Why Disney's Most Iconic Character is entering the Public Domain (Lawyer Explains)

[@DismemberTheAlamo]

What theyve done is effectively, let their star player go free agent.... Because now they own the league.

[@CorridorCrew]

That is by far the best analogy. Nice. - Jake

[@Noah-lj2sg]

More like, they own every league

[@CorridorCrew]

@@Noah-lj2sg 🤣

[@lukelancaster]

They don’t own the league, they are the league!

[@The_Razielim]

@@lukelancaster "I am the Senate." See it works because they own the rights to Star Wars... and apparently a decent chunk of Congress.

[@PalmelaHanderson]

I still think the idea that Disney was able to keep extending copyright law is bonkers. The 56 year mark was decided in part because, after 56 years, the original creator would likely be dead. Sure enough, the original creator of Mickey Mouse, Ubi Iwerks, died in 1971. But Disney comes along and says "it was made under our umbrella, so we should still own it" which sends you down the rabbit hole of "corporations are the same as people in the eyes of the law, except when they're not." Corporations have the same rights as people when it benefits them, but are not people when it would lead to consequences for their actions.

[@supremebuffalo6322]

Lobbying to have copyright law extended _just_ before your copyright expires is actually very common across the different mediums. The Label that owns The Beatles music catalogue has already done it for music. It used to be 56 years too. Then they lobbied and got the law extended to 75. Now its 99 if I'm not mistaken?? Corporations😂

[@Mythikal13]

I was gonna comment basically the same thing. It's weird, copyright is like a thing for the people by the people and should be decided by the people but has basically been controlled by one of the worlds biggest corporations

[@b.a.7457]

@@Mythikal13 The sad reality, is that money talks louder.

[@Mythikal13]

@@Holybeatdown ive known about it for a long time, its still just sorta sad

[@Aerostarm]

Well said

[@JarrettOriginal]

The irony of Disney being built on the Public Domain with Snow White, Pinnochio, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, etc. and then vigorously fighting to keep their works out of public domain will never be lost on me. Glad they've decided to at least give up that part of the fight.

[@Cucumber_Jones]

🙌🏻 yes! I think about this often and how, therefore, by rights, Disney should belong to the American people.

[@Lingist081]

@@Cucumber_JonesExcept none of those stories are American so no

[@RedFactionMedia]

But they aren't fighting to keep it, they're letting it go to Public domain...

[@morganseppy5180]

@@RedFactionMedia they've been putting out trash on IPs to extend the copyrights. look at all the live action remakes of their old classics like Snow White and Cinderella. You have to defend a copyright, which is why they "go back to the well" on a regular schedule. And then, they employ their legion of lawyers to extend the copyright lengths

[@rcfp2006]

He called Disney "Well managed". Good joke.

[@justSalty]

Jake really underrepresented the harm that those copyright extension laws have caused. It's rather deceptive to also claim that Disney is choosing not to extend the copyright on Mickey Mouse, because that's not at all what those laws did. They extended the copyright for all copyright holders, allowing for monopolies to form which is what the copyright law was designed to PREVENT by forcibly limiting the time allowed for copyright holders to prevent the rest of us from expand sciences and the arts. When I was in college at a music school, everyone was so excited because a ton of famous pieces of music were about to enter the public domain from composers such as Charles Ives, and Samuel Barber, which would allow their works to be studied, learned from, and performed without going further into student debt. Then BAM, Disney lobbied for a copyright extension for their ancient IP so they can keep squeezing money out of it that no one cares about and suddenly we're all set back by another 20 YEARS. It hasn't just affected music either, but all other industries that are able to monopolize their IP, including pharmacies. If you want to complain about the cost of healthcare, you really should complain about Disney enabling big pharma to continue to monopolize. Disney has really damaged the economy because of their corrupt and greedy lobbying. We really need reversals of these laws because they continue to hurt the economy and prevent growth.

[@danielshepherd7306]

And as if that's not bad enough, in Australia our ability to negotiate with the USA is limited. So we adopt copyright laws that align with those in the USA as part of trade agreements. Our economy suffers from their greed.

[@vidal9747]

Copyright for drugs in my country is 10 years. This is how it should be everywhere

[@RandomBlackBox]

@@vidal9747 And normal copyright should only be 30 - 45 ish years. You had so long to make good money form it that you should have made back your investment and some more.

[@justincarter7954]

@@vidal9747 in the US drugs get "patented", not copywritten. Our patent laws are also only 10 years, but there's tons of ways companies tend to get them extended. For drugs its usually by slightly changing the formulation to something else that still works as well. The only risk with that is that someone else could also patent a reformulation as well, but there's not enough competition with enough r&d resources to do anything about it

[@TheFeriner]

@@RandomBlackBoxwhy does getting your name on an official document exempt you from working like the rest of society for a third of your entire life… (half of your entire working life)? I totally get that some people’s contributions to society are more significant than others, but you can never convince me that any single person’s contribution should be worth 30 years of labor. Everything that lead to that copyright is deeply intertwined in human history and the thinkers that came before it, and every part of that invention becoming useful to society will involve hundreds of thousands more workers. No one’s that special, no one should strive to be that special, and people should be okay with that. We won’t lose great thinkers, inventors will still be rewarded, and society will progress much quicker

[@scottmacs42]

The film “Nosferatu” was actually made while the novel “Dracula” was still under copyright. There was a lawsuit and nearly all copies of the film were destroyed following a judgment against the producers of the film.

[@1personithink]

so no spongebob?

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

Oh, btw, the 1923 Dracula, the one with Bela Lugosi, is available at the internet archive

[@talllankywhiteboy]

I suspect that in Disney’s calculation they also realize that copyright expiring also means they get access to other works they can adapt. Superman enters public domain in 2033, Batman in 2034, and Wonder Woman in 2036. So in just over a decade the MCU could have crossovers with Batman and Superman without having to pay DC a dime.

[@ThailandOutsider]

🤯 holy shit. Protect him long enough to where it doesn't matter then gobble up everyone else you were inadvertently protecting, that's an evil genius level of long game

[@Dave01Rhodes]

I hope this means Disney will start lobbying to revert the copyright length to 56 years so they can start exploiting these characters faster.

