Mickey’s Mouse Trap coming in March


log in or register to remove this ad

General_Tangent

Adventurer
Yes, Steamboat Willie is out of copyright. But Mickey Mouse remains a Disney trademark in very active use -- quite possibly the most well-known trademark they have.

I am not a lawyer, still less an IP lawyer, but making a movie where one of the major characters is the trademark of a giant, litigious movie company seems... hazardous, to say the least. On the face of it, it sure looks like Disney could make a legit case that this would create confusion over whether it's a Disney movie or not. And my understanding is that trademarks (unlike copyrights) must be defended or you risk losing them, so Disney would almost have to sue.

I hope the creators have consulted their lawyers every step of the way, including going over the entire movie scene by scene.

According to this old article on the EFF website:

"The Supreme Court ruled in 2003’s Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. that you can’t use trademark law to extend an expired copyright."


I am also not a lawyer but it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
According to this old article on the EFF website:

"The Supreme Court ruled in 2003’s Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. that you can’t use trademark law to extend an expired copyright."


I am also not a lawyer but it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Later in the article Doctorow calls out how despite that SCOTUS ruling, it's still a thing trademark holders actively do:

"The ambiguity of overlapping trademarks and copyrights, combined with the very long duration of copyrights, and confused legal history about whether characters themselves get copyright when parts of their canon enter the public domain is a source of great mischief for many of the characters of the last century. Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain (so long as you steer clear of details introduced in some of the films, and elements of the character developed in the handful of stories published after 1923), but litigious organizations threaten people who treat Robert E Howard's Conan as if he were in the public domain, and the same goes for Buck Rogers and the HP Lovecraft canon."

In the USA you only get as much justice as you can afford. Which Doctorow also calls out in that article.
 

J.Quondam

CR 1/8
I don’t like slasher flicks either. I just think it’s funny. The House of Mouse was built on pillaging the public domain and they fought long and hard to make sure nothing of theirs fell into the public domain. And now their mascot has.
Yeah, I sincerely hope they get at least a little comeuppance in years to come. They're going to fight long and hard, though. It will be interesting* to see play out.
I wish I was optimistic about the outcome, but tbh, I'm not very.
 


MGibster

Legend
Yes, Steamboat Willie is out of copyright. But Mickey Mouse remains a Disney trademark in very active use -- quite possibly the most well-known trademark they have.
I suppose Disney could argue that the use of Mickey from Steamboat Willie might confuse consumers, but I think that's going to be an uphill battle. Though it would be an interesting way of effectively keeping its copyright so long as the trademark was in effect. Trademarks, so far as I undestand it, only apply to a fairly narrow set of circumstances.
 

J.Quondam

CR 1/8
Something somewhat relevant I just stumbled upon:


It's by Randy Mulholland, who now writes Popeye as well as his own Something Positive webcomic. Sounds like he's intending to "play it straight" as an actual sequel of silly adventures in the vein of the rubber-hose characters as they already are, rather than adapting them into some other genre. He also provides a little commentary.
It's only two pages in so far, but we'll see if/how it pans out, both artistically and legally.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
Something somewhat relevant I just stumbled upon:


It's by Randy Mulholland, