How Disney Will Control Mickey Forever

Рет қаралды 1,501,760

4 ай бұрын

Mickey Mouse is in the public domain... or is he??⚖️⚖️ ⚖️ Use code LEGALEAGLE50 to get 50% OFF at Factor legaleagle.link/factor ⚖️⚖️⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers

Пікірлер: 2 600

@LegalEagle 4 ай бұрын

Would you watch Mickey Mouse: Cheese and Carnage? 🧀 Use code LEGALEAGLE50 to get 50% OFF at Factor legaleagle.link/factor ⚖⚖⚖ Get a great lawyer, fast! legaleagle.link/eagleteam

@hieronymusbutts7349 4 ай бұрын

Pretending you have better lawyers than Disney is a hard flex. Respect.

@PotofGlue 4 ай бұрын

If it's not called screamboat willie I'm not watching it

@Fastwinstondoom 4 ай бұрын

You joke but there is a first person shooter coming out called Mouse that is very much in the style of steamboat willie...and it looks quite good!

@KantoKait 4 ай бұрын

11:12 Would he not be the same Mickey? Originally presented in black and white, then his red shorts and skin can be better seen in color. If his gloves matter, then couldn't all be allowed to circumvent copywrite by adding gloves to any piece of work?

@thedotgiver2820 4 ай бұрын

@michaellyden2580 4 ай бұрын

My favorite thing about all of this: Disney has lost the rights to Steamboat Willie, but (due to their acquisition of 20th Century) now owns the rights to its violent Simpsons parody, Steamboat Itchy.

@vincentpelletier57 4 ай бұрын

That was probably part of their plan to keep control of Mickey.

@bobkerr2755 4 ай бұрын

Oh me, oh my! 🔪

@dragon1130 4 ай бұрын

And Just like with Ub Iwerks, The Original Creator of Itchy and Scratchy, Chester J. Lampwick, is being kicked to the curb... again. I hope someone can find an original one of a kind frame that has the date of the original films at a random Comic shop so we can prove who TRUELY owns Itchy and Scratchy.

@Gaia_BentosZX5 4 ай бұрын

Not only that but LegalEagle knows one of the guys in Corridor personally. Which means that Corridor does not legally own the rights to the Rock Paper Scissors "anime" because a lot of it used AI trained on Vampire Hunter D. Meaning they could get into a lot of trouble with Sony since they own the rights to the film.

@geoffreyrichards6079 4 ай бұрын

@@dragon1130A lot of people say that Iwerks was the true creator of Mickey and that Walt stole him, but from everything I’ve read, it really seems like it was a collaborative effort between Ub and Walt - with Walt conceiving the idea and Ub refining it.

@CiCaruana 4 ай бұрын

Disney making use of public domain and then pulling the ladder up behind them after that made them hugely successful is always just as infuriating every single time I think about it.

@MPSmaruj 4 ай бұрын

Just like Facebook taking advantage of MySpace's more open approach to APIs and use of external tools and then immediately lobbying for making this illegal so that no one does this to them.

@person8064 4 ай бұрын

Capitalism gonna capitalism

@jasonlib1996 4 ай бұрын

Pretty sure thats an entire generation who did that exact thing.

@CharlieQuartz 4 ай бұрын

⁠@@person8064In this case it’s the much scarier and more threatening “corporatism gonna corporatism” since a monopoly controlled the function of law and government for its own gains

@tinkerer3399 4 ай бұрын

Most of Disney's use of public domain characters would still have been public domain at the time of productions even after their extensions. They aren't preventing anyone from doing what they did. If you really want someone to blame then blame Victor Hugo. His outline for how the public domain should work which helped lead to the Berne Convention was a bigger force behind the copyright extension than Disney. Disney did have a part to play in the copyright extensions however they weren't the only, or even the main, driving force.

@atomichobbit7358 4 ай бұрын

The irony is that if Disney let the copyright expire in 1984, no one would care. By trying so desperately to retain control, Disney ensured that Mickey would enter the public domain at the worst possible time, with meme culture eager to exploit it and public goodwill towards Disney at a low. Well played Disney. You scored one hell of an own goal.

@ethancox9737 4 ай бұрын

Why would no one have cared back then?

@RvEijndhoven 4 ай бұрын

@@ethancox9737 Presumably because that pre-dates the widespread use of personal computers and the public internet. Back then, if someone wanted use the Steamboat Willie version of Mickey Mouse in some other work, they'd have had to put in a lot more work and there wasn't as much anti-Disney sentiment back then, so it's doubtful people would've jumped all over using that version in all sorts of stuff as soon as they were (potentially) able to as they are now.

@MsMiDC 4 ай бұрын

classic Streisand effect.

@KonradTheWizzard 4 ай бұрын

@@ethancox9737 In the 70'ies and 80'ies copyright law was fairly obscure and almost nobody cared about it, because properly copying stuff required industrial scale machinery in order to run afoul of the law. We, as kids, published on our parent's fridge, not on social media. You had to be a fairly talented artist or an industrial scale print house to care about copyright. Talented artists usually preferred to create their own characters back then. Now with every click of the mouse (how ironic!) you potentially violate copyright law and you have to use very visible memes to be noticed above the noise. A very different situation from back then. This could be the perfect storm blowing in Disney's face.

@ethancox9737 4 ай бұрын

@@KonradTheWizzard Wow, got it. Since they still own the trademark to Mickey as long as they keep using him, I'm pretty sure they'll be fine.

@dracodracarys2339 4 ай бұрын

I love how the public sentiment isn't "Mickey is dead" and mocking and hating on him, it's "Mickey is free!" and celebrating his entrance into the public domain with wholesome comics and animations of him sailing off into the sunset, at last liberated from his corporate overlords. That's kinda cute.

@RobMedellin 4 ай бұрын

It never crossed my mind people would see it as Micky is dead... Why would someone champion that idea. The consensus is "Disney (horrible Co.) can't sue small fish for using their iconic character!"

@JSSMVCJR2.1 4 ай бұрын

Yet another testament that the Free Culture of the Interweb can't be stopped. For better or (more often) for worse.

@asmrtpop2676 4 ай бұрын

Oh I just figured people would draw him with like big rocks

@a.baciste1733 4 ай бұрын

The very first 2 things I have seen on mickey after 1st January was 2 horror parodies which were nothing but a full disgrace to creativity... So I cannot fully share you feeling on this one.

@Ergeniz 4 ай бұрын

@@a.baciste1733 Disgrace to creativity? You mean like a super corporation that has bought out multiple companies, has resorted to souless live action remakes and churning out badly written content since the acquisition of almost every relevant IP under the sun? That sort of disgrace?

@Friendly_Neigborhood_Astolfo 4 ай бұрын

No one can deny that Disney made copyright law a complete logicstical nightmare

@Not_interestEd- 4 ай бұрын

I uh... Don't want to know where that username came from.

@joshuagrahm3607 4 ай бұрын

Man, imagine if copyright law hadn’t been screwed with after first being enacted. 14 years and that’s it- we could be watching inception reuploads right now

@tinkerer3399 4 ай бұрын

Sure, I can disagree. Disney's role in the copyright extensions is VASTLY overblown. While Disney was one of the main companies involved with lobbying for the copyright extensions there was a wide variety of factors. Everyone says things like "Disney (and other companies)" when it was unanimous pressure from every field of IP holders. Disney wasn't even exerting the most pressure.

@meepk633 4 ай бұрын

What does this mean? What is one of the logistical hurdles created by Disney?

@Magdalena8008s 4 ай бұрын

@@meepk633people blow it out of proportion. It used to be only 14 years for copywrite. It was Disney that lobbied to get it changed to essentially what it is today. There's a TON of nuance and others involved. But some ignorantly blame Disney for how complicated things are. But in reality, it's part a good thing and part just a mess.

@JimCullen 4 ай бұрын

One small detail that you may have missed, is that the *marketing* for the original Steamboat Willie is also in the public domain, since it came out at the same time. And the marketing was in colour, including Mickey’s iconic red shorts. So you can safely have Mickey in red shorts without violating copyright. Though we still have to wait until the white gloves are public domain.

@jupiterkansas 4 ай бұрын

Hard to believe that changing a character's clothes would create a new copyright.

@98yoshi98 4 ай бұрын

I'm not even sure about the gloves bit. The titlecard for steamboat willie clearly shows him wearing gloves that are white. 9:37 Granted, it's a grayscale cartoon, but I think it's reasonable to consider them as white. EDIT: Turns out later shorts that had color marketing show the gloves as yellow. Dunno if that really measurably changes things or not, but it's worth mentioning

@GamerTowerDX 4 ай бұрын

@@jupiterkansas Here's a fun fact you might've heard of:Even though Pooh is in the public domain, you can't give him his red shirt.

@entwixed3406 4 ай бұрын

If i recall correctly the red shirt came from Disney's animated adaptation of the book-

@Lord_zeel 4 ай бұрын

@@GamerTowerDX What if it's a white shirt, but by the end of the movie it's red with blood?

@misspomerol 4 ай бұрын

What really chaps my ass as a retired professional ballet dancer is the whole debacle with The Sleeping Beauty. Every last piece of music in the animated film is lifted from the balletic score written by Tchaikovsky. And it’s horribly miss used in many cases, attributing themes to certain characters erroneously. I guess at one point Disney wanted ballet companies to have to pay royalties in order to perform the work but dropped it in court. It was originally considered public domain but then after Disney made the animated film they tried to get the pieces of the music that they used trademarked. Super shitty. That might be something interesting for you to look into.

@cutecats532 4 ай бұрын

I believe they made the actor for snow white unable to do any other voice work to keep snow white unique.

@LisaMarieFord 4 ай бұрын

@@cutecats532For one role, I believe. The biggest issue, which was for the majority of actors and actresses of that time period, being uncredited. If no one knows your name it’s difficult to get jobs unless you had a contract with a studio providing you constant work. It was the same for other voice roles she did too; going uncredited.

@briseboy 4 ай бұрын

Walt, dizzy himself from drawing hundreds of pages of pirouetting hippos, et alia, could be argued as Cathy de Medici's propertty, or possibly Noverre's intellectual prop rights. As an injured dancer, i DO try not to chap mine ass through excessive sitting,, and avoiding the Assizes, in all cases. Mais, assez.

@b4ttlemast0r 4 ай бұрын

Something that not many people seem to know: While the newer design, including him having gloves, is still copyrighted, there is actually a coloured poster of Steamboat Willie Mickey from 1928 depicting him with yellow boots, red shorts and either a blue or green hat (not sure if both designs are original). So there is actually a coloured version of the character that is now in public domain.