[@TheJjcczz]

Except if Disney succeeds in using their trademarks to protect their characters then they won’t be able to because DC will be able to do the same

[@shinyarceus997]

Not quite, because these would all be the superheroes when they were first introduced in their most basic forms, like when Superman was literally jumping as high as a building and faster than a speeding bullet type of deal. Modern Superman is almost completely different even down to the costume and has all sorts of powers like flight (yes originally Superman didn't have flight), heat vision, frost breath, etc... These versions of the superheroes would almost have no value for the big companies as the most iconic versions of these characters are what people remember and won't enter the public domain for much longer.

[@rhetorical1488]

@@shinyarceus997 then we get crap like nose ring of power. "in the style of tolkein" but a total woke dumpster fire taking it to us bybical style.

[@sharkh20]

Pretty much what we learned is that Disney doesn't make anything anymore. They just aquire it.

[@FireJach]

And turns it into overly exopensive and lazy products

[@AlexSDU]

And ruining them. *_looking at Marvel & Star Wars_

[@cenciende9401]

That Wish movie is literally about to release. Doesn't look great though.

[@PiecesofVinyl]

Its called the American Dream - see also - McDonalds (Ray Kroc stole it) - Apple Computers (Steve Jobs Stole it) - PayPal - (Elon Musk Stole it) - Microsoft (Bill Gates stole it) - Tesla (Elon Musk Stole it) - Facebook (Zuckerberg Stole it) - The Baby Ruth Candy bar (Otto Schnering literally stole the name of Babe Ruth and successfully sued to keep it!). welcome to America - "Just because you invented something - You think you own it!!??" Also see Wonder Bread, Coke, pretty much everything that we know and love.

[@drsch]

Star Wars and Marvel show this to be true. They've driven two beloved franchises into the ground and killed them because they don't know how to create, just feed off others.

[@cpljimmyneutron]

There is actually one work, that was taken out of public domain, and it is a problem to many people. Especially because the work in question was not popular until after it entered public domain. That work is the movie "It's A Wonderful Life", which failed as it released side by side with Miracle on 34th Street, but gained a level of infamy when it fell to public domain, and tv stations struggling to keep a full roster of shows through the Christmas season started playing it on repeat. This made it very well known and very popular. In fact, before his passing Brigadier General Jimmy Stewart stated that "It's A Wonderful Life" was his greatest work. But... well... a movie playing for free on repeat, some people just can't stand that. So the rights owner of the book that the movie is based on sued, and argued in court that since the script of the movie is a derivative work of the book, that they in fact own the actual words of the movie. And for some reason the judge agreed, so... you can in fact play the movie of "It's A Wonderful Life" as often as you want in public... as long as it is muted. Because the audio was pulled from public domain, making it the only property ever to fall to public domain, and then be removed from it.

[@seandudley556]

It actually isn't the only property to ever enter and then leave public domain. It is definitely the most famous one. But thousands of works have had their copyrights restored over the years. Including a film that just re-entered the public domain in 2023, Metropolis. I'd also advocate for usage of the word "entered" for works entering the public domain, because it is a more positive word. All works are meant to eventually become public domain, and it doesn't matter if they get there before other works or not.

[@PhillipP93]

lmao copyright laws are wild.

[@writerpatrick]

If a work is popular enough, someone will try to claim copyright on it even if they don't have the right to do so.

[@oneovertwo1186]

​@@writerpatrick Ah, like Zorro.

[@l4nd3r]

That's because the US now a signatory of the Berne convention which protects works while the author/creator is still alive until 50 years after their death.

[@Enflict]

More legal stuff from Jake please! He's like Corridor Crew's own LegalEagle.

[@yagsipcc287]

Accept he knows what he is talking about unlike LegalEagle who is often wrong ha

[@McDonaldsCalifornia]

​@@yagsipcc287why would you assume Jake isn't also wrong often?

[@beeskneesplees]

@@yagsipcc287 I will not accept that!

[@bIeaq]

but better

[@goblinoftheyear7407]

Please don't insult 11:30 Jake like that.

[@johnshoemakerpbc]

It also only applies to the Steamboat Willie version of Mickey. The iterations that happen over the year are new versions which restarts the copyright timer.

[@khiyabarrett1459]

Sure but if the origional is public domain you can now make one, have the wear anything other than red pants and yellow shoes and white gloves and your good. The copyright on the concept of mickie is gone as soon as they lose the first copyright

[@CurseTheDarkness]

@@khiyabarrett1459Yeah but steamboat Willie was in black and white…

[@jonathandixon1305]

@@CurseTheDarknessDoesn’t matter as long as a you change Mickey’s likeness from his current counter parts.

[@Doktor_Calamari]

You omitted one crucial point that makes this a big win: The US copyright extensions didn't just protect Mickey, or even Disney. They effectively locked up EVERY piece of intellectual property from that period. This isn't about freeing Mickey--its about freeing Tarzan, Lord of the Jungle, and The Threepenny Opera, and even "Mack the Knife," "The Big Rock Candy Mountain" and "Yes! We Have No Bananas."

[@seandudley556]

You're right! This is the fact that often gets overlooked. And it isn't even just about those big pieces, but all of the forgotten works that now get to breathe a second life.

[@iantaakalla8180]

When Mack the Knife is no longer just an implied name from Super Mario RPG 1996

[@shaneclark8903]

Interesting quirk due to how the 1976 Copyright Act works, despite the Star Wars prequels being released over 20 years after the original, the characters in A New Hope will enter the public domain 17 years after the characters from The Phantom Menace.

[@neshura]

And when's that gonna be? 2130?

[@jonathandixon1305]

Most of us will be gone by the time Star Wars is public domain, unless you have countries that flat out ignore copyright after 30 years of publication.

[@jangxx]

@@neshuraI _think_ it's "Life of the author + 90 years", so 90 years after George Lucas dies.

[@thomase13]

​@@jangxx That is only for sole authorship. Corporate works are from date of publication!

