Just Because Mickey Mouse Is In The Public Domain, It Doesn’t Mean The Battle To Prevent Copyright Term Extensions Is Over
from the mickey-is-free,-but-disney-is-still-doing-disney-things dept
The beginning of the year is a great time for the public domain, since it sees thousands of copyrighted works released from the intellectual monopoly that prevents their free creative use. Which works enter the public domain depends on the details of local copyright law, which varies around the world. But there’s a liberation that has taken place in the US that is particularly worth celebrating. Among the many important works that are now in the US public domain, there is the long-awaited arrival of Mickey and Minnie Mouse as they appeared in the short animation Steamboat Willie.
Beyond its cultural significance, its release into the public domain is notable because of the role that the character has played in the field of copyright law. It was Disney’s obsession with maintaining control over Mickey Mouse that led to the US copyright term being extended multiple times to prevent it entering the public domain. The last extension, formally the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, is widely known as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. Had that law only extended copyright protection for Mickey Mouse, it would have been a minor if annoying legal aberration. But as a long and fascinating post on the Center for the Study of the Public Domain explains, Disney’s successful lobbying had much wider consequences:
Disney pushed for the law that extended the copyright term to 95 years, which became referred to derisively as the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act.” This extension has been criticized by scholars as being economically regressive and having a devastating effect on our ability to digitize, archive, and gain access to our cultural heritage. It locked up not just famous works, but a vast swath of our culture, including material that is commercially unavailable. Even though calling it the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act” may overstate Disney’s actual role in the legislative process – the measure passed because of a much broader lobbying effort – Disney was certainly a prominent supporter, and the Mouse was sometimes a figurehead.
It was feared that Disney would lobby for another extension to copyright in order to retain control of Mickey Mouse after 2023. Fortunately that did not happen, possibly as a result of the growing awareness of, and resistance to, copyright’s imbalance, discussed in Walled Culture the book (free digital versions available). There has already been a rapid flowering of creative re-use, including the application of AI to generate some very un-Disney-like images of Mickey.
The early versions of Mickey Mouse in Steamboat Willie have definitely entered the public domain in the US, but elsewhere it is less clear. Mike Masnick notes here on Techdirt that YouTube is still blocking access to Steamboat Willie in some jurisdictions, including in the EU:
The EU is supposed to apply the “rule of the shorter term,’ respecting the entrance into the public domain in other countries if the work originated in those countries, though as that article notes, a German court decided that an 1892 treaty between the US and Germany pre-empted that obligation.
Even in the US, it seems that Disney is unwilling to let Mickey go. On 4 January, voice actor and YouTuber Brock Baker uploaded a new video, with the title “Steamboat Willie (Brock’s Dub),” to his YouTube channel with more than 1 million subscribers. As a post on Mashable explained:
shortly after uploading the clip though, YouTube demonetized the video, evidently on behalf of the erstwhile copyright owner, Disney. Baker also shared a screenshot to his X account showing the video was also being blocked from view in some territories as well.
Baker disputed the copyright claim, and Disney backed down, allowing the new version to be monetized, embedded and shared worldwide. But only for a day or two: on 7 January, Disney again demonetized the Mickey Mouse video, claiming this time that the audio element infringed on its copyright. At the time of writing, it’s not clear whether Disney will drop this claim too, and or whether it is aiming to use this avenue as a way of continuing to control aspects of Mickey Mouse. In addition, Disney still has trademarks that it can wield to limit how people use the liberated Mickey.
The Mickey Mouse saga is an excellent demonstration of the fact that even when a work has unequivocally entered the public domain (in the US at least), copyright can still be used to limit its creative use. A widespread bias in the legal framework favors copyright owners against the general public. The recent events also underline the reluctance of companies whose profits are built on copyright, such as Disney, to fulfil their side of the implicit copyright bargain: that in return for a fixed term of government-backed monopoly protection, the work enters the public domain afterwards for all to use as they wish. As many more popular characters such as Pluto, Donald Duck, Superman, J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit and James Bond are poised to follow Mickey Mouse into the public domain soon, we might even see Disney and other companies push for yet another copyright term extension.
