I think it will be interesting, because no doubt someone is going to cross the line too far and push Disney into suing them. I can't wait to see if we get a more clear definition on what the courts will allow to be used via public domain vs "trademark". Also look at the mickey in the opening title card of steamboat willie vs in the short, in the title card he has gloves.

I absolutely oppose all violence. DISNEY CORPORATION and the U.S. Congress are both in massive violation of U.S. Copyright Law. According to the foundation of ALL Copyright Law, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: [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. VIOLATION #1: Congress only has the power to keep things out of the public domain AS LONG AS IT IS PROMOTING (NOT LIMITING) positive artistic expression. That is the OPPOSITE of what they and the CORPORATIONS like DISNEY that have possibly bribed and threatened them have been doing for DECADES. VIOLATION #2: "Limited Times" - the Founder's intent was to make Copyright protections for just long enough to give an individual a fair chance to publish and establish a work before a rich and corrupt CORPORATION or person could steal their work and publish it and claim ownership themselves...a period of not more than 28 years in total. That is far more than enough time for an author to have established his work. VIOLATION #3: The Founders considered any law that was constantly changing or could not be understood by people null and void.

I absolutely oppose all violence. DISNEY CORPORATION and the U.S. Congress are both in massive violation of U.S. Copyright Law. According to the foundation of ALL Copyright Law, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: [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. VIOLATION #1: Congress only has the power to keep things out of the public domain AS LONG AS IT IS PROMOTING (NOT LIMITING) positive artistic expression. That is the OPPOSITE of what they and the CORPORATIONS like DISNEY that have possibly bribed and threatened them have been doing for DECADES. VIOLATION #2: "Limited Times" - the Founder's intent was to make Copyright protections for just long enough to give an individual a fair chance to publish and establish a work before a rich and corrupt CORPORATION or person could steal their work and publish it and claim ownership themselves...a period of not more than 28 years in total. That is far more than enough time for an author to have established his work. VIOLATION #3: The Founders considered any law that was constantly changing or could not be understood by people null and void.

@@Justin-gv8ob I absolutely oppose all violence. DISNEY CORPORATION and the U.S. Congress are both in massive violation of U.S. Copyright Law. According to the foundation of ALL Copyright Law, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: [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. VIOLATION #1: Congress only has the power to keep things out of the public domain AS LONG AS IT IS PROMOTING (NOT LIMITING) positive artistic expression. That is the OPPOSITE of what they and the CORPORATIONS like DISNEY that have possibly bribed and threatened them have been doing for DECADES. VIOLATION #2: "Limited Times" - the Founder's intent was to make Copyright protections for just long enough to give an individual a fair chance to publish and establish a work before a rich and corrupt CORPORATION or person could steal their work and publish it and claim ownership themselves...a period of not more than 28 years in total. That is far more than enough time for an author to have established his work. VIOLATION #3: The Founders considered any law that was constantly changing or could not be understood by people null and void.

I’m a little bit bummed that steamboat Willie is in the public domain

Me, too!😂😂😂

Same here😂

I came to comment the same exact thing!😂😂😂😂

I didn’t even notice. She does that all the time. Guess I’m just used to it. Lol

Same lol

And does he put it back when he is done with the chair? Hmmmm

It was really adorable!

I completely missed it.

It was all i could focus on at the time i have ADH..oh look a dog (ADHD)

Yes, was about to comment on this also. Seems half the comments are about that very thing. Doggo needs attention and some love. Here's hoping LegalBytes can do a video featuring doggo and maybe a short segment on pet owner rights/responsibilities/etc in the legal sphere. Just pet the doggo while talking ;)

They have money, Lawyers, and a Giant "fuck you got mine" mentality. Even when they are legally in the wrong and abusing legal systems they still win, because they could be 100% in the wrong, loose a court case suing, and they will still have won because you will be hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, destroyed financially for your entire life, and it wont have even left a visible scratch in their titanic amount of wealth. The legal system is fundamentally corrupt and broken and their is 0 means of recourse for 99.9999999% of the population

Right, they straight up freely used public domain work including taking all stories and characters for works like "Alice in Wonderland", "Snow White", "Pinocchio" and dozens more to build a multi-billion dollar empire. Now nearly 100 years later manage to prevent anyone from doing the same even to a much smaller degree. It's so messed up.

