>On January 1, 2024, we'll see the expiration of the copyright for Steamboat Willie—and with it Disney's claim to the film's star, Mickey Mouse. The copyrights to Superman, Batman, Disney's Snow White, and early Looney Tunes characters will all fall into the public domain between 2031 and 2035.
The trademark for Mickey Mouse, etc. will still be very much alive though. Resell Steamboat Willie as a full work as you will, but use Mickey for anything else? Good luck against Disney's legal team.
It's before you will die so... Yes it's a clickbate for anybody who is not a lawyer and did not already knew that. But hey it's entertainment news that are not tragedy porn... Yes NY resolution was to be more positive...
This article is making a big legal mistake I think... You should be free to make a Mickey Mouse doll with modern colors and white gloves after Steamboat Willie enters the public domain because those would be derivative works (of the original). The colors of the character's clothes can certainly be trademarked but after the initial copyright expires any and all color combinations should be fair game (legally speaking).
If this were not the case the entire body of case law on derivative works would be turned on its head. The entire point of derivative works law is that there's an original that everything else is based on. If the original is public domain any variation thereof is also public domain from that point forward except for exact replicas.
Meaning: You can produce all the Mickey Mouse stuff you want as long as you're not literally copying something that's still under copyright. Mickey Mouse dolls are fine as long as your artwork wasn't literally copied & pasted.
I was thinking the same thing re: derivative works. Ordinarily a claim could be made if you took a copyrighted work and created derivative material from it (someone sampling your hook in a new song), but what if you start from a public domain work, and add your own changes? It seems your changes only would be copyrighted. But can you copyright obvious colors? If you took B&W, public domain Mickey and had some preschoolers or an AI or something color it in... would this be yours?
What Disney should worry about if they plan to defend their colored Mickey is a team of hacktivists creating derivative colored works from the original pd B&W image and claiming copyright on THAT for another 100 years :)
What if i make, market and sell (in 2024) a doll with just a pixel (or point) of a different colour (assume green on red pants) and argue that point of green showcase a different mickey, with eco friendly thoughts ?
Every thing else would be very similar
You're ignoring all the copyrighted movies Disney made based off of public domain works. Good luck just "deriving" off of those too much. With your Steamboat Willie argument, derivative work would have to be based off him, not from works based off him (ie Mickey Mouse).
<< The same legal issues will arise when other iconic characters... Winnie the Pooh, and so forth—fall into the public domain >>
Psst! Winnie the Pooh is already in the public domain! q.v. A.A. Milne.
It's the cultural gravity-well of disnified Pooh Bear that triggers my teeth-gnashing irrational hatred of Disney, more even than the unconscionable copyright shenanigans or treacle blanching of global culture or 'get-em while their young' marketing tactics. I quietly toss any Disney materiel that manages to appear in my 3 y.o.'s life, and replace it with original sources.
Aren't there trademarks involved? The original stories would be public domain, but I'm not sure how easy it'd be to market them without Disney/DC's permission.
There's also the fact that copyright over characters is tied to their first appearance, and (especially in Batman's case), most other recognisable characters from the series aren't public domain. So you could write a Batman story, but it couldn't involve Robin, or the Joker, or hell, any of Batman's familiar rogues gallery.
But it's nice to see this about to happen none the less.
If a cartoon character is still in commercial use and being further developed, I'm not sure if it's good practice to turn it into public domain. I don't think there had been corporations/artists that have had the longevity of Disney, and the fact that Disney has continued to invest in and develop the characters over the years makes this somewhat of a special case (compared to other literature characters where the author stops developing them after they are published).
I'm no copyright lawyer nor do I know much about copyright laws, but one should recognise the positive effects of copyright protection, which encourages innovation and investment. Those incremental investments Disney has made should be acknowledged.
But of course, the danger in this argument is that in the future someone can just make tiny face-value 'investments' into their copyright to argue for an extension, that would be detrimental to the whole copyright vs innovation balance.
> If a cartoon character is still in commercial use and being further developed, I'm not sure if it's good practice to turn it into public domain.
Disney doesn't have any issues defending its repackaged public domain products like fairy tales. I don't see why Mickey Mouse would be harder to brand and market than the Disney princesses.
I feel like the distinction between copyright (with term limits, but strong protections) and trademark (with no term limits, but strong weaknesses) should be enough for a company like Disney. Maybe there should be some sort of "franchise copyright" somewhere in between the two, but I've never heard a good specific idea to that.
However, I heard one proposed idea that prolonged copyright extensions (or variable copyright terms, if you'd prefer) might make sense as a corporate property tax that increases over time after the baseline expiration (and better if you reset the baseline to something smaller again).