Follow me @glynmoody on Mastodon and on Bluesky. Originally published to Walled Culture.
Filed Under: copyright, copyright term extension, mickey mouse, public domain
Companies: disney
Comments on “Just Because Mickey Mouse Is In The Public Domain, It Doesn’t Mean The Battle To Prevent Copyright Term Extensions Is Over”
Most of those will go into the PD in the next decade as the article states, but I’m not sure where they got James Bond. Casino Royale was published in 1953; it won’t hit the PD until 2049.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Wow, just in: another Court finds that the U.S. Government has been illegally forcing social media companies to suppress/censor disfavored political views — something the site owner here contends hasn’t happened!!
From BloombergLaw:
RFK Jr. Wins Deferred Injunction in Vax Social Media Suit
Re:
As I’ve said before, the key to this case is the implied threat for not following the government’s advice. The government’s broad authority and discretion in partnering with companies and targeting companies for enforcement actions could be construed to constitute an implied threat, in which case it needs to be on a relatively short leash. Of course this case hasn’t been decided yet and until SCOTUS weighs in, it’s hard to know how it will be decided.
Re:
You don’t know what a “preliminary injunction” is, right?
The case isn’t decided, no final judgement has been rendered because the court hasn’t yet decided on the merits of the case. The court has issued the injunction because the judge thinks the plaintiff might win, which is how if works normally.
But as we all know, Terry Doughty is bit of an activist judge who seems to believe in conspiracy theories and that makes his actual decision a foregone conclusion.
It’s going to be interesting though to see what the supreme court does, and the 5th circuit for that matter, because they have had issues with other injunctions and cases from Doughty.
Re:
Hold up .. I thought this was about Micky Mouse and public domain.
wtf?
One track mind moronic posting will not satisfy your need for attention.
Remember kids, creators -own- what they share.
I’ve said it before and will say it again, the idea of “Intellectual Property” is complete and utter bullshit. It posits the faulty philosophy that people who come up with ideas and copyright them are the literal owners of the ideas.
That was never, for the vast history of US copyright & patent law, how it was supposed to work.
It was previously quite the opposite. The founders knew, and attempted to write it into the goddamn US Constitution, that ideas are only owned so long as they are secret. Once you share the idea, you stop getting to claim sole ownership of the idea.
They also realized that good ideas are expensive and time-consuming to create, and therefore, people are less likely to share ideas if they believe their expenses will be lost.
Patents and copyrights were always meant to bridge that gap. It’s the institutionalized way we have agreed to protect a creator’s ability to recoup costs and profit from their efforts. It is not, and never was, meant to offer title or deed to ideas, which are inherently intangible.
When George RR Martin goes off on bullshit tangents about his creative works being his alone, that is the result of stupid lobbying by corporate asshats, and their efforts to keep “Intellectual Property” in common parlance.
Guess what? The word copyright means rights to copy. The word “patent” is inherently rooted in the idea of opening shit up for all to see. Neither of those words mean “own.”
The entire system is broken to fuck. The patent and copyright laws that helped make the US an innovation powerhouse no longer exist. Now, instead of “an agreement whereby creators share their ideas for the betterment of society, and in return, the government protects their ability to regain and profit from their efforts for a time,” it’s “the tyrannical state forces the owners of things to give up their ownership after only 3 generations of wealthy baronies!”
Fuck intellectual property and the horse it rode in on.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
As a sixty year old I am quite appalled to see twenty somethings online talking about copyright in the same terms used by the copyright monopoly industry. Relentless corporate propaganda pushed by these copyright maximalists has taken root amongst the younger generations wvho grew up immersed in it. They simply haven’t experienced anything else but copyright maximilism their entire lives. So sad.
Re: Re:
“As a sixty year old I am quite appalled to see twenty somethings ”
Not this old trope again.