And of the same copyright laws existed for them, works such as “The Little Mermaid” would still have been copyrighted. Modern copyright laws are utterly ridiculous. Patents get 20 years - it’s outrageous that copyright gets longer.

I do get why technological things have a shorter duration of protection than creative works. But on the other hand, things like fair use should in my opinion be more relaxed. Even worse is DRM, which means that in some cases, people don't really own the things they have purchased. And the absolutely worst thing is that the laws allow to intimidate people. At least in some countries, there are schemes, where the copyright owner demands a high price for e.g. downloading a song. The court would put the payment at a much lower price, but the defendant would still lose the case and have to pay even higher trial fees. So the plaintiff would get a much smaller payment from the court, but the defendant would still end up paying more. I think there should be a way for minor violations to not end up in court, but they should always be settled via a light-weight mechanism. (The laws and practices might differ by countries, but I think this scheme or some variation exists in many countries).

@@fintux DRM, the failure to have the Right To Repair... America is f***ed in so many ways. If God was the Devil, then he would be impressed because it all leads to the extinction of Mankind. (Evil wins... And I don't oppose the Prime Evil since Humanity is no longer worthy of existence. Extinction is the first test, and Humans shall fail it... Unfortunately.)

It should’ve been public domain 40 years ago. They lobbied to extend copyright protection in the 70s too

@aj76257 that change wasn't all bad. it was where the fair use doctrine was passed.

Aside from their better known use of other's works, Steamboat Willie itself was using "Steamboat Bill" for the tune and overall idea. Like modern day indie creators making a fan animation of works they like, except they have less protection.

It should have been public domain 75 years ago. If you wouldn't create something if it would only receive copyright protection for 20 years, do the world a favor and do not create that thing.

@karlhendrikse That's a dumb statement. So Walt Disney was supposed to not create Willie because Disney might be mega successful and hold onto it's properties? Why does it matter so much to certain people that Mickey and friends aren't in public domain?

As I understand it, Plane Crazy also entered the public domain this year because it was technically released for a small audience in 1928, and was the year that film was copyrighted

But is it possible to trademark those now or is it too late? On the other hand, can I trademark one of those that are in PD?

@@hbp_ Sorry, but no. While the copyright on Steamboat Willie may have expired, Disney probably still holds the trademark on that name and image. So, you cannot use the artwork as a logo or as a mascot. And if you drew new artwork that was remarkably close to the original, then Disney will sue your pants off for trademark infringement. Remember, as LegalBytes says in the video: a trademark identifies a company so that the consumer knows where the product comes from and continues as long as the company uses it. Disney holds more than 2100 trademarks. If you are using Disney art that is trademarked to identify your company, then you are committing fraud.

steam boat willey is not mickey mouse

@@caderedfield9372 Steam Boat Willie is the boat

America be like: we don't have a problem with our laws

i am sure if you created something like that, you would want it protected for a long time.

@@devernepersonal3636 Why the hell would I want it to still be under strict copyright almost a *century* after it's been made??

well number one disney still exists, and it is out of copyright now as is obvious. so 95 years makes sense. if i create something, as long as i am alive, its mine because i made it. @@octavianjoseph8633

​@@octavianjoseph8633because some humans live for over a century

I highly doubt it. By and large consumers only care about what they themselves want. Who gives two craps about some small creators? Consumers just want to see marvel films and let their kids watch cartoons. You may think this sounds cynical but just look at the crap google, apple, facebook etc. get away with. People willingly let their consumer rights get broken just so they can use a popular product. Disney can do whatever they want.

What Disney has to lose here is a lot - Mickey Mouse is one of their main merch characters. People will undoubtedly start selling versions of Steamboat Willie, and I think you are underestimating the efforts that Disney is willing to go to to "protect" their materials. They literally changed the law for gods sake.

@@ShaharHarshuv And yet, they let the Steamboat Willie fall into public domain when previously, they would convince Congress to extend copyright protection years ahead of time. The power of their lawyers have been objectively weakened by this. And the rumors say that Disney let it go because they were shaken by the backlash from the last extension. and were pessimistic they convince congress to push the law forward.

