“OH BOY!” Could Disney LOSE MICKEY MOUSE in 2024? - Disney News Explained

[@Courier_333]

Without public domain works of art, Disney would not exist as a company. So let mickey free!

[@ScooterinAB]

"Let it go, let is go..." Exactly. Walt Disney chose public domain stories as the basis for his theatrical works. It's time for his company to start reciprocating that.

[@CarlyCatharsis]

@@ScooterinAB Then Let Go Of ALL YOUR Worldly Possessions & Your Parents Ones As Well. EXACT SAME THING!

[@Kieran_Duffy]

Not unless if we get a third epic mickey game

[@Hendricus56]

*The Steamboat Willie version free. They still have the rights to the iconic one for a while

[@KaosNova2]

@@Hendricus56 if they change the Mickey Mouse design, then they have the copyright on the new design. It’s that simple. Mickey Mouse wearing blue jeans and a T-shirt and maybe a change in a facial feature would be a new copyright. Logos change over time too, such as Pepsi having a different logo now than in the 1980s. I’m glad people didn’t go bonkers on TV over something stupid like a different logo.

[@bigman8994]

Mickey will definitely be an easier one to protect simply because he’s been the brand’s mascot for just about every Disney fan’s entire life. I’d imagine defending Oswald, Donald and Goofy will be very different stories though

[@Foxy02016]

For Oswald I wanna say that Epic Mickey could cover them, but I’m not a lawyer

[@jish55]

Yeah, Mickey falls under trademark now, so essentially Mickey falls under a different set of rules.

[@RepublicaPopularNovaSilesia]

They have money, logic doesnt matter

[@nightwish1453]

@@Foxy02016 which can be a bit of desperation as disney has cared less and less of video games over the years including epic mickey. if the game doesn't do enough they just abandon it altogether

[@tonytins]

Unless you were born in the early 20th century, no one has any childhood memory of Oswald, unless you count Epic Mickey. It'd be extremely difficult for them to protect the character this late in the game. Ironically, Universal's century grip on Oswald might have unintentionally saved him.

[@novacorponline]

I'd like to see them try to keep every single character they made relevant enough to keep the trademark. They would spread themselves so thin constantly creating new works based on their oldest works JUST to keep the rights to them to the point that the whole company could collapse under it's own weight.

[@montydoesgames]

At least we would be able to see some more Oswald!

[@CarlyCatharsis]

@@montydoesgames Iger Did Walt Justice, By Bringing Oswald Back Home!

[@breadchito]

They have a whole legal department just to take care of that, when you're the big you leave no stone unturned.

[@PeterVCook]

Disney will probably be able to keep people from using derivative works through copyright, but it will be hard to keep any streaming services or really anyone from publishing Steamboat Willie on any platform. But like you mentioned, Disney already preempted that by making the film available for free.

[@zenvariety9383]

Even though Mickey Mouse will be public domain, the original version only, I'm pretty sure changing the original design drastically and throwing in other traits would be enough.

[@SpaceOmega-zz6vs]

If the character is in the public domain, then shouldn't people be able to make certain derivative works? They less likely can't make Mickey look like modern Mickey but redrawing the black and white mouse under the same style, the one from the public domain (in 2024 or later) might be fine? Not a lawyer by the way.

[@VME-Brad]

@@SpaceOmega-zz6vs And with the name trademarked, they can just post up a purple shorts version of Mickey and name it "Willie Mouse" or "Steamboat Mickey" and get around it. It'll be Sonic OCs all over again (Original comment, do not steal).

[@KaosNova2]

@@SpaceOmega-zz6vs Getting some derivative work to the widespread public is a mountainclimb in and of itself. Public Domain isn’t changing the fact that making a film with the costs involved isn’t cheap, on top of paying for distribution. Most people won’t have the reach of Disney even without copyright. Most people cannot afford the costs of making a Hollywood movie, and then mass distributing it on home video or just the costs to have it put on TV. Publishing isn’t free.

[@KaosNova2]

@@zenvariety9383 It would.

[@danielmalinen6337]

Disney should still be careful. In Europe, trademark protection can be revoked if it is used for dishonest and unfaithful purposes, this is what happened to Hasbro a couple of years ago, which lost their trademark protection for Monopoly in Europe because they tried to renew its trademark to tackle name parodies out of the market.

[@googamp32]

That just gives them an example of what NOT to do.

[@ZebraLens]

Given that Disney is a large media conglomerate, the EU would hate to lose any business relationship with the company over something so small as potentially revoking a trademark. Just like the other big name media companies that punished Russia for their invasion and pulled all new films/tv shows from being released in that country. Sure that move punished the public, but ultimately the Russia public are the people that would have to stand up to Putin and the leadership in order to gain back normalcy in their leisure time.

[@danielmalinen6337]

@@ZebraLens All companies must also comply with the law. Even the fact that some company is large and wealthy does not give them an exception or a special right to over run or break the law. For example, the dishonest and unfair use of trademark protection is prohibited in the European Trademark Act, and its violation results in the cancellation of the trademark.

[@MattMcIrvin]

Lego has tried to sue all sorts of imitators over trademark and trade dress, because in their case their central IP consisted of patents that expired ages ago (patents have a much shorter lifetime than copyright). And their iconic bricks were also a refinement of earlier products by other companies, that looked almost exactly like Lego bricks (Lego's big innovation was the tubes and pins on the BOTTOM of the bricks, that keep them locked just tightly enough but not too much--but that idea entered the public domain decades ago). They often (usually, in fact) lose these suits with judges basically saying "no, a trademark is not the same thing as a patent, they're not violating your trademarks". But it takes money to mount a legal defense and Lego has deep pockets. If you come out with an exact replica of a particular Lego set, they could probably get you on copyright or trademark, and if you replicate later pieces that still have active patents they could get you there. But the basic brick design is the world's property now.

[@matthewstarkie4254]

So Hasbro lost the monopoly on Monopoly.

[@SoCoolScience]

Disney; I love the public domain Your main character is going to enter the public domain Disney; I hate the public domain

[@rocketknightx6066]

Come on Disney, entering the public domain doesn't mean you're going to lose Mickey Mouse completely. You still own him as the mascot though.

[@benitosierrajr3958]

Not to mention that they still trademark Mickey, so it’s never a huge loss.

[@UmmYeahOk]

Supposedly Oswald fell into the public domain when Universal failed to renew the copyright in the 50s. So technically you could do whatever you wanted to the 1920s version, you just couldn’t call him “Oswald the Lucky Rabbit,” since that is a Disney trademark. Of course, Disney could still threaten you with legal action, as it’s you versus a giant corporation who has a team of people who do nothing but enforce this kind of thing. Felix the Cat is also in the public domain, so you could also again do the same, just can’t fully call him “Felix the Cat,” since the full name is trademarked. Now then, modern Felix cartoons, such as those made in the 1950s and onward, are still copyrighted.

[@CarlyCatharsis]

Oswald Was Owned By Universal, But DRAWN BY: #UbIwerks & #WaltDisney; Neither Owned His Image, But BOTH Had A Hand in His Evolutionary Process! While #Felix Was Fleisher & YES, Walt & Ub Worked There, Even Helped Draw/Animate Earlier Felix Toons, B4 Working On Oswald For Universal. Laugh-O-Grams WAS Walt's 1st Compsny & Mortimer Was One Of Their 1st Creations... PRIOR TO Walt Loosing THAT Company & Meeting A Mouse🐁 His Wife Actually Named The Newer Piece Of Artwork: Mickey! Whereas Mortimer Was Placed On Back Burner & Pete Took His Place! Mortimer Was Later Re-Introduced As Minnies Sleezy & Snide Uncle!

[@TheCoolEevee]

​@@CarlyCatharsis My Sarcastic Response Yes I understood that _perfectly._ Your text formatting is _ABSOLUTELY PHENOMENAL!_

[@UndertakerU2ber]

@@TheCoolEevee What’s with the HTML code?

[@SonicTopaz]

@@UndertakerU2ber Joke About The Formatting Of The Text

[@mitchellalexander9162]

I mean he's Called Master Tom in the first few shorts so...

[@JeremiahPayne]

I think it should be noted that every year Disney would be losing more and more things to the public domain, it's not just Mickey

[@nightwish1453]

There is a theory one of the reasons of why they are remaking their works is to prevent that from happening so said copyright is renewed

[@MrGojira95]

@@nightwish1453 this theory is backed up with evidence around the late 90’s of Disney making direct to video sequels. So that Disney can keep the trademark of those movies and characters.