That would at least trigger bottom line decisions in corporations if keeping something in copyright (and out of the public domain) is worth the annual property taxes on it. Some of that tax could go directly to archival/preservation efforts for those properties in the proper spirit of insuring their legacy for the public domain, eventually. Most of that tax would indirectly go towards discouraging companies from IP "tenements" where rent is collected (subscription/access charges), but innovation/investment diminished a long time ago. (Mickey has new cartoons on YouTube every so often, but how many properties does Disney own that other than maybe a bare conversion to Netflix or soon Disney+ streaming they haven't done anything with in decades?)
Perpetual copyright does the opposite of encouraging innovation. Consider how many of the highest grossing movies are made up of endless sequels and reboots of existing franchises vs how many are new.
I'm sure you're right that it encourages investment, but I don't think that the commoditization of culture makes it more innovative or better (for my subjective definition of better).
Maybe a reasonable approach would be a short default copyright time with the option to renew it every 5-10 years for a big sum of money.
This will prevent copyright squatters on works with high value for public but lesser monetary value, like WWII footage just collecting dust as mentioned in the article.
> cartoon character is still in commercial use and being further developed
I feel this should be restricted to the originator of the work itself.
A property can wait till the primary author is done with the work (inside reasonable intervals..sorry GRR martin), before starting the timer of it entering public domain.
However, works like Batman and Mickey that get tossed between committees and multiple authors, should not be viewed in the same way.
Steamboat Willy was 1928. In 1998 when the latest copyright changes were made it was 70 years old when copyright was extended from 75 years to 95 years. So frankly it's not unrealistic to say we're no closer to Mickey Mouse being out of copyright than we were in 1998.
I'd be so excited if Superman ever entered the public domain. Then I'm convinced we'd get much better adaptations than the drivel we've been seeing for the last several years.
This sounds like something that isn’t going to happen unless senators actually get reminded that this is a thing people care about. Has Ron Wyden (D-OR) indicated that he knows that he might have to fight to keep public domain day from being postponed again?
Has anyone written to their representatives about this? Are we going to be proactive or are we waiting to organize a defense of the public domain until after a bill to attack it has passed the House?
>And assuming Congress doesn't interfere, more works will fall into the public domain each January from now on.
>On January 1, 2024, we'll see the expiration of the copyright for Steamboat Willie—and with it Disney's claim to the film's star, Mickey Mouse. The copyrights to Superman, Batman, Disney's Snow White, and early Looney Tunes characters will all fall into the public domain between 2031 and 2035.
Given this list, I don’t see Disney, Warner Brothers, and DC comics all sitting idly by. If I was a betting person, I would bet that Snow White will not enter the public domain on the 2030’s.
I think major beneficiary would be the cloners and fake product manufacturers in China. You can expect thousands of questionable quality but very cheap toys with Mickey Mouse theme getting dumped on to Amazon.
can someone explain? i was under the understanding that it's the works that are under copyright and will be what enters the public domain and not the mickey mouse character as a whole. so people can go off and remix steamboat willie and the mickey mouse representation found there, but it isn't like another company can suddenly take the mickey mouse character and start using it in a broader sense. is that not correct?
When Steamboat Willie enters the public domain, those aspects of the Mickey Mouse character that are in that film will also be in the public domain, so people will be able to use the Mickey Mouse character, as long as they don't use aspects of the character that were introduced in later (and so still copyright) works.
Something similar happened a few years ago with Sherlock Holmes [1]. The original Sherlock Holmes stories are public domain, and so the character can be used without the permission of the Conan Doyle estate. However, some of the later stories are still under copyright, so anything about the character which only appears in these later stories cannot be freely used.
When that time comes I think it will be a good litmus test of where we stand in terms of corporations and the rule of law. I would be surprised if Disney didn't already have an army of lawyers, lobbyists, and fixers working on this.
This is what I don't understand. To me, it seems a bit more complicated to me than a simple 'copyright expiration'.
As far as I understand copyright, it stops anyone copying the exact same original image/music/video.
Derivative works have always been allowed, but it's generally a Trademark that stops the derivative works dead in their tracks, as far as I understand. Also, is there a statute of limitations on Trademark? ie Can Disney keep up their TM on Mickey, stopping anyone else from using it?
So all I think this really means is that the original videos are now in the public domain.
Other way round - copyright has always covered derivative works, that's how the GPL operates. And why you need to clear every sample you use in a music track.
Yes, you are indeed correct. It means the original videos can be posted on YouTube and Disney can't request them be taken down. It doesn't mean you or I can take the Mickey Mouse character and make our own Mickey Mouse cartoons.
Edit: To add a trademark is valid as long as it's in use.
So we might see Steamboat Willie knock off videos coming soon?