@@ShaharHarshuv Let the shit hit the fan. Eventually it will probably sank disney even deeper as they apparently have no intention's to leave woke train and that shows every single movie flop and stock value.

​@@user-eq2fp6jw4gwhat does woke mean in this scenario? Everyone always seems to define it differently.

@@luissuazo3684 Um actually... Damaging the "Brand" is not a legal regulation. You have to invoke Trademark Law in order to do that. So as long as you don't use "Mickey Mouse" etc. as a trademark. Then it's all legal to do anything with the Public Domain Mickey Mouse 1.0. And of courses... Trademarks are narrowly tailored. You can still sell a Mickey Mouse Gun under 2A because Disney isn't in the Weapons & Ammunition Industry. Sadly... This is how it should be if the law was held properly. But humans... ... ... What a worthless species who kills and deceives for lesser. (Knowing all of Mankind... Why would a loving God still choose the human race?)

Regarding transformation: depends on the country. You'd be surprised at the countries without parody or transformation laws

@@backlogbuddies True... Nations will differ and some have no copyright laws.

I believe some of the Beatles songs are already public domain in Europe.

​@@orlock20Europe goes with 60 years of the death of the creator (though countries like France extend it for those killed in service to France).

This is how I always thought trademark worked, but I feel like I am getting mixed signals on that. Like if you search the Etsy boards there are so many disagreements and so much misinformation. I only bring up Etsy as I have wanted to open on online shop for years and was going to start there as a stepping stone.

Will the 1929 stuff be free to use next year?

@@william3100 Yes

Actually Mickey Mouse can speak intelligently with a high falsetto since that is a generic cartoon character trait that can’t be copyrighted. Disclaimer: I’m not an expert on the topic.

@@Nasir3623 Voices in general cannot be copyrighted

I believe that is more of a legal harassment tho. People would win the cases if they fought to the end, because trademark cannot be used to enforce copyright, but unfortunately... legal battles are too costly.

Only the silent version of Plane Crazy. The sound version is in the public domain next year, I think?

@@allegedlyfalse6779 yes

You are free to make an original chiptune soundtrack for Plane Crazy. DEW IT

The cartoons enter the public domain as their own individual copyrights expires but that isn't the case for the character itself. When a character's copyright expires, and it enters into the public domain, all versions of that character enter the public domain at the same time, contrary to what Disney wants people to believe. We don't have to wait for newer versions of Mickey to expire. Doesn't mean that Disney won't try suing people anyways. They will. But it won't be legal. We will have to see if they are able to bribe enough judges or if people have had enough of their shenanigans.

@@sheshotjfk8375 That's not how copyright law works. Please stop misleading people. Characters themselves are not copyrighted, works are. This means that the individual cartoons and the ideas expressed in them become public domain. Ideas from later works stay copyrighted. You can use Mickey Mouse as he appears in the original cartoon, or your own legally distinct version you yourself made, but you can't use versions that are still copyrighted. Look up how this has worked in the past with works like Tarzan and Sherlock Holmes, where only part of each book series was public domain at one point.

The supreme court has already ruled that trademark law cannot be used as a way of indefinite copyright.

It was smart of them to add the original stream boat on a more recent trade mark. They're trying doo hard keep it out of the public domain.

@@axcelblack2808 Yes the Dastar vs. 20th Century Fox decision.

Yeah you can’t use trademark law that way. Trademark law prevents you from using Mickey Mouse as a trademark, i.e. a logo or a mascot, but you can still use the character. I think people are downplaying just how significant Mickey Mouse being in the public domain is. Sure it’s his 1928 incarnations, but A) you aren’t just limited to Steamboat Willie, there are two other incarnations with slightly different designs for you to pull from, and B) even if you find using the Steamboat Willie design limiting, it’s still a very recognizable version of the character. Nobody is going to be confused as to who that is. His design was almost fully formed. Wait one year and you get to give him gloves. Wait just a decade and you get to use the flesh colored face and eyes with pupils.

@@ArynWellspring I'm a bit confused. The beginning of the short, with the intro text and all, shows Mickey with gloves. Can't you use that?