[@vladimirirkhin]

@@nightwish1453 still, the older designs would be fair game

[@CarlyCatharsis]

@@vladimirirkhin STILL NOPE🙅🏻

[@vladimirirkhin]

@@CarlyCatharsis you got a "шило в попе поперёк" or something? why do you spam everywhere...

[@CalliopePony]

I'm sure Disney will manage to keep Mickey the character (and his various versions) as a trademark, but the various cartoons that he appears in will enter the public domain. I'm not sure how it will work if a trademarked character appears in a public domain work.

[@jordanvalencia9597]

well, Disney knows that the Steamboat Willy cartoon is very old, and what do they plan to do, show it on television for free, I've seen the first 6 original mickey toons, and I doubt people could make much money from images of Steamboat willy or first flight, all disney does is remaster them, and the copyright restarts.

[@SolvUlven]

I don’t get the drama in the comments about Disney “losing” Mickey, he’s still going to be around in Disney properties forever, it’s just that his image will be available for other non-Disney works. I for one can’t wait for stories like “kindergarten gets harassed by Disney for using Mickey Mouse image” to be over.

[@yosefdemby8792]

So he'd make money with that image?

[@benmalsky9834]

All I want is for people to continue to respect Mickey one way or another. He’s an iconic character and I’ll be fine with whatever it takes for him to remain an icon of positivity and optimism.

[@Courier_333]

@@benmalsky9834 you literally want Disney to keep suing random people for using their characters. You defended Disney for harassing that guy who had Spider-Man on his child's gravestone

[@MattMcIrvin]

I'm not sure those stories are over--Disney will just try to claim they're violating trademarks, or that the Mickey is a version they still own. More generally, if someone with a whole lot of money wants to legally harass you, they don't necessarily care whether they'll win the cases in court. They can grind you down unless the judges get REALLY pissed off at their behavior.

[@benmalsky9834]

@@Courier_333 It’s much more complicated than simply that.

[@detroyes2]

Disney won't lose MM all at once in 2024. Rather, it will be a slow process as more and more of the original films enter the public domain. 2024 will simply mark the start of that process, one which will accelerate as the years pass. By 2036, more than half of Disney's (and other studios) classic animated shorts will have entered the Public Domain (barring any more changes to copyright law); by 2046, the vast majority of those shorts, as well as many of their classic films, will have also entered the public domain. Remember: Trademark and Copyright are not the same. A company can have a Trademark based on a copyrighted work, but that trademark is not necessarily dependent on the copyright of the underlying work. However, the more that enters the public domain, the less control the original Trademark holder will have. In theory, at some point so much of an IP will be in the public domain that effectively any trademark will probably no longer be enforceable. At what point Disney might lose control of their IP is not clear, simply because we've never actually been in this position before. Exactly how trademark and copyright interact under these circumstances has not actually been decided legally, although recent rulings (especially involving the Conan Doyle estate in regards to Sherlock Holmes) suggest that a rights holder cannot exert control over segments of an IP in the public domain. But there are also issues involving continual use of trademark that might supersede. Bottom line is, we don't really know, and most likely it won't be sorted out for many years to come. The only thing that is certain is this: At some point in the future, so much of MM (and other characters) will be in the public domain that Disney will no longer have the legal ability to control their use. At what point that happens is anyone's guess.

[@benmalsky9834]

But does that not mean they could still use their classic shorts however they like? When something enters the public domain, can the original creator still utilize it to ensure a clear, distinguished brand from any potential copycats and parodies?

[@detroyes2]

@@benmalsky9834 Yes and no. As things enter PD, more and more of the IP becomes usable by the public, so long as they only stick to elements that are derived from the PD works. Disney can try to maintain control, but as more of the property becomes public the more it will be utilized. As has been established with Sherlock Holmes, if the vast majority of an IP is in the public domain a rights holder's control is diminished substantially, because so much of what makes the IP unique is in the hands of the public that effectively no control is possible. Disney can try to set themselves up as "The Keepers of Disney's Legacy" and try to keep a certain amount of quality to "official" versions of MM, but there will only be so far they can go to regulate character use beyond the copyright. At best, it would become more a question of marketing rather than IP control. Again, we don't really know the extent to which Disney can successfully maintain control in the coming years, because the legal gray has not been mapped out and could yet be changed by law. All we can say is that 2024 won't be a deathblow to Disney's IP control, but will be the start of The Death of a 1000 Cuts for their grip on these characters.

[@vladimirirkhin]

@@detroyes2 here's to viewing how they'll try to pull the strings to change the law, and fail for some attempts in the coming years...

[@JohnPannozzi]

Detroyes2 is entirely correct. Thank you.

[@notaraven]

I can see Disney using trademark as a bludgeoning weapon against Public Domain users. It would be technical, like you cant use "mickey mouse" as a title or as a full name but they could be petty like that. Even then the character likeness and such is iron clad, i cant see Disney effectively stopping Steam Boat Willie from being used even if they made it their animation studio logo. Basically, prepare for a horror movie with a mouse named Mickey as the killer.

[@syntheticvocalist-p472]

I would love if Disney as a company just completely dissolved at this point.

[@ddc163264]

Those other movies aren't an issue. Many people have already made their versions of Snow White, Cinderella, etc. Just because they ARE public domain books & stories. The issue is if there are added characters that Disney added. Those characters might have issues. Also they cannot use the same exact "look & feel" those things CAN be trademarked legitimately. The same applies to other studios as well.

[@benmalsky9834]

Are you talking about like if someone else made their version of The Snow Queen but had their own Olaf, which is obviously Disney’s character?

[@ddc163264]

@@benmalsky9834 Sort of. The Snow Queen is a public domain item, but Olaf is Disneys'. But They can make other characters that could be in the movie. Dramatic license is allowed. For example Little Mermaid is so much more tragic than the Disney movie. If you made an animated version that was more like the book, there wouldn't be any issue at all.

[@docsavage8640]

You need to learn what "trademark" and "copyright" are as you are using them as if they are the same thing 😆

[@jefftank3300]

I'd love to see a "by the book" series. Some of the G-rated Disney adaptations we are used to seeing would actually be R. Did you know that in Grimm's version of Cinderella, the step-sisters actually mutilate their feet?

[@benmalsky9834]

@@jefftank3300 I can’t imagine seeing that.

[@johnboy4025]

It’s time. Walt was paranoid about losing anything after losing Oswald, but he himself was very reliant on the Public Domain so I think he would be okay with adding to it… especially after this long.

[@Courier_333]

Tbh he would also hate the modern company for numerous reasons

[@oranberry]

@@Courier_333 he'd take one look at modern society and be confused as to why African Americans and woman have equal rights 💀💀

[@Durtle.]

Mickey will finally be free from the chains of Disney

[@a-s-greig]

Speaking of Oswald... 👀

[@CarlyCatharsis]

@@Durtle. YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!

[@jaroslavdzurilla5103]

The way I understand it is that what they're actually losing is control over whom and how uses their characters. They still would be able to profit making their own movies and selling their own merchandise featuring those characters, but they would have no say in whom else gets to do so also. In that, there is a danger that this lack of direction would lead to the character's association with something outrageous and cause irreparable damage to reputation, forcing everybody to abandon the character. Sorry if I am obliviously obvious, it just kinda klicked to me just now.

[@benmalsky9834]

Yeah, if I was them, I would be very concerned with that.