[@vullord666]

​@@jangxxWhose idea was it that copyright needs to extend past the authors death and by literally longer than the average life span. What the heck? Whose even benefiting at that point?

[@RickDangerousNL]

I'm still amazed that lobbying is legal. The US govt would call bribing politicians in any other country... corruption. In the US it's called lobbying... right.

[@ungabungus01]

Well outside the US they just do it behind closed doors, only difference

[@Marco_Onyxheart]

I'm afraid other countries have lobbyists too. Including here in the Netherlands. Though I agree that it's legalised corruption.

[@MrMagnaniman]

Who could have guessed that the people writing the laws would allow for people to bribe them? What a horrible oversight! I'm sure that they're just feeling awful about themselves while relaxing on their private islands.

[@Snafu2346]

Why we still have auto dealerships.

[@hi_tech_reptilez]

The idea is supporting lobbying that you believe in and benefits the people. One org I support fights for my rights regarding reptile keeping (sounds crazy but I'm deadly serious) and they've won numerous cases fighting against bills and things that could destroy tons of small businesses, zoos and research. So in some ways it makes sense - the issue I think people have is when corporations do it, which is the whole "are corporations people or entities?" Thing. Which is a bit more of a discussion.

[@chrissugg968]

There's also the aspect that Mickey is absolutely associated with Disney in everyone's minds, regardless of copyright - any works that directly use the public-domain Mickey will effectively be free advertising for Disney.

[@aggonzalezdc]

Someone in Disneys legal dept is genius for putting steamboat willie into the new disney logo, therefore protecting it under trademark, and not copyright, which never expires.

[@Halcon_Sierreno]

So what does this mean? Trademark, Copyright can I write Steamboat Willy fanfics and distribute it freely or what?

[@aggonzalezdc]

@@Halcon_Sierreno that's a bit unclear from my memory? What you certainly can't do is use the image or likeness of steamboat Willie in your movie or video or comic book because it's a registered trademark. Whether or not you can use the name or other IP associated to Willie isn't fully clear, but may well be possible as those probably aren't a part of the trademark. That said remember that Willie (and therefor mickey) went through a lot of revisions. You can use the original expired form and IP of Willie, but you can't add any images or info from later on which haven't expired yet. Mickey is still off limits.

[@Halcon_Sierreno]

@@aggonzalezdc OK, that's totally not confusing.

[@aggonzalezdc]

@@Halcon_Sierreno heh, yea it makes about as much sense as a hole in the head and this is just the tip of the iceberg. "Protecting" a copyright is where things get real fun if you ask me. But I hope that confusion has more to do with the nonsensical laws and not my explanation.

[@Halcon_Sierreno]

@@aggonzalezdc So can I include Steamboat Willy in my feature length movie and sell tickets to the screening?

[@TheOurtubes]

Thank you for all the details and effort put into this video! Hopefully more people will realize how damaging corporate lobbying is and has been for citizens. Seeing what just Disney can throw around for lobbying cash, while it would take hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of regular citizens coordinating their money and efforts to equal just this single corporation... it's scary, to say the least.

[@Ihaveanamenowtaken]

So, lobbying and contributions to the party are the US equivalent of bribery in the government.

[@alyssatheexcellent]

It’s fricking terrifying.

[@davidswanson5669]

Yeah it really undermines the voice of the people. Sure we get to decide who becomes a lawmaker, but once they get elected - rich people and rich companies/organizations get to decide what laws they make. Lobbying should not involve money at all. If a group of interested people rally together to enact change, their voices can help influence politicians but also voters. Politicians should only be incentivized by promises of future votes, not personal wealth. Companies should be able to lobby just as well, but since they wouldn’t be able to give money, they have to resort to trying to convince voters to go along with their ideas. That’s who corporations should be lobbying - the citizens. I might even allow corporations to give money to citizens to incentivize them to lobby their lawmakers. First it would become more transparent who is lobbying about what, and second it would cost the company much more in order to get what they want. It’s very cheap to bribe a single senator with $10,000 to vote a certain way, however getting 10,000 voters, to lobby their senator about a proposal , would cost that same company much more than $1 per person. I’d need them to pay me around $50 before I was convinced that a corporation’s self-serving idea was good enough to contact my senator over.

[@Knightmessenger]

Maybe using a lousy voting system that locks you with only 2 effective parties has something to do with many people not having a meaningful voice.

[@Samriddha_Chatterjee]

I would love to watch more of Jake explaining legal stuff. I would honestly really enjoy if this became a series.

[@AKtoTok]

Agreed

[@SmithKurosaki]

Agreed. Also nice suit

[@mihailmilev9909]

​@@SmithKurosakiright

[@justincarter7954]

I think its best to be used as an "as necessary" series. Part of the reason I think its so good is because Jake does the research himself into topics he's really passionate about.

[@kionvaliant6286]

To help the perspective on Disney's wealth. One million seconds is only twelve days. 160 billion seconds is a little over five thousand years.

[@monish05m]

^^ American.

[@vatsalsanwaria537]

Then calculate For Apple

[@Atimo133]

@@monish05m Because people from other countries can grasp the vast scale difference :)

[@jaredbowhay-pringle1460]

​@@Atimo133 I think maybe they meant the calculation indicates they're American, because in a lot of European languages a billion is 1,000,000,000,000 (whereas a milliard is 1,000,000,000). I think the English speaking world uses the more sensible convention in this instance.

[@ROMAQHICKS]

The use of time for large numbers is one of my favourite communication strategies. It is some what flexible on scale, make the comparison in minutes/seconds/days depending on the magnitude of the number and everyone has experience with the passage of time. It doesn't work well with astronomical scales (figuratively and literally) but for more 'nominal' large scales it is a good comparison.

[@tim-o-tree154]

More of these please. I’d love to hear a lawyer’s perspective on other topics in the entertainment industry. Labour rights and collective bargaining in VFX, how the heck life rights vs factual stories work…

[@ActualFactualMagic]

You kind of just touched on what might be the real reason. Its that trademark protections overlap Mickey's copyright protection. Try to make anything with Mickey and see how quickly a lawyer contacts you. LOL Mickey (and all his pals) are basically corporate logos.