They just don't care anymore. Mickey isn't their sole business as much as it was. Think of it this way, they didn't own Star Wars or Marvel, undoubtedly some of the biggest franchises, and didn't have as many merchandise for their other properties. Now they do and have built a name beyond just Mickey Mouse. Heck, Mickey is really often just 1 preschool show running at a time.

@@SpaxerNot to mention that these days Mickey Mouse is far better known for being Disney's corporate mascot than an actual character in his own right, so fighting tooth and nail for extended copyright protection isn't really necessary.

it is also a current mickey mouse thing, the harder they push to extend the public domain timing the harder it will be to hold onto the current mickey mouse things. there is a sweet spot between having all the mickeys instantly going into the public domain and letting 1 by 1 version go into it. and they probably think they can keep the current mickey longer by letting this version go into public domain than if they try to keep this version out of the public domain.

love your avali profile pic

Sonny Bono wanted permanent copyrights but this is unconstitutional in the US under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. I'd assume that any attempts to continue to extend it would have resulted in a constitutional challenge. Also, Disney aren't exactly having the best relations with Republicans right now, so I doubt that they would have supported such a move again.

well, uncivil law beat both of them but his stream got shut down bc yt forgot to update the algorythm and he just won his appeal.. but the yt version doesn't have the legal stuff bc he didn't get to it. (twitch does though i think)

I tried looking up his video on it and I couldn’t find it. Mind if you send a link?

@@serenetiv. I would love to see Uncivil law’s perspective on the matter.

I notice as a subscriber he tends to base his videos on specific cases possibly going to court/currently in court so he might wait a bit for that. There have been exceptions of course like the sponsorship videos but there’s a reason he only brought up the Panera charged lemonade situation when there was a charge around it.

​@@serenetivhe won his appeal? Wow

Disney movies are based on FAIRY TALES, The Little Mermaid fairy tale is from 1836! Quite different to Steamboat Willie which isn't even 100 years old

@@questioned54 Are they public domain? Yes or no?

@@beerdragon4583 The basic storyline is. The ability to re-show the movie or copy frame by frame is not - that really is what copyright protects (along with any music or other audio track)

@@highpath4776 The answer is yes they are. The copyright for Steamboat Willie expired therefore yes you can repost and show it if you want. The same way to can repost Nosferatu, Phantom of the Opera, the Flescher Superman cartoons etc.

The laws in this country need to change surrounding copyright law.

I think she's pointing out that newer versions of Steamboat Willie are copyright protected because they are technically somewhat different. The clips shown from the more modern Mickey cartoons do have different style and proportions for that depiction of Willie when compared to the original character design. You are free to iterate on the very first depiction on Mickey, so long as it does not match later versions of the character which are still protected. Another example of this would be how Wizard of Oz is in public domain, but Dorothy with ruby red slippers is not, as the ruby slippers were created for the film, which is still copyright protected. You could however use the original silver slippers from the book, or really any other color you want!

​@@DaxSchaffer Wasn't Dorothy with the ruby slippers shown at the end of Lies of P? It seems like she'll be the protagonist of the sequel.

I mean wouldnt that reuse count as a trademark rather than a copyright? In which case you could do everything except use the design to represent your brand/product if I understand correctly

Their loss for using the verbatim design. They only own their creative work with the design, so if you happen to replicate that perfectly then they got a case. After all, all public domain adaptations start with the same 'verbatim' source, and if you verbatim replicate a public domain source then you didn't do anything to change the public domain works. Thus, if they verbatim used this old design in something else, then they did not change the public domain part. They only used a public domain thing to create a new work, and that work is protected, not the character design. Perhaps it's easier to 'visualize' with sound effects. Let's say you were the original creator of the wilhelm scream and created the first standalone, clean version of it, and published it. You also used your sound effect in a movie later, fully clean for some reason, no other sounds mixed in. Now the orginal recording goes public domain. What's the difference between the public domain version and the version you used later? None. You merely copied something using your copyright back then, but a copy is a copy, it's not new, that's why it's called copyright, you can make copies of it. If you use those copies to create new works, then those works are protected whenever you create them. But if it's a verbatim copy then it's just a copy, a replica of the first, and the first is then public domain. Not legal advice of course, but you know.