[@silverdamascus2023]

Why public domain is a fair law: - In several countries, copyright only ends after the creator of the work has died, and if it is a company, it takes 70 to 95 years to end, by then the company has already closed, and if it exists, everyone who worked on the company back then has died or left. - Things like music, characters, stories, these are all just ideas, things in people's heads, you can't own an idea like owning something physical like a car or a house, if you make something, and someone takes it away without your consent, that's theft because you don't have it anymore, but if you make something and someone makes a copy, you still have the original, nothing was stolen, if you make a song, and another person sings the song without your permission, that person didn't steal anything from you, nothing was taken from you. - Copyright is not even actual property, it's just having an exclusivity to copy, share and make public exhibitions, if you write a book, you don't own the combination of words, they have to pay you to make copies or adapt to a movie, but you can't go to stores that already have the books and force them to take them off the shelves, much less go to the homes of the people who bought the book and force them to have the books returned. - Ideas cannot be locked forever, ideas have to be copied, expanded and improved, imagine if someone invented the cure for cancer, but kept the patent forever? The cancer problem would not be solved, a patent only gives exclusivity to the creator to become rich for about 20 years, then everyone can make the cure as well, with works of art, copyright lasts until the person dies. - Even after LEGO lost the patent on the invention of LEGO blocks and a lot of copies appeared, they are still the market leaders, public domain does not prevent people and companies from using their creations, it just takes away the exclusivity. - Copyright was created to encourage creativity, but with copyright lasting so long, it's holding back creativity, companies like Disney, Warner, Universal and Paramount own so many things that they don't need to create anything new, that's why Hollywood no longer invests in films with original ideas and only makes adaptations, sequels, remakes and reboots. - It's impossible to create something 100% original, everything has to be based on something that already exists, in a world without public domain, we would eventually get in an era where it wouldn't be possible to create anything without violating someone's copyright, a world where ideas cannot be copied would not be more creative, it would be less creative. - There are several orphan works, they say that if you want to use something that someone else made, pay the artist to use it, but there are cases where the artist has disappeared, you can't find him to pay a license, they don't know if he's alive or dead, or if he died, they can't find his family, and when companies go bankrupt, they sell all their works to pay the debts, and it is often difficult to know who the current owner is, the buyer may even have gone bankrupt too. - This also leads to lost media, many works of entertainment were lost forever, all their copies were lost or destroyed and we can't enjoy them anymore, this is still happening even now in the internet age, many works cannot be distributed thanks to copyright issues, public domain is a great way to preserve media for future generations. - Copyright became a mess, several companies are using it to censor people, and copyright rarely benefits the true creator of the work instead of the company that hired the creator, copyright lasting less would be a good idea to reduce this mess. - And of course, companies like Disney and several others, keep taking stories from the public domain to adapt to movies, series and other stuff, and even put restrictions when people adapt these stories so they don't take things from their versions, but their original creations, they don't want them to go into the public domain.

[@rattyratcat]

You’re probably one of those ai art supporters

[@gremloid]

@@rattyratcat lol what? what does that have to do with anything. for example I'm quite anti-ai art and I think public domain is fair

[@thecrazydisneyparksfanatic921]

@@gremloid probably referring to that they are probably one of those people that’s like “copyright laws need to be done away with, it stifling creativity” types

[@Courier_333]

@@rattyratcat public domain has literally nothing to do with AI art. In fact, I'd say that opposing public domain is closer to defending AI art. You want people to profit off art that they never made.

[@batshtcrazy5293]

I think it's brilliant that you tried to explain all those rabbit holes, even if some didn't appreciate it. Good on ya!

[@GanonGhidorah]

Here's where all of this concerns me. While the Mickey-Mouse Loophole has been a thorn in my side for years now, my attention primarily has been on Universal rather than Disney. A Novel that I'm working on was intended to be a kind of tribute to Universal's classic monster movies of the 30s and 40s. Two of the major players in the story were meant to be the descendants of Larry Talbot - the original Wolfman played by Lon Chaney Jr. However, because of copyright law, I've been hesitant to proceed with the project. Because the Wolfman movies came out in the 40s, I'd have to wait another decade or so for it to be safe to write this story. However, Disney has gotten itself in some hot water over the last year. And because of that, one of the major threats thrown at Disney's direction is the overturning of the copyright law made back in 1998, which will retroactively revert all copyright protection back to 75 years, meaning that Mickey will have retroactively been in the public domain for the last 20 years. But more than that, at 75 years, that would mean the Wolfman would have been public domain for the last seven years - and with all notions of the Dark Universe being dead, I don't see Universal being interested in trademarking the character. If all of this does happen, with the Loophole being rescinded, and Talbot enters the public domain, I may have a chance to get my book published without immediately being sued.

[@samuelcortez8540]

how may I know when you publish?

[@ooooneeee]

This is a great example for how copyright law hinders creativity and free expression. It grants a monopoly that prevents derivative works. But derivative works are an important kind of artwork that shouldn't be prevented from being published.

[@Courier_333]

It's crazy how people will sit there and defend corrupt copyright law just because they're a fan of Disney

[@DansuB4nsu03]

@@Courier_333 I agree. If whoever's trying to sue Disney actually manages to succeed and copyright law gets reverted to the pre-Sonny Bono Act of 1998, a.k.a 75 years in the US, that would be really great for creative communities and a good lesson for Disney executives about too much power being their downfall.

[@DansuB4nsu03]

@@ooooneeee I agree. Copyright law should not be abolished, but it should be restructured in accordance with the modern online media sphere and the demands of the modern consumer and creative sectors. In this case, it should be limited in its maximum length to 75 or 70 years. Derivative works and new creative ideas can only be made if there is a steady supply of new and original works entering the Public Domain. Without it, the industry dries up and dwindles, leading us to the modern culture of "tried and true" reboots, remakes and sequels that copy from each other, with more original works usually being forgotten about. This needs to change, and that change needs to come from both the executive and the consumer levels.

[@nickl9623]

Disney may be losing copyright protection over Steamboat Willie Mickey, but don't worry, that doesn't mean Disney won't be able to use that version of him anymore. They will just have to share that version of Mickey when it enters public domain. Take the classic Winnie-the-Pooh books for example, now that those books are entering public domain, it won't be just Disney that will have access to the books and people and other studios will now be able to use the characters and stories. They just won't be able to have access to Gopher and Lumpy the good Heffalump. Gopher and Lumpy were created by Disney and came much later, and they didn't appear in the original Winnie-the-Pooh book. So Gopher and Lumpy are still under copyright for Disney until they hit public domain, then Disney will have to share Gopher and Lumpy with everyone when the copyright for them expires.

[@StuffwellakaTy]

From what I have observed, the Oswald representation doesn’t stop there. For I have seen that LEGO will be rolling out with a Brick Head, LEGO version of Funko Pop, and even a LEGO mini-figure of Oswald both of which will be releasing later this year. LEGO will be releasing a number of LEGO Disney products all through the year to commemorate Disney’s 100th anniversary. Something tells me we’ll be seeing more of Oswald beyond just LEGO sets and mystery mini-figure packs.

[@caronmills8983]

Totally agree with you. After watching this it makes sense as to why they have now included Oswald in the new series

[@benmalsky9834]

I cannot wait to get my hand on those new Lego sets!

[@Larry]

Disney have even been rather abusive with the prublic domain properties they've used in the past. Such as trying to sue Fox when they announced an animated Peter Pan series, even bullied CBS into cancelling their own animated Peter Pan previously.

[@ooooneeee]

Classic white collar criminals using the legal system to prevent competition.

[@BluebirdThekingoftrains1671]

Peter Pan's Theatre and Story versions are in Public Domain unlike Disney's versions

[@mixtapesfrommylatepartner]

I thought GOSH owned Peter Pan

[@skurvay3429]

Well technically the very first appearance of Mickey Mouse in Any cartoon at all was the short 'Plane Crazy', and it featured Mickey without his Shoes & Gloves, also Minnie didn't have her Bow yet, so if Disney doesn't use That version of the characters, then they may end up losing that version to the Public Domain.

[@mjl1966y]

Trademark only relates to business identification and avoidance of public confusion. If you use Mickey in a way that is clearly not "Disney," then trademark does not apply. TM actually has even more limited protections than copyright. With TM, context counts a great deal.

[@darrenbelak4853]

Trademark protects the product Copyright protects the art

[@buyerenogurlfwendo2106]

In theory yes but unless you have a great legal department behind you that doesn’t stop Disney from hitting you with all kinds of civil motions.

[@mjl1966y]

@@buyerenogurlfwendo2106 which is why God invented the class action.

[@Lilitha11]

They have a really strong case for trademarking Micky, since he is the iconic character of their entire brand. I think it will be a little harder for all the other characters however.

[@1pcfred]

We're coming for the mouse!

[@vladimirirkhin]

new design and name maybe...

[@ChristianIce]

To trademark an image to go around copyrights is simply dishonest. You are not protecting designers, writers or the actual people who came up with an idea, you are protecting executives who simply bought it. If you can't come up with something good and new after a century, there is no point in "protecting you". Copyrights exist to help human innovation, not to stop it.

[@1pcfred]

@@ChristianIce That's it. Laws exist to protect the public good. If it doesn't do anything for us then we don't need it.

[@johntracy72]

They already have a trademark on Mickey Mouse.

[@autarchprinceps]

Snow White is an interesting one. Given that it was public domain long before Disney adapted it, I very much doubt they can lay claim to it, anymore than they can claim to own Charles Dickens Christmas Carol. That's the whole point behind that expiration after all.