[@nemou4985]

That only applies if YOU are using it as a logo, not when you are using it as a character

[@sorrynotsorry8224]

I foresee a lot of people getting caught out by using the wrong Mickey Mouse when the Steamboat Willie version does hit Public Domain. So many people are just going to see headlines that read, "Mickey Mouse enters the Public Domain" and just create something using a modern Mickey without actually reading the article.

[@RKroese]

As they should... And every other character Disney spewed out. What are they gonna do? Sue everybody?? Haha. Ow they will? Darn...

[@toddlynch7282]

Watch the whole video - the representation of the Mickey character falls under trademark law. The actual film, “Steamboat Willie” is what’s protected under copyright law and will go into public domain soon. The distinction is important. The difference is selling a copy of the “Steamboat Willie” film - or any portions of it - (which will be okay) vs. using the image of Mickey, even if it’s the “Steamboat Willie” version, for commercial purposes like selling merch (which won’t be okay).

[@WARnTEA]

@@toddlynch7282 Trademark is not that restrictive. You basically can’t do anything that could trick the audience into thinking that Disney produced it. So as long as you have your own branding attached to it, and create a different title it should be fine. Disney might still sue you, and that might bankrupt you even if you are legally in the right.

[@just_kris]

​@@RKroeseDon't give them any ideas

[@krab1791]

@@toddlynch7282I agree with the distinction. But as far as merchandise goes, people have been ripping off Disney characters forever and Disney does not go after every Disney knockoff t-shirt, stuffed animal, etc. You can find the knock offs in non-Disney stores right outside Disney Springs if you don’t want to pay the price in the parks. But what you get is vastly different. Multiple times a year Disney puts out new merchandise with new and different clothing as well as non-clothing items that are very unique. The knockoffs arent that interesting. Disney could spend a fortune suing people and get peanuts back. It isnt worth it.

[@cameralabs]

Really enjoyed that Jake, thanks! I knew about the copyright extensions, but not in nay detail, nor explained by a legal pro, so I appreciated your insight. As others have commented, I always thought it was a bit hypocritical for Disney to extend copyright on some of its properties, when so much of its success has been built on adapting stories that have long been in the public domain.

[@hjewkes]

The public domain is less a repository for lost Disney characters and more the repository for the characters Disney "procured" for themselves

[@mundanestuff]

The ones I could remember off the top of my head: Pooh bear, Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Huck Finn/Tom Sawyer, Alice in Wonderland, Alladin & Co, all the Christmas Carol characters, a ton of stuff from Jules Verne, Rapunzel, Tarzan, White Fang, Pocahontas, but then again, I can't think of a Disney story that's not taken from the public domain.

[@McScribblah]

⁠@@mundanestuffWish, Encanto, Wreck it Ralph, Lilo and Stitch, Bolt, Moana and Zootopia come to mind regarding new projects but I understand your sentiment- they’re definitely picking classic tales and giving them their own twist- but that’s what makes those stories classic with or without Disney’s involvement.

[@Cradien]

Additionally Marvel, Star Wars, Indiana Jones and ESPN lol. They really coming for everyone

[@Jeffool]

Hey Jake, I'd love a video on trademark! You mentioned that Disney will no doubt use their trademark as a legal bludgeon, and I'm sure you're right, but also make sure you look into the ERB Inc! The estate of Edgar Rice Burroughs has often used trademark as a legal threat to keep control of characters WELL into the public domain! Both Tarzan (published 1912) and John Carter (also published 1912), are in the public domain. (Burroughs died in 1950.) Yet ERB Inc has used legal threats in multiple cases. (Also, can't wait for the Mickey video; or maybe a Tarzan one in the future!)

[@IllustrataUk]

This what I went to the comments section for. How does trademark affect public domain?

[@Glittersword]

Go for broke. Mickey Mouse as Tarzan.

[@Kinkeshiman]

I would love a breakdown of what we can, and can't do with the character! How I understand it, we can use Mickey freely as long as we don't say that it's disney's version, and dont use any of the logos associated with Disney Mickey, as those fall under trademark and not copyright.

[@stevenm7057]

Got to love lobbying! It's legal bribery!

[@mattycat_5009]

"bribery but legal"

[@Banalytical]

I remember when sam made a video about this topic, maybe 5 years ago? It was called “how companies try to own imagination” or something like that. Thank you very much for the very entertaining and clear explanation of the law. Just the right amount of dread for the future. Also, amazing transition into the ad. You got me good there, Jake.

[@arlynnecumberbatch1056]

Ad?

[@HIIMPIEZ]

Man that framerate sure is garbage

[@piotrnod6489]

thank you, I was sure I'm dying

[@aggrogahu]

Yeah, I had to leave it playing in a separate tab and just listen to the audio.

[@ryankramer]

I don't think it's just frame rate. Looks like wrong shutter angle, which makes a frame rate look even choppier. (Think of the opening battle in Saving Private Ryan. It's surreal and chopy looking on purpose, and part of the look is achieved by the shutter angle change.) You'll notice there's no motion blur in the movement if you pause the video when his hands move quickly when there should be at lower frame rates (24-30 fps).

[@RKroese]

​@@ryankrameryeah, let me summarize that for you: "Garbage!!"

[@cervinio]

@@ryankrameryes its probably something Else instead of 1/60 (double the framerate, 30 fps I guess). Tell me if I am wrong. ✌🏻

[@Darbobski]

I have 7 relatives who live in Florida. 2 are retired and are former Disney employees. 4 of the remaining 5 work for Disney now. 1 sells insurance. It is amazing how much of the economy Disney accounts for in that State.

[@gfixler]

"During the last few years, we've ventured into a lot of different fields, and we've had the opportunity to meet and work with a lot of wonderful people. I only hope that we never lose sight of one thing-that it was all started by a mouse." -Walt Disney, October 27, 1954, first TV episode of The Disneyland Story

[@laartwork]

When you see Steamboat Willie Mikey whistling before every movie is because Disney was trying to establish the character as a Trademark so they can still prevent people from using it.

