nimalan
Jason ScottThis is a frankly infurating framing of the natural end of a copyright literally a human century later
wakingrufus@textfiles
Yeah it's like Kissinger dying in 2023, not really any kind of victory or justice.
Emil Oppeln-Bronikowski@textfiles I'll trust that this zombie is dead when it stops moving
Matt Blaze@textfiles And indeed, Disney is still perfectly free to use the (original) Mickey Mouse character if it wants. The only difference is that the rest of us are now, too.
FediThing 
It's especially infuriating as Disney's reputation is built on so many public domain sources like Snow White, Cinderella, Little Mermaid etc etc etc.
But when it came time for them to put back to the pile they took from, they dragged their heels by lobbying for copyright extensions to the point where copyright is now a ludicrous 95 years.
Koning Van Worcester 👑️@textfiles how so?
I'm a bit vague on the details? Is this because Disney extended the life time of their copyright or what?
リーハイ@deavmi @textfiles CBS is framing it like Disney lost some sort of battle and there is an implied injustice in this happening. The truth of the matter is the "Mickey Mouse" copyright laws have been hand crafted by Disney to artificially increase their market dominance when copyright was never supposed to last that long in the first place.
@lehi @textfiles what is the copyright validity period in the US versus how Disney extended them to?
@deavmi @textfiles According to the Internet, around 1909 there was a revision to the copyright laws that made the base term 28 years, with a 28 year extension available. Since then, well, it's gotten rather messy. Now it's the lifetime of the author plus 70 years.
@lehi @textfiles Not gonna lie. I would be fine with 70 years, sounds nice actually.
Poppy (Your wife's girlfriend) 
@deavmi @textfiles To me, it's because the title implies that Disney was wronged, specifically with the word "loses." In reality, that company is already wealthy enough to not benefit from the copyright at all, and it's us who have lost out on all the potential creations we could have made if Steamboat Willie was in the Public Domain earlier.
@limepeep @textfiles I see, thanks for the explanation.
pivotman319 🦊 
@deavmi @textfiles i think it's more not elaborating on which copyrights have expired in the video title - the vagueness implies that it's basically okay to iterate on every design of The Mouse when it isn't, actually
(the one that's going public domain is Steamboat Willie's, of course: the video title should've really been called "Disney copyright on original "Steamboat Willie" Mickey Mouse design set to expire beginning 2024")
@winload_exe @textfiles that would have been more accurate yes
Jeremy@deavmi @textfiles
Disney paid politicians (eg Sonny Bono) to pass (unreasonabe) extensions to copyright terms. Multiple times.
Disney paid politicians (eg Sonny Bono) to pass (unreasonabe) extensions to copyright terms. Multiple times.
Torrenezzi10@textfiles And do you know what's worse? Disney will still "own" Mickey Mouse after this. Did you notice that the Walt Disney Animation Studios intro now is just a snippet of the original Steamboat Willie animation? That's on purpose, since trademarks don't expire like copyright (basically as long as they renew it), they can technically still own the original Mickey Mouse even after 2024, just take down anything that uses it as "violations of trademark".
EDIT: They can't do that, check replies.
EDIT: They can't do that, check replies.
dcfedor@torre you might be happy to know that the Supreme Court strictly and specifically prohibits this tactic:
https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/mickey/
"Trademark can not be used as an end run around copyright expiration."
Mickey, Disney, and the Public Domain: a 95-year Love Triangle | Duke University School of Law
by Jennifer Jenkins, Director, Duke Center for the Study of the Public Domain CC BY 4.0 On January 1, 2024, after almost a century of copyright protection, Mickey Mouse, or at least a version of Mickey Mouse, will enter the United States public domain. The first movies in which the iconic mouse appeared – Steamboat Willie and the silent version of Plane Crazy[1] – were made in 1928 and works from that year go into the public domain in the US on New Year’s Day 2024.[2] (Note that this article is only about US law.
@dcfedor Thank you, that's nice to hear. I heard about this "loophole" on a MatPat video on YouTube (yes, I know that sounds stupid), and I guess I was foolish to not do research myself.
@torre I only just learned about this today myself! So we all learn something new each day :)
xot@dcfedor I'm not so optimistic. A majority of the current court has little respect for precedent.
mandugar@torre @textfiles @pluralistic explains well the difference between copyright and trademark on this matter here https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/15/mouse-liberation-front/
@mandugar Thanks, sorry for not knowing this, I just didn't do my own research before posting.
@torre I didn't know about that either until I read that article. Doctorow writes a lot about copyright issues.