[@shanematheson6720]

They can claim the original elements in the movie such as the dwarves names

[@autarchprinceps]

@@shanematheson6720 Can you claim that your modification of what you got for free from the public domain is itself not public domain? Not a rhetorical question. In IT we have two types of open source licenses, those with copyleft that enforce that all modifications and additions have to be released under the same license, and those without copyleft that allow you to do whatever you want with it, including using it inside proprietary software. Either way, they can at best claim minor subcomponents, not the core of the concept itself.

[@jeandonaghue2150]

Disney doesn't claim to own the snow-white story. It's the movie they have copyright ownership of. It's the same as the wizard of oz books they're all public domains. Anyone can copy or make a movie about the story of the wizard of oz. What you can't do is copy or use footage of the original 1939 movie as MGM has it copyrighted, its the movie they own, not the story.

[@stephenholloway6893]

Right now with Snow White, anything Disney added to the film (plus their version of said film) is still under copyright like the songs, the names of the Seven Dwarfs and so on. But not the fairytale itself.

[@DarkFutureConsolidated]

“Relatively obscure and little known version of the Mickey Mouse character”? Steamboat Willy is literally one of the most famous landmark pieces of animation of all time. Both as the first appearance of the character and as the first cartoon with an audio soundtrack.

[@paulitastic2]

Maybe that is little know for the younger kids that consumes Mickey

[@Sergio-nb4hj]

@@paulitastic2 they'd have to be really young, since my gen alpha 10 year old brother recognizes it

[@user-eq2fp6jw4g]

I bet many book characters were too for their contemporary. But hey once you are on public domain time is up.

[@guccigamer5907]

they'd at least recognize the image, since a scene from it plays right before almost every Disney animated film

[@UltraBart14]

Actually Mickey made his debut in Plane Crazy, which had no voice acting yet and the characters looked a lot different than we know today, but still a pretty solid start

[@stg4theglitchog768]

We can't stop popular characters from becoming public domain because when their time come, people will do whatever they want with them and their companies won't be able to stop them from creating versions of those characters who are more adulte then their well known ones.

[@CarlyCatharsis]

You OBVIOUSLY Have NEVER Done Research On The House That Mickey Built. Mickey IS Synonymous with Walt Himself & Where He Goes; The IP/Assets Aren't Too Far Behind. It Was ALWAYS BEEN A Family Company, Irregardless Of Who's Running The Operation!

[@Sketch-Motion]

@@CarlyCatharsis They can still make mickey mouse stuff after they loose the rights right?

[@CarlyCatharsis]

@@Sketch-Motion That's NOT How IP Rights Work! Case in Point: My Mom ONCE Bought An Aplique Maker Called A: PlayStation...Seriously?! It Had PRE-Loaded Patterns For Clothing, Hats, Purses, etc. Featuring: Mickey & Donald. But ALSO Stated That It Was For "NON-Commercial Use ONLY" My Older Sister Owned Her Own Craft Bussiness & Decided To Sell These Shirts, Hats, Bags, etc. About 2-Months LATER... She Was Sent A "Cease & Disist" From: Disney Enterprises For Using Likeness Of Character's! EXACT SAME THING Happened To 2-Local DayCare Schools, Which Had #MuppetBabies Cutouts On The OUTSIDE Of Their Center For OVER 20-Years! BUT, Due To Renewed Intrest in MuppetBabies, They Were NOW FORCED To Remove Them... Yet #TrentPark Elementary's Library Has Disney Characters On FULL Display...EVERYWHERE (Stained-Glass Panes, etc) OVER The Past 50-Years!!

[@Sketch-Motion]

@@CarlyCatharsis Yeah they'll always be able to do that because mickey has changed a lot since 1934 but next year anyone will be able to make a version based off the original version.

[@CarlyCatharsis]

@@Sketch-Motion You're Confusing A Mass-Market Mascot in Which ThemeParks Were Built Around To A.A.Miline's "Winnie The Pooh" Which Was NEVER Trademarked By Disney! (Just His Pals Various Likeness). Even Red Shirt Appeared in The Original Books, As Well As: Piglet, Tigger, Rabbit, Owl & Roo! But Gopher WAS An Original Disney Crearion & Rabbit Being Yellow, As Opposed To Tan!

[@TopFix]

This is a good thing, because it forces companies to come up with new IP's and stay creative rather than resting on the laurels of their earlier works. Also, we have never been in this situation before in terms of widespread media. First it's Mickey in '24, then it's Donald Duck and Goofy, then it's Batman and Superman... ect; you can try to do what you want with one or two characters and fight the dam from breaking but sooner or later, one by one, each copyright will expire like falling dominos, and then we will see, for the first time, big conglomerates bowing to the knees of the people like we've never seen them before. And since Disney gained a lot of their works because of there being no copyright, it would be so hypocritical and greedy of them to fight it, and if they do, I hope the public sees them for what they are and boycotts their BS.

[@zbroadcast3414]

It really does feel like Disney has dug it’s own grave with it’s whole approach. In a scenario where the copyright date doesn’t get extended AGAIN and everything plays out the way it does in your comment, Disney wouldn’t be unable to keep making content based on the now Public Domain characters, but they will have competition. It’s very possible that with all the controversy Disney has been getting themselves into over the past 20 years that audiences might just be more interested in a fresh new Mickey that isn’t tied to a lot of corporate messes.

[@benmalsky9834]

@@zbroadcast3414 I do not share the attitude that you share.

[@benmalsky9834]

Why are you saying that on a fan channel.

[@benmalsky9834]

Don’t boycott them! This is the 100th Anniversary and I want to see their work continued to be beloved!

[@benmalsky9834]

Please don’t tell to not love Disney anymore! I’m still a fan and I don’t want to be alone! 😢

[@scottriddell3514]

If their are several versions of Mickey mouse then only one of those of the recreation of the character will be sent to the public domain meaning that the other versions of him get to be used as replacement under the the same name

[@KaosNova2]

The Steamboat Willie Design is black and white Mickey Mouse with dots for eyes. The design was used in several short cartoons including Steamboat Willie. The colored version of Mickey Mouse was used since the 1940s and will have additional years before public domain. Disney already gives away steamboat Willie for free because no one cares about it compared to a modern blockbuster movie. I can see other individual Disney animated shorts being given away for free by Disney when those individual movies become public domain, in the case of steamboat Willie, Disney already gives it away for nothing, even before it officially is public domain by law. And yes, if you are a creator and have the rights to something, you can send it right to the public domain if you choose, just remember that you don’t collect royalties from what you sent straight to the public domain.

[@harasen_haras5]

As many franchises and characters as Disney has got, I don't think it'd be that much of an issue to have the older fall into public domain regardless of how iconic they are. They'd still be able to stay an icon of Disney because of how closely they're associated with the company.

[@Rig0r_M0rtis]

I don't think you realize how much money they make with Mickey Mouse merch

[@harasen_haras5]

@@Rig0r_M0rtis You're probably right

[@kalechips5972]

I think that how closely they're associated with Disney WILL be the problem because if someone uses Mickey Mouse, Steamboat WIllie version or not, in a publicly unsavory way, it'll probably reflect on the company regardless if Disney actually had anything to do with it.

[@harasen_haras5]

@@kalechips5972 Good point

[@craftyhobbit7623]

What I find ironic is that very few of Disney's characters were ever created by the company. They are either things that have been created from fairy tales and folklore (e.g. Robin Hood, The Sword in the Stone, Hercules and Aladdin for folklore), or things that they have bought from the original creator/author. Even Cruela deVil isn't a Disney creation though Disney act like she is.

[@gremloid]

It's very funny reading comments complaining that they don't want any horror movies or other uncharacteristic works using mickey when thats already been happening since the early 2000s, just in creepypastas and creepypasta games. No one has been forcing people to consume this type of media and no one will be forcing people to either. It's very easy to just... not watch a movie.

[@thecrazydisneyparksfanatic921]

Yes, we could just go and not watch the movie if there was one made however, it’s not really as much as that with us that are complaining as much as it is that the whole image of the character and as I stated in another comment to you on another thread that people would be confused that even if there are other forms of media like creepypastas and whatnot however, that that stuff isn’t as widespread and a lot of people won’t see that nor will confuse it as the same Disney characters as they would with stuff made by actual movie companies

[@thecrazydisneyparksfanatic921]

Also, a lot of the ones it usually ends up seeing a lot of these creepypastas are usually people who look through that kinda stuff a lot anyway, and just people looking up stuff that would have something like pop up somewhere, big movie companies making actual films out of it will show these in the preview section of movies in the theater, and on their actual channels

[@Courier_333]

it's dystopian how many people would side with a corporation over independent artists.

[@benmalsky9834]

@@Courier_333 No it’s not.