[@vader1a]

I have to admit it does infuriate me that major corporations are able to use their money to extend copyright.

[@stevencramsie9172]

Why? They are protecting their brand.

[@indigo0977]

I agree. I'm not surprised by it, but it is disappointing. Mostly because it is a way to negate the purpose of copyrights expiring at all, but also because I think it reduces the motivation for people and companies to innovate and create completely new things.

[@RasakBlood]

@@stevencramsie9172 Because its bad for everyone? Because the original creator is long dead? Because corporations should not be treated as people? That you even need to ask is worrying.

[@MrMagnaniman]

@@stevencramsie9172 "Protecting their brand" is not a good reason that they should be able to bribe politicians to get what they want.

[@prinka2096]

@@MrMagnaniman Bribing politicians is bad, but if I create something, then I as the creator get to decide whether it enters the public domain or not. Not some law.

[@SneekyKeeky]

Cool seeing this type of content from this channel. You guys are awesome. Keep up the great work.

[@CorridorCrew]

Thank you!!

[@Unifiedesign]

Id love to see more of these videos where art meets law. Theres a lot of ambiguity in this area and this is a really enjoyable way to learn about this stuff.

[@username5155]

Fun fact: The final episode of the Disney+ Series _The Wonderful World of Mickey Mouse_ , named _Steamboat Silly_ , as designed and greenlit _specifically_ to extend the copyright of _Steamboat Willy_ . It’s also about how a bunch of Mickey Mouse clones would ruin everything, so they _clearly DID NOT_ want to give up copyright.

[@El-Hechi]

And even then, the version of mickey going into the public domain is not the well known pink-face, red-short, yellow-shows mouse everyone knows, but the strange old version of Steam boat willy, because the other designs still fall under copyright law and belong to Disney. So... they still win.

[@CannonKnight]

I think the real preparation Disney was doing for when the Mickey Mouse/Steamboat Willie copyright expires was using Steamboat Willie as the logo for Disney Animation Studios. He's now a trademark. Good luck not getting sued of if you use him.

[@greengiant5092]

That's also why they are using an old character, Oswald the rabbit in Disney world on lots of merch.

[@voxpanic]

It's interesting that you include a clip from the silent film Nosferatu in your examples of what happens to a character in the public domain. Nosferatu was made in 1922 while Dracula was still under copyright, and the Stoker estate successfully sued for copyright infringement and nearly succeeded in destroying all copies of this silent film masterpiece. Copyright law fairly protects creators, but there's also an argument to be made that more, not less flexibility in remixing works of art is actually what benefits the cultural common good, and humanity's legacy as a whole.

[@wayIess]

I used to work at a small print shop and the copyright act of 1976 and extension act were the biggest reasons I had to turn away some customers. Anything dated with copyright to the 1920s and later, I wouldn't touch despite the chance the copyright lapsed and not renewed.

[@Shadow_Hawk_Streaming]

personally I believe that copyright should have a "use it or loose it" clause, that is to say I'm happy for Disney to keep Mickey forever so long as they're versions they regularly use, just as abandonware and abandoned intellectual property should automatically go public domain in a relatively short timeframe after they abandoned it, especially when media companies write off media as a tax writeoff

[@Wilker_uwu]

the problem with quantification of use is the same problem which makes copyright such a problem when all creative works are derivative. take for example, the Undertale soundtrack and the countless remixes and adaptations derived from that discography. is it even possible to quantify what would classify the song "Undiscardable" by Frums as original, at the same time you can classify "Your Soulmate" by Hanzaki as a rip-off of several? that would be sure to solve the problem with "Blurred Lines" by Robin Thicke vs. "Got to Give it Up" by Marvin Gaye, where the mere "vibe" of the song got copyrighted.

[@undead890]

There is something kind of like that in place where if you don't actively defend your copyright, you can lose it. It's why Disney and Nintendo famously aggressively defend their copyrights.

[@filozof90]

So if I have written a fairly popular book, then I need to churn out sequels to keep the copycats away? Hard pass.

[@Shadow_Hawk_Streaming]

I still believe there should be a time period by default@@filozof90 , same as now, but that countdown lock should extend to the last associated work, so for example Steamboat mickey mouse would stay copyright protected because the character does still actively exist, but the French skunk I forget the name of they removed from looney toons for being politically incorrect the clock should start ticking on them

[@pedrorequio5515]

@@Shadow_Hawk_StreamingThat manner is not a good way, in the EU such clause was made during a extension from 50 to 70 years, the purpose was to prevent corporations that keep unusued work to keep it protected for longer, the result was they were releasing limited number version CDs or Vinils just to keep use, só if you make 100 CD and put them for sale only that acounts, in this manner they could keep copyright forever, that is not right, copyright exists to reward creators for their creation, but Disney has long been rewarded, now it is part of our shared cultural inheritance. Now everyone can contribute along with Disney that will still be able to do so.

[@JinKee]

Rise of the Skywalker will one day be in the public domain, and then we can fix it.

[@Ray_2112]

No we can't, it's a mess and noone needs it. ;) The saga ends on Endor.

[@danthiel8623]

it will be a good day

[@josechung7713]

It only exists because of that abomination called The Last Jedi.

[@MichaelJosephSonger]

It will enter public domain in 2114... I doubt "we" will be alive to do anything.

[@CorridorCrew]

hahaha

[@SRFriso94]

I think it's a perfect metaphore: Disney has gotten so big that they no longer care what made them special in the first place.

[@RKroese]

A sure sign of the end.

[@stevencramsie9172]

@@RKroese Nah, there may be a course correction, but they aren't going anywhere

[@mylefteye4180]

...and started to eat it's own tail.

[@hypnobearcoup2505]

/thread

[@WinstonSmithGPT]

@@stevencramsie9172😂😂😂”Nah” says the voice of low information

[@joekenorer]

Thank you for bringing this topic up, you're one of the few people I've heard talk about it. The biggest problem you didn't mention is that the copyright law Disney was extending affected all copyrights in America, not just Disney's. Nothing has been added to the public domain in this country in almost 100 years. Ironically all of Disney's major films are based on public domain characters and stories. They inadvertently make the argument for copyright expiration because Disney would not be what it is without peoples work going into the public domain for Disney to use.