Grandpa has pulled out the old ‘damn kids’ meme again!
Next he will be yelling at the kids to get off his lawn.
Better go find his walker as he will need it after he falls down again.
Re: Re:
At the same time, there are many who make their work available for free, and if they make any money from their creativity,it is because others voluntarily pay them to make more. If it wasn’t for people making their work available without worrying too much about copyright as a means of making a fortune, many web sites, such as YouTube, Jamendo, an archive of our own, etc. would not exist.
Re: Re:
Yes Valis, we know all about China’s copyright regime.
So how’s not being able to replicate the “stolen” Russian engines because your side can’t even grok advanced metallurgy?
Re:
What you didn’t say, and probably should have, is that patents have always applied to ideas—hence the much shorter term—but copyrights originally didn’t. Copyrights were supposed to be applied to creative works, such as the film Steamboat Willie, and not the ideas contained in them—like the idea of a character named Mickey.
The concept that merely using a character makes something a derivative work seems to have been a later invention of the courts.
Re: Re:
‘patents have always applied to ideas’
One is not supposed to be afforded a patent upon an idea.
One can ‘own’ an idea, one can not be sued for having similar ideas. Thought police is a fools errand.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s exactly what patents are (although I agree they shouldn’t be granted). Someone comes up with an idea for manufacturing potash, for example, and then nobody else gets to use that idea commercially for a while.
In the early days, one did need more than idea to get a patent: there had to be a working prototype, too. But once granted, it was the idea itself that the patent-holder owned.
Re: Re: Re:2
A working model was required in the past.
You can not patent an idea and you cannot stop people from having ideas. The right (patent) to limited ‘ownership’ afaik, requires producing something physical or somehow documented rather than just having the idea in your head.
Re: Re: Re:3
An idea written down on paper is still an idea. And some patents are little more than ideas, like Amazon’s “one-click shopping” patent. Even if they include enough legal sophistry to get past the patent office, society learns nothing useful by reading the patent.
So what? You can’t stop people from creating fan-fiction in their heads either, but it’s illegal to publish it without permission (like that Catcher in the Rye sequel, a book literally banned by a U.S. court).
Re: Re: Re:4
“And some patents are little more than ideas, like Amazon’s “one-click shopping” patent.”
And that is a part of the problem, good example btw.
I would say the original intent of copyright extension was to discourage people from copying printed works until the material they were printed on had degraded to the point where it could not be read anymore, thus inherently undermining the public domain.
Re:
And as soon as you “would say” that, you’d be wrong. Large businesses like music and book publishers lobbied for copyright laws hundreds of years ago because they were instantly losing money from people (legally) copying works they’d purchased, diluting their ability to monetize.
None of this is a big secret, and you could just go to wikipedia and learn. Or you could just say stuff and be wrong some more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#History
Not sure if my comment got eaten or if it’ll show up later, but just in case it got eaten:
James Bond won’t hit the public domain for another 25 years.
Re:
UK copyright on written works is death + 70 years (because authors generally create a lot more content in the 70 years or so after they’ve died…), Fleming died in ’64, so another 10 years.
Re: Re:
But all the other examples are based on the US copyright term. Including The Hobbit, despite its being first published in the UK.
Seems to me that the “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car” gang is back with another attempt at bringing its bullshit legal fiction to steal the rights of the average consumer. The best way to handle it is to run right at them, appoint certain highly-dedicated people as “designated thieves” to preserve some of the more obscure works in an international repository that cannot be shut down, so that even if they get caught and taken to jail, their sacrifce would not have been in vain.
Steamboat Willie (Brock's Dub)
Disney monetizing Steamboat Willie (Brock’s Dub) seems like a clear case of copyfraud. Steamboat Willie is in the Public Domain, and Brock made a disclaimer in the beginning saying that he has nothing to do with Disney, so there’s no likelihood of trademark infringement, so where does Disney have a case?