Disney profits from the confusion. It is their way of scaring people, although empty, some will fall for the bait.

Are you saying that you believe even the modern artistic representation of Mickey Mouse is now in the public domain, or is there an implicit "the Steamboat Willie era" qualifier to your statement?

This is completely wrong. The only iteration of Mickey that is public domain is Steamboat Willie. You can't use the name Mickey Mouse or any of his later iterations and even in Steamboat Willie's case people have to be careful as Disney created slightly different versions of him later. A LOT of different versions meaning you'd have to draw him completely different for it not to fall under Disney's copyright. Also, "In the case Golan v. Holder (2012), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could release works from the public domain to submit them again to the protection of copyright, without violating the Constitution" so it's not exactly a cut and dried case here yet.

@@mascot4950 I'm referring to the 1928 version. Sorry for the confusion, I thought that went without saying.

@@ZiddersRooFurry It's not completely wrong because Steamboat Willie is indeed the version I'm referring to.

Yeah that yk the horror movie coming out they put a ‘s to avoid legal troubles

ah, my favorite cartoon character, michael rodent

Technically you can call him that, but you kinda need to keep it away from naming in any marketing piece due to the risk of trademark infringement. As long you make sure people aren't confused and clear that it's not a Disney produced movie it's not a problem, at least, in theory, i'm sure Disney and their army of lawyers will try to prevent a lot of it.

For years DC called their version of Fawcett's Captain Marvel "Captain Marvel" when Marvel had the trademark for the name, the catch there was that they could only use that name in the interior & what was on the cover in books starring him had to be something else (Usually "Shazam", which is how he ended up being renamed that later).

​@@oneovertwo1186Funny enough it seems like that is most likely untrue. The reason they did that was they were playing things extra safe because if they got hit by another lawsuit they would most likely go out of business even if they won. And in the past 20 years all indications have shown that they would have won the lawsuit. The problem is that each time a court case starts getting close to issuing a verdict the company negotiates an out of court settlement because they don't want to set precedent. Since if the precedent is set they won't be able to *threaten* legal action.

Thank you so much! The plan for 2024 is more uploads generally, so I hope that’ll work for you!

Well, you can blame Disney for that. They didn't call it the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" for no reason. Trust me though, Mickey being in the Public Domain allows anything and everything to come into hellscape. People have been waiting for decades for this to happen. People want to make fun of Disney for trying oh so hard, only to lose it all.

Now the copyright lasts a full lifetime plus 70 years

​@thend4427 Which ironically meant that some of the final works of authors, artists, composers, etc. who died shortly after that legislation will enter public domain prior to some (if not all) of their earlier works.

Well, obviously it protects large companies, because if a work that is 96 years is big enough to be relevant today, it likely had a large business built around it. No small creator will live to see their work enter the public domain unless they live for a very long time and even if they did they mostikely wouldn't still be a small creator by then if their work was still relevant 95 years later.

That's because Disney, the megacorporation that spent nearly a century lobbying against freedom of expression all over the world to try and make it so this day would never come, is a target of animosity for many creatively minded individuals. You want to see something beautiful made from Public Domain works? Watch Fantasia. Then again, if copyright law had been then what it is now, Fantasia would not have been allowed to include some of its music. Thus the animosity. Well, the company being a meat grinder for artists, performers, and general employees doesn't help. Or you could check whether the fans of anything Disney bought in the last decade are happy with the new owners. So yes, the first things you see come from this will be made by edgelords with an axe to grind and grifters looking for shock value. They've been waiting for this, and they've been waiting long. The genuine stuff will take longer.

Exactly

As a lawyer, she cannot do that. It would be considered legal advice which she cannot give in a general sense on KZfaq. It would make her liable if you misconstrue what was said. You would need to come up with your own idea of what you want to do, and then have a lawyer who specializes in this field advise you if you can do that or not, or what changes you would have to make to get it where you can do that thing. This is again because your lawyer has liability if they advise you incorrectly, so it has to be a very specific use case. In this case, she is only stating that you need to be careful. I can't recall if she said this but you do need to get very specific legal advice intended for your own use case as you cannot get specific legal advice on the internet. Same thing goes for medical advice... see a doctor and not rely on webmd or flat earthers or whatever floats the boat... you'll need to talk to an attorney... and yes... that will cost you.... but if you plan on using something that might have legal ramifications, it's always advisable to have your own attorney...

