5 ms·

Even if the copyright expires wouldn't you be forbidden to use eg. the "Mickey Mouse" name for your own mouse-stories? Because of trademarks, which don't expire

Even if the copyright expires wouldn't you be forbidden to use eg. the "Mickey Mouse" name for your own mouse-stories? Because of trademarks, which don't expire?

mcv 11y ago
Yes. Copyright does not stop you from using the name "Mickey Mouse" for anything. Trademark does.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Well, kind of a gray area. If I wanted to write a story or song about Mickey Mouse and sell it, that would be okay. If I wanted to start a line of T-Shirts based on that story or song, that would be an issue. If enough people got together and started making public domain art featuring Mickey Mouse - so much so that it became generic - that could potentially render the Trademark no longer valid, from what I've seen of the law/intent. Very large curve to overcome, but possible in theory.
  - spiralpolitik 11y ago
    I think you could only depict Mickey Mouse as drawn in 'Steamboat Willy' as later depictions would still be under copyright. Trademark law would prevent you calling it Mickey Mouse and my guess is that if you ever tried to use the public domain Mikey Mouse, Disney's lawyers would bury you in so much legal paperwork that you'd give up before you got smothered.
    - 6stringmerc 11y ago
      Interesting perspective, I can follow the line of reasoning for sure. Part of the reason I mentioned song or story (vs. visual format e.g. a comic) is because it allows the consumer to fill in the visualization themselves. Thus, while using the 'Steamboat Willy' version as a creator, the audience is free to substitute their conception as they please. No doubt I'm working a fine line here, but a catchy song about "Mikey Mouse on the River" could pretty much hit the factors to ground it in public domain...well, I'd like to think so at least haha. I guess we'll have a whole new set of legal knots to work through. I mean as in Trademark vs. Public Domain Copyright. This does bring me to recall Southpark has frequently used Mickey Mouse in a parody fashion (as an evil, iron-fisted empire chief) and apparently did a good enough job of sticking to Fair Use that I can't find evidence Disney ever sued. What I'm getting at is I do agree Disney is highly motivated to protect every bit of their IP to the fullest extent possible - no doubt their lawyers like this very much - but in a changing landscape, there may be certain workarounds that clever artists will use.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    The art will also have to use the characterization of Mickey Mouse as he appeared in Steamboat Willie. More modern depictions would still be protected. I have noticed that Disney has recently started using an actual clip of Steamboat Willie as a trademark for Walt Disney Animation Studios. This seems to be a hedge against expiration of the copyright. It's a grey enough area that the better lawyers would win in any dispute. And Disney has the best. It's much safer to simply shove Mickey down the memory hole, and create an original character that isn't going to draw so much high-caliber, high-explosive, armor-piercing fire.
    - 6stringmerc 11y ago
      As I mentioned in a related response, I do see the reasoning in the 'Steamboat Willie' distinction, but that's why I mentioned a story or a song. Those don't actually have visual depictions of Mickey Mouse...the character itself of Mickey Mouse as a concept would be invoked, and the audience's imagination would have to fill in the visualization. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's a hypothetical avenue whereby having Mickey Mouse in the Public Domain actually has downstream artistic applications, and ones that Disney's own lawyers would hopefully look at and say, "Well, shucks, this totally skirts our protection avenue" because, well, if they're the best lawyers, then they'd be obligated to avoid frivolous lawsuits. I think it's important for artists to continually needle and wrestle with commercial enterprises for the sake of art and entertainment. Mickey Mouse just so happens to be the most visible target, well, other than Happy Birthday. And, furthermore, I'd argue that RIAA (WB) lawyers are easily as skilled and talented as any that could be found at Disney, and if this case goes the way of the Plaintiffs, it'll show that yes, it is possible to challenge and win. Giving up just doesn't sound like very much fun to me.
      - logfromblammo 11y ago
        Have you ever seen Sergeant York? No? The film, which is based on historical accounts from World War I, describes Sgt. York's technique for taking down an entire flock of geese, as applied to German machine-gunners. You never take out the leader first. If the leader goes down, the rest of the flock scatters. You shoot the one furthest back. Then second from the back. And so on, from back to front, until they are all down. It isn't fun to undermine every last little support before attacking the central pillar, but if you want to accomplish your goal, that's the most certain way to do it. So when those first Disney Bros. 'toons go public domain, you don't go after Mickey right away. First, you take back Pete. Then, you take back Minnie. Take back Clarabelle and Horace. Then, just when it looks like you might take Mickey, too, you plop Oswald down in his place. In fact, it might be funny to just edit Mickey out of Steamboat Willie entirely, and replace him with a digital Oswald. Every time another Mickey Mouse short goes public domain, stick Oswald in there. Erase Mickey from history, from back to front. If the trademark isn't there, there's no possible trademark claim.