As I said, this is Disney’s bullying with no basis in law, plain and simple. Then again, I am no lawyer, so could any IP lawyer show me how Disney is not engaging in copyfraud?
Re:
Did they actually claim to have copyright on it? Or did they just press the “give Brock’s money to us” button that Youtube apparently provides them, voluntarily?
Uh… nowhere? Neither Disney or Brock has filed one, right? No court’s gonna make a judgment till they do, and calling it “bullying” doesn’t make it illegal.
Are you surprised?
Are you surprised that monetization can be hijacked? From what I’ve read, you don’t need to be a large corporation to do this, or even have a quasi-valid claim.
BTW, the one link takes us to pictures where Willie has red pants with yellow buttons and yellow shoes. I suspect this non-B&W aspect of the character is not yet PD, thus demonstrating the complexity of copyright.
Re:
To quote Wikipedia: “Although it was believed that only the black and white depiction of Mickey Mouse, which lacks the red shorts and gloves, would enter the public domain, Alexander Doria, Head of research at OpSci, pointed out that a 1928 promotional poster for Mickey Mouse does feature the character’s red shorts, and even yellow gloves, putting those attributes into the public domain and available for anyone to use.”
I mean… thanks for saying what I was talking about in the previous article on Steamboat Willie, I guess.
Anyone who saw the copyright on that clip lapsing and thinking that it’s a sign that Disney is to be praised for finally learning to not be a corporate asshole genuinely needs to have their healthy skepticism gland checked.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
This article proves my theory on pirate site closures
https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-site-blocking-boosts-legal-consumption-research-finds-240216/
This means that when pirate population is seeing their sites closing, legal sites like meshpage.org will enjoy a boost in popularity. It directly proves one key element (that techdirt tried to doubt) of how meshpage.org’s economy works.
Re:
Meshpages problem is not piracy, it is competition from free programs like Art of Illusion and Blender. Both of which have active user communities.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Both meshpage and pirate sites are fighting over focus of the crowds.
This isn’t the main competition. While “creating 3d models”, “rendering scenes” and “attracting end users with flashy visuals” is competing against blender and art of illusion, the main competition is still against Hollywood movies. Video technology is what hollywood’s output is based on, and video technology is the main competitor to our 3d graphics tech. When Hollywood’s output is the best of all video technology, it also works as the main competitor for meshpage.org/gameapi.
Re: Re: Re:
On that front, you’re not just competing with “pirate sites”, Tero. You’re competing with YouTube. You’re competing with the Nintendo Switch. You’re competing with everything to which a person can pay attention—including (but not limited to) books, movies/TV shows, video games, art, nature, religion, sports, and other people. And you’re failing miserably, to boot. The only people who really know of the existence of both you and your program is a site you choose to continue trolling despite years of experience telling you that said decision hasn’t ever yielded results that have made you “successful” at anything but being a troll that everyone wishes would go away forever.
On the bright side, you will—like all living things—eventually die. When you do, Meshpage will die with you. And like Meshpage, you will be forgotten almost immediately. Nobody will be sad to see you go, and nobody will talk about you after you’re gone.
Re: Re: Re:2
Well, you missed one important position of mine: I don’t need to become “successful”, since I already conquered that area with phones/symbian. Your insistance that the competition is at getting their shit “successful” or “popular” is completely proving my point. I already have over 150 million devices on the world proving both successful and popular stuff, and I don’t need to do that same thing all again. We’re next level from that, i.e. getting actually something “new” which the world has never seen before. I.e. the stuff will need to be so magical that noone in the world has managed to pull it off before my stuff fixes the whole area. The area that symbian broke with the 150 million camera phones.
The area I’m talking about is of course the gltf area. Since symbian had no opengl to talk about, they could do nothing to prevent gltf area to fall into misery, and this gltf area is what we need to fix (make it work in web as promised) and preserve the quality aspects of the area.