[@benmalsky9834]

@@Courier_333 You can side with both. This isn’t a black and white world.

[@aquapyro1]

There factors that make someone use characters that are already identified with a brand much more difficult. For two examples let’s look at King Kong and Winnie the Pooh. Both characters are in public domain. In Pooh’s case there are two versions of the character we know very well. The book version and the Disney version. Also known as Original and Red Shirt. Recently Blood and Honey came out and was pretty bad. But outside that point is the way the characters were used. Pooh or in merch known as Honey Bear, had an over exaggerated face and his red shirt became more of a cloak or scrub like outfit. He is also much bigger in the movie. There is enough difference to tell that this isn’t the book or Disney version of the character. Now look at King Kong. There are multiple versions of the character. We have his original puppet, Toho Productions, the RKO version, the 2005 reboot and recently the Monsterverse version. RKO, Toho and Monsterverse are not from Universal Pictures. And we the audience can tell the differences between each of them. Basically if someone wants to use the Disney characters once they’re in public domain, they’re going to have to go out their way to exaggerate them to make a sort of profit

[@jish55]

Since Mickey is also a trademark, I believe the character falls under different rules at this point, where this character still cannot be used by anyone even after it is supposed to enter the public domain in 2024. Because Mickey Mouse is a trademark of the Disney company and essentially the mascot that's used in damn near every form of advertising Disney has, it is protected and Mickey can't be used by others. The best example I can think of is how you can't use a companies sign/symboles/logo due to trademark unless they give permission.

[@rocketknightx6066]

You mean Disney still owns Mickey Mouse forever?

[@jish55]

@@rocketknightx6066 Yep, as long as Disney keeps using Mickey as their mascot, then it doesn't matter if Mickey falls into the public domain, he's protected by trademark, which is an entirely different beast that goes the same way it would when trying to implement a logo or catchphrase from a business, where you'd need the businesses consent to use any of those. This in turn protects Minnie due to how she is essentially a damn near carbon copy of Mickey, just sort of the drag version of him.

[@stephenholloway6893]

The shorts yes would enter public domain along with that specific version of the mice but not their trademarks. Besides we already have few Mickey shorts in the public domain now.

[@Wenlocktvdx]

Interesting. I recall reading up on Australian copyright law when my brother asked me to setup an artwork for him back in the mid 90s. I noticed a conflicting statement in the act, basically that one clause stated that Australian law mirrors overseas laws but another stating that copyright protection is ongoing. This would seem to give Disney ongoing copyright in Australia yet it could be argued that reflecting overseas laws means the US rulings are applied as a result. Kicking myself for missing that Walt had had a character before Mickey.

[@lethauntic]

God, I'd love it if Mickey finally were to enter public domain. Given how Disney is, I honestly thought that they'd have the power to extend it long after I'm dead. There are so many creative ideas people could use with Mickey-- even just the Steamboat willie version. But I not super hopefully :(

[@ronniebarter3857]

I think companies that engage in tricks with copyright should have their copyright protections removed.

[@writerpatrick]

Copyright is complicated. The character rights are different than the individual works, so most Mickey Mouse material will remain copyrighted. It's the character that can become PD. The Sonny Bono law is foolish since it's caused him and most of his songs to be forgotten. Had they become PD he's be better remembered. Snow White is based on a PD work which has had other interpretations so the only really the names of the dwarfs would be an issue.

[@ChillaxeMake]

Sonny Bono is different from song artist Bono.

[@ChillaxeMake]

wait sonny bono is also a music artist but my point still stands

[@KaosNova2]

The steamboat Willie cartoon is given away free by Disney at this point. The black and White Mickey Mouse is nothing to Disney at this point, they hardly use him as a logo compared to the colored Mickey Mouse design used since the 1940s. I don’t like Disney and what they have done with copyright laws, but the old black and white Mickey Mouse design doesn’t seem to be an issue as the original cartoon is being given away by Disney already even with the date for the cartoon by law becoming public domain in 2024. Trademarks get a little different, as those are how you identify a company, but the colored Mickey Mouse from the 1940s has long been the logo of Disney more than the black and white Mickey Mouse design for years

[@TheRawrnstuff]

@@KaosNova2 The character becoming Public Domain is a bit different a case. It's not really about the Steamboat Willie the movie, and how that's distributed. Mickey Mouse - any version - entering public domain means that the character can now be reiterated without fear of being sued for using the character. I'm certain you're familiar with Thor, the Norse god of Thunder. That character is in public domain, which is why it can be used both as a Marvel superhero and as an antagonist in Sony's "Dad of War" series, without the studios having to work some kind of deal to do so. Mickey becoming PD lets other creators to use the character, but not necessarily the likeness (Thor from Marvel and Thor from GoW look nothing alike, GoW being closer to the depiction in the myths). This "3rd party mickey" would have to follow the same sensibilities - the derivative work still shouldn't use Disney's likeness for him, especially the likeness Disney is currently using. Just like you shouldn't use, say, Tangled's likeness for Rapunzel if you make a product based on the character. The "character" is distinct from the "likeness".

[@writerpatrick]

@@ChillaxeMake But Bono never had his own variety show.

[@clarinetsaxist]

I am glad that you brought up their own reliance on public domain, because I am an enthusiastic advocate of public domain. I use many creative commons recordings of public domain classical works on my KZbin videos. Of course, people will never be allowed to completely plagiarize Disney, nor should they. And trademark should prohibit any "original" works using the characters out of context. To my understanding, public domain literally just applies to using and/or distributing the actual works themselves. So people will be able to make their own documentaries, or music videos, or whatever using clips without worrying about permission or paying royalties. I think the most exciting part is that the music for those Disney films will fall into public domain gradually over time, and we can then freely use those songs and musical scores for our own works, like we already do with Bach and Beethoven and so forth.

[@GlanderBrondurg]

Actually, public domain is far more inclusive and allows anybody to use the characters for almost any purpose they care. Trademark is really best seen as an adjective, and is used for actual marketing. To claim that the Walt Disney Corporation actually published a film that you made...that would be a trademark violation. Taking the Mickey Mouse from Steamboat Willy and having him have sex with Minne Mouse or do something else really crazy is actually perfectly legal when it comes into public domain. So no, it isn't just just the distribution of the copyrighted work. It also involves any transformation, adaptation, derivative, or other adaptation. It is notable though that the Mickey Mouse character was transformed with the movie "Fantasia" and the more current appearance of Mickey Mouse will only enter the public domain when that movie finally enters the public domain. Some authors like the estate of Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes stories) have been successful with copyright infringement lawsuits because of later works that are still under copyright even though the first introduction was in public domain. It gets messy. The funny thing is that Disney themselves are among those who don't hesitate to appropriate public domain works into their products and claim copyright. A good example is how the movie "Lion King" took significant parts of Shakespeare's "Hamlet" into its story line that would be a copyright violation if not for the fact that Hamlet is in the public domain (thank goodness too).

[@pizzazzio6572]

Considering that every time a property was about to fall into public domain Disney pushed changes that extended the copyright and screwed things over for the little guys... Well, I wouldn't be surprised if they had some dirty trick up their sleeves to keep the copyright for much longer.

[@stephenholloway6893]

If they do, the year is just about half over and unless the Republicans would be willing to work with Disney on getting copyrights extended this time I doubt they can get it done on time. Yes it's possible but we'll just wait and see.

[@PhichePxylode]

Well the government isn’t extending copyright

[@benmalsky9834]

If Disney has to produce more and more content and things related to the classic black and white era of Mickey & Friends, you know what that potentially means? We could get a new black and white style Mickey Mouse series!

[@59thsurvivorofvhs]

It is interesting that they are recreating the old in order to protect it! Disney sets examples for how business should protect themselves. They have been smart about doing it for a long time.

[@papingosstudios161]

If they do that they better put oswalt

[@benmalsky9834]

@@papingosstudios161 Oswald

[@59thsurvivorofvhs]

Everything getting remade these days into streaming, we will see it happen there for a monthly fee! LOL I love VHS tapes 1 time buy.

[@papingosstudios161]

@@benmalsky9834 oh my bad

[@jaydemlowe]

I can see them letting Steam Boat Willie into the public domain but the one we know and love these days is gonna be under lock and key for a good while. Like when Pooh Bear went under public domain, it wasn’t entirely Pooh as we know him today

[@MrJoshinJosh]

I don’t care what The Disney Adults nor fans think. To me I’m blessed that the first three Pre-Mickey Mouse cartoons are no longer distributed by Buena Vista😌👍

[@smith9808]

Great point about Disney using stories and characters in the public domain. That being said, we live in such a different time now compared to when Snow White or Pinocchio was written. (1800’s) I really don’t know where to stand on this tbh.