[@Pochi1]

Um that's not true at all. Subtract 100 years from each year and those works are in public domain.

[@dylanl5286]

No one gonna talk about how @ 15:40 in the video, when he said "If you LIKE this video...", the 'Like-Button' just flashed rainbow. First time I've ever seen that, pretty cool. (NOT full-screen; computer).

[@Samcraft10]

The public domain can have Pooh, they can have Peter Pan, they can have Sherlock Holmes, but nobody messes with Mickey Mouse! All Disney created properties should be perpetual copyrighted so they can keep them forever.

[@realizedemoneyes]

I despise Disney. Their corporate greed is staggering. They now possess the majority of creations I loved as a child and that is sickening to me.

[@MrMagnaniman]

It would bother me less if they weren't creatively bankrupt.

[@lolmasterplays655]

@@MrMagnanimanit dosent matter if you go bankrupt if you own all the banks

[@MrMagnaniman]

@@lolmasterplays655 Yes, it does. They own almost all the awesome IP from my childhood and they're still losing money. Going bankrupt when you own all the banks just means that all the banks go bankrupt, too. And we're seeing it. I, at least, have completely stopped letting myself get nostalgia-baited into watching awful movies.

[@Cre8tvMG]

I watched this happen in the 70s and 90s. It started my turn against Disney. There is another reason copyrights are limited: it motivates the holder to bring that property to market faster to maximize it. And that benefits everyone. It increases progress. Disney has killed that in many ways.

[@TheReginaldBarris]

"Disney is as threatened...as Shaq is by Kevin Hart." I think its worth pointing out that the value of this isn't necessarily about psoibg a threat to Disney or even about Mickey Mouse itself, as much as it is that Disney continually extending Steamboat Willy's copyright was essentially holding other propeties hostage as well, by extending their copyrights and keeping their work out if the public domain too.

[@sanrasuzumaki942]

Rumor has it that in 1998 the extension also included that it couldn't be extended again like they had done before and that is why it was an extra year compare to before and why Disney didn't bother trying again and went full housewife in a shopping spreed.

[@TimeIsMine93]

Jakes fps makes the original Doom game look like Interstellar

[@RafaAnto]

Question: At what point are anti-trust laws gonna kick in with companies like Disney that pretty much are drying up competition in the industry by becoming the industry themselves? what are those laws for then?

[@Stinkoman87]

Those laws are for the companies that don't pay their protection money to congress.

[@Taz_Olson]

How did I not after all of these years not know that Jake was a lawyer?

[@britchin]

same i’m losing my mind, when did that happen😂

[@catofffdeath]

i thought he‘s an intern 😯

[@dondunn3253]

watch more corridor!

[@magicrat74]

I'd seen Jake in a lot of their videos already, when I found out he was a lawyer, but I remember how surprised I was. He is just so counterstereotypical of what my image of a lawyer was, and still is.

[@Direkin]

@@magicrat74 Same here. I think it was maybe one or two months ago when he said he's a lawyer, and I was surprised for the exact same reason.

[@king_kong_guru]

Love this type of content about legal stuff and content creativity, would love to see more "lawyer perspectives" videos.

[@joehintz3576]

This is the best of Sam's AI representation of Jake to date

[@clseabus]

Most mind blowing thing to me in this vid is finding out Jake is a lawyer. Really awesome video and would love to see more law videos like this on the channel!

[@Accrovideogames]

You didn't know? His main contribution to Corridor Digital is to handle legal matters. He doesn't have a background in VFX like most of the crew, but he's still a geek who has an interest in that stuff. Among the members of the cast (employees featured in videos), there's only one other person who isn't a VFX artist and it's Jordan (female). She's a producer.

[@sir_bartholomew2553]

Please make this a series, I can already feel my brain growing thanks to the infinite wisdom Jake holds

[@MrinmoyRoy1990]

I like movie related laws. You guys should do more of these type of content.

[@barlowanimations1517]

I love this new LegalEagle video. It's so LegalEagle-y.

[@ryanhamstra49]

Except better because it’s Jake 👍

[@PrototypeSpaceMonkey]

Good thing Lawyers are in the public domain

[@Carlteezus]

I disagree, big fan of Devon too and this has a distinct vibe from his. Plus I feel like Jake is more business oriented

[@barlowanimations1517]

I hope you know that sarcasm exists@@Carlteezus

[@AlexGeek]

Legal Eagle is confused and now he will do a VFX breakdown video

[@syndicaterx]

You know what we call when a copyright expires and enters public domain? That’s right, Domain Expansion.

[@chrismerrell7957]

Original intent of copyright: For a creator to manage the distribution and commercialization of their works. Modern Copyright: Whatever benefits Disney the most. It is absolutely sad and pathetic that songs from *the clasic era* are only just entering public domain.

[@pyrosnineActual]

I was thinking it was also because there are other works that aren't in the public domain that are protected by the Copyright extension, and Disney made a great deal of their money by adapting public domain works into movies and then zealously guarding their "creation".

[@1FatLittleMonkey]

I had the same thought. The classic example is Sherlock Holmes, which straddles the Disney Copyright, so half the works (and associated references) can't be used without royalties. A _ton_ of books, radio, music, art, TV, and film, will fall into the public domain... and into Disney's hands.

[@peterelfman]

An explainer of Trademark and how it's different for Copyright would be awesome.

[@MrMagnaniman]

If you start a cartoon company and name it "Disney Animation Studio," you are violating a trademark. If you start burning Mickey Mouse cartoons to DVDs and selling them, you're violating a copyright.

[@Stinkoman87]

Right, I want to hear just what gets protected by trademark. If Disney has the name 'Mickey Mouse' trademarked, does that mean that you can't call your public domain Mickey by his name? Because I'm sure Disney is going to try that.

[@rajatthombre3254]

Great video Jake! More of entertainment legal, legal entertainment please!

