Mickey Mouse and copyright law

[@Goodiesfanful]

I think Disney has interfered with copyright law long enough, and it's not fair to those who want to use works that should have entered the public domain long ago. Anyway, even if Mickey enters the public domain, he's still trademarked.

[@dane4073]

We should start a petition

[@robertadkinsii1825]

We should argue for a return to Corporate Charters as they existed in the Founding Days of our Republic. Quite simply put, because what Disney is doing is NOT in the public interest, the entire corporation would simply be dissolved and cease to exist. The Founding Fathers were terrified of corporations gaining power in this nation as the foreign trading companies and corporations had, prior to the American Revolution. Corporations didn't even protect corporate officers from liability! All shareholder votes were treated much more equally, regardless of the number of shares held by each shareholder too. It was a different world and one we, the People, need to see return.

[@davidperry4013]

It should gone PD in 1951

[@Goodiesfanful]

@@davidperry4013 Yes, it's not fair the way Disney keeps interfering with copyright laws just for his own convenience. But why 1951 when Disney did not die until 1966? Were copyright laws a bit different then?

[@flying_Night_slasher]

Don't worry when younger people go into Congress (especially people who tried to make stuff with Disney stuff in it and got sued by them) they'll make the back to where it was before they first started it.

[@bpkdasbaum]

So this is why we can't have nice things

[@bentonrp]

Ironic. The reason why Disney made such nice versions of classic myths is now the very thing they're now preventing from occurring on our modern ones; creative collaboration dies without public access.

[@adrianespinel7758]

Disney, making a mockery of our copyright laws since the 1970s. Thank you Disney.

[@ericanervous]

and yAdrian Espinel

[@Pappy_Spoilers]

Thanks Obama

[@sebas8225]

Disney lawyers: Scamming you since the 1970s

[@SlapstickGenius23]

Disney lobbyists: we are technically above the court.

[@ultimatespider-man5170]

And they're right cause the public domain is shit

[@3xand3r49]

honestly, I think copywrites should be for the creators not a huge company... I think it would be nice if the copywrites held so many years or until death, or possibly for family so many years after death without a possible renewal... bc at that point the creator is gone to give consent on how their work is used, so why not let everyone use it how they wish and bring new life to said characters

[@sebas8225]

pretty much.

[@SlapstickGenius23]

New Zealand, Australian, Canadian, Japanese and European laws respect creators.

[@3xand3r49]

@@SlapstickGenius23 im sorry but not all people are this way and thats any country. My comment is 3 years old and i still atand by copywrite should be for the creator, but globally there still is no respect for it. If there were we wouldnt have artistic platforms full of other peoples intelectual property and the promotion that that kind of stuff is ok. While some places may be better at enforcing i dont believe any country is 100% guilt free in this theft being a problem.

[@ultimatespider-man5170]

When a company hires people to create stuff for them, it's the company that counts as the creator, not the people they hired.

[@3xand3r49]

@@ultimatespider-man5170 that ultimately depends on the contracts signed and if the creator gives up their creative rights. Company ownership isnt the default to the copyright system. As an independent artist who at one time wished to work for disney and other similar companies ive had to learn in depth my legal rights as a creator and the types of contracts involved with freelanced commision and collaboration projects.

[@TheRadioAteMyTV]

2022 - still under copyright. 3032- still under copyright 10,052 - still under copyright - even at Miliways!

[@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 a song, and another person starts singing this song, 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 belong to one person 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 Viacom 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.

[@mylescorley1978]

Well said and an underrated comment!

[@keeline]

This video is short and cannot fully address a complex topic. Not covered are the 1923-1963 works which entered the public domain when the copyrights were not renewed by the owners. Also not mentioned are the automatic renewals that began in 1992. This has its own damage. Some of the fairy tales (e.g. Grimm) had public domain translations. However, many other works Disney adapted were under copyright. Pinocchio was first published in the 1892. When Disney got film rights for Wind in the Willows ("Adventures of Mr. Toad") they contacted both the author, Kenneth Grahame, for his 1908 book AND A.A. Milne who wrote a play based on the book called "Toad of Toad Hall." Trademark law should be enough for a company like Disney to "vigorously defend" and protect Mickey Mouse. However, the Leslie Klinger decision on Sherlock Holmes does indicate that anyone can use elements from public domain texts. The 1909 terms of 28+28 (if renewed) = 56 years is the most fair balance. Copyrights were intended to be a TEMPORARY monopoly, not tying up a property for nearly a century. Curiously, while there is pressure to lengthen copyrights, there is pressure to SHORTEN patents by drug companies who want to introduce competing "generic" drugs.