@revimfadli4666 4 ай бұрын

Or you could simply use the title card version with gloves and striped pants

@slenderfoxx3797 4 ай бұрын

Nice. I'm glad Mickley with colours is also free lol.

@natsune09 4 ай бұрын

I took a copyright class in college, no company has done more to change copyright law than Disney. From Fair-use to why Henrietta Lacks's family doesn't see a dime from her cells being used so much to how John Fogerty was sued for sounding like John Fogerty, that Copyright class was one of my favorite classes.

@bobbun9630 4 ай бұрын

Perhaps you can explain to someone who has not had such a class how "The Congress shall have power [...] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" authorizes Congress to create anything other than a non-transferrable license of exclusivity? A literal reading of this text would seem to put the entirety of intellectual property law on a shaky footing. The third party that you sold the right to is neither the author nor the inventor.

@natsune09 4 ай бұрын

@@bobbun9630 I'm no Legal Eagle, and I don't have the time to search down every case law. From what I understood, it developed after numerous case laws. Some case laws were conflicting. So it was a slow evolution. In the late 18th century, most intellectual property was made by individuals. As time went on, especially after the industrial revolution, pieces were made by more and more people. It gets hard to determine when something would become public domain with multiple people, and even harder with more and more people. Lawmakers saw a need to simplify things and made it so corporations could then own copyrights. So when the copyright act of 1909 was being made, they took these sometimes conflicting case laws and codified the what they saw needed to be done. Disney then went on to strengthen corporation control of copyright over the decades that followed. You can argue they were bowing to corporations, probably true, not going to to argue the motivations behind it. So, this is what we have as a result. A short version.

@p_mouse8676 4 ай бұрын

I am wondering, because as far as I know, trademarks only are valid in similar areas of work as the trademark itself? So I can trademark a name or a logo that is sports related, but as soon as someone else uses this for lawnmowers, this isn't an issue? Since it won't confuse customers. In that case Disney can only protect so much?

@ThisisCitrus 4 ай бұрын

@@p_mouse8676 That's not right, you can't make a lawnmower that's called 'Mickey Mouse' or you'll get hit for trademark infringement.

@TheRealScooterGuy 4 ай бұрын

@@ThisisCitrus -- Given that "Mickey Mouse" is a term that is sometimes used to mean "substandard quality," who would want to put that on anything that wasn't promoting the mouse itself, or a related Disney product? But yeah, your point is understood.

@ronaldeliascorderocalles 4 ай бұрын

Lets talk how Disney created an empire by making use of public domain: Snow white, The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, Pinnochio, etc. Their greatest movies based on public domain characters. Its nothing less than hypocritical how Disney tried everything to keep Mickey out of public domain.

@598019001 4 ай бұрын

Hypocrisy? From disney? Neeeever.

@UnclePhil1112 4 ай бұрын

So many people love to overlook this fact it’s downright insane. Steamboat Willie/Mickey Mouse and co. Are really the only original things Disney has made

@mrpink8951 4 ай бұрын

Eh, it’s one thing to pull from fairy tales and folk tales. It’s another to protect your original work.

@ChristophBrinkmann 4 ай бұрын

@@mrpink8951 Yeah there's no original work, and as you already know, Disney should have lost the rights DECADES AGO

@gladlawson61 4 ай бұрын

@@ChristophBrinkmannyou seem angry

@matthewthomson6466 4 ай бұрын

Keeping stuff out of public domain for longer than most adults in the country will live - there’s entire swaths of people who were born after Steamboat Willy and died before being able to see it enter public domain. And we wonder why the law is so disrespected.

@nottelling7438 4 ай бұрын

Many of those deaths could be reasonably attributed to old age, too.

@matthewthomson6466 4 ай бұрын

@@nottelling7438 if copyright’s only justification is to encourage artists to create, and the artist’s work is protected for loooooong after their death, what exactly is the incentive to create? So that a company 12 centuries down the line can sue some Etsy shop for using art you made dozens of lifetimes ago? spirit of the law seems *rather out of sorts,* here…

@davidg3944 4 ай бұрын

@@nottelling7438 Or Disney hit squads! I've been on the run for decades, just for that one time at Disney World when I tried to peek up Cinderella's skirt...

@AmbassadorBreadloaf 4 ай бұрын

@@davidg3944 Ayo hold up what?

@davidg3944 4 ай бұрын

@@AmbassadorBreadloaf That's what I asked her, and she got upset about it!!

@OmegaGlops 4 ай бұрын

3:44 Disney does not own the exclusive rights to Alice in Wonderland! Alice in Wonderland is in the public domain. What Disney _does_ own are the specific character designs, music, etc. originating from their animated and live action adaptations of Alice in Wonderland.

@aceshighdueceslow 4 ай бұрын

this is the same for their depictions for other public domain works as well. I remember meeting someone from LA and I asked how often she would go to Disneyland, with a follow-up question asking about these party princess companies I had heard about. She said that it sucks to be working in a job like that because most "princesses" that little kids will know will be the Disney versions, but if you show up wearing Belle's golden ballgown, you're running the risk of the company getting C&D'd by Disney, if not outright sued for ~copyright infringement~

@jamesmiller206 3 ай бұрын

@@aceshighdueceslow true, most of disneys adaptations deviate so much from the original work they practically qualify as parody. IIrc there was a whole mockbuster industry that disney could do nothing about because a lot of those adaptations tend to either be more accurate to the already public domain book or go in totally different directions that the only way they can be confused for disneys work are the sneaky way they make the cover art similar to what disney would release but the character designs were distinct enough(like say making ariel blonde) that they were its own thing.

@lenapawlek7295 4 ай бұрын

The hypocrisy of disney using public domain to get popular but preventing anyone else from using their creative acts makes me so annoyed - glad some of mickey is now public domain!!

@duckman2173 4 ай бұрын

Remember that time Disney sued parents for having Spiderman on there deceased child's grave, or that time they sued a day care centre in New Zealand for having Disney characters painted on their wall

@Shirospyre 4 ай бұрын

I'm not sure I'd call it hypocrisy. More a clear example of how mega corporations make everything complicated. Corporations can live for a lot longer than authors do, so them fighting to hold onto certain copyrights for as long as they're still around is just kinda par for the course. I can even understand it in Disney's case, because they've become such villains in the public eye that even if they had just quietly let the copyright expire, you just know people would go out of their way to still rub the lost copyright in their face as much as possible.

@wasd____ 4 ай бұрын

@@Shirospyre Nah, I'd 100% call it hypocrisy.

@DarkOverlord96 4 ай бұрын

How is that hypocrisy? Everyone uses public domain fairy tales and books, and yet they also are protective of their IPs. Or what, you think indie creators should make their characters public domain when they themselves use public domain stuff to make their products?

@wasd____ 4 ай бұрын

@@DarkOverlord96 "Or what, you think indie creators should make their characters public domain when they themselves use public domain stuff to make their products?" Yes, actually. I kinda think maybe if your work derived from the public domain, it should stay public domain. You don't get to just take a chunk of the cultural and artistic heritage that belongs to everyone and say, "Mine now!"

@teamllr3137 4 ай бұрын

The more a company is protective with their IP, the more people will tear it apart when they can

@mjfan653 4 ай бұрын

Yeah, it seems like if disney just threw up their hands and went “y’all do what you want” this would create a short wave of mickey goes to Ukraine videos, but it would end. But due to disney being such bitches about it, the “‘Mickey goes to vietnam” shorts and other parodies keep being viral. Itsa real long run case of the streisand effect.

@mollybennett3291 4 ай бұрын

Just like Anna Rice

@zac-1 4 ай бұрын

you guys sure showed that faceless company who's boss

@gengarzilla1685 4 ай бұрын

Spite is a powerful motivator.

@AceFaz 4 ай бұрын

Yep, I Genuinely cant wait for Nintendo to lose control of Jump Man

@9Tensai9 4 ай бұрын

So... what I understood from this video is that we have no idea if Mickey as a whole is public domain unless somebody takes a hit for the team and decide to test it on court and depending on the result of that court case we will have answers for future litigation on similar cases... In other words "we won't know untill someone gets sued"

@Fucisko 4 ай бұрын

Technically someone doesn't have to wait to get sued, if you were planning on using some version of Mickey and wanted a clear answer before you actually did it (exactly to avoid getting sued by Disney) you could seek Declaratory Judgement.Devon briefly mentions it in the video when he talks about Sherlock Holmes. It's basically asking court to decide whether or not you could use Mickey in the modern form for whatever purpose you wanted it for. But yeah, it will have to be decided by court sooner or later.

@TT-vr1yc 4 ай бұрын

modern copyright law in a nutshell

@andywellsglobaldomination 4 ай бұрын

I used to work for an insurance brokerage firm that had the opportunity to respond to an RFP for Disney's insurance coverage. Our team worked very hard to put together some beautiful proposals... including a cover with the Disney logo. Disney rejected the proposal unread because we'd committed a trademark violation on the cover.

@shytowngrl 3 ай бұрын

It is true, though. I worked at a consulting firm that would tailor every presentation to the client's color scheme and out their logo and someone on our team made a good point that not only was it infringement but it was silly because they saw that branding enough...they didn't need to see it in our presentation. It was a true waste of time for us too so streamlining with or own branding made much more sense. No one has the right to just make something they created look like it actually came from another party (but everyone does it in the business world, I know).

@andywellsglobaldomination 3 ай бұрын

@@shytowngrl That is so true! Our clients included Avis, PepsiCo, and even Enron... and our product was always fronted with their logos... Disney was the first to yank chain.

@Keithustus 2 ай бұрын

Disney: 'if your firm can't respect our trademarks by tossing them onto documents willy-nilly, how can we expect you to treat them if we hire you?'

@Voxelize 4 ай бұрын

It's important to note that Alice is also Public Domain. So you can't use the specific representation from Disney, or the game by American McGee, but you can totally make your own version based on the original books and illustrations. This was how American McGee was able to make their game despite the Disney cartoon.

@myheartismadeofstars 4 ай бұрын

I'm so tired of blonde haired blue eyed Alices in blue dresses. I'm giving Alice a red and yellow dress with bobbed brown hair and brown eyes as she deserves. (I've never played the game but I know she is brunette there)

@Cynbel_Terreus 4 ай бұрын

Though the game by American McGee is owned by EA hence the whole long campaign of McGee trying to get EA to allow him to make a third game and them saying no, they didn't want to do it, they didn't want to license it, and they didn't want to sell it.

@Voxelize 4 ай бұрын

@@myheartismadeofstars she has the blue dress with white apron in the game too, just some red blood splatters for a dash of spice.