[@eljanrimsa5843]

Pinocchio was first published in 1883, 57 years before Disney made their own film with it. How can they claim it was public domain then, but their film isn't public domain now, 83 years later?

[@ooooneeee]

@@eljanrimsa5843 because they love to use public domain works while fighting their creations becoming public domain with all the lobbyism their billions can pay for.

[@Ptcruz]

@@eljanrimsa5843 Because the copyright length changed trough the years.

[@DanielBoger]

I’m surprised that you didn’t talk about how Mint Moble used Pooh as a public domain character this time last year.

[@DSNYNewscast]

The reason I didn't mention Winnie the Pooh is because it is a complicated topic of itself, with A.A. Milne's original book coming into public domain, but not the Disney version of the characters etc. It would have derailed the narrative of the video that was about Mickey.

[@benmalsky9834]

@@DSNYNewscast Thanks for letting us know why Jack!

[@evenhartwick4422]

@@DSNYNewscast in that blood and honey film he is still very reminiscent of the disney version. he's even got a red shirt. sure its plad and he's wearing pants but its still so clearly Pooh

[@freedomisthechoicesyoumake8594]

The Walt Disney Company still owns the Mickey Mouse character through a trademark, so that version is safe. Steamboat Willie, on the other hand, is only protected under copyright, and once that ends, other artists and creators can do as they please with the Steamboat Willie character

[@ExtremeWreck]

Popeye is said to be going to the public domain as well at some point. Mickey Mouse will probably be safe considering the many trademarks Disney has gone through with him over the years.

[@crazycat4128]

They already lost Winnie the Pooh and Piglet

[@alexubel]

@@crazycat4128 Disney didn't own the copyright to those versions of Winnie the Pooh to begin with.

[@donalddestiny9017]

Popeye is already public domain so far (atleast in europe and Canada as far as I heard)

[@ThW5]

@@donalddestiny9017 He is, so, what did happen? Some comics magazines printed some satire/parody stories/pages...

[@_bbb444]

@@crazycat4128 the original book version

[@e-manr.486]

I really enjoyed this video, thoughtful and different. I personally I'm against the idea that a major conglomerate can just keep certain characters and stories of the public hand using the publishing tricks you highlighted. As you pointed out in the of the video, Disney has made substantial success off of the reinterpretation of classic stories. Other creative minds deserve the same opportunity with Disney's properties.

[@InfectiousGroovePodcast]

Like others, I expect Disney to find a way around this. For me, I just wish there was more clarification with Fair Use laws for content creators as a whole.

[@kentslocum]

This may be one of the main reasons why Disney is slapping their movie IPs on every attraction, ride, restaurant, parking lot, and show at their theme parks.

[@seanlynott9033]

On the one hand, there have been several public domain Works that inspired what Disney worked on. On the other hand, they could use a gimmick to advertise Disney+, therefore maintaining their properties, or what they would consider “properties”.

[@tchitchouan]

we're here

[@ExiaBlade]

I'm honestly curious to see what other companies would come up with using the iconic mouse. The first thing that comes to mind are those terrible straight-to-video movies like those animated Titanic movies XD

[@evenhartwick4422]

no it will definitely be a horror film. i bet that guy who's making Pooh: Blood and Honey is already writing a script for a horror Mickey movie

[@hanksimon1023]

As you suggest, both Disney and Apple Legal departments are known for vigorously protecting their intellectual properties. Even if someone uses Mickey and the law is on their side, the threat of legal action and associated costs could make protection of alternative and derivative non-Disney use prohibitive. Similarly it will be interesting when the iconic Superman, Batman, and Spiderman properties come up for copyright expiration...

[@geraldinedavila2086]

I have a theory that they created Mickey’s Runaway Railway and the subsequent series to create a ver similar but newly copywritten version of classic Mickey and then have a good argument in court when other people start creating products with OG Mickey.

[@silverdamascus2023]

Nope, it means that while the original Mickey designs will be public domain, the newer ones won't, these new designs will be heavily promoted by Disney to make sure they can separate official Mickey products from legally unlicensed ones.

[@bloodmooncomics2249]

It is kind of funny/sad about Disney being so crazy over not wanting their stuff to be put into Public Domain since a lot of their most popular stuff is from Public Domain stories.

[@Grim2]

9:55 - The company never cared for ethical dilemma's. Case in point, back in the 80's they flat out sued Filmation for wanting to do their own takes on public domain works. Of course, they lost the court battle, but still - just shows how they are.

[@benmalsky9834]

They was a long time ago

[@KhurtKhave669]

@@benmalsky9834 yes, Disney is much worse now. lol

[@benmalsky9834]

@@KhurtKhave669 No, they are not.

[@benmalsky9834]

@@KhurtKhave669 No, they are still great.

[@benmalsky9834]

@@KhurtKhave669 It’s the 100th Anniversary, let’s put on our positive attitudes this year.

[@USMCbratt]

Very good video. Just goes to show you how smart Disney's lawyers are. They know what they are doing to keep everything out of the public domain and will keep doing so for a long time to come. Disney = power

[@therandomekekistani5812]

I honestly hope that the Supreme Court steps in and DOES stand up to Disney over this issue, we, The People NEED to take back OUR culture from the Corporations! Enough is enough!

[@silverdamascus2023]

The only thing corporations like Disney deserve is a trademark to identify them as the original creators, meaning that while Disney won't be able to stop people from using Mickey, they will at least have a seal of approval to distinguish official Mickey products from non-official ones. Trademarks can't be a perpetual replacement for copyright.

[@ourfamilyaccount]

I have no complaints with (steamboat willie, desaturated) Mickey mouse entering the public domain. I'm curious how creative folks will take it. I'm personally looking forward to art murals that feature that theming. We'll see if it happens though, they might try to prevent it again :/

[@KaosNova2]

The way it will work is you could see some people possibly making something like a poster or decorations at the dollar store with the design, but a lot of people would also not care for it in favor of getting something that looks new anyway.

[@Vannabee13]

It would probably allow historical or period peice movies that take place in the time period to use it in their works. It could also potentially lead to a non Disney production studio doing their own documentary on Walt and the creation of the cartoon.

[@albusnightspring8057]

Lol, I don't see why people who make art murals should give a fuck about copyright laws

[@Courier_333]

@@albusnightspring8057 I don't know why Disney threatens suing people for murals or putting characters on gravestones.

[@ravenwilder4099]

Something important to keep in mind: trademark only covers use of symbols/words/images/etc. in promotional material. Mickey Mouse will indisputably remain a protected trademark, but that will only prevent people from using the character in commercials, or movie posters, or toy packaging, etc. Someone could still release a movie containing some or all of the footage from Steamboat Willie, or footage based on Steamboat Willie, they'd just have a difficult time advertising that fact.

[@shirayukinobunaga9424]

So your telling me if Stone Ocean waited one more year we could have gotten mickey mouse in an anime

[@benmalsky9834]

Wether it’s for the reasons of brand strengthening or to make him a figurehead for the 100th Anniversary celebration, I’m still so glad to see Oswald again!

[@EvenTheDogAgrees]

"Again"? That would imply you were around when he was still active, which means you are old enough to at least have seen him in his last appearance back in 1938... 😂

[@benmalsky9834]

@@EvenTheDogAgrees Sorry, I am fully aware that Oswald was very inactive in his time at Universal.

[@EvenTheDogAgrees]

@@benmalsky9834 Sorry? What for? I just thought it was funny the way you phrased it. 😄

[@thebman80]

I think what needs to happen is that the Supreme Court needs to rule on the matter of Trade Marks and that they need to become invalid or expire as soon as something enters public domain.

[@DinosourousRexx]

Mickey isn’t going anywhere people… Something entering the public domain means it can be used more freely and easily, not that it’s locked up or off-limits. Disney can and will still use Mickey as they please, regardless of if he enters the public domain or not 🙄

[@benmalsky9834]

Thank you! Someone gets it. Mickey content will ALWAYS be produced no matter what.

[@RodrigoColimodio]

That’s what should happen. Mickey should go to public domain status. However, Disney will not stop branding it as their main branding character. Ig is not like people will stop relating Mickey from Disney.

[@benmalsky9834]

@@RodrigoColimodio Just look at Oswald. He entered public domain recently and yet Disney has been able to utilize him the way they want people to see him as.

[@lithosphereX]

Also, only his original design will enter public domain. Most designs people are familiar with won’t enter the public domain for a couple more decades. This was a similar situation to Winnie the Pooh

[@Ptcruz]

Of course. No one was disputing this.