[@TuskenWaider]

It’s expired. You can now go do whatever you want with Steamboat Willie.

[@clevelandshowfan4209]

#FREETHEMOUSE

[@Alyeah_]

My KZbin video got blocked because I used a clip of mickey and i took it out and tried to upload it again and Disney still copyrighted it like wtf

[@timorii]

Memes are a reaction to this.

[@JuanCarlosMontillaCorrea]

Now i understand why hollywood has no new ideas.... because nobody can't build an empire based on public domain works as Disney did...

[@silverdamascus2023]

We have so many reboots because of the end of public domain, which ironically, would allow anyone to make their own reboots.

[@silverdamascus2023]

Bambi and Winnie the Pooh become public domain characters in a few days. But you can only use the original book versions, the designs from the movies are still copyrighted.

[@TheRadioAteMyTV]

Great Brittan Pooh or US Pooh? Oh man, I don't know my pooh!

[@Alextrocute]

If I'm going to be brutally honest, something's copyright needs to die at some point, if nothing gets added to the public domain then at some point it might as well not exist because there's a lot of stuff in the public domain that in my opinion most people just don't care about, and people need to be able to use old from things without being charged for it some day. Maybe they should stop relying on their old copyright so much.

[@rascalflattsfanpage]

oh, things will go into the public domain. only rich companies will be able to "protect" their copyright, whereas poor creators will follow laws

[@ultimatespider-man5170]

No it's the public domain that must die it's up to the creator to decide if their work stops being exclusive not to the government governments must stop wanting to decide everything

[@Alextrocute]

@@ultimatespider-man5170 And when the creator dies, what then?

[@ultimatespider-man5170]

That it remains with the company that hired the person

[@Alextrocute]

@@ultimatespider-man5170 Controlling the use of an idea for eternity is not moral. That is essentially what you are asking for, because it's clear this would happen to a very large extent. I have not even the slightest idea why you or anyone would think this. It's very important that everyone can use others' ideas for their own proposes someday.

[@Goodiesfanful]

Wouldn't it really blow up in Disney's face if he wanted to adapt somebody's work for a movie, but it was still copyrighted because of the very copyright extension laws he's asked for, when the work should have been in the public domain?

[@filozof90]

no because they have enough money to get what they want

[@Goodiesfanful]

filozof it would still save Disney money, not to mention wrangles with difficult creators, if the work was in the public domain instead of still being stuck in copyright because of him.

[@XX-sp3tt]

Disney won't lose Mickey, all of mankind will gain Mickey.

[@twingalaxiesrecords4152]

It just goes to show that if you have enough money and pay enough people the right price you can do whatever you want!

[@Knightmare919]

Basically it's almost bribery.

[@clevelandshowfan4209]

#FREEMICKEY

[@6661313]

people crying that copyright should be shorter, never did anything worth copyrighting

[@Deathstorm927]

So at 2019 can the fantastic 4 join the avengers!

[@senseiadam-brawlstars9465]

They were created in 1960 or so, so no.

[@SergioDiaz-im5en]

This aged well

[@Kandhaqprotector]

@@senseiadam-brawlstars9465 and copyrights vary internationally

[@Mitche23]

Now it's extended to 2024

[@moyahardman483]

WE CANT LOSE HIM

[@stephenholloway6893]

Aren't you aware that his trademark isn't included in January when the copyright to Steamboat Willie ends? Just the copyright to the short itself and Mickey.

[@XX-sp3tt]

5 months to go. Steamboat Willie Mickey Mouse will finally be free. Along with Tigger and Cuthulu.

[@scottr2314]

Micky Mouse is still trademarked which essentially means other companies can't use him ever as long as the trademark is in effect

[@blosychef]

now its 2023

[@themagicarcadetma1406]

Liam Frankgar you mean 2050

[@baileycrawly]

Disney, of all people, shouldn’t have the power to make or influence the laws. Let Mickey go to the public domain. Move on.

[@SlapstickGenius23]

But Mickey’s history cannot ever be separated from the company itself, as he is far too deeply integrated into the company to exist on his own.

[@ultimatespider-man5170]

And the government should not tell the creator to say goodbye to their work it must be the decision of the creators not of the government

[@SlapstickGenius23]

According to Adam Winkler, author of We the Corporations, America was founded by a corporation itself, the Virginia company.