@Voxelize 4 ай бұрын

@@Cynbel_Terreus I was reading about that recently. Basically EA did to American McGee what Universal Pictures did to Walt Disney. Really sucks for him and everyone that wants to see more of that series.

@Voron_Aggrav 4 ай бұрын

@@VoxelizeEA gonna do what EA does best, create mediocre products on a way too short time schedule and hide the rest in a Vault

@dylandreisbach1986 4 ай бұрын

Making sufficient changes is an interesting problem. Disney would have to claim that at the same time current Mickey and old Mickey are close enough to be a part of the brand while arguing that they have made enough changes to keep new Mickey out of the public domain. The court cases will be interesting.

@RGC_animation 4 ай бұрын

The court case will be in favor of Disney, because it's Disney.

@setlerking 4 ай бұрын

if its used in a way that makes people think its a disney product then theyd have a case. will be interesting to see how stuff plays out lol

@user-op4ft4yh5f 4 ай бұрын

2024 USA Disney chart down broken :(

@ThisisCitrus 4 ай бұрын

@@setlerking Thats not true anymore, since Steamboat Willie WAS a Disney property. Some people will be confused and think Steamboat willie merch is Disney merch. That's only one of the stipulations of copyright law, and not enough for an infringement case on its own.

@danielkeys8974 4 ай бұрын

Wouldn't want to represent Disney in such a case, because again, they already lost a similar lawsuit over "Pinocchio and the Emperor of the Night."

@CorridorCrew 4 ай бұрын

Thanks for the love, Devin! Your channel is a huge inspiration for me and everyone keeps requesting a collab haha. - Jake

@LadyLexyStarwatcher 4 ай бұрын

Did Disney claim your upload of the short too?

@ryandineen3655 4 ай бұрын

@corridorcrew get Devin on the couch! Lawyer reacts to action scenes:-)

@turk58guy 4 ай бұрын

This would be really cool lol

@grayonthewater 4 ай бұрын

I’ve been watching Corridor Crew for a few years now and I had no idea you were a lawyer😂

@OmgThisGuy 4 ай бұрын

100% yes this needs to happen

@seanbrown207 4 ай бұрын

Worked at a rights management company and we’d have a copyright lawyer specialist come in every year and give a seminar on copyright (since copyrights were our business). One thing I learned about copyright is that copyright extensions weren’t just a result of industry lobbying (Disney and others). The US historically had one of the shortest copyright lengths of countries and those extensions were to also an effort to harmonize them with most of the rest of the world. So while Disney (reasonably) takes the brunt of the blame in pop culture for extension of copyrights, those copyright extensions more realistically were a perfect storm of industry lobbying and an effort to harmonize copyright with other nations. The US having one of the shortest copyrights protections historically led to issues of things being public domain in the US but not elsewhere in the world, causing publishing and legal headaches.

@greywolf7577 4 ай бұрын

So that raises the question, is modern US law on copyright similar to the rest of the world or is the copyright in the US still shorter than the world average?

@GuiSmith 4 ай бұрын

@@greywolf7577 The US extended to match and then shot past everyone else to be the longest. Only a handful of countries (and most in only certain situations) allow for longer copyright than the US. At this point, it's about getting other countries to be more similar to the latest US standard.

@wesnohathas1993 4 ай бұрын

Classic case of good intentions leading straight into a severe overcorrection.

@timrollpickering 4 ай бұрын

@@GuiSmith Actually it's the EU standard. In 1993 the European Union harmonised copyright terms at Life +70 (derived, IIRC, from the length in Germany), in order to put an end to the problems in the single market with differing terms and reciprocal protections, and this was the driving force for other countries to extend their terms by 20 years beyond the Berne minimum so their works would enjoy protection internationally. The judgment in Eldred v Ashcroft by Ruth Bader Ginsburg is very explicit in citing this as the driving force behind the 1998 US Act.

@AustynSN 4 ай бұрын

I've heard it argued that the copyright on the "Steamboat Willie" version of Micky Mouse in red pants is also public domain because while the actual cartoon was black and white, the posters advertising the short had him wearing red pants.

@timsmythfilmsandanimations 4 ай бұрын

I am not sure that a primary color like red could be copyrighted anyways. Mickey has striped pants, and gloves on the title card, so that would also be safe to use.

@AustynSN 4 ай бұрын

@@timsmythfilmsandanimations The color red, copyright? No, absolutely not. However, that particular shade of red as shorts on a cartoon mouse drawn in that particular way, definitely copyright up until January 1st 2024. As to copywriting a color, of course you can't. However, you can trademark it. For example, T-Mobile magenta

@tinkerer3399 4 ай бұрын

@@AustynSN Honestly you can trademark almost anything as long as it is distinctive within its field. A word, a logo, a sound, a smell, a general vibe, a pattern, etc. Literally anything.

@celestinemorningstar4851 4 ай бұрын

😮@@AustynSNone word: Pantone

@me-myself-i787 4 ай бұрын

@@AustynSN"Up until January 1st 2024" It's already January 10th.

@wolfielee11 4 ай бұрын

Minor nitpick, the story of Walt befriending a mouse or having a family of mice in his office or anything like that is a fiction Walt came up with years after the fact to further mythologize Mickey and the origins of Disney. When Walt and Ub were working at Laugh-O-Grams animation in Kansas City, Ub set out to create a new animated mascot character since they had lost Oswald. Since no other studio had a mouse character Ub went with that and started sketching what would eventually become Mickey. Walt had little to do with Mickey's creation besides throwing various ideas at Ub until something stuck. Ub never really got the credit he deserves for the creation of Mickey and effectively the creation of Disney as a company/legacy but he did at least eventually get to move out to California eventually and rejoin Disney, mostly working on technical advances in animation and film to help develop new techniques and technologies.

@wombatdivine 4 ай бұрын

More people need to know about Ub!

@BATCHARRO 4 ай бұрын

But that sounds good...like a movie.

@iampoch01 4 ай бұрын

Yeah, that's very similar to Bob Kane and Bill Finger with Batman. Majority of what we know about Batman came from Bill Finger, including the costume. And yet, Kane took all the credit and the riches that came along with it.

@leviadragon99 4 ай бұрын

Ah yes, rich company owners stealing credit for things their employees do and aggrandising themselves, a tale as old as time.

@_Twink 4 ай бұрын

@iampoch01 batman is just scarlet pimpernel updated for a more modern audience.

@paultuck 4 ай бұрын

Copyright law is like a Mandelbrot image, no matter how much you zoom in on a particular section there's always a ton of branching little details, endlessly complex.

@sorcerousfang 4 ай бұрын

As an avid writer and consumer of fanfiction, I find copyright both a fascinating and infuriating subject.

@RobRoss 4 ай бұрын

Using the animation of Steamboat Willie as a trademark seems like they’re trying to exploit a loophole. The LEGO group tried something tricky like this when their patents for their interlocking plastic bricks started expiring. They started printing the LEGO logo on every brick and tried to claim that the bricks themselves were now part of their trademark and thus competitors could not copy their brick design. After a protracted battle in the courts, the LEGO Group eventually lost the case and that’s why there are numerous LEGO knock-off brands now.

@ScooterinAB 4 ай бұрын

And at the centre of it all is Mega Bloks, a name you can't mention is a Lego Store. Staff get real salty about it.

@0LoneTech 4 ай бұрын

LEGO really stole the patent in the first place. They kept their market position with some excellent quality control, though.

@georgieippolito9924 4 ай бұрын

I like the knock off brands. there's a device you can buy that combines Lego with paper! it's a special hole puncher to line up bricks to make flexible parts

@0LoneTech 4 ай бұрын

@@georgieippolito9924 That's a creative compatible product. What knock-offs do is produce a few similar bricks, often of so low quality they won't fit, perhaps slap a picture of a lego set on the box, and sell it as just slightly cheaper in non-discerning markets.

@bloxer9563 4 ай бұрын

@@0LoneTech truth

@annikathewitch3950 4 ай бұрын

Anyone remember that time the Doyle Estate tried to sue the Enola Holmes creators on the basis that Holmes showed emotion and all the original works where he showed emotion were still under copyright protection? I only remember it because of the fandom response (the fandom for the original works, I mean, not the Enola Holmes fandom). Iirc, there were *several* essays making fun of the claim and listing instances in which holmes had very obviously shown emotion in the works that were int he public domain.

@SeanWheeler100 4 ай бұрын

Everyone has emotions. Even stoic people.

@SlapstickGenius23 4 ай бұрын

Yes! Doyle’s estate needs to calm down!

@timrollpickering 4 ай бұрын

@@SlapstickGenius23 All the Holmes stories are now public domain everywhere. The estate (IIRC there were two competing entities with complicated claims that basically traced back to different children of Sir Arthur - his will was one of the worst things he ever wrote and caused decades of mess) based its claims on the last ten or so stories that were still under US copyright and couldn't rely solely on the idea that the character remained under copyright until the entire canon was in the public domain but rather also pushed for infringement of the last part.

@evanhoffman7995 4 ай бұрын

Right. One of the groups was much more legitimate than the other, but it had enough of a claim that it wouldn't just go away. When the RDJ Holmes movies were being made, they threatened to sue the producers and walked away with a fair amount of money, because when you're a giant production company it's easier to pay annoying people off than fight them in court.

@ThatElfNerd 4 ай бұрын

So one thing I noticed that not everyone talks about when it comes to "which versions of Mickey Mouse are copyrightable," Mickey Mouse is shown with the white gloves and pie eyes during the beginning and end cards. He may not be in colour, but they are other features. Another thing is that there are other Mickey Mouse pieces of media that are currently in the public domain, including some comics, as well as the Mickey Mouse short: "The Mad Doctor," which came out much later than Steamboat Willie, but who's copyright wasn't properly filed, making it, and the character of the Mad Doctor Public Domain. With this in mind, you could legally say that there are ways of using later features of Mickey, using the argument that you're still using parts of the character that are in the public domain, and therefore aren't violating any copyright laws. That being said, every version of Mickey I made will feature him with five fingers instead of four, which will make him extra different from the Disney version. You can also do similar changes to Oswald The Lucky Rabbit. Disney's Oswald was actually never featured with gloves and shoes, so if you give them to him, you've created a version of Oswald that is your own design, rather than Disney's.

@burp2019 3 ай бұрын

there's also a 1928 poster where he's in color, the same colors as modern mickey

@rachelcook6867 4 ай бұрын

I challenge anyone to give a succinct description of who exactly Mickey is. Sometimes he's a loveable scamp, and sometimes he's the only sane one among his friends. He's whoever the story needs him to be.