[@p1mason]

Thanks for that. I didn't really understand the character copyright thing and now I do. In particular, I didn't understand that characters aren't copyright by statute. Rather if a character possesses a distinctive enough set of traits, then the mere presence of the character in a subsequent work is enough to establish that the subsequent work is derivative of the work where this set of traits is first described. Now I know.

[@dpetrano]

Soon enough US courts will hear infringement cases against guys like me who will print the 1923 mouse on towels, etc., whereby Scotus will ultimately rule.

[@CreeperOnYourHouse]

They're going to have a hell of a time establishing all of their properties as a trademark that is explicitly connected to them. You can only do that to so many things at a time before you're juggling too many and the public doesn't associate the additional things any more.

[@typemasters2871]

I just hope that copyright law doesn’t get extended further because there are other properties besides Mickey Mouse where nothing can be done with them because the current owners of said properties is unknown

[@MGmirkin]

There should really be an "abandonment" clause in public domain laws, where if ownership of a work isn't clear, and nobody can prove ownership, or enforced a claim for some set period of time, it **defaults** to public domain. Likewise, if a company with a copyright on something **goes out of business entirely while in possession of the copyright** it should **default** to public domain. If a business is going out of business and its assets get transferred to like some "holding company" (who wasn't the original author), it should **default** to the public domain, since the holding company wasn't the author and putatively has no rights/claim to the IP that **they did not themselves author.** Just my opinion...

[@furtivedolus2504]

Trademarks are nowhere NEAR as broad as copyright. And there has already been a court case over this (Daystar) that explicitly says you CANNOT use Trademarks to block off the use of public domain content.

[@bncsmom1]

No, they won't lose Mickey. The reason is simple: He's been updated and copyrighted over and over through the years. Each new update is a new copyright to the name and image. While they could lose exclusive rights to the ORIGINAL image, they will never lose exclusive rights to the Mouse himself for this reason.

[@MGmirkin]

Which **should** by all rights be **utter and complete nonsense.** The character itself, the **idea** of "Mickey"-ness, should be what enters the public domain. None of this "well, I drew him again in 1930 and in 1940 and in 1950, so I should just own him forever just by drawing a new 'version' with different clothes, or green pants instead of red pants, every 10 years..." Yeah, but it wasn't a **new character.** The **character itself** was created in the 1920s. Simply making a **new drawing** of the same character is not itself a "new character." The character itself was still created in the 1920s, and it's the character itself that should be entering the public domain for **all** derivative use(s) [*including* red pants]. For instance, if I draw Mickey as "Steamboat Willie" am I not allowed to make my own "derivative" work of that work (making changes to it)? Can I not change its ear style, or give it a hairdo, or change its pants shape and style ... you see where I'm going ... or its pants **color** ...? For instance, if I made the pants green instead of black, would I fall afoul of "copyright"? Could I make them blue? Yellow? Orange? Mauve? Rainbow-colored? If I can make it all those things, as a "derivative" work, then surely, I can choose "Red" as well. See my point? It would be kind of ridiculous to say "you can use any color ... except red ... red is verboten." It's the same **derivative** image regardless of which color is used...

[@MGmirkin]

Take another example. Let's go back to written works like "Alice in Wonderland." Anyone can make an Alice in Wonderland story, 'cause Alice in Wonderland is in the public domain. One can use all the characters and names, 'cause they're in the public domain. The only things one could **not** use would essentially be entirely new characters from later works that were not in the original. One could still use "Alice" and "Queen of Hearts" or whatever. In exactly the same way, it should be the very idea of "Mickey," the character himself [his "Mickey-ness"] that enters the public domain. And **any** derivative work based upon the **character** [the inherent "Mickey"-ness] should be fair game... If the true spirit of "public domain" were being honored.

[@sc0tt_p]

​@@MGmirkinThere's so many interesting legal questions wrapped up in this whole situation, I'm ready for the @CGPGrey updated copyright video.

[@sc0tt_p]

But I'd settle for @LegalEagle 😄😄

[@Person-wz6iy]

I like to imagine that on New Year's Day, Death (Who is also in the Public Domain. So beacuse of that I like to imagine him as a messenger who taunts characters with the fact that they'll become Public Domain and when it will happen.) visited Mickey and told him: "You've got one more year, MICKEY!!!!!!!!"

[@weedleisopcute3626]

This is surprisingly in-character for Death

[@Person-wz6iy]

@@weedleisopcute3626 But then Mickey pulls out a big old TM like an Uno Reverse Card. And blinds Death!

[@grodesby3422]

She, Life in Death, perhaps

[@Kiramitsuoka]

The "easiest" way to go about the dilemma is to change the copyright law and trademark regulations to state that "Works based on public domain works become public domain after 5 years" and "Works based on public domain works can not be registered as trademarks or other means of protection". But that's something Disney and others would fight against with all they have.

[@ductoannguyen7595]

We should have copyright reduction for all,because most - if not all works was public domain based. Those that specifically based on public domain too much(have too much of public domain parts)can apply that 5 years copyright time and no trademarks.

[@xcoder1122]

The long copyright protection makes no sense at all. Nowadays, patents are easily ten times more important than copyright, and even these are limited to a maximum of 20 years. A copyright of 20-30 years at the most would be perfectly fine, since everything that really needs to be protected beyond that is protected by a trademark. And I say that as someone who lives solely on copyright revenue! I'm unlikely to make money from things I made more than 30 years ago, and even if I did, copyright shouldn't be like winning the lottery for life. Most people out there have to make a living month to month, they can't say "hey, I did some work 30 years ago, so pay me for it until I die".

[@oliverbrownlow5615]

Owning a copyright that continues to be valuable is indeed like winning the lottery. Most copyrights are totally worthless, and most that have any value lose value over time until they are worthless. The question is not whether the rare author who creates something people continue to find valuable should keep getting paid, but whether that author in sickness or old age, or his widow, or his orphaned children should starve while some third party makes millions off his work.

[@xcoder1122]

@@oliverbrownlow5615 You build a tool today and sell it for $250. In 50 years someone uses your tool somehow to make millions, what do you get? Correct, nothing. So why the double standard here? Are widows and children of authors some kind of supreme society class? What about the widows and orphaned children of a craftsman, salesman, or factory worker? Those are worthless and can starve? And if any widows and children have to starve where your live, blame your broken capitalistic society, as where I live people get pension (widows get an own one and partially the one of their dead husband) and public health care as long as they live, just like child care support and additional social payments if that's not enough to get around. And that applies to families of authors just as it does to families craftsmen, salesmen, or factory workers.

[@Mangolite]

At one time, I researched into showing commercial films to general audiences in community yard gatherings, and Disney’s movies were the most egregious of overly priced per showing.

[@CarlyCatharsis]

Makes TOTAL Sense!

[@ooooneeee]

Yeah they've been greedy for a long time.

[@qavix6089]

Disney Franchise: turns 100 and enters public domain Horror movie makers: It's free real estate

[@user-eq2fp6jw4g]

Horror and porn makers!

[@jeremytoney9367]

As we approach the time, when characters from companies like Disney and Warner Bros. are about to enter the public domain, I think that it would be appropriate for the older characters to enter the public domain. As I grew up, I watched a lot of these characters, and they were not only mentors but role models for me in their animated form, if you as a company try to stay for the idea that these characters could be in the public domain and you’re still trying to use greed as the excuse not to let them out then I think you should be subject to the laws of a monopoly, and your company should be taken apart. This is just my opinion and I would hope it would not rub people the wrong way, but this is my opinion.

[@aquarianage3953]

Great informative video on the intellectual property rights and parameters of one of my favorite media companies.Thumbs up!

[@hosatus2433]

The company most infamous for copyright losing one of their copyrights. Beautiful

[@ProfaneGrue]

This video fails to mention that once a character is in public domain artists are not just limited to adapting the original works, they can create new interpretations of the character. Warner Bros or Netflix could create their own modern spin on Mickey Mouse, so long as it was visibly distinct from Disney's Mickey Mouse. And then those companies would have a exclusive copyright on their version of the character and could make their own trademarks too.

[@YumegakaMurakumo]

Thank you! copyright law is tricky but you simplified it and this guy made it sound more complicated than it should be. the Steam Boat Willie design is now free to use but only that design. We'll just see how it goes. Only time will tell.

[@travelinman790]

Disney: "we can rip others off, but you can't rip us off".

[@mrsjoy8831]

Exactly!!!