Even if the copyright expires wouldn't you be forbidden to use eg. the "Mickey Mouse" name for your own mouse-stories? Because of trademarks, which don't expire?

mcv 11y ago

Yes. Copyright does not stop you from using the name "Mickey Mouse" for anything. Trademark does.

6stringmerc 11y ago
Well, kind of a gray area. If I wanted to write a story or song about Mickey Mouse and sell it, that would be okay. If I wanted to start a line of T-Shirts based on that story or song, that would be an issue. If enough people got together and started making public domain art featuring Mickey Mouse - so much so that it became generic - that could potentially render the Trademark no longer valid, from what I've seen of the law/intent. Very large curve to overcome, but possible in theory.
- spiralpolitik 11y ago
  I think you could only depict Mickey Mouse as drawn in 'Steamboat Willy' as later depictions would still be under copyright. Trademark law would prevent you calling it Mickey Mouse and my guess is that if you ever tried to use the public domain Mikey Mouse, Disney's lawyers would bury you in so much legal paperwork that you'd give up before you got smothered.
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    Interesting perspective, I can follow the line of reasoning for sure. Part of the reason I mentioned song or story (vs. visual format e.g. a comic) is because it allows the consumer to fill in the visualization themselves. Thus, while using the 'Steamboat Willy' version as a creator, the audience is free to substitute their conception as they please. No doubt I'm working a fine line here, but a catchy song about "Mikey Mouse on the River" could pretty much hit the factors to ground it in public domain...well, I'd like to think so at least haha. I guess we'll have a whole new set of legal knots to work through. I mean as in Trademark vs. Public Domain Copyright. This does bring me to recall Southpark has frequently used Mickey Mouse in a parody fashion (as an evil, iron-fisted empire chief) and apparently did a good enough job of sticking to Fair Use that I can't find evidence Disney ever sued. What I'm getting at is I do agree Disney is highly motivated to protect every bit of their IP to the fullest extent possible - no doubt their lawyers like this very much - but in a changing landscape, there may be certain workarounds that clever artists will use.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  The art will also have to use the characterization of Mickey Mouse as he appeared in Steamboat Willie. More modern depictions would still be protected. I have noticed that Disney has recently started using an actual clip of Steamboat Willie as a trademark for Walt Disney Animation Studios. This seems to be a hedge against expiration of the copyright. It's a grey enough area that the better lawyers would win in any dispute. And Disney has the best. It's much safer to simply shove Mickey down the memory hole, and create an original character that isn't going to draw so much high-caliber, high-explosive, armor-piercing fire.
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    As I mentioned in a related response, I do see the reasoning in the 'Steamboat Willie' distinction, but that's why I mentioned a story or a song. Those don't actually have visual depictions of Mickey Mouse...the character itself of Mickey Mouse as a concept would be invoked, and the audience's imagination would have to fill in the visualization. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's a hypothetical avenue whereby having Mickey Mouse in the Public Domain actually has downstream artistic applications, and ones that Disney's own lawyers would hopefully look at and say, "Well, shucks, this totally skirts our protection avenue" because, well, if they're the best lawyers, then they'd be obligated to avoid frivolous lawsuits. I think it's important for artists to continually needle and wrestle with commercial enterprises for the sake of art and entertainment. Mickey Mouse just so happens to be the most visible target, well, other than Happy Birthday. And, furthermore, I'd argue that RIAA (WB) lawyers are easily as skilled and talented as any that could be found at Disney, and if this case goes the way of the Plaintiffs, it'll show that yes, it is possible to challenge and win. Giving up just doesn't sound like very much fun to me.
    - logfromblammo 11y ago
      Have you ever seen Sergeant York? No? The film, which is based on historical accounts from World War I, describes Sgt. York's technique for taking down an entire flock of geese, as applied to German machine-gunners. You never take out the leader first. If the leader goes down, the rest of the flock scatters. You shoot the one furthest back. Then second from the back. And so on, from back to front, until they are all down. It isn't fun to undermine every last little support before attacking the central pillar, but if you want to accomplish your goal, that's the most certain way to do it. So when those first Disney Bros. 'toons go public domain, you don't go after Mickey right away. First, you take back Pete. Then, you take back Minnie. Take back Clarabelle and Horace. Then, just when it looks like you might take Mickey, too, you plop Oswald down in his place. In fact, it might be funny to just edit Mickey out of Steamboat Willie entirely, and replace him with a digital Oswald. Every time another Mickey Mouse short goes public domain, stick Oswald in there. Erase Mickey from history, from back to front. If the trademark isn't there, there's no possible trademark claim.