Probably fine. They potentially could have done it prior to the release of Steamboat Willie into the public domain and claimed it as parody. South Park has had a parody Mickey for over a decade now.

Steamboat Willie is the name of the boat, not of a character

​@@velkex6050The makers can have fun and call their character Willie Mouse.

You can’t, because the names are trademarked

I am not a lawyer, but as far as I know, you cannot use Disney Trademarks to PROMOTE your animated short. So the trademarks should not be in the title, or in any promotional material. You can, however, call Mickey by his actual name since it appeared in the Steamboat Willie short. You'd just need to name your short "Mouse Adventure" or something like that, to avoid trademark infrig. There is still the possibility of LEGAL HARASSMENT, sadly. Disney can appeal to the legal system even if they are in the wrong. So you actually have to be a lot brave to use Mickey Mouse, but I hope people choose to fight this fight for the sake of popular culture.

Might have to change it to Ricky rat and Rosetta rat

This whole situation with Mickey Mouse still feels a lot more complicated than other public domain stories and characters, such as Arsène Lupin or Sherlock Holmes for example.

​@@KikeNavarrete68 in a way Holmes is pefect example. For the longest time the last book of his series was not in public domain while evrything else was. It ment that the estate that held the rights to that last piece was looking at stuff with a microscope or anything that even hints at material from last book. Disney basicly will do the same and much more easly as its 1 years of public material and 90+ of still in their posesion right now. As years go it gona get easier to use the character as new aspects become public but as long as they actually keep making mickey stuff and redesigns they should have those stable same 90+ years tonitpick at.

I assume the answer is that they are infringing on Disney and J.K Rowling's copyrights but are too small for their lawyers to bother going after them.

If you follow Etsy drama you have to known how many times Etsy have close stores for copyright infringement

The ability to use other people's work now in the public domain is a priviledge not a right.

@@Guy-cb1oh The ability to use the government to enforce a monopoly for nearly a century is a privilege, not a right. It does not "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" to trap these creations for so long.

No, it's a right.

Disney has created media that brainwashed kids into protecting them for all of eternity. All hail Disney.

No they are NOT able to use trademark to circumvent the copyright expiration. In fact the Supreme Court has made it crystal clear that you cannot do so. The Trademark holders of Zorro and Sherlock holmes both tried and they got their butts handed to them in court. Yes, Disney still holds the trademark but what is protected under trademark is much more limited than copyright. As long as you don't use Mickey in a way that misleads people into thinking the product came from Disney, then you should be fine.

The Supreme Court also blocked enforcement of Lanham Act (TM) rights after expiration of Copyright Clause rights in Kellogg v. Nabisco and Dastar v. Fox. ​@@Guy-cb1oh

@@Guy-cb1oh they turned the clip of Mickey Mouse whistling on the boat into a trademark. It’s just a ten second clip, but it’s one of the defining moments of the film.

It hypothetically also protects smaller companies from having their name and recipe used by a larger one, or to keep two large companies from pretending to be each other. The branding needs to be different enough for customers to know who to get the original from. Not that it did Hydrox much good.

@@BonaparteBardithion Yea hypothetically it works and I agree with you, but in practice companies rip off each other large and small all the time and break the rules constantly, and there is often nothing a small company can do about it, due to the costs involved in the legal system. So in practice I disagree with you, and firmly believe these laws do more bad than good. Especially when it comes to companies who have government funding fund research, and then use patents or trademarks or copyright, to profit obscene amounts, even though they didn't fund the research themselves in the first place.

I get a lot of cross stitch and crochet patterns from Etsy. I just looked up some of the ones that I’ve bought. The Beast pattern that I have is for a Princely Beast. But other have the IP plainly mentioned. I have questions. Lol

That's not quite how it works. A derivative work has to have a certain amount of originality to get its own copyright protection - you can't just renew the original work's copyright indefinitely by rereleasing it with trivial edits

@@0x5D ok thx. i reworded it

Well, if what I'm hearing is correct, you can call him Mickey, just not Mickey Mouse.