[@ercab1572]

Jake should make more videos like this, explaining how the industry works

[@AwokenEntertainment]

Wow! Wonder if we’ll see any crazy parodies come out like the Winnie the Pooh horror movie 😂

[@writerpatrick]

Parody is exempt from copyright restrictions. But the rights to Winnie are owned by the writer's estate. Disney only rents them.

[@bushibayushi]

Jake, your videos on legal matters are one of the best videos on this channel, please keep doing them! You are great at this.

[@DaellusKnights]

Ohmywow... I very much like this new explainer format! I'm definitely down to see more pieces like this. Especially since nowadays, there's quite a bit of trash talk that could be aired about Disney and a lot of their business practices. But overall, you put good respect on Disney's name (and Steamboat Willie's!) with a wonderful deep-dive on the topic... MORE, PLEASE! 😁 Future Topic Request: could you give us a layman's rundown on FAIR USE? I know it's a REALLY expansive topic, but just the meat-n-potatoes of it, ya know? I make a minor bit of youtube content, and it's something I know I should at least have a passing understanding of... THANKS! 😻

[@spydergs07]

With Disney and Comcast, they own most of the entertainment channels that are available. Not all, but a very very large percentage.

[@MrChristianDT]

Someone else has brought up the fact that, due to several confusing quirk in copyright & trademark law, they've realized that all they are really losing access to are specific cartoons no one but film historians really care about anymore. Since they still make tons of more recent Mickey Mouse projects which are protected by copyright & were made in a continuous line since the original was still under copyright, they may still be able to sue people who make new Mickey Mouse projects or use the character in any way for violating the copyright of the projects they still own.

[@slacklinesteve4893]

Really well done episode, thanks Jake!

[@DimaJeydar]

Great explanation of the topic! I’ve been obsessing about this thing for years and you still managed to show me something I haven’t considered. Now I know why the so awaited January 1st doesn’t feel like a win. Also, 95 years is just too much for a copyright.

[@p24p14]

Always love being reminded that the "Land of the free" is just governed by people paying off other people to do their bidding :))

[@RKroese]

Slave of the Mammon, the free are.

[@JonahNelson7]

No land is free. Some group of people always take charge illegitimately, doesn't matter the time or place

[@cenciende9401]

The 'free' part has always been an ironic joke.

[@CarletonTorpin]

Super useful information! Why is the frame rate on Jake's camera set to 24P?

[@KZDaGOAT]

I thought i was crazy😂😂

[@basmus]

I was about to ask the same

[@gonzalot.605]

Copyright and trademark laws have always been an interesting subject for me. If I ever own an entertainment company, I'll make sure to release a lot of intellectual properties into the public domain.

[@hebneh]

Unmentioned here: 1) The copyright law of 1998 also stopped copyrights expiring for 20 years, so that even works that SHOULD have gone into public domain didn't for that entire time, and 2) Electronically, it's no longer possible to stop visual material from being splashed all over everywhere, with KZbin being just one of the ways that occurs. Back in 1998, the technology to create a short movie (for example) was very expensive and hard to use, meaning only professionals had access to it. So even if you found a good copy of "Steamboat Willie" on film, using it in some kind of other production was quite hard to do. Today, a child literally can do it. So that particular cat is out of the bag forever, and Disney has acknowledged that.

[@AparoDedaro]

Bro, Mickey Mouse is about to be all over the naughty side of the internet.

[@NathanRW]

Always has been

[@JesseWhiteman117]

A friend told me this has always been a thing.

[@daleharden1749]

Oh, you sweet summer child. You think copyright laws are enough to stop r34?

[@araujo_jean]

you mean even more?

[@laartwork]

That was always legal as long as they aren't selling it on merchandise

[@StarShadowPrimal]

Don't forget that Disney's priorities have also changed due to being nearly out of cash and operating at a significant loss for years, while on the verge of having to liquidate some of those prior aquisitions at a massive loss to pay for the rest of the Hulu transaction that they are no longer able to put off. When your house is on fire, you aren't nearly as upset about someone touching your tv screen as you were the day before.

[@l4nd3r]

While net income is down, they aren't really being out of cash nor operating at significant loss for years. They only lost money in 2020, the pandemic year.

[@exit3762]

To catch a corridor upload 30 secs being up is a good day! Let’s go!

[@MrFrostflynn]

It could be cool to have a version of animators react but with a legal/IP point of view. Like what part of a movie or animation sequence can or can't be reproduced/referenced and why?

[@Moraenil]

The even bigger picture and non-monetary aspect, is that by allowing the characters into the public domain, it means that after almost a century of those characters being theirs, anytime anyone sees them, they're going to think of Disney regardless of who uses the character now. Free advertising.

[@onlyswizzy]

I have an idea for a video, “Lawyer explains why he still uses a webcam that shoots 12fps”

[@logicfoxgaming1411]

Something I would love to hear about is the difference in copyright laws in different countries (specifically Japan, on the topic of the original Godzilla). Wikipedia says that a work becomes public domain 70 years after the author’s death unless it is republished by the publisher, but it doesn’t give any sort of clarification on that.

[@abdurrahmansabri8181]

One thing you didn't emphasize enough is that only the Steamboat Willie version of Mickey is available which means that Mickey's Iconic red pants and yellow shoes are still under copyright.

[@ajbp95]

And white gloves!

[@tipnrear7494]

They do mention it, at around 1:50

[@drdca8263]

@@tipnrear7494yes, mentioned, but perhaps not really emphasized?

[@Ioganstone]

"You didn't emphasize his iconic red pants" Cringe.

[@Seymour_Cox]

I would genuinely listen to Jake explain law anytime. Does he have a podcast yet?

[@Tronkele]

I don’t know if anyone here is from Paraguay! But, here we have an interesting story about Micky and Walt Disney: In 1993 Disney filed a lawsuit for the use of copyright against Mickey S.R.L. of Paraguay. The lawsuit alleged that Mickey Paraguay was using the intellectual property of Walt Disney Company with the Mickey Mouse logo, but it was a surprise for everyone to learn that Mickey Paraguay had already registered the brand before Disney had registered the logo. And it is that the image of the mouse was only registered from the front, it had never been registered in profile. Then Mickey Paraguay argued that, although Mickey Mouse was the intellectual property of the Walt Disney Company, Mickey Paraguay had registered the profile image of the mouse before the Walt Disney Company. The case reached the Supreme Court of Justice, which in three instances committed rulings against Disney in favor of the Paraguayan company. This allowed Mickey Paraguay to continue using the name and logo on all its products to this day.