[@ssm100]

Trent Lott was a Senator... Not speaker of the house

[@TheRadioAteMyTV]

And the senate in those days passed nothing without 70 votes, so singling out a Senator is to demonstrate lack of knowledge how that body works.

[@pezpeculiar9557]

I think that copyright laws should state that something can be available to the public domain 10-25 years after a company stops using that character, idea, invention, etc.

[@th3narrat0r5]

well then ill make a movie once every 24 years and I will be fine

[@pezpeculiar9557]

Osperey 28 Nice

[@keeline]

This video discussion does not mention trademark law. That would be sufficient to defend Mickey Mouse (or any other character of commercial value). In general U.S. trademark law requires that an owner "vigorously defend" their properties.

[@johngillespie3994]

That makes sense to me.

[@silverdamascus2023]

This would create a lot of ashcan copies, where companies would make cheap and quick things just to keep the rights, it already happens all the time in contracts companies make between themselves.

[@vijfsnippervijf]

30,000: Everyone lives forever, and copyright therefore lasts forever? Or maybe just as long as a patent, 20 years?

[@HippyHouse]

They copied every popular story in history. So they shouldn’t be excused of the same.

[@brucewayne2955]

Can we get an update? It's now 2021 & Mickey is still king 😳😬

[@mapleorange3415]

four years.

[@nzoomed]

That law is very mickey mouse...

[@johngillespie3994]

I believe Disney characters should be protected. As long as the Disney corporation exists and as long as they keep making movies and running theme parks and selling theme merchandise, then they should be protected. Their characters are not only copywrited but trademarked also. If someone wanted to make a movie and use the image of the Gerber baby, they would need permission of the Gerber Corporation. That is only right. These are not just books on a shelf with a copywrite date, these are corporations and institutions and brand names. Disney is part of Americana that should be fostered and protected. Who wants a knock off Micky Mouse movie anyway.

[@artimiss1238]

That would make sense for Walt Disney's original characters (Mickey, Minnie, Goofy, Etc) but it isn't exactly fair of them to take public domain works (Cinderella, Prince of Egypt, Hercules, etc.), monetise and copyright them, and then tell everyone else they can't use them. If I were to make a movie of my interpretation of Snow White from Grimm's fairy tales, Disney can come after me for infringement regardless of whether or not I'm making profit off of it. Disney can keep Mickey and its original creations but do they really need to forever own rights to stuff created long before they even existed?

[@silverdamascus2023]

I could accept Disney owning Mickey Mouse forever because he is not just a character, he is a mascot and a brand, a symbol of the Disney company, vital for them to exist. But if we allowed this, Disney and other companies would try to trademark every single character they own, even the ones they never use.

[@shitheadman8057]

So you get copyrighted for letting people watch a movie and using it as good use

[@NealMouse9140]

Wasn't a old Black And White Cartoon of Mickey Mouse called Mad Doctor was a Public Domain? I had an old Mickey Mouse VHS tape and it had an episode of Mickey.

[@photios4779]

Nope. "The Mad Doctor" was released in 1933. According to American law, all works older than 95 years lose their copyright protection and enter the public domain. As of 2019, something had to be published in 1923 or before for it to now be in the public domain. "The Mad Doctor" will not be public domain until 2029, unless Disney successfully convinces Congress to extend copyright yet again. :(

[@NealMouse9140]

@@photios4779 Oh

[@Kandhaqprotector]

@@photios4779 copyright didn’t really come into force because of Disney. Disney were a factor in it for sure but the actual reason was because copyright owners in the US were lobbying to get equally as long as terms in the EU. So the US extended it to comply with international treaties.

[@photios4779]

@@Kandhaqprotector That's not entirely accurate. The U.S. increased its term of copyright protection from 28 years (with an optional renewal of another 28 years) to the life of the author + 50 years for new works and a fixed 75 years for older works in the Copyright Act of 1976 to comply with the Berne Convention. In 1998, the U.S. added 20 years to these copyright lengths. The latter copyright extension was NOT done to comply with international treaties because the Berne Convention and all treaties which existed at the time did not require this additional 20 years of protection. Harmonizing the US with the EU copyright term was a convenient excuse, but there was no need to do that. The EU hadn't applied any pressure on the U.S. to increase its copyright protection. That pressure came from big media companies like Disney that owned a lot of old copyrights.