@Sam_on_YouTube 4 ай бұрын

Fun fact from law school, they used to publish some fake names and numbers in the White Pages so they could catch anyone who wasn't just using the same public domain information but actually copying their work. Map makers often do the same thing, including some small things that don't actually exist to catch people copying them.

@jupiterkansas 4 ай бұрын

It would be easy to do this for books too. You'd only have to change a few words to make each copy unique and identifiable.

@tomlxyz 4 ай бұрын

@@jupiterkansas but what book contains a text that on its own is not copyright protected already?

@lateoclock4281 4 ай бұрын

@@tomlxyz A dictionary perhaps?

@MaxxJagX 4 ай бұрын

That explains why Apple Maps users were driving into the ocean for a Starbucks.

@Hermititis 4 ай бұрын

@@lateoclock4281, yep, dictionaries actually have used copyright traps. The New Oxford American Dictionary admitted to doing so in 2005 (the word was "esquivalience"), and Websters had one in an old edition ( "jungftak").

@BritishTeaLover 4 ай бұрын

Fun/Random Copyright law fact, in the UK the Copyright to Peter Pan will never expire, due to a clause in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act (CDPA) of 1988. This is because it was gifted to Great Ormond Street Hospital (one of the best childrens hospitals in the world, which is also privately run) as a way to secure funding for them in perpetuity so they could keep treating sick kids.

@Harry-cj3yu 4 ай бұрын

That seems fair and I hope no one ever tries to argue that

@tressonkaru7410 4 ай бұрын

According to what I could find on Wikipedia, After the copyright first expired in the UK at the end of 1987 - 50 years after Barrie's death - the UK government's Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988[24] granted the hospital a perpetual right to collect royalties for public performances and commercial publication of the work within the UK. This did not grant GOSH full copyright control over the work, however. When UK copyright terms were later extended to the author's life plus 70 years by a European Union directive in 1996, GOSH revived its full copyright claim on the work. After the copyright expired again in 2007, the terms of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act again applied.

@cericat 4 ай бұрын

One of the nicest things Barrie could have done for them in the first place was his donation of the rights in 1929. Though I somewhat question "one of the best children's hospitals" on a lot of levels since I remember when they were investigated for removing and selling organs and tissue from patients without consent in 2001 (an act that had been ongoing for decades) and other incidents since that are beyond depressing such as injecting glue into a girl's brain.

@karlrovey 4 ай бұрын

Doesn't France have a similar provision for those killed in service to France? For example, Jehan Alain's compositions are still under copyright there despite it being more than 60 years after his death in World War II.

@tressonkaru7410 4 ай бұрын

@karlrovey it probably varies from country to country. But, as legal eagle says, it depends.

@scottg.g.haller3291 4 ай бұрын

I always understood that the original length of copyright was designed to financially reward the creators of the works throughout their lifetimes then expire, preventing their descendants from continuing to profit. Disney extending the length of copyright was enabling the kind of legacy profit making that was not intended.

@becauseimafan Ай бұрын

This ☝️☝️☝️

@Locut0s 4 ай бұрын

One thing that watching your videos has taught me that I don’t think a lot of he general public understands is how fluid the law is and up to interpretation. How often it’s not necessarily clear at all if something is legal or not until it’s tested in court regardless of what people say or is on paper. Which is fascinating.

@FriendofWigner 4 ай бұрын

I've mentioned this on other videos, but a big issue with copyright is music education. If you get a standard method book, all of the songs were old when my parents were kids. People often get into music because they want to play songs by their favorite artists, but it is prohibitively expensive to add even a snippet of a modern song. Just think in 50 years, they'll be putting the Beatles in song books, and kids will be like, "Who is that?"

@Compucles 4 ай бұрын

To be fair, it takes years of lessons on any instrument before someone is ready to play any full modern songs. By that point, most musicians will have a good idea of whether or not they want to go further with playing music.

@mechadeka 4 ай бұрын

I can't wait for childrens' music books with Why Don't We Do It in the Road

@FriendofWigner 4 ай бұрын

@@Compucles Ode to Joy is in the first ten to twenty pages of any music book. You don't learn the whole thing, you just learn the basic melody. The same can be done almost any modern song. Learning all the accompanying parts and how they work is of course more advanced, but kids will get bored long before they get there. I personally have a dozen music method books collecting dust because Lone Star Waltz is not something I have ever heard performed, nor do I particularly care to. The only reason I am any good at Ukulele is because I skipped the books and went straight to learning songs. Funny thing; first song I learned the basic strumming chords was Can Help Falling In Love by Elvis. also the first song after getting a book of finger-style arrangements. Would have been much more difficult if I hadn't learned the basic version first.

@SianaGearz 4 ай бұрын

@@Compucles Uhmmm 4-chord pop music doesn't count as music that people want to play?

@chainswordcs 4 ай бұрын

@@FriendofWigneranother good example of this would be pop music arranged for middle and high school level choir, those tend to be pretty simple (assuming it's not an acapella arrangement)

@christianneal2905 4 ай бұрын

A fun little fact learned from a history of animation class, Mickey's original name was going to be Mortimer mouse, however his wife found the name ridiculous and then suggested Mickey mouse.

@georgehugh3455 4 ай бұрын

I guess that explains why their daughters were named Diane and Sharon instead of Elvira and Morticia....

@shereadsmysteries 4 ай бұрын

Yup! And then they did create a Mortimer Mouse. He was kind of a love rival and tried to get Minnie away from Mickey.

@PetProjects2011 4 ай бұрын

There was also a toy 'Micky Mouse' (no 'e') that predated Mickey Mouse which may have inspired Disney.

@3d9e 4 ай бұрын

I'm glad Greece never copyright all of their philosophers work indefintely: achimedes, pythagoras , socrates, etc

@EliStettner 2 ай бұрын

In fact, copying books you owned and then giving them as gifts to your friends was the only way new copies were made! No publishers back then.

@Keithustus 2 ай бұрын

@@EliStettner "books" :) My how evreyday technology has changed. Now I use the Kindle app on a "retina" screen instead of paper.

@clarafedde8674 4 ай бұрын

Fun fact about the Sherlock estate...they sue everyone who tries to use the character. Capcom Ace Attorney made a ye olde version and added an unique adaptation, but when it came to localization, they didn't have to wait for the dmca...so they named him Herlock Sholmes. Irony is this name was to parody him for decades. Same with Broccoli and James Bond.

@valencebond9385 4 ай бұрын

Ah glad to see you talking about this. Though I am curious to see what the public domain does with Mickey. Sherlock Holmes and Dracula survived so long because of public domain, so it will be interesting to see what other people can do

@cericat 4 ай бұрын

As Devin pointed out though both the estates of Arthur Conan Doyle, and Bram Stoker are litigious even now especially with the Dacre Stoker "sequel" attempting to regain control of the IP about a decade or so ago. And I would not be surprised if that's why Brian Herbert (hack that he is) wrote those damn atrocious Dune prequels etc to make the lineage harder to fight for a while (though it'll be another few decades before Dune enters the public domain as Frank only died in 86).

@user-uc8yv6zg3t 4 ай бұрын

Some good things can happen but mostly it's just creatively daft people trying to use a name for marketing.we saw it last year with Winnie the pooh blood and honey and already there was horror movie trailer including mickey.

@danilooliveira6580 4 ай бұрын

there is nothing worse than those "estates" of long dead creators. they are basically carrion feeding on the corpse of their long dead relatives to maintain their fortune. all they do is sell the rights to the highest bigger no matter how much they plan to butcher it, and launch lawsuits on anyone that even remotely references their IP without paying them first. creations should enter public domain as soon as the creator is dead, hell, I'll argue it should enter public domain even if the creator is still alive but enough time has passed.

@Compucles 4 ай бұрын

@@danilooliveira6580 But there are many cases where it's ambiguous as to who the "creator" is, or exactly how many and which different people deserve partial credit as the creators. Besides, what if the author dies only a couple of years later or dies before he/she can complete a set of stories? That would allow any hack to publish their own sequel or continuation while the original is still fresh in everyone's minds, especially in the latter case where the author's estate needs control as to who (if anyone) if officially allowed to complete the story.

@cericat 4 ай бұрын

@@danilooliveira6580 About the only disagreement I have is if the creator is still developing their material, but yes definitely if they've walked away from it there's a solid argument that release to the public domain would be appropriate.

@LynetteTheMadScientist 4 ай бұрын

@unsuspiciousdweller8967 4 ай бұрын

Hell, i'd argue even shorter. 20-30 years, or 15 after death.

@lucio-ohs8828 4 ай бұрын

@@unsuspiciousdweller8967the 15 years is unnecessary. Just the authors lifespan and nothing more.

@yaziyo 4 ай бұрын

@@lucio-ohs8828I agree that current copyright law is ridiculous, but you probably don't want to create a financial incentive to murder artists

@cylemons8099 4 ай бұрын

@@yaziyo If someone murders the author, copyright infringement is the least of their concerns legally speaking.

@virvewirllos 4 ай бұрын

@@yaziyo When it comes to popular art and media, very rarely does a singular artist hold full ownership over their creations nowadays. Even when the property itself is the result of a single artist (or a small group of like-minded ones) and not something crafted in a board meeting, the best they can do is strike the less predatory deal of the ones they get offered since otherwise they know once the idea it's been deem profitable, it is only a matter of time for one of the people making the offers to just cut the artist entirely and steal the concept with some small tweaks to fill the niche by themselves without having to bother giving any scraps, often times having them blacklisted to the point where their career on that field is effectively over. And even if the stealing is blantant enough to warrant a case the corporation can just bleed the artist dry with legal fees or effectively outlive them. Copyright law as it stands is already a messy, convoluted anti-artist nightmare in the current landscape, there is already an incentive for artists to conveniently die since the ones usually holding the copyright are the corporations and "their state", and it's only going to get worse with AI bein able to replicate the style or likeness of said artists. This is really obvious with the music industry, with Michael Jackson having generated and absurd amount of cash for "his state" after his death, but the fiasco with Taylor Swift made it clear that the labels don't even need the artists physically dead to claim ownership of their body of work. I suspect in a few years it will be an industry standard for contracts to include a clause to allow for labels to create a voicebank off of their talents and for visual studios to allow to feed the work of their employees to train their own propietary models, and if copyright is falling short now, I cannot imagine them faring any better at protecting the actual artists when dealing with systems we barely understand as is.