[@mrchips23711]

2:00 Wait, did they design a new retro version of Mickey ten years ago so that they still had a 'Classic' version that was copyrightable?

[@ShirouBrando]

Disney being Disney

[@TunaIRL]

And why wouldn't they?

[@ShivaTD420]

I had a feeling they were going to let him go just by the lack of content they were putting him in. Not spending any money on creating or marketing new mickey content probably done so not even a shareholder/investor wouldn't feel the need for a ROI. I wonder if some of their lawyers suspected that pushing for another extension putting copyright beyond a human lifespan would cause enough blowback that their extentions could be wound back. Which ultimately would give them less time to get ROi on all their recent acquisitions. Since they are in a era where less original ip is made in house, but bought from others. A risk that even the gains of which would go beyond the lifespans of the shareholders...

[@mateoacevedocontreras6087]

It'd be nice to see a follow up on the legality of AI art, that was such an interesting topic!

[@ThatGreenSpy]

95 years is overkill. Ars Technica says the optimal length is 14 years. By the way, copyright doesn't encourage, it hinders. "If creativity is the field, copyright is the fence." ~John Oswald

[@ProwoodStuff]

Disney has a Monopoly, the opinion is over

[@keycorey]

Add to all of this that he might still not be in public domain, because for the last several years they have slowly been transitioning into using the character as a logo for their films. I think Film Theory did a video on it a little while back. Would love to hear your views as a lawyer on that whole situation too. :) Loved the video, good work on translating the legal language into entertaining educational fun. ❤

[@keycorey]

Found the name of the video so you can find it easier if you, or anyone else is interested. Film Theory: This is Disney’s WORST Fear! (Winnie the Pooh)

[@Guy-cb1oh]

He will be in the public domain. Yes Mickey might still have SOME protection via trademark law but the copyright will still expire thus mickey will be in the public domain. Protection under trademark is more limited and narrow than copyright. So yes the public will be able to use Mickey Mouse but it will be limited and they will have to be careful.

[@HenryLoenwind]

@@Guy-cb1ohTrademark is even worse. Copyright law has a clause protecting you from frivolous claims, trademark law doesn't. So if Disney decides to sue you for trademark violation by using Steamboat Willy, they can go the full 10 rounds and involve you in a 20-year lawsuit that costs you a billion dollars to defend. You may win it, but you'll have spent that money and won't get it back (no fee shifting in trademark law either).

[@Rpahut1]

I thought it would be interesting to hear a lawyers explanation of the EULAs of some popular software products or games, what rights they claim, what data collect for what purposes.

[@KC-Mitch]

To sum it up (though there is a lot of nuance): Steamboat Willie - _the short_ - will enter public domain. The music to it was published in 1929 due to a sound re-release of the cartoon, so the full version we know isn't public domain until 2025. The copyright shows it as MCMXXIX (1929) because of that. Only the silent version is public in 2024 since it debuted November 1928. Mickey Mouse from Plane Crazy, another short made in 1928 initially, where Mickey has no gloves, shoes, and has white in his eyes, WILL be public domain, but the Steamboat Willie design won't be as most believe it to be an official trademark (used in the Walt Disney Animations intro). Therefore, _that_ Mickey design won't be public domain for as long as Disney uses him as a trademark and properly maintains it as such (so, indefinitely). Don't be surprised if Disney starts lawsuits with people trying to make there own mickey mouse works over the next decade. I guarantee it'll be an ongoing fight.

[@Monsux]

I'm instantly thinking of the possibility of Mickey Mouse games with Cuphead design/style. There are privately owned platforms for game distribution which are out of Disney's reach. Of course, there will always be lawsuits and complications with trademarks. Still, at least one way to create and release something totally new with old character models.

[@deyliramirez382]

I think we could all feel Disney was getting big hearing in the news that they bought yet another studio. We just didn't see just how big. The quality of their mainline movies & TV shows show how much they don't care about making good stories. Even the companies they bought are pumping out less inspired content

[@D0S81]

Remember when Disney was an animation and film studio? And people wonder ''why are Disney films and shows so bad these days?'' Because just like how MTV stopped being Music TeleVision, Disney stopped being an animation and film studio.

[@evanwarner8956]

You are nothing short of amazing, Jake.

[@Backroad_Junkie]

Disney has been moving away from their iconic characters for a while now, making them less important in their merchandising and park attractions. And regardless if anyone else copies the characters, most will still associate the characters with Disney...

[@ShirouBrando]

Yeah kingdom hearts is honestly the only thing I can think of that still uses the og character like that

[@RB-yt6rx]

Im sure there will be a flood of merch with mickey on it soon. From liquor to underwear to car decals Lol

[@stevencramsie9172]

That's because their catalog of characters increases with time, to where it would be odd JUST to focus on characters that harken back to an era long-since passed

[@Backroad_Junkie]

@@stevencramsie9172 Actually, it started back in the early '80's with Epcot. Eisner was adamant that Mickey and company not be allowed in the park. He was furious when some marketing exec put Mickey on the top of Spaceship Earth to advertise Epcot Center. This was far before any of their acquisitions. Disney-MGM only had two attractions that included Mickey (or the rest of the fab four), Animal Kingdom had none. I think they were preparing for this a few decades ago.

[@Mayydayy86]

I appreciate the ever-changing thumbnail update as we count down the days.

[@somnorila9913]

The time for stuff getting in to public domain needs addressing. Some stuff should get there faster than others, but no one should go past the 20 year limit. I agree that copyright, patents and such do promote advances as it kind of does creates incentive to invest and create, but at the same time, not having a proper time limit it defeats that purpose.

[@Knightmessenger]

Especially stuff that is not readily available or out of circulation. Should every news broadcast or live televised event like a super bowl stay copyrighted for more than 10 years?