [1] Yes, it's a shitty made-up term to make you confuse four different kinds of law, no I don't care. There's enough negative sentiment around "intellectual property" these days that the Stallmanian position sounds like a defense of it now. [2] It's a country, get over it
- 8note 3y ago
jauntywundrkind 3y ago
At very best, I'd say Disney might possibly be a tiny bit excited that something from inside Castle Disney is entering the world & will become semi exciting on its own. Sure there'll be bad & ugly & awful things done with Steamboat Willie. But no press is bad press. And there's going to be some press about the things people do with the mouse.
- wodenokoto 3y ago
  Wasn't "Winnie The Pooh: Blood and Honey" a result of the characters entering public domain? I don't think it really did a lot to bring Winnie the Pooh to peoples mind, and I don't recall anything else based on Winnie coming out.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    That movie ... seems messed up (but was a success, so more is coming). And the only other thing coming out I am aware of, is a Meme, leading to Winnie the Pooh being banned in china.
    - zozbot234 3y ago
      Ironically, the meme is based on the Disney-specific Winnie the Pooh that's very much covered by copyright.

couchand 3y ago

The legal question is discussed in the fine article. > Disney has also started using this logo before some of its films. > If you make your own Mickey cartoon, can Disney use trademark law to interfere? Trademark law is all about preventing consumer confusion – and not about getting in the way of creativity – so it depends on whether people are likely to be misled about the source of your cartoon. As long as no one thinks it is a Disney joint, there should not be a trademark problem.

kmeisthax 3y ago
Not only that, but there is specific SCOTUS caselaw opposing the abuse of trademark to create perma-copyright.

sircastor 3y ago

I think it was intended as an indicator of the source. In the mid 2000s, Pixar was beginning to represent Disney animation, and as a result Disney Animation Studios started to take a backseat in the eyes of the public (and the eyes of Disney management). Having some successful pictures (Wreck-it Ralph, Frozen, Big Hero 6, etc.) meant owning the brand and indicating to audiences the source - and hopefully encouraging them to buy tickets to _non-pixar_ Disney films. Call me naive, but I don't think there was anything calculated about it more than attaching a mascot to the studio - like the Luxo Jr Lamp on Pixar films.

finnjohnsen2 3y ago
I like this. We tend to automatically assume the worst in these big high profile companies.
- egeozcan 3y ago
  I do that a lot, and sometimes even consciously, because, if I may be bold, large companies have a lot of people, and among so many people there's surely some evil masterminds. I'm saying this of course with a tongue in cheek but that doesn't mean it's completely false.
WorldMaker 3y ago
Also it can be seen as Disney Feature Animation wanting to celebrate a 95th year anniversary of sorts [1]. Sure the anniversary means a lot now to the public domain, but don't forget that it is also still a big anniversary for the company itself and can be a fun reminder of how far the company has come and all the things they've done over that span of years [2]. [1] DFA itself as a division of the company hasn't existed continuously in that 95-year period, of course. It was shutdown by Eisner for a while in favor of cheaper (and mostly outsourced overseas) Disney Television Animation and various dalliances with Pixar. [2] Including the years that Disney thought it didn't need an active Disney Feature Animation department. The Steamboat Willie logo does also feel a bit like an internal political statement in that respect, too, because it kind of also says "this company was founded on Feature Animation".

krebby 3y ago

The Corridor Crew just did a good legal analysis on this a couple weeks ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2dIvUAd5QE&t=533s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2dIvUAd5QE&t=533s Basically the Disney brand has gotten so huge and diversified that a public domain Mickey isn't an existential threat to their business anymore. Terrifying in its own right, but at least we might see an end to the endless copyright extension. Interesting times ahead!

galangalalgol 3y ago
Can we go back to death +50 then? Tolkien would be public domain next year. In Canada it was close but they switched to +70 last year.
- tptacek 3y ago
  That's a term shorter than 1909, before Disney even existed. Seems pretty unlikely. The "life" stuff doesn't make any sense, either; it's always been a genuinely weird term.
  - galangalalgol 3y ago
    In 1909 the US switched from a term of 28 years extensible by 14 if the author lived, to a term of 28 years extensible by 28 if the author lived. It didn't grow to life +50 until 1976. Edit: I think the confusion may arise from the Berne convention. The US did sign, but not until 1988.
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  Take it up with Germany, they're the ones that pushed life+70 on the EU, who then ratcheted it onto the US...
- kelnos 3y ago
  That doesn't go far enough. Copyright terms should be on the order of 20 years or so, and should have nothing to do with whether or not the creator is still alive.