@Iluvlollipops 4 ай бұрын

There was a star wars shop in Aberdeen Washington, but the owner started spouting conspiracies from his shop and got into an argument with a city council member over his displays on the sidewalk. Someone in the town contacted Disney, added pictures of his signs, shop, and the mural on the side of the building, to their report, and less than 3 months later he closed due to a copyright cease and desist from Disney. The sun damaged posters and conspiracy signs are gone, but the mural stays, and will likely stay for years more.

@UnboundParadigm 4 ай бұрын

Steamboat Willie was NOT the first cartoon with a synchronised soundtrack. Max Fleischer's My Old Kentucky Home was released in 1926, two years before Disney's Steamboat Willie.

@jabba334 4 ай бұрын

Disney has long been responsible for extending copywrite WAY beyond what it's original intent was and has ultimately damaged creativity and culture because of it (IMO).

@lich109 4 ай бұрын

Glad to see you talking about this. Personally I hate how far companies can push IP by lobbying (aka bribing) the government, and any limited amount of public domain to their properties is welcome.

@codename1176 4 ай бұрын

So you think no company should be allowed to protect its mascot?

@MrWWIIBuff 4 ай бұрын

@@codename1176So you are saying Disney should own a mouse with red shorts and white gloves forever?

@aleide2980 4 ай бұрын

@@codename1176 The law was pretty clear, if you choose to keep your mascot for 50+ years you should expect it to go public, deciding you don't like the law and paying to change it shouldn't be possible

@baconwizard 4 ай бұрын

@@codename1176 we’re on about an order of a century and no this isnt just company mascots, this is every copyrighted work that includes artists long dead.

@Abyzz_Knight 4 ай бұрын

@@codename1176buddy, this is the same company that became so massively successful due to it's use of the public domain. Extending copyright to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain is pure hypocrisy.

@ride-playerbb2818 4 ай бұрын

I'm surprised that not many people talk about two notable things about this 1. Steamboat Willie isn't the only Mickey Mouse short whose copyright expired. So did the silent versions of Plane Crazy and The Gallopin Gaucho, the former has a notably different design from Steamboat Mickey while Gaucho uses both for some reason. Plane Crazy Mickey, who predates Steamboat Mickey, isn't subjected to the same Trademark issue that Steamboat has 2. The trademark in question feautures Mickey steering the wheel. He also wears a hat. He doesn't wear said hat for the rest of the short. Regular hatless Mickey isn't trademarked as far as I know

@burp2019 3 ай бұрын

there's also the question of the colored mickey used for its posters

@EinDose 4 ай бұрын

Something worth keeping in mind is that Steamboat Willie wasn't the only Mickey Mouse thing released that year, and therefore not the only thing in public domain. That year also had the first color image of Mickey Mouse. The color scheme isn't exactly what we identify with Mickey Mouse (skin was a different color, and while he had gloves they were yellow instead of white), but he does have the yellow shoes and red pants.

@Ergeniz 4 ай бұрын

Still waiting on Donald.

@EinDose 4 ай бұрын

@@Ergeniz Donald first turned up in 1934, and Goofy in 1932. So in 2030, we can put the entire primary Disney cast of Kingdom Hearts in anything we want.

@Ergeniz 4 ай бұрын

@@EinDose Yay

@residentgrigo4701 4 ай бұрын

The original Mickey wore red shorts. Steamboat Willie had colored posters that reveal such a detail so you can use that color in your new OG canon animation, shorts and so on.

@Rubberman202 4 ай бұрын

I like how Devin made a joke about Mickey Mouse getting a horror movie, even though there are at least 3 Mickey-themed horror movies (as well at least one horror game) announced since Steamboat Willie hit the public domain, some of them being announced literally the same day. Perhaps that line was written before he knew about all that stuff? Probably wrote this episode before January 1st then...

@DerekScottBland 4 ай бұрын

One of the movies was almost completed before Jan 1, they were just waiting until 2024 to release it.

@csidesummit6436 4 ай бұрын

You know what would be an interesting point to make? In Kingdom Hearts II the trio travel to the Timeless River, a level based on Steamboat Willie, and I believe in-game they stated the "Willie" of that period to be the present day Mickey Mouse's past self.

@coley4242 4 ай бұрын

I would love to see someone explain Kingdom Hearts lore in court 😂

@herosquad90 3 ай бұрын

@@coley4242" You see your honor, his friends are his power."

@thegreatstoneddragon9432 3 ай бұрын

Unrelated, but remember, as a kid, thinking it was weird that Tarzan only appeared in the first game and no other. It was only later in life that, after the first game, the rights went back to the Burroughs estate and they wouldn't allow the game to use it again.

@csidesummit6436 3 ай бұрын

@@thegreatstoneddragon9432 That's an interesting bit of trivia.

@Bigandrewm 4 ай бұрын

Copyright as it exists today is actually destructive. The extreme length of time basically gives corporations a monopoly over iconic cultural symbols that any reasonable person would assume they could play with. Reasonable, meaning stuff their great-grandparents liked. That's messed up.

@_NoDrinkTheBleach 4 ай бұрын

Steamboat Willie is a fascinating piece of cinema history. The content of the cartoon is so crass compared to later Disney works. I'm honestly surprised that they didn't try to disappear it like Song of the South. I'm glad the short is in the public domain, regardless of how Disney decides to defend its Mickey-centric trademarks in the future.

@drdewott9154 4 ай бұрын

Yeah exactly. Heck if anything those old school cartoon shorts of the 20's and early 30's share a surprising amount of similarities with modern day shitposting, which many smaller animations on the internet are based around, especially in the 2000's and 2010's. But like with the development of studio animation in the 1930's, we now also see massive new developments in Online animation with less shitposting and more ambitious storytelling. If anything one could argue that Hazbin Hotel was to Indie Online Animation, what Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs was to animation as a whole back in the 1930's. Also going back to Steamboat Willie yeah its crass. I honestly wouldnt be surprised if some souls online are doing something even more crass with it just because they can, like make a pornographic scene that perfectly matches the style of the original short and find a way to edit it into the short seamlessly.

@matthewgillies7509 4 ай бұрын

The earliest films were usually forays into stories and hijinks that would never be seen in real life. The departure into fantasy, made real on the screen, was the main attraction to early cinema. Animation in particular was only limited by the skills of those drawing it, and as they improved so too did their films, and it was reflected in the artistic quality of the films themselves. 1920s and early 1930s animated shorts were prone to vaudevillian gags and slapstick humour. Once Walt Disney tired of having Mickey being the source of the chaos, (and general public discomfort for him being on the receiving end of it, due to the mouse being small and sympathetic) he matured the character, and delegated the craziness to Donald Duck and Goofy. Once Walt Disney moved away from slapstick almost entirely, Warner Brothers filled the void by creating Bugs Bunny. I can easily see Disney making its case for Trademark, and for continued copyright protection of the Mickey character.

@waterandafter 4 ай бұрын

I thought Tom & Jerry was bad until I saw the animal torture in Steamboat Willy.

@ethancox9737 4 ай бұрын

@@matthewgillies7509 Yes, all of the newer stuff about Mickey is still going to be copyrighted.

@ScooterinAB 4 ай бұрын

True. It's very funny that they are trying to keep the short relevant, despite Mickey being a dirtbag. In the other short in public domain (Plane Crazy?), Mickey channels his inner Pepe Le Pew and sexually assaults Minnie. He forces himself on her when she blocks his advances, to the point of her slapping him and having to jump from a plane to escape him. It's funny how much they are doubling down on this instead of trying to distance themselves from those shorts.

@jormungandrtheworldserpent8382 4 ай бұрын

the thing i find most fascinating about public domain is even when something finally enters public domain you can still only use the earliest version of it and you cant add changes in design or abilities until the date of those changes also enters the public domain for example superman couldn't originally fly so you cant depict him flying until the issue where he first fly's comes into public domain

@SylviaRustyFae 4 ай бұрын

Ofc, you cant do any of that tho here on youtube; bcuz guess what... Companies dont care about our rights or what the law says. So youtube doesnt care one iota that Steamboat Willies copyright is expired, theyll continue to allow Disney to copyright claim/strike videos that use footage from it; bcuz its still in the content ID system All those creators who posted the vid, as theyre lawfully allowed to do, at the turn of the yr have received copyright claims or strikes removin the content entirely. Bcuz Disney is falsely claimin to still hold the copyright

@formlessone8246 4 ай бұрын

Actually, Superman is an interesting case study, because there's already Superman media in the public domain. The Max Fleischer cartoons are, like all of Max Fleischer's work, in the PD because they didn't file for an extension after going out of business. Similarly, the Adventures of Superman radio show is in the public domain as well. Now IANAL, but apparently Superman himself and all the characters from the comics are still copyright because they were used under license, but that doesn't stop people from posting the radio show and Fleischer's shorts online for free. It also means that potentially when Superman becomes PD, you won't actually be restricted to the first year of Action Comics' run, but can also draw from the cartoon and radio show for lore. Kryptonite was created for the radio show, and while I am certain it's trademarked, it might already be PD as a concept as a result. There's just nothing to do with it until Superman enters the PD as well. As for flight, most people agree that he gained that ability as a result of Max Fleischer's animators cheating physics whenever he utilized his super jumping power, allowing him to change direction mid air like Super Mario, or lingering in the air longer than he should. They never said he could fly, and he certainly wasn't shown levitating like his modern counterpart, but if it worked as an out then, it might work as an out once he enters the PD so long as you treat his power more like a rocket crossed with Mario physics and don't have him hover in place for too long.

@BATCHARRO 4 ай бұрын

@@formlessone8246 I've done some research and it seems both flight and Kryptonite happened first in the radio show although... It's been a while since I listened I don't know if it was described as glowing or green or anything like that.

@formlessone8246 4 ай бұрын

@@BATCHARRO flight "officially" debuted in the radio show, but in the title card of the first Fleischer cartoon Superman can clearly be seen rocketing around in circles. It was later that the animators asked to make flight an official power in order to make their jobs easier, and DC obliged, with the radio show being the first place it happened. Though there was an earlier comic story where he could fly due to the writer misunderstanding that the character was only supposed to be able to jump 1/8'th of a mile.

@BATCHARRO 4 ай бұрын

@@formlessone8246 I wonder if they'll really launch a huge legal issue over flight for the ONE year if anyone big enough tries.

@AnonymousAnarchist2 4 ай бұрын

Public domain is protection for the public against an endless stream of sequals, reboots, and monoplizing. This heckscape of absolutly nothing new was absolutly predicted, lobby, petition, and write your congressperson and implore them to restore reasonably short copywrite periods.

@Babihrse 4 ай бұрын

Listening to you explain this makes my head spin. Imagine the court case about derivative likenesses of Mickey mouse. I don't imagine even a judge would want to preside over it.