14mission@mandugar @torre @textfiles @pluralistic Some crucial bits if you want to make and post your own Mickey art:
Tagaziel@14mission
I'd be wary of color gloves too. Italian MM comics frequently made use of yellow gloves for Jeffrey the Fuckrat, so this might result in you getting a visit from the Disney Mafia.
@mandugar @torre @textfiles @pluralistic @threetails
I'd be wary of color gloves too. Italian MM comics frequently made use of yellow gloves for Jeffrey the Fuckrat, so this might result in you getting a visit from the Disney Mafia.
@mandugar @torre @textfiles @pluralistic @threetails
zaratustra@tagaziel @14mission @mandugar @torre @textfiles @pluralistic @threetails
i found something that might be important but didn't get an answer from anyone with sense about this -
this *poster* is allegedly from 1928 and shows a color mickey with (colored) gloves
@zaratustra @tagaziel @mandugar @torre @textfiles @pluralistic @threetails I guess that's a precedent. Also: Nice to see Ub Iwerks still getting credit.
@14mission @mandugar @torre @textfiles
Looks like Disney are screwed in about 12 years time, as 1940 seems to be when modern Mickey got his current appearance?
King Kaufman@14mission @mandugar @torre @textfiles @pluralistic
About the red shorts, it seems relevant that Louboutin shoes has TRADEMARK protection for its signature red sole on a high heel shoe. If I understand it correctly — which is not likely — a ruling in a Louboutin suit against Yves St. Laurent limited the trademark to a contrasting red sole. YSL had made an all-red shoe, Louboutin sued and lost, with the ruling clarifying that the trademark was for a contrasting red sole.
But it looks to me like, with some caveats that I'll never understand, a rights holder CAN protect something like "a certain item of clothing of a certain color." Trademark is different from copyright of course.
@kingkaufman @mandugar @torre @textfiles @pluralistic In Germany, the publisher Langenscheidt prints bilingual dictionaries with yellow covers, and the courts ruled that they own the color yellow in that domain, and blocked Rosetta Stone from selling their software in yellow boxes in Germany. (Yes kids, people used to actually go to stores and buy software in boxes!)
Justin Myers@kingkaufman @14mission @mandugar @torre @textfiles @pluralistic
Reminds me of this discussion I was in several years ago about UPS' trademarked use of a particular shade of brown:
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/6685/can-ups-really-trademark-the-color-brown/6687#6687
Ernie Smith@14mission @mandugar @torre @textfiles @pluralistic Based on this finding, I feel like that MOUSE game is holding off on release until 2025 just so it can have the gloves
Leth@14mission @mandugar @torre @pluralistic Wearing gloves and certain kinds of clothing are not copyrightable elements. This is quite literally an argument that expands the scope of copyright.
Simon Lucy@lethargilistic @14mission @mandugar @torre @pluralistic
But not trademarks.
@simon_lucy Him wearing gloves is not a trademark issue. Trademark is about preventing market confusion by restricting the use of MARKS to indicate SOURCE. It is not about restricting expression ala what the public domain character is wearing.
That's the wrong way round, if the figure is trademarked then it's trademarked. And it is trademarked.
@simon_lucy You're wrong about this, mate. I don't know what to tell you if you don't yet understand the difference between copyright and trademark—between an image and a mark.
Another thing you might want to look at, besides that difference, is trademark fair use. Trademark is not a categorical ban on using marks/tradenames established by other people.
I'm well aware of the difference. A mark doesn't have to be a logo or name it can also be any image, just like Ronald Macdonald and trademark usage can be enforced.
https://www.trademarkelite.com/uk/trademark/trademark-detail/UK00001285799/RONALD-McDONALD
RONALD McDONALD, A United Kingdom Trademark of McDonald's International Property Company, Ltd. Application Number: UK00001285799 :: Trademark Elite Trademarks
RONALD McDONALD is a united kingdom trademark and brand of McDonald's International Property Company, Ltd, UNITED STATES. This trademark was filed to UKIPO on Tuesday, September 30, 1986. The RONALD McDONALD is under the trademark classification: Restaurant and Hotel Services; The RONALD McDONALD trademark covers Restaurant services.
@simon_lucy Yes, but the mark is used for source identification. If the other person's art is not confusing as to source, then it's not trademark infringement. That is, yes, Disney can restrict certain poses that they have established as source-indicative of their brands, but they cannot restrict use of the character for anything else. There are limitless possibilities outside of those poses.
Yes there are possibilities and if they have no impact then Disney won't care but if it meets whatever criteria they have for infringing then they'll enforce it and likely win because that's the general public policy.
Miakoda 
@14mission @mandugar @torre @textfiles @pluralistic
So what happens if I were to learn how to draw and then just straight up duplicate a currently copyrighted Micky?
So what happens if I were to learn how to draw and then just straight up duplicate a currently copyrighted Micky?
Wayne Werner@hellomiakoda @14mission @mandugar @torre @textfiles @pluralistic the short answer is "it depends"
copyright law is weird and fraught. If you create an illustration for education, commentary, and possibly parody, you might be OK.
But if you're trying to suggest Disney likes or allows you to do anything you will definitely be visited by the ghost of Walt Disney who only brings lawsuits.
@ketmorco @14mission @mandugar @torre @textfiles @pluralistic
I'm poor as fuck. The fuck a lawsuit going to do to me?
I'm poor as fuck. The fuck a lawsuit going to do to me?
frd💾@14mission
There might be a way to use color Mickey with gloves.
There was a full color Mickey poster from 1928 that was auctioned off in 2012. It was auctioned by the fancy Heritage Auctions company, so you know they checked the providence.
Reliable poster auction Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE8AT04E/
But, as @ajroach42 points out below, the poster might not be enough, but it's something to consider.
I'd stay B/W and gloveless to be safe.
Andrew (Television Executive)@FredBednarski @14mission @mandugar @torre @textfiles @pluralistic yeah, the Duke Law piece addresses the poster. They make the argument that it might not meet the legal definition of Published, and that the first Published appearance might be in 25.
(They also hedge that the poster might be sufficient, just cationing that it's unsettled.)
@ajroach42 @14mission @mandugar @torre @textfiles @pluralistic Oh, interesting. I guess it would have to be settled in court then... and here I was thinking I found some slam dunk :P
We will need to see how this develops. In the meantime, I will amend my post.
@FredBednarski https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/mickey/
Entirely possible that I'm misremembering or misunderstanding, figured I better share a source.
Mickey, Disney, and the Public Domain: a 95-year Love Triangle | Duke University School of Law
by Jennifer Jenkins, Director, Duke Center for the Study of the Public Domain CC BY 4.0 On January 1, 2024, after almost a century of copyright protection, Mickey Mouse, or at least a version of Mickey Mouse, will enter the United States public domain. The first movies in which the iconic mouse appeared – Steamboat Willie and the silent version of Plane Crazy[1] – were made in 1928 and works from that year go into the public domain in the US on New Year’s Day 2024.[2] (Note that this article is only about US law.
@ajroach42 Thanks for the link. Looks like the info on the poster is sparse and even Duke Law doesn't have much.
That *unpublished* work is such a weird PD loophole. I first run into it in the Old Time Radio world. Not sure how it works for posters, but I know radio plays were considered unpublished even if broadcast. Maybe posters are also "forever unpublished"?
It will have to be settled in court for us to be sure, but at least it's something that someone might try if they want to.
@FredBednarski the trick is that they'd have had to have registered the poster. If they didn't register the poster, then it doesn't matter if it was "published"
Looks like @rubenbolling agrees with your assessment.
https://boingboing.net/2024/01/02/mickey-mouses-red-shorts-have-entered-the-public-domain.html?
Josh@14mission Copyright is so frustrating. Why should a small part of a costume be copyrightable? [Is it, really, or just not worth the risk of being sued?] I wear a jacket from a shop which has pictures of the jacket on a model. Does that mean I'm infringing the copyright of the shop or their image provider?
lupus_blackfurHow can CBS, an entity generally considered trustworthy, not comprehend the difference between the film and the character...??
Oh, yeah... Clicks.
Punch's Videogamezone 
@textfiles always sad to see we're too far gone with corporate propaganda to remember that the end of a copyright term is as important to copyright law as the temporary monopoly granted by it; the whole point of public domain is to celebrate and formalize a work's status as a shared cultural artifact. That's kind of what Mickey Mouse is these days, isn't it?
PG&E Delenda Est@textfiles and it's right next to a youtube channel reposting british tv without permission.
Nicole Parsons@pluralistic points out that corporations made terrible archivists of cultural artifacts.
They often stop art, and other items of cultural significance, from surviving by hoarding it under poor conditions then discarding it later.
Cassidy Curtis@Npars01 @textfiles @pluralistic
A concrete example of poor corporate archival practices: DreamWorks Animation released an “Art of Shrek” book while I was working there. Several of the drawings in the book were credited to “Artist Namehere”. (This was just six years after the film’s release!)
A concrete example of poor corporate archival practices: DreamWorks Animation released an “Art of Shrek” book while I was working there. Several of the drawings in the book were credited to “Artist Namehere”. (This was just six years after the film’s release!)
Arniepix
Steve Holmes@textfiles I actually watched the CBS morning show segment and it was pretty good. They interviewed Larry Lessig, and the point that Walt Disney has been using the IP of others for a century was emphasized.