[@Kandhaqprotector]

@@photios4779 ye but you see disney were a factor for the copyright being extended but it wasn't the solo factor.Disney were one of the big corporations that lobbied. Copyright Owners lobbied the senate to get the same extensions as was present in the EU which gave them a competitive advantage. It's not America. Since the 1993 Directive on harmonizing the term of copyright protection, member states of the European Union implemented protection for a term of the author's life plus seventy years.Disney didn't spearhead the change, and America didn't spearhead the change. It came because Europe extended it and made copyright lasting for life a requirement in the Berne convention (i.e international copyright law written and pushed by European countries, in a sense) which the US is a signatory and came into effect in 1989. It was not initiated by the US, it was extended by EU.

[@funminer8453]

OSWALD NOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

[@Brikzay]

You're out of options, Disney

[@somethingsomething9008]

I love the year 1999 its sounds so mysterios and nobody talks about it/ cringey indivusal 2017

[@filozof90]

What is this nonsense? Luke Skywalker CAN'T enter public domain when Gorge Lucas is still alive!

[@LazyPirate8]

filozof don't forget who owns star wars now.

[@keeline]

U.S. copyrights are only based on an author's lifetime IF the work was registered under the person's name. Most copyrights are works for hire or have corporate ownership.

[@silverdamascus2023]

When copyright is owned by a company, not a person, it expires 95 after it was published.

[@stephenholloway6893]

Besides it's still won't enter public domain until 2073 anyway, and that's just the first film only.

[@Sondan1988]

Remember this when you vote......and please be intelligent about because NEITHER party is working for you.

[@BeaverChainsaw]

2:27 so... disney owes the american public 3 billion dollars

[@raphahardt]

So we are in 2019 now. Is Mickey finally public domain?

[@SlapstickGenius23]

Raphael Hardt he’ll be in public domain by 2024. At least in America.

[@mosesdanielabidnego7643]

No, 2100 or until disney bankrupt

[@Kandhaqprotector]

@@SlapstickGenius23 no steamboat Mickey will be PD in 2024. And that’s just in America. Internationally, that copyright doesn’t cease till the 2040s in most countries

[@SlapstickGenius23]

@@Kandhaqprotector Steamboat Willie will be in the public domain for most countries in 2036, except Jamaica and Mexico.

[@Kandhaqprotector]

@@SlapstickGenius23yes and no because some countries can go quite high in terms of copyright. Mexico has a copyright of author’s life + 100 years. Jamaica has a copyright of 95 years and there are more with longer copyrights.

[@ShiftyLizardStore]

02:05 There's no irony there. other Disney works were not adapted from public domain works, like Winnie the Pooh, Disney licensed them, if walt had to he would have licensed them too. And none of the works you show had multi-billion dollar corporations built around them. I for one don't want to see porno movies being made of Mickey Mouse, Popeye, Bugs Bunny or Superman. We live in a different world now and major characters should never go into the public domain.

[@ever611]

Well I disagree with your ideas, but I can understand your point. (About porn uhh... you still can use then... as parody...)

[@photios4779]

"We live in a different world now and major characters should never go into the public domain." I disagree. There are already plenty of characters from famous literary works over the preceding centuries that have entered the public domain. Sure it's legally possible to create a disgraceful porno movie using those characters, but neither you nor I are forced to watch it. The fact that the silly _Pride and Prejudice and Zombies_ exists because the original _Pride and Prejudice_ is in the public domain doesn't diminish my appreciation for the original. I just pay zero attention to the zombie "remake" and don't let its existence bother me in any way. If someone wants to redo Shakespeare's plays in a porn format, I don't care because I will never give that one second of my time or attention. But I'm still grateful that these original classics are in the public domain, free for everyone to read, appreciate and love at no cost. Moreover, there are plenty of movies and other remakes of the old classics that actually are outstanding. The good comes together with the bad, but we as consumers can be selective about what we choose to direct our attention towards.

[@Kandhaqprotector]

@@ever611 no he is right the concept of public domain shouldn’t be applied to modern day properties

[@user-po6nb1xd7d]

Bargaining at its finest

[@KewlKev1]

Wow thanks mickey Im not happy

[@fakefurry9993]

why?

[@sebas8225]

@@fakefurry9993 Because Disney is being Scamful.