Re: Re: Re:3
So, how did symbian broke gltf? With cameras of course. There’s 150 million more cameras snapping high quality pictures of the world, and gltf who has nice technology, but no camera equipment, couldn’t stand a chance over people just pressing the “record” button endlessly. Designing a 3d model just takes too long time, when equivalent high quality snap can be done in less than 2 seconds with a record button press.
But it’s worse than that, gltf happened to be in area which symbian couldn’t support at all, i.e. the opengl area. Mere games cannot stand a chance against millions of camera phones.
Re: Re: Re:
Finally we have a breakthrough.
You realize what the words you type above mean, right?
It means that piracy could disappear literally tomorrow and it still wouldn’t make people download Meshpage. Because Hollywood would still exist, and be your competition.
Of course everyone else with a functioning brain already realized this, but you refuse to acknowledge it because you’re a twisted little goatfucker who genuinely thinks that the government of Finland is going to personally suck your cock and make Meshpage the state religion.
Re: Re: Re:2
When pirate sites disappear, the crowds who downloaded that shit will need to move to some other service. This all is opportunity for meshpage to get shit visible among potential user.
Whether we can efficiently utilize this opportunity is completely different matter. But if pirate site takes people’s attention, it’s guaranteed that they wont find meshpage.
Re:
When you eventually die, Meshpage will die with you.
Re: Re:
I just found out that I’m the owner of
“the best amiga puzzle game created in 1994 in the world” according to mobygames and the following url:
https://www.mobygames.com/platform/amiga/year:1994/
I will proudly wear this “world’s best product” badge/trophy.
Re:
When Rapidshare, Megaupload, Hotfile, Filesonic et al sites closed, it didn’t end piracy at all. It encouraged more pirate sites to spawn and release.
If anything, piracy is even easier these days, since streaming instead of downloading or torrenting is the predominant way by which people access content.
And just like Stephen already indicated, pirate sites could all disappear tomorrow and it still won’t get people to use Meshpage.
Re: Re:
Site closures are not designed to end piracy. Instead, it should annoy pirate site users enough that they would switch to legal alternatives. If they jump to another illegal service, those too will get closed when law enforcement/copyright owners find out what is happening. Annoying pirates enough to make them switch to legal alternatives is just matter of time.
And meshpage will be among those legal alternatives.
Re: Re: Re: Yup
Site closures, like drm, are designed to frustrate.
For most of its existence drm has frustrated the buyer and pushed to piracy.
Site blocking goes the other way, when every site a person uses drops off the map, and the pure volume of bad actors in piracy sites… a $4 this or $9 that suddenly looks inviting.
Disney dirt
The limits of Disney dirt is not just the issues of public domain. These scum are not limited to honest exploits. They use other systems and tactics for selfish greed. Please familiarize yourself.
Trafficking is just one example.
Fraudulent bankruptcy is another.
Put them out of business.
Make them accountable.
Put them on a boat to Gitmo.
The wages of sin and iniquity…
To quote Disney
“Let it go, let it go
Can’t hold it back anymore
Let it go, let it go
Turn away and slam the door”
(C) Disney
This quote is fair use as it is a short clip used for commentary on a related topic.
I think one of the reasons Disney and the other companies didn’t push for another extension this time around is because they own trademarks on all their characters, and trademarks never expire (as long as you renew them regularly).
Of course, trademarks can’t completely stop people from using the characters, but they do serve to prevent brand confusion. This means someone can make their own Mickey Mouse cartoon and sell it, but they can’t put “Disney” or “Mickey Mouse” in the title or make it look like Disney made it. You would have to make it VERY clear that you are not affiliated with Disney.
I suspect the reason Disney is coming out with live-action Snow White and Bambi remakes is because the original films’ copyrights are set to expire in 2033 and 2038, respectively. I also heard Warner Bros is already making preparations for when Superman, Batman, and Bugs Bunny enter the public domain.
I’m honestly looking forward to whatever subpar horror movies we’re gonna be getting when these characters lose their copyright protection.
It’s funny how protective the company is, but they couldn’t stop not one, but THREE gorilla SOV films from using their properties over the last ten years