@strikermodel 4 ай бұрын

Going to public domain after a time makes perfect sense. Once a character, idea, method, ect has been around for long enough it evolves into a part of the trade and culture. I also respect copyright laws existing to allow the creator complete control of their creation artistically as well as financially, allowing them to enjoy their creation to the fullest during their life time. However, the current iteration is excessive and frustrating. Especially in particular towards IPs or media that have become lost media. There are a large number of games, movies, and TV shows that are trapped in a limbo where they aren't being used or distributed by the one holding the IP anywhere, and are being held in that limbo for decades. By the time the IP is set free, restoring said media becomes difficult if not impossible, and the dedicated fans who waited for the time that they could experience or share said media they enjoyed will have either passed on or have forgotten it. It would be nice if the copyright laws moved a property into public domain sooner if it isn't utilized in some way, specifically allowing for non-profit use by others.

@me-myself-i787 4 ай бұрын

Archiving falls under Fair Use. So, you can store a copy of a work for archival purposes as long as you don't use it until it reaches the public domain.

@greywolf7577 4 ай бұрын

Maybe the solution to that would be to require copyright to be renewed more frequently. That way if a company isn't creating a game or movie or TV show and isn't profiting off of it, then they won't want to go through the extra time and expense of renewing the copyright each time. That would kick a lot more things into the public domain.

@shelleymaclean3181 4 ай бұрын

@greywolf7577 But it throws the door WIDE OPEN for smaller creators who don't have the bandwidth to do that. You'd probably see bigger companies simply investing time figuring out whose copyrights were expiring and snatching up those ideas.

@greywolf7577 4 ай бұрын

But under my plan, the copyrights would have to be renewed, perhaps every year and if the owner didn't do that, the material would become public domain. So if a larger company wanted the copyrights, they'd have to buy it before the owner fails to renew the copyright. If they wait until the copyright expires from failure to renew it, then the bigger company would no longer be able to buy it. Yes, maybe a larger company would go around offering money to buy copyrights before they expire and the horde a large number of them and not do anything with them, but I still think that larger companies wouldn't want to go to the expense of hiring someone to renew large numbers of copyrights that they weren't going to use anyway. Plus, the larger company might be better in a position to actually use the copyright to make something which the creator might not have the means to do if they still owned it.@@shelleymaclean3181

@matteste 4 ай бұрын

@@me-myself-i787 The problem is that many of these copyright holders love to go after archives regardless of fair use.

@jamesmoyner7499 4 ай бұрын

I was wondering when you were going to talk about this. The copyright system in America and around the world is insanely broken especially when you learn the Founding Father had copyright terms limited to 28 years maximum (one 14 year term with an optional extension of another 14 years). I personally think the maximum amount of time should be 30 years. That is more than enough time for a work to make money even if it isn’t a hit the first time around.

@chongjunxiang3002 4 ай бұрын

In addition for authorship for writers. Writer/individual copyright countdown only start after their death and countdown for 70 years. That means just like Sherlock Holmes case, Harry Potters is still copyrighted works belong to either her grandson or a multimillion dollar estate corporation.

@MijmerMopper 4 ай бұрын

@@supervegito2277 A LOT of great fangames are free. So no money to split

@c0mpu73rguy 4 ай бұрын

I hope we'll someday go back on all these laws.

@KurenaiNanashi 4 ай бұрын

Since life expectancy has gone up I’d be fine with it being 50 years. 95 is way too long for it to exist.

@agilemind6241 4 ай бұрын

@@KurenaiNanashi I'd argue 50 years or 10 years after the author's death, whichever is shorter. Dead authors can't produce more works so there is no point giving them copyright protection.

@A.Filthy.Casual 4 ай бұрын

Wild to me that disney continues to fight this badly to just slap lawsuits on anything approaching their IPs when it just kills their image and reduces the proliferation of their characters' popularity.

@hoi-polloi1863 4 ай бұрын

I think that in addition to Disney's unpalatable motives, they also have an interest in preventing or delaying "Rule 34 Mickey", which I can certainly understand.

@julietfischer5056 3 ай бұрын

@@hoi-polloi1863- You know that's already happened.

@burp2019 3 ай бұрын

@@hoi-polloi1863 that battle was lost before the term existed

@Sojoboscribe 4 ай бұрын

There's a similar situation to the Sherlock Holmes on with L. Frank Baum's Oz books. All of the books and characters from the 14 books Baum wrote are in public domain, which means writers can use any of them freely. But some of the ones from his "successor", Ruth Plumy Thompson, ARE still under copyright, so they CAN'T be used. This comes to a head with respect to the actual later books, for which the copyright is held by Del Ray books. They don't want to publish new editions, because they don't feel there is still a big enough market for them. But they also don't want anyone else to since they still hold the copyright and would lose it and or some of the money it generates (even if someone leased them from it, there would still be money the leaser would be getting, and they want ALL the money it generates.) The end effect is that a lot of the later books are somewhat hard to find copies of, since you have to rely either on original printings (which now often dating to almost a century old, get rare and expensive) or the very few limited run reprints of some they authorized over time, which are also often scarce.

@THEREALVITO 4 ай бұрын

I've heard some arguments that the gloves, yellow shoes and red pants can in fact be used, because, although Steamboat Willie does not depict Mickey with these, advertisement posters from the same time period sometimes do, in color. One of them (Search "Mickey Mouse Sound Cartoon Poster") shows him with red pants, (albeit) yellow gloves, and brown shoes. Another one for the cartoon "Gallopin' Gaucho", which itself also entered the public domain, has both a black and white and color version (as well as silent or with sound), and the color version made for TV depicted him with yellow shoes and red shorts (as well as plain dotted eyes rather than pac-man style eyes). However, it's unclear when the color version of GG was made, likely many decades later, and I'm not sure if the colorized version has a separate copyright.

@tinkerer3399 4 ай бұрын

The colourized version would indeed have its own copyright. The big question that no one is addressing is if the later changes to Mickey are enough to truly count as distinct.

@erraticonteuse 4 ай бұрын

Haha I remember the first time I saw the Steamboat Willy opening logo, I immediately knew what Disney was playing at. It'll be interesting to see what happens going forward, but at least they're not keeping the rest of creation out of the PD any more. Also, to me the funniest argument in a Sherlock Holmes copyright case was when the Doyle estate said that Holmes didn’t show any emotions until after WWI, so you couldn’t write him being sentimental while those last stories were still under copyright.

@setlerking 4 ай бұрын

amazing lol

@SylviaRustyFae 4 ай бұрын

Disney is still protectin its expired copyright of Steamboat Willie here on youtube by copright claimin/strikin vids of it posted here; as there is no automatic removal of expired copyrights from the content ID system Even without lobbyin Congress, Disney has been able to extend its copyright on streamin platforms like youtube; bcuz youtube isnt gonna go to bat with Disney for the sake of its small creators KZfaq doesnt care one iota about us the creators on their platform; they care solely about their advertisers and the other companies with the power to financially ruin them if they so chose KZfaq is scared of Disney, so youtube isnt gonna stop Disney from abusin the content ID system any time soon

@nick6var 4 ай бұрын

I have suspected that the company's remake trend is all about providing some legal protection for their works. For example, the ruby slippers in The Wizard of Oz was a unique creation of that production. Only companies that own the feature film can use the ruby slippers (like the 1990s cartoon). Films based on the classic novels cannot show the ruby slippers, but can utilize the silver ones from the novel.

@micraan1579 4 ай бұрын

If later Mickey Mouse and later Sherlock Holmes are sufficiently different from their initial conceptions that they count as different characters, anyone should be able to take any character currently under copyright, make similarly small changes to them and be safe from prosecution. The same standards should apply in either case.

@lomiification 4 ай бұрын

I think the distinction isn't whether they're derivative, but whether they're different enough to receive separate protection. Spielberg needed permission for Jurassic park, but then has a copyright on the Jurassic park movie

@burp2019 3 ай бұрын

they're legally distinct enough

@jonathanj8303 4 ай бұрын

13:52 "for it to be original, it must have at least a modicum of creativity". That might be Disney's real current problem.

@Mice-stro 4 ай бұрын

Disney forgot "don't put all your eggs in one basket" and that's why the internet is going nuts now that they have (semi) free reign

@katiehesse6578 4 ай бұрын

I mean they def have a lot of baskets, as they're on pace to own most companies by decades end

@hieronymusbutts7349 4 ай бұрын

Every reiteration of Mickey Mouse is its own IP. Every Mickey Mouse has its own legal team - a sentence that admittedly makes me sound insane.

@ItsMeHammie 4 ай бұрын

Lol this is so false. Look up what Disney owns ie Marvel, Starwars, etc. they have many baskets and many, many, many eggs

@DRourkey 4 ай бұрын

Disney screwed up the copyright laws specifically to keep mickey mouse. I think at the time it was created it was supposed to enter the public domain in 20 years. This was to prevent stagnation by letting a company monopolize and copywrite the entire entertainment industry. They kept lobbying to increase the time before stuff goes public domain and the fact they didn't this time is significant. They already did a ton of damage to our entertainment industry, and through it, our culture too however.

@hieronymusbutts7349 4 ай бұрын

Like just imagine a man walking up and yelling EVERY MICKEY MOUSE HAS ITS OWN LEGAL TEAM and wandering away You'd think I have problems, not facts

@Uatu-the-Watcher 4 ай бұрын

0:40 What’s hilarious about those memes is that, under fair use’s parody/satire protection, those joke were legal before. This is that makes 98% of memes legal already.

@Ange1ofD4rkness 4 ай бұрын

I am so glad this FINALLY happened, took way too long though. I was honestly really worried Disney would find some crummy way to get it extended again (to be honest, shouldn't have been extended in the first place). Copyright Limits, if you think about it, also help limit a company from growing out of control. For instance, keeping them from just constantly buying up IPs and creating borderline monopolies.

@HinataElyonToph 4 ай бұрын

Ah, like what Disney has already done 🤣

@8393Robertrex 4 ай бұрын

I mean. It took 100 years but Like it does for everything, in the public domain Everything is supposed to take this long

@8393Robertrex 4 ай бұрын

Like its 20*24* 100 years ago was 1924 The vast majority of mickeys cartoons are post 19*30* So the majority of the copyright wont even be allowed to expire until after, 2030+ ect.