[@benmalsky9834]

It’s a lot more complex than that.

[@silverdamascus2023]

Some people argue that public domain is a bad thing, because it's bad for creativity, instead of creating your own things, people will just take things that other people created. That's false, companies own so many things that they don't need to create anything new, paradoxically, the reason why Hollywood only invests in sequels, remakes, reboots and adaptations, is the lack of public domain, that allows everyone to make their own sequels, remakes, reboots and adaptations.

[@sinmenon4347]

Another interesting example within Disney is Winnie the Pooh. The shirtless version is public domain, but apparently the one with red shirt is Disney's

[@evenhartwick4422]

I'm surprised he didn't mention Pooh and his recent horror film coming up blood and honey. i guess maybe because Pooh was by another creator they couldn't try to extend the copyright further. its one thing to try and cheat your own original property into the public domain longer but i guess another creators work is fair game

[@agustdan6599]

Considering the recent addition of Mickey and Minnie's Run Away Railway, I don't think Mickey and Minnie are going anywhere anytime soon.

[@Sketch-Motion]

They're not, it's just that other people will be able to use them.

[@KaosNova2]

It’s just that people won’t have to ask anyone permission to use what is in public domain. It will even be given away for free by Disney if they haven’t done so already.

[@markusturunen7929]

One thing that you have to remember about public domain is that Disney still owns the incarnation of the designs when mickey becomes public domain you still have to make your own interpretation of the character.

[@AndromedaCripps]

Fairly comprehensive overview of the issue, and with a fairly unbiased/neutral delivery. Very nice! Copyright Law to me has always felt like something that human society has only recently needed, and is still struggling to hammer out the ethics of. There is a difficulty in determining how to fairly reward the rights of intellectual properties, due to the interests of companies that want to make money, creators that deserve credit for their ideas, and the concept of legacy and merit of the standard or masterpiece. I don’t know the best way to run copyright law, and I haven’t heard “the best way” yet. To make things worse, media is one of the most international things we have on Earth. How do you coordinate global legislation on something like that? The whole thing feels like it’s going to take another century or two of different iterations to get right, and with the trends of companies these days, I expect they will push their luck and make it worse before it starts getting better.

[@formdusktilldeath]

If Disney really is that force for good as they present themselves to be, it would behoove them not to be so incredibly greedy.

[@evenhartwick4422]

i mean i agree but he's literally their company mascot of course they will do everything in their power to hold exclusive rights to him. this isn't like a Whinny the pooh situation he's the literal face of their company the minute he falls into the public domain he will be made into a horror film wheres he's hacking people up

[@kevinmartinez723]

I hope someone makes a cartoon with mickey and takes them to court! Because the courts won't ever rule that a character can be protected indefinitely with legalize loopholes.

[@baronvonpiano7625]

Seeing as how Disney’s started letting other things enter the PD (Oswald the Lucky Rabbit is this year!) I think they’ll let Mickey start going the same since they still have him trademarked, and plus since its only his original design. Heck, I bet even then he can only be in black and white since The Band Concert won’t be in public domain for a while.

[@baronvonpiano7625]

@BeetleFartMedia I guess what I meant by “letting” it enter public domain is that they didn’t try to pull any legal strings to keep Oswald and some other earlier things fully copyrighted.

[@jaschabull2365]

I don't feel optimistic about this, considering how Disney's already been coming off pretty cynical with its constant releases of rebooted old movies which plenty have pointed out seem to be a convenient way to hold onto rights with very few audience members actually enjoying the reboots. I suspect this'll only make them get more obnoxious about it as traditional rights of their properties wane. I suppose we'll have to wait and see if anyone in the courts steps in and tells Disney to stop being cheap. Maybe we'll get a few cases like where that one high court guy said trying to pinch the rights of the Happy Birthday song was ridiculous, but that sort of case does seem few and far between. It does seem Disney's gone past the point of having Lived Long Enough To See Itself Become The Villain by now. Hard to hold on hope that things can't just get worse from here.

[@silverdamascus2023]

Copyright does not work like this, making a sequel or remake, does not extend the copyright of the original. It does extend your trademark however,

[@nousername1358]

Its about god damn time, copyright is a patent for art, so why the hell does it last over four times longer?

[@colorforce5530]

Mickey Mouse already entered society by the Disney Parks, Castaway Cay, Aulani and the ships. I was lucky to encounter him at Bellagio in fabulous Las Vegas, Nevada. If he is exposed in the rest of society; you could be right about it forsakenly, he might be gone! But it must not happen; being gone; he is one of the most famous and loved cartoon characters the world has ever known and Walt Disney's son; got my picture taken in front of the statues of both Walt and Mickey in front of Cinderella Castle. Of course, if Mickey enters the rest of society, he could become photorealistically computer-animated along with his friends, to honor his 100th birthday after the Walt Disney Company and Studios in half a decade.

[@jjturner4424]

I’m not so sure Disney will be able to extend copyright this time. They’ve got a congress for whom, on both the far left and the far right, any extension to Disney would be a non-starter. They’ll just have to be more creative with Mickey Mouse’s trademark.

[@AQuietNight]

If Mickey is regularly used as a trademark, I do not think Disney has any worries. All they have to do is just show a picture of any version of Mickey at the end of every movie with "The Walt Disney Company" underneath and Disney can rightly claim the trademark is in active use.

[@vator53]

@@AQuietNight and what would that accomplish for them? Using trademarked properties in your own work is fair use.

[@AQuietNight]

@@vator53 It is a protected image and cant be used by any other than the trademark holder. If you are doing a story on Mickey Mouse, you can use the image as an illustration but you could not use it in a new work for resale.

[@vator53]

@@AQuietNight in 2024? Yes I could. I can put any kind of image into my work, logos included. It's fair use.

[@AQuietNight]

@@vator53 Fair use doesn't mean unlimited use. You put a picture of Mickey Mouse in your book on Walt Disney, that is fair use. Put Mickey into the your latest cartoon... you will be hearing from Disney's lawyers. And they will have a case.

[@OurResistance]

All I am going to say is, the law is the law. Don't let Disney bully you. If a work is in the public domain, then you can use it freely on your KZbin channel in whatever way you like. If Disney tries to bully you, you can probably request an investigation into that bullying! However, one thing you have to look out for is people who restore old footage and then claim that it's copyright is then brand new! Do research!

[@rocketknightx6066]

Mickey Mouse deserves to be free from the copyright, I hate Paul Rudish's Mickey Mouse Shorts, it's like I'm watching Ren and Stimpy.

[@Inspiration_Date]

How did "The Mad Doctor" fall into the public domain? I think that could make for an interesting followup topic.

[@madameversiera]

It’s not an “ethical dilemma” that Disney is based on public domain. Disney cannot claim copyrights on the stories they based the movies on, they claim copyright on the specific design and trademark they created. I also created a Sherlock Holmes character design, I own the character designed by me, not the idea of Sherlock Holmes.

[@Friendship1nmillion]

*YES* ( see ) This is where it gets messy . IF i were to create a character that's inspired directly by Sherlock Holmes BUT isn't designed the exact same way despite people can tell ( from hints within the storyline ) that's it's a " recreation " CAN i be sued for intellectual property infringement ?? Within Disney trying to prolong their ownership of their iconic works with using trademark ™️ laws as substitute extension of copyright law ~ where does it leave us to have public domain access to have fun with the characters ? ♑️✍️🇳🇴🇦🇺

[@ShibaDoge981]

The copyright shouldn't haven been extended in the first place, like mentioned in the video Mickey was supposed to enter public domain in 2004. 75 years after the death of the author is plenty of time to make use of a property exclusively and it's essential to our cultural identities that we be able to create dervative works.

[@EclipseMakesContent]

We gotta get a company to be able to get mickey so that way we can come up with a contract for more epic mickey content

[@lurkzie]

Love the ironic karma of a corporation building their success through public domain exploitation panicking to defend their own brand from being publicly exploited

[@ericschultz4004]

So let me get this straight .... As of January 1, 2024, if I create a backstory prequel film about Steamboat Willie getting on the boat from several states away to escape the law from gruesome murder and cannibalism charges, I can freely do so but might still face legal consequences if the character looks like a more modern version of family friendly Mickey from 1940 Fantasia instead of Willie??? What if rather than referring to the character as "Steamboat Willie", I chose to call him "Mickey"? Does that interfere with the copyrights with the current versions of Mickey? If the character looks similar to the "modern Mickey", why not? Not to mention, with the Steamboat character used in the beginning credits, it seems like all of this hype is for nothing because wouldn't the Trademark prevent me from creating that film???