This is where I think we need a common video stamping agreement- something like taking key frames in a video and hashing them, then signing the hash, and storing that in the metadata - I can rerun the check and so be sure that the certificate signing the hash is disney - if not just do not run the video.
I know this sounds like EU central copyright database thing but if we have to have some copyright (which I think we do) we then need a automated way to verify which is some form of database (decentralised for preference)
Sorry for the naive question, can anyone explain what it means for something to enter the public domain? What is the public domain anyway? Is there a database somewhere of all the public things?
Does it mean anyone can put batman on a t-shirt, sell that t-shirt and keep all the profit? Does it mean batman movies can be pirated without repercussion?
There is the Public Domain Review[1] "dedicated to the exploration of curious and compelling works from the history of art, literature, and ideas" that have fallen into the public domain.
Think about Shakespeare's works for a good example of something in the public domain. Anyone can use Romeo & Juliet's characters any way they like. Similarly, there is a huge amount of derivative work of Price and Prejudice[2]
I'm not an expert by any means, but yes you could put Batman on a shirt and sell it. I'm not sure how it works for movies, but with audio the actual recordings are still copyrighted for some time after the music itself is in public domain.
It would be my guess that any works created after the first one still have copyright on the content itself. Correct me if I'm wrong.
[+] [-] ikeboy|7 years ago|reply
I guess 5-16 years counts as soon these days?
[+] [-] reificator|7 years ago|reply
Anything is sooner than never, which is what it looked like for a long time.
[+] [-] hcs|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcv|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 98codes|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PovilasID|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sjs382|7 years ago|reply
> In the USA Copyright lengths are very simple. Anything older than Mickey Mouse is public domain and everything else is still copyrighted.
(via https://m.slashdot.org/thread/28736323)
[+] [-] riskable|7 years ago|reply
If this were not the case the entire body of case law on derivative works would be turned on its head. The entire point of derivative works law is that there's an original that everything else is based on. If the original is public domain any variation thereof is also public domain from that point forward except for exact replicas.
Meaning: You can produce all the Mickey Mouse stuff you want as long as you're not literally copying something that's still under copyright. Mickey Mouse dolls are fine as long as your artwork wasn't literally copied & pasted.
[+] [-] Buge|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fattire|7 years ago|reply
What Disney should worry about if they plan to defend their colored Mickey is a team of hacktivists creating derivative colored works from the original pd B&W image and claiming copyright on THAT for another 100 years :)
[+] [-] lucasverra|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] giancarlostoro|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nl|7 years ago|reply
I'm not but I work with lots, and that's not how derivative works are interpreted.
You may think it's right and the logic is sound, but there are good arguments the other way too, and that is how courts have found.
[+] [-] PovilasID|7 years ago|reply
Also: I don't want to test if Disney's lawyers can bankrupt my small toyshop just by drawing out the legal process.
[+] [-] rendall|7 years ago|reply
Psst! Winnie the Pooh is already in the public domain! q.v. A.A. Milne.
It's the cultural gravity-well of disnified Pooh Bear that triggers my teeth-gnashing irrational hatred of Disney, more even than the unconscionable copyright shenanigans or treacle blanching of global culture or 'get-em while their young' marketing tactics. I quietly toss any Disney materiel that manages to appear in my 3 y.o.'s life, and replace it with original sources.
[+] [-] CM30|7 years ago|reply
There's also the fact that copyright over characters is tied to their first appearance, and (especially in Batman's case), most other recognisable characters from the series aren't public domain. So you could write a Batman story, but it couldn't involve Robin, or the Joker, or hell, any of Batman's familiar rogues gallery.
But it's nice to see this about to happen none the less.
[+] [-] tyng|7 years ago|reply
I'm no copyright lawyer nor do I know much about copyright laws, but one should recognise the positive effects of copyright protection, which encourages innovation and investment. Those incremental investments Disney has made should be acknowledged.
But of course, the danger in this argument is that in the future someone can just make tiny face-value 'investments' into their copyright to argue for an extension, that would be detrimental to the whole copyright vs innovation balance.
[+] [-] humanrebar|7 years ago|reply
Disney doesn't have any issues defending its repackaged public domain products like fairy tales. I don't see why Mickey Mouse would be harder to brand and market than the Disney princesses.
[+] [-] WorldMaker|7 years ago|reply
However, I heard one proposed idea that prolonged copyright extensions (or variable copyright terms, if you'd prefer) might make sense as a corporate property tax that increases over time after the baseline expiration (and better if you reset the baseline to something smaller again).