@@chris_wrld2522 It's a Mickey Mouse story, it's clear in the poster.

@@l4nd3r Yeah I still don't know how this stuff works

@@chris_wrld2522 IIRC, (Not legal advice, not a legal adviser) You can use the name Mickey Mouse, as, in the Steamboat Willie short it's called a "mickey mouse" story. The name of the character is included in the public domain. BUT, that name cannot be used in the title of the product, nor in the marketing materials because Disney owns it as a trade-mark. It could only be used in said material and not be exclusively highlighted. You also need to make sure consumers are aware that you are not affiliated with Disney-owned trademarks via a disclaimer, and that you are referencing public domain works. (That's what the one horror mickey mouse game did)

@@chasemiddleton8088 I see. Thanks

There is a poster from 1928 that has Mickey with red pants and gloves that is now public domain ( commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mickey_Mouse_Color_Stock_Poster_(Celebrity_Productions_era,_1928).jpg ) so you can use it however I can see why that would be flying to close to the sun for some people.

No. 1 is incorrect, this color poster was made in 1928 so you can legally use colors. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Mickey_Mouse_Color_Stock_Poster_%28Celebrity_Productions_era%2C_1928%29.jpg

You can absolutely add colours, they just have to be your own colours and can't directly replicate the copyrighted versions.

@@killerlork ohhh, okay! Then why did the person behind Mario & Luigi RPG Series (art team) made an colored Mickey Mouse (copyrighted but it’s cool to see)

@@killerlork actually, a poster promoting Steamboat Willie was in color, Mickey wearing red shorts with brown shoes and yellow gloves, so theoretically that should be in the public domain too

You cannot use the name to PROMOTE anything. But you can still name the character Mickey, since the name is in the Steamboat Willie short. Let's say I make a comic book about Mickey. The characters inside the book can still call him by his name but the name cannot be in the cover.

@@BillGunslinger Here's a question. I'm working on a cartoon where the main character is a thirteen-year-old girl who's also a superhero. Her crush happens to be the great grandson of Arsène Lupin, a public domain character. And because of that, I got the idea to add in other public domain characters in supporting or villain roles, such as Dr. Jekyll, Count Dracula, Dorothy Gale, The Wicked Witch of the West, Jack and Jill, etc. So what if I decided to make an episode featuring Mickey, Minnie, and Pete? To be honest, I'm still a little confused about this whole thing.

@@BillGunslinger The name can be in the cover, this is a nominative use of a trademark as the title is only being used to refer to the character.

@@dibbidydoo4318 well I am no lawyer and I hope you are right, but there is still the possibility of legal harrassment on the part of Disney, right? The Edgar Rice Burroughs state does exactly that. If I name my Tarzan novel "Tarzan", then they will bring me to court to scare me off and make a deal, even if they are in the wrong. It's bullshit honestly. I hope you are right and hope the Mickey situation create some jurisprudence for public domain use... I hope Disney go to court in various cases and LOSE.

Thing is, they can't. Trademarking something can NOT be used to prolong a copyright indefinitely. Other companies have tried this in the past, only to have it blow up in their faces when they try taking it to court. At best, you can't use the snippet of the animation as a logo, but you can, from now till forever, use the animation in full, in any product you would like.

clearly didn't read what i said *"TRY"* not "THEY WILL* also they have trade dressing they could try use that against you as well as multiple other trademarks.... also in the past disney has successfully lobbied , pressuring judges and been able to bend/push/change laws and win cases against people.

@@BaileyMagikz Disney basically lost the right to try and push the copyright further. They took it a step too far when they tried to make it last forever, and when that was deemed unconstitutional, they then, for some god-forsaken reason, tried to get "Forever less one day" That was in 1998. That was the moment they were doomed to lose Mickey eventually, and this year is the year it finally happened. But yes, of course Disney will try, but it will fail because of your constitution protecting the public domain. As I said, other companies have tried so in the past, and all of them have failed. No matter how big the company was.

They are also having a fight of their lives going on with the Reedy Creek investigation.