[@lamontpounds2917]

Y’all were talking about giving up multibillion dollar invention that the Disney family made themselves now I want to know if you had made an invention less than 50 years ago and it was still making you billions of dollars every year and movies TV shows ad revenue will you just give it away that’s a dumb

[@TheRadioAteMyTV]

It may be dumb, but that's why it is not supposed to be up to one person. Copyright was started with a promise of 28 years, that's longer than a life sentence in jail, and plenty of time to raking in a ton of dough and come up with the next new thing. A protection has turned into a calcification.

[@silverdamascus2023]

Copyright is already too long, ideas cannot be owned, they are supposed to be improved by other people. Disney already got too much money with Mickey, plus, Mickey becoming public domain does not stop Disney from using him, it just allows everyone else to use him, any new Mickey cartoon made by Disney after 2024 will still be copyrighted by them.

[@girlhelp8364]

*_Copyright Expired._*

[@XX-sp3tt]

BY SWEET LOVING GOD I WISH!

[@codycolchdolc9395]

Ho not old Disney movie

[@DeadGyro]

I really hope Mickey stays with Disney

[@Androwomeda]

bad take

[@silverdamascus2023]

You shouldn't wish for that. Copyright is way more than just cartoons, it even affects scientific articles, and it also extends to patents preventing us to get cure for diseases. Look at the mess that KZbin became, it could become much better if copyright went back to last only 50 years.

[@Multi1]

I will fight Disney.

[@The_Nerd_King]

That damn mouse needs to be either fed to a starving cat, or fed to the publics domain! Congress is full of shit, taking bribes like that just to ruin the copyright.

[@MrStuniz96]

The Mouse became a Rat right now, they make reference on other characters but they don't let others make references on Disney characters, such a dick and stupid move if you ask me. With people putting Disney characters references in their movies, games, ecc they are doing free advertisment for Disney itself.

[@TerminalVelocitySux]

nobody: Me: I can't wait 'till Mickey's copyright expires then i'll steal the frick out of him

[@damianrangel4764]

Steamboat Willie will be in the Public Domain in 2024, and Mickey, his actually self, in 2025

[@Kandhaqprotector]

thats bull a character doesn't go public domain. its a work that does.

[@SlapstickGenius23]

Mickey will still be trademarked.

[@fakefurry9993]

thank me later

[@PharionRKusanagi]

I am totally against the public domain and the movements that defend it. Creation should never lose copyright after years of the death of its creator. I know that moral rights over the work cannot be appropriated even if the creation has already fallen into the public domain, but the creation should always belong to the family and their descendants. Social movements claim to uphold equal rights to knowledge and intellectual works, criticize copyright law because they believe they are restrictive and impede creativity. Want to use? Pay for the rights to the work! I do not have money? Be creative, create your stories and characters, as you claim to have so much creativity that it is blocked by the copyright of others but free to create your own. I think Disney will not give up its pet so easily, and I really hope that other powerful companies and strong authors around the world will join forces to fight for what is rightfully yours! Disney is right, I hope for her !!!

[@OH.A.M.]

Well said my friend.

[@kimjongoof5000]

How much did Disney pay you to say that?

[@silverdamascus2023]

Nope, public domain is important because intellectual property is not even property, these are just ideas, you can't own ideas, owning copyright is not the same thing as owning a house or a car. Copyright is important to foster creativity, but if copyright lasted forever, this would hinder creativity, the reason why we have so many reboots, remakes and sequels is because companies don't have to create anything new.

[@PharionRKusanagi]

@@silverdamascus2023, rebots, remakes and sequences are created after paying the rights to use that intellectual property. Copyright would never harm creativity, in fact it never did. It harms lazy people with low creativity. If these people who want to use the public domain so much have such creativity in the way you speak, it would be better to use it to create something new, unprecedented without having to appropriate what is not your creation.

[@silverdamascus2023]

@@PharionRKusanagi Nope, we have so many remakes, reboots and sequels because media conglomerates like Disney, Warner, Universal and Viacom own so much that they don't need to create new stuff, just repurpose the things they already own, if copyright lasted less, they would be forced to create new stuff, media conglomerates have too much power. Copyright was supposed to help artists to pay their bills, but it became just a way for big companies to hoard more and more things like treasure and almost never reward the actual artists that are just their employers. Copyright is even getting used to censor people, KZbin is a mess thanks to copyright strikes, and you want the situation to get even worse.

[@BanazirGalpsi1968]

lets pass a law that says that no mickey can not have annother extension, too bad, disney, and also were reverting back to 14+14 for all works after 1980.

[@jamiehuebert9349]

I HATE DISNEY