That would at least trigger bottom line decisions in corporations if keeping something in copyright (and out of the public domain) is worth the annual property taxes on it. Some of that tax could go directly to archival/preservation efforts for those properties in the proper spirit of insuring their legacy for the public domain, eventually. Most of that tax would indirectly go towards discouraging companies from IP "tenements" where rent is collected (subscription/access charges), but innovation/investment diminished a long time ago. (Mickey has new cartoons on YouTube every so often, but how many properties does Disney own that other than maybe a bare conversion to Netflix or soon Disney+ streaming they haven't done anything with in decades?)
[+] [-] paulnechifor|7 years ago|reply
I'm sure you're right that it encourages investment, but I don't think that the commoditization of culture makes it more innovative or better (for my subjective definition of better).
[+] [-] Too|7 years ago|reply
This will prevent copyright squatters on works with high value for public but lesser monetary value, like WWII footage just collecting dust as mentioned in the article.
[+] [-] screye|7 years ago|reply
I feel this should be restricted to the originator of the work itself.
A property can wait till the primary author is done with the work (inside reasonable intervals..sorry GRR martin), before starting the timer of it entering public domain.
However, works like Batman and Mickey that get tossed between committees and multiple authors, should not be viewed in the same way.
[+] [-] Traster|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _archon_|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krmmalik|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] afarrell|7 years ago|reply
Has anyone written to their representatives about this? Are we going to be proactive or are we waiting to organize a defense of the public domain until after a bill to attack it has passed the House?
[+] [-] RcouF1uZ4gsC|7 years ago|reply
>On January 1, 2024, we'll see the expiration of the copyright for Steamboat Willie—and with it Disney's claim to the film's star, Mickey Mouse. The copyrights to Superman, Batman, Disney's Snow White, and early Looney Tunes characters will all fall into the public domain between 2031 and 2035.
Given this list, I don’t see Disney, Warner Brothers, and DC comics all sitting idly by. If I was a betting person, I would bet that Snow White will not enter the public domain on the 2030’s.
[+] [-] sytelus|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] astrodust|7 years ago|reply
Mickey Mouse is still trademarked. The movies and books are copyrighted.
Also where have you been for the last hundred years where knock-off Disney everything has been the norm?
[+] [-] craftyguy|7 years ago|reply
I like how you assume that current US laws have deterred them from doing so thus far (hint: they don't, not even close)
[+] [-] faissaloo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nikofeyn|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] culturedsystems|7 years ago|reply
Something similar happened a few years ago with Sherlock Holmes [1]. The original Sherlock Holmes stories are public domain, and so the character can be used without the permission of the Conan Doyle estate. However, some of the later stories are still under copyright, so anything about the character which only appears in these later stories cannot be freely used.
[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/sherlock-holmes-no...
[+] [-] bopbop|7 years ago|reply
https://boingboing.net/2018/12/31/thanks-justin.html
Also a rather sadder list following it of works that won't be (yet) because of the copyright extension.
[+] [-] waylandsmithers|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cmroanirgo|7 years ago|reply
As far as I understand copyright, it stops anyone copying the exact same original image/music/video.
Derivative works have always been allowed, but it's generally a Trademark that stops the derivative works dead in their tracks, as far as I understand. Also, is there a statute of limitations on Trademark? ie Can Disney keep up their TM on Mickey, stopping anyone else from using it?
So all I think this really means is that the original videos are now in the public domain.
[+] [-] pjc50|7 years ago|reply
Other way round - copyright has always covered derivative works, that's how the GPL operates. And why you need to clear every sample you use in a music track.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] elliekelly|7 years ago|reply
Edit: To add a trademark is valid as long as it's in use.
[+] [-] lifeisstillgood|7 years ago|reply
This is where I think we need a common video stamping agreement- something like taking key frames in a video and hashing them, then signing the hash, and storing that in the metadata - I can rerun the check and so be sure that the certificate signing the hash is disney - if not just do not run the video.
I know this sounds like EU central copyright database thing but if we have to have some copyright (which I think we do) we then need a automated way to verify which is some form of database (decentralised for preference)
[+] [-] chrischen|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NegativeK|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crescentfresh|7 years ago|reply
Does it mean anyone can put batman on a t-shirt, sell that t-shirt and keep all the profit? Does it mean batman movies can be pirated without repercussion?
[+] [-] clarkmoody|7 years ago|reply
Think about Shakespeare's works for a good example of something in the public domain. Anyone can use Romeo & Juliet's characters any way they like. Similarly, there is a huge amount of derivative work of Price and Prejudice[2]
[1] https://publicdomainreview.org/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_literary_adaptations_o...
[+] [-] kuzimoto|7 years ago|reply
It would be my guess that any works created after the first one still have copyright on the content itself. Correct me if I'm wrong.
[+] [-] bitwize|7 years ago|reply