@8393Robertrex 4 ай бұрын

Which ill be honest isnt so bad? Like each individual cartoon back then basically. Already. Had different iterations of the same character, bugs bunny for example. It genuinely was at the point in the 19 20's and 30's where you were getting a different character in each short who might not even have the same name everytime Like were talking the bare minimum, of consistency

@thechosenone5421 4 ай бұрын

@@8393Robertrex doesn't really matter bcs mikey now is trademark

@ReaverRoyale 4 ай бұрын

Copyright law is frustrating. Having media held back from the public domain for nearly a century is an absurd amount of time.

@jakubrogacz6829 4 ай бұрын

Especially since there are problems with some pieces of media from 1990s already becoming lost forever.

@erikrinard7908 4 ай бұрын

"Yes we lived in a constant state of being doxed, I don't know what to tell you." LMAO that was a good one. To be fair, pre-internet it took a lot more work to find someone's information and do anything with it. It was a lot harder for someone in NYC to publish the information of someone in LA in hopes of getting strangers to do their dirty work. You were better off just waiting for drunk driving and second hand smoke to take care of whatever problem you had with them.

@TheGreatAtario 4 ай бұрын

Not to mention, it wasn't hard to sic the phone company and/or the police on them to get them in legal trouble.

@Msimo14 4 ай бұрын

"Hi, I saw your ad and wanted to hire the Eagle Team. I'm being sued by Disney and-" *click* "Hello? Hello? Anyone there?"

@user-if1ki6rn5u 4 ай бұрын

OBJECTION! 14:00 You can't fool me with your black and white filter; those are clearly yellow pages! 🤣 Consider this an order to show cause for your editor. He thought we wouldn't notice... but we did. For any of LegalEagle's viewers that didn't know what white pages were, yellow pages were the other half of the phone book and contained business listings which is why there are a bunch of different-sized ads. You could pay the phone company (who provided the phone books to their customers) for more page space for your business listing so people would be more likely to call you instead of one of your competitors. White pages were just alphabetically-listed names next to the phone numbers registered to them. You could pay the phone company an extra fee for an "unlisted number" to exclude you from the phone book if you were worried about doxxing back then but most people weren't as I recall. Great video as usual!

@michaelbaker8890 4 ай бұрын

To the Sherlock Holmes thing: I remember that the Doyle estate went after the Enola Holmes series--after the movie did fairly well--on the basis that the Sherlock character in the series showed elements of empathy more consistent with the later (still copyrighted) stories and which were not a part of the character in the earlier stories. I don't think that panned out for them, either.

@gothicgolem2947 4 ай бұрын

Do you know why the Doyle estate Süd- in America and not he Uk courts? I thought Sherlock home was made in the Uk

@michaelbaker8890 4 ай бұрын

If I had to guess, it's related to how strongly US law favors trademark and copyright holders, as stated in the video. Also, the author of Enola Holmes is American, and Netflix is a US company.

@LeannLeannProduction 3 ай бұрын

Oh they're still at it huh? That's exactly why the release of The Great Ace Attorney games in the west was delayed for so long; apparently the Doyle estate thought the Sherlock character was way too similar to how he appears in the later stories (with dramatic emotions! and how!), so it wasn't allowed to be released outside of Japan. The localization team finally managed to slip it past them though by simply renaming the character Herlock Sholmes, and the games came out a couple of years ago on the Switch. When I first heard about this silly legal battle I was soooo mad; that THAT was the reason for the delay, that it prevented me from playing the game on the 3DS in glorious 3D along with the other Ace Attorney games, and that they gave him such a stupid name! All over a few stories that MAY have changed the character enough to be a separate entity? Ridiculous. I love Herlock and the original Sherlock though so I can't stay mad when I can still enjoy the characters themselves :D

@michaelbaker8890 3 ай бұрын

Hah, that's a classic solution. Back in 1906, Maurice LeBlanc wrote a story where his gentleman-burglar Arsene Lupin had a battle of the wits with Sherlock Holmes (the first of three such stories), and Doyle quite rightfully protested. So for those stories in the first and second Lupin collections, the great detective's name was changed to Herlock Sholmes, with his faithful assistant, Wilson.

@mattg6106 4 ай бұрын

Kind of ironic how Walt Disney, a man that was ousted from his position through greedy corporate practices to keep their employees' wages low, started one of the greediest corporations to date.

@zombieoverlord5173 4 ай бұрын

Makes one think it might be a systemic issue rather than choices by a few men

@GRB-tj6uj 4 ай бұрын

Walt Disney did a fair amount of union busting himself

@mattg6106 4 ай бұрын

@@zombieoverlord5173 but how could corporations buying out lawmakers' loyalties possibly be considered a problem? /s

@mattg6106 4 ай бұрын

@@GRB-tj6uj funny how things change when you're the one to profit, eh?

@gota7738 4 ай бұрын

It is kind of amazing how much it reads like a classic tragic backstory for the antagonist of a children's story.

@lyndakorner2383 3 ай бұрын

Tarzan's Treehouse was recently reconfigured at Disneyland in order to remove associations with Tarzan because, while Tarzan is no longer copyrighted, the character, and other indicia, are trademarks of Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc. So, Disneyland would have had to renew the license The Walt Disney Company had in order to continue using these trademarks at the Disneyland attraction.

@TheSeth1992 4 ай бұрын

Thank you for this video, Legal Eagle, this helped me and my team with a lot of legal questions we had for a similar question for another character

@arvetis 4 ай бұрын

I think the interesting question is, if modern Mickey really is a separate character, when does his copyright expire? It can't just go on forever.

@chongjunxiang3002 4 ай бұрын

Yeah, after 50s, animated character were drawn based on a character standard reference sheet. Which means while the story of an animation can go public domain, the likeness of the given character is still in copyright, as long as the finale of the character appearance (or the use of such version of reference) is still copyright. Now everyone can use the early Mickey because his likeness only appear in this shorts. Also which mean the modern red overall Mickey is not only in copyright, but still in active used, so functionally an eternal copyright.

@chongjunxiang3002 4 ай бұрын

Tom and Jerry, for examples. Perhaps only the Puss gets the Boots version could useable as this version of cat and mouse only appear once. Puss gets the Boots version of Tom use real cat sound, has paws instead of hands. While Jerry does not change much except rounder.

@cericat 4 ай бұрын

If we go off when the gloves were added The Opry House will enter PD this year, if they tried to argue off the red shorts that's only 2030 (The Band Concert) when that got set in stone, prior to 1935 they went back and forth between green and red.

@shereadsmysteries 4 ай бұрын

True, but I believe his trademark can as long as he is being used as the logo/face of their brand.

@tinkerer3399 4 ай бұрын

@@cericat The gloves were in Steamboat Willie's title card and marketing.

@fennec13 4 ай бұрын

Also there is also supposed to be a Horror version of Bambi on the way too - where he's on a rampage to kill a woman and her son lost in the forest - lol

@arturoaguilar6002 4 ай бұрын

"He is more of a trickster than the wholesome piece of intellectual property that we know today" That's for sure. Half of the Steamboat Willie short is Mickey abusing animals to use them as musical instruments. LOL "The Doyle State threatened to sue" He should had gone with Maurice Leblanc's (and Capcom's) strategy and renamed the character Herlock Sholmes or something. PS: Only Legal Eagle could make the implied boast that his firm has better lawyers than Disney's.

@burp2019 3 ай бұрын

interesting how you can use his real name in japan but not here

@parmesanzero7678 4 ай бұрын

It’s amazing how much innovation has been stifled for the last 50 years. It’s one think to protect Mickey Mouse, but think of all the other works that have been kept from being used as source material for derivative innovation.

@Roxor128 3 ай бұрын

I have to wonder about the domain of computing. No piece of software has had its copyright expire yet, and the first ones won't happen until the 2040s. If copyright were shortened to 50 years, we'd get everything up to 1974, which would not only cover the entire era of valves and discrete transistors, plus the software used to get humans to the moon, but we'd also get early versions of UNIX and some of the first computer games. Cut it to 40 years, and bump the threshold up to 1984 and you'd get early versions of DOS, the IBM PC's BIOS, and the microcode of the first couple of x86 processors. At 25 years, with a cutoff of 1999, you'd have almost every game written for MS-DOS, DOS itself, and Windows versions at least up to Windows 98 and NT 4 (maybe Windows 2000 and ME, depending on whether they came out the year before their names suggest or not), plus x86 microcode up to the Pentium III.

@tri4cejawn365 4 ай бұрын

Last time I was this early Steamboat willie was still copyrighted

@ButFirstHeLitItOnFire 4 ай бұрын

Ha, that actually works because that wasn’t too long ago

@diamondflaw 4 ай бұрын

A great example of the “have to use it” aspect of trademark is the red tags on Levi’s clothing. They hold a trademark on both red tags on pockets with the “LeVI’S” text and without the text. The text ones are much more common, but a percentage of the tags produced are blank with no text to maintain both trademarks.

@atomicgearworks 4 ай бұрын

I'd like to see more dives into Mickey and Winnie the Pooh. It never made sense to me that since it was only the storybook version of Pooh that was public domain, how did the makers of Blood and Honey get away with Pooh wearing red? Pooh wearing a red shirt is strictly the Disney version, which is still protected.

@Pfromm007 4 ай бұрын

Please do a video on the concept of not owning video games that people purchase and if it makes piracy legal since nothing is taken that can be owned by anyone.

@lisagarman4031 4 ай бұрын

what i hate is that by pushing the copyright back again and again it didn't just keep steamboat willie out of public domain but everything else made in that year and the years following. when people complain about there not being any original stories or movies being made and simply more and more sequels a big part of that is the copyright. normally writers would have newer things coming in to public domain and be inspired by it making a dirivitive. however, that hasn't been happening for decades. i'm really glad that will no longer be the case going forward

@shereadsmysteries 4 ай бұрын

You can still be inspired by something, though, even if it isn't public domain, as long as you don't plagiarize it. How many Hunger Games knockoffs did we get right after those books sold well? I actually think public domain is often a reason to NOT be original because then you can directly copy something that was once original without any pushback. We have so many Cinderella stories because that is a public domain story that people can easily cash in on. Disney's specific remake issue is just being money hungry and for some reason audiences buying into it? That I will NEVER understand.

@DanknDerpyGamer 4 ай бұрын

@@shereadsmysteries > *I actually think public domain is often a reason to NOT be original because then you can directly copy something that was once original without any pushback.* IMO that'ss gonna need a citation if making an absolute statement about the public domain and creativity, people doing different adaptations of a different work doesn't on its own prove anything of the sort IMO.,

@shereadsmysteries 4 ай бұрын

@@DanknDerpyGamer I don't believe I made an absolute statement. I just stated my personal opinion that creativity doesn't have to be limited to what is or isn't in the public domain and gave some examples. Just trying to bring in another way of looking at it!