It would be very difficult, legally, as it would mean withdrawing from a number of international agreements. Starting with Berne, of course. But also the WIPO treaty, TRIPS agreement. I imagine it's make WTO membership untennable. The consequences of abolishing copyright would be economic isolation. It could only be pulled off by an economic superpower that can swing enough weight around that no-one would dare propose an embargo (The US, China, or the entire EU collectively, for example) or by some country already so isolated that they wouldn't even notice (North Korea). The former have no economic reason to abolish copyright, as they have big lobby groups supporting it and large companies that pay (as little as they can get away with) tax.

That little R in a circle stands for registered trademark. Zenbusiness have an article explaining the differences between trademark vs registered trademark.

@@Billy_Rizzle Hmm. I'd always thought the circled r meant a registered copyright but I guess I was mistaken. Thank you for the explanation!

You're still allowed to call him Mickey Mouse, you just can't use that name in the title of your work, since Disney still has trademark protection. At least I think that's how it works.

I'm not a lawyer so this is pure speculation lol but I think Disney can trademark that five second clip because they originally created the original work and registered it as a trademark before losing copyright protection? Like if Brahm Stoker created Dracula Inc. as a book publishing house and trademarked the first page of the novel to use for advertising purposes. The Dracula novel would eventually go into the public domain, but if the publishing house was still in business today, that first page would be trademarked. That's at least how I understood it

You can use the cartoon, only note de few frames in their logo, but you can’t use the name Micky Mouse, Steamboat Willy or Disney because are trademarked

@@thatmoviegirl3814 Okay, but... All those people who worked on that original cartoon are long dead now.

@@jakescartoons6045 I mean, I agree lol. I don't think Disney could be able to trademark any part of it XD. I was just giving my interpretation of the video. Trademarks don't have an expiration though, so they could honestly hold on to the Steamboat Willie clip for as long as they use it for advertising/logo purposes.

You can literally make a movie with steamboat Willie and charge money for it legally.

It does have an impact. The wall is still there, but it's got holes in it now.

because the lawyer in the video is being contrarian is being misleading by only talking about the things you can't do. It has alot of impact.

it doesn't, this video is very misleading. The supreme court case Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. agrees with you.

The trademark is owned by them but not the character anymore. We own Mickey just like we own Hercules, Thor and Dracula.

No the trademarks expire and aren't owned by anyone

​@@BillGunslingerbut you don't own Disney's Hercules

@@basedgamerguy818 I own the version from the Argonauticas and other classical works.

@@basedgamerguy818 trademark don't permanently expire, they're renewed. But you're right, trademarks are not a form of ownership, just a prevention of scam.

No, I think you could use a still frame, cropped or otherwise, from "Steamboat Willie" to advertise media containing it.

That character design is trademarked and as seen in this video, Disney is still using it in modern cartoons, so no, you can't use it for promotion. Look up the dispute with Sherlock Holmes. Nearly all the Sherlock stories are in the public domain, but you can't use the character without licensing it from the estate because there are still Sherlock stories that are protected. Steamboat Willie the film is public domain, the characters are still just as protected as they always were. So you can't just do advertising and promotion using stills from it.

@@stevewik2280 You think you couldn't reproduce a frame from the film to put on the box of the media you're selling the film on?!!

@@stevewik2280 actually you can use his name in the packaging. Here too putting the words “Mickey Mouse” on toys or onesies is different from using “Mickey Mouse” to describe the content of a new creative work. With the latter, a disclaimer is also helpful. One court explained: “When a public domain work is copied, along with its title, there is little likelihood of confusion when even the most minimal steps are taken to distinguish the publisher of the original from that of the copy. The public is receiving just what it believes it is receiving-the work with which the title has become associated. The public is not only unharmed, it is unconfused.” - Maljack Prods. v. Goodtimes Home Video Corp., 81 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 1996) there's also another case One defense allows “nominative use” of a trademark as a point of reference - for example, using “Mickey Mouse” accurately to refer to the public domain character in your work. Another comes from a case called Rogers v. Grimaldi, which privileged the use of trademarks in titles of expressive works as long as the term has some artistic relevance to the new work and does not explicitly mislead as to the source of the work.

@@stevewik2280 This is not credible. You're selling a copy of an original Disney product. Of course it should have their trademark. The only thing that's changed is that you're doing the copying rather than a previously authorized manufacturer of their videos. Everything about the content is materially the same.