@xger21 4 ай бұрын

I'd love to see a video analyzing whether Disney actually *can* use Trademark to effectively replace Copyright. Because that definitely seems like their goal, which could end badly for them

@PpVolto 4 ай бұрын

I think there was a Case with a Trademark was lost thanks to the fact that the Trademark was Based on a Work in Public Domain. The question is expired the Trademark with Steamboat Willy entering the Public Domain?

@Pablo360able 4 ай бұрын

Also, isn't trademark a use-it-or-lose-it thing? So if that's their strategy, they'd need to sue *everyone* or they'll lose automatically. Even for Disney that's going to cost a lot of billable hours.

@SylviaRustyFae 4 ай бұрын

The sad part is, they dont need to. KZfaq is allowin them to unlawfully extend copyright protection on Steamboat Willie and will gladly let them continue to copyright claim and copyright strike works based on Steamboat Willie; bcuz youtube is more afraid of litigation from Disney than they care about protectin the rights of their small creators

@BeanManolo 4 ай бұрын

Disney already lost a trademark case in Paraguay regarding Mickey aswell (see Mickey S.R.L. v Disney) so even if they trademark Steamboat Willy they're limited to only that specific bit in the logo

@TheRealScooterGuy 4 ай бұрын

Keep in mind that, even with settled law, if Disney gets into it with someone, they can "out-lawyer" the other party, and I believe they will do so just to make a point. So if there is no case law that shows what will happen, Disney will be glad to help make it.

@timeliebe 4 ай бұрын

There were actually TWO competing Doyle estate, neither a direct descendent of Arthur Conan Doyle-one which owned the earlier Holmes stories which are all in the public domain and have been for a while, and the other which owns the later Doyle stories who made the argument Devin refers to. I had thought that the suit had been dismissed with prejudice by the judge, so at least in the United States, Sherlock Holmes is completely in the public domain. Good thing for me, given I've written the pilot to a television series based on Dr. Watson's exploits during that period where Holmes pretended to be dead! 😁

@user-kk7sw3bp6r 4 ай бұрын

Good lighting and production, well done

@adrianomoraes5992 4 ай бұрын

Not sure if Devin is aware but Disney did sue a group of cartoonists, the Air Pirates, in the 70s about making porn versions of Mickey, Minnie, Donald Duck, Daisy Duck. The lawsuit went on and off for 10 years because the cartoonists would just defy law and keep doing comics of them to raise money for legal costs. If he had time or interest it would be cool to see his take on this famous lawsuit.

@thechosenone5421 4 ай бұрын

People still make porn cartoons of mickey and Co. and disney can't do anything about it

@IllusiveDev 4 ай бұрын

@@thechosenone5421It’s not that they can’t but rather they don’t see it as worth it.

@renastone9355 3 ай бұрын

"to raise money for legal costs" OMG, I am laughing so hard.

@burp2019 3 ай бұрын

lmao

@Lord_zeel 4 ай бұрын

Copyright has become such a mess thanks to Disney, that I actively wish them the worst possible outcome. But with that being said, from a perspective of "how I would expect the law to work" I think the use of Mickey as a Trademark seems really valid. It's SUCH an important part of their brand, that it would seem pretty problematic to just suddenly open the flood gates and let anyone use the character and image of Mickey as they please. He's not just a character, he's a mascot, Mickey and Disney go hand in hand in a way that most other characters don't. However, that's JUST Mickey. No other Disney character has that level of brand identity, and I don't think they should be able to wiggle their way around copyright using trademark for more than one character! I think arguing that Mikey is too integral to the brand precludes arguing the same for any other character. That is... if it wasn't Disney. Since it is Disney... f**k 'em, make them bleed.

@timsmythfilmsandanimations 4 ай бұрын

Trademarks are for the public, not the company. The trademark only works if folks are impersonating Disney, if they make it clear they are not affiliated with Disney, Disney should have no trademark claim over them, Trademark was never meant to be to be a copyright extension.

@tinkerer3399 4 ай бұрын

@@timsmythfilmsandanimations I'll go a step further and add that many judges up to and including a unanimous Supreme Court have stated that trademark MUST not be used to extend copyright.

@gregvs.theworld451 4 ай бұрын

Thing is, I really don't see it being much of a problem. Mickey is so synonymous with Disney that, okay yeah while they might lose a lot of revenue from non-Disney merch which could be a valid argument, in terms of content produced I think Disney could leverage Mickey the way brands do to almost any product with recognizability to the brand. In the same way some people won't drink or buy off brand cola because they just think Coca Cola is better because they're familiar with the brand and capitalism associates a well known brand with a perception of better quality, I feel like Disney could hold Mickey like "Yeah, other people can make Mickey content, but it won't have that Disney quality you know and love. Why watch a cheap knockoff when you can continue to support Disney's Mickey?". I think that would work especially well given that most people are corrupting the Steamboat Willie Mickey to stick it to the Disney brand. Disney has a reputation to maintain that it's a wholesome family friendly company, so if, say, Seth Rogan was currently making a movie where Steamboat Willie curses and smokes on a bong and does some sex and does a lot of the typical eye-rolling western adult "comedy", Disney could brand that as "We oppose such filth, which is why our Mickey is still dedicated to being one of wholesomeness and joy and happiness for all ages, unlike other products that just want to make Mickey mean and inappropriate.". They'd probably have a nicer, more corporately safe way to say that, but I feel like they could easily sell a public statement relaying basically that message.

@brookejon3695 4 ай бұрын

Who cares if he's a mascot? It's insane to keep an idea privatized for a century.

@brookejon3695 4 ай бұрын

@@gregvs.theworld451Losing revenue is also not a valid argument. That's like complaining that someone else is making Frankenstein T-shirts and now your Frankenstein T-shirts aren't selling as well.

@Jilktube 4 ай бұрын

I think Disney can make a claim (if they havent already) that the silhouette Mickey Mouse (head and) ears that you see *everywhere* on Disney properties constitute a trademark and I think they have a good case.

@levesteM 4 ай бұрын

You briefly mentioned them at the start, but there's two more Mickey shorts in the public domain. Plane Crazy is partially public domain(the animation is fine, but the music is still copyrighted until 2025, because it was added later). The Galloping Gaucho is fully public domain(the music was added later as well, but it was still in the same year as the animation released).

@AmbigousInfluence 4 ай бұрын

As a matter of fact, there was already a Mickey Mouse cartoon in the public domain before Steamboat Willie. The short, The Mad Doctor, has been in public domain for years.

@M1strE 4 ай бұрын

Incorrect. The aspect of Mickey and Pluto last until 2029.

@abaddon2148 4 ай бұрын

sort of incorrect. the short itself is currently in public domain, but the designs of pluto and mickey from that short won't be public domain until 2029.

@JimCullen 4 ай бұрын

@@abaddon2148how does that work?

@Whitecroc 4 ай бұрын

@@JimCullen The Mad Doctor was released after Steamboat Willie, but due to what I assume was a corporate SNAFU Disney failed to extend its copyright, as was the law at the time. So the 1933 short, which is apparently the 52nd (!) Mickey Mouse film, is in public domain, but Mickey and Pluto are not.

@Tamamo-no-Bae 4 ай бұрын

@@abaddon2148 Only Pluto. Mickey is way too similar to his Steamboat incarnation to justify a different copyright status. 2027 is when Pluto enters the public domain, and that is when the short should be fully into the Public domain.

@Boltizar49 4 ай бұрын

Objection! Disney only owns the copyright for the *movie* Alice in Wonderland. The original book was published in 1865 and entered the public domain in 1907. You’re still allowed to use Alice in any way you see fit including with blonde hair and her signature blue dress and she’s been depicted that was before the film was made. On a related note, you can also use anything from the novel The Jungle Book including all the characters who appear in the movie *except* King Louie. He was invented for the movie and that’s a whole weird story for its own time.

@real.ilya_remov 4 ай бұрын

That's one of your best videos yet! Lots of things I learned even though I thought I knew a lot about copyright and trademark.

@subjectdelta7210 4 ай бұрын

9:55 the one problem with that idea is eventually with enough things let into the public domain it will be hard to use that method for thousands of characters. they simply will run out of space for each character when they are public after a certain amount. not to mention if they somehow get eclipsed by a new public version. look at vampire’s you probably think of sunlight as a thing they don’t like. the original dracula wouldn’t turn to dust or even burn. that was something added by a third party without the original author’s wife’s permission. yet you hear sunlight and vampire you instantly associate it. it’s very possible to overcome the original work and that of others same vision of a character

@RealLukeWilson 4 ай бұрын

The whole Sherlock Holmes thing is weird on an international level, too. Copyright laws apparently differ in Japan than in Europe, which is why “Lupin III” had to be changed to “Wolf” when The Castle of Cagliostro was released in the United States. The estate of the creator of Arsen Lupin was furious, but couldn’t do anything. However, the original creator of Lupin wanted to do a crossover with Sherlock Holmes without Doyle’s permission, so he just changed the name to “Herlock Sholmes” and got away with it. Then a few years ago, the Japanese visual novel series of Ace Attorney used the character of Sherlock Holmes without having to ask permission, but the English language port of the game was delayed by a extra couple of years since we needed to have permission but didn’t. So instead, the games’ character is named Herlock Sholmes. Go figure.

@MrCanoeheadful 4 ай бұрын

Love the shout-out to Ursula on the phrase "poor unfortunate souls". And yet. When you mention whether Disney will be strictly litigious or just LET IT GO? Nothing!

@Brianna-eo8nu 4 ай бұрын

Wasted opportunity tbh

@justinskywalker 4 ай бұрын

This all seems to create paradoxes with characters that have been continually in use for decades like James Bond or Dr. Who. If the first book or episode featuring the character enters public domain, what does that mean for the rest of the series in regards for that character?

@r-giireactions2235 4 ай бұрын

My question is, in the 1939 book, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, it never mentioned who Rudolph's parents were, while in the 1964 cartoon, the Donners were Rudolph's parents. So when Rudolph hits public domain in 2035, how trivial would Rudolph's parents be considered, would they be able to claim copyright over Donner as Rudolph's parent, or is a parent/son relationship between two public domain characters too trivial to even be worth going after someone for?

@nomnomgoblin8901 4 ай бұрын

Contrary to popular belief (and also held up by Disney themselves) there were other cartoons with synchronized sound before Steamboat Willie, which was in 1928. The Song Car-Tunes series had them as early as 1924, and Fleischer had Old Kentucky Home in '26. Granted Steamboat had better sound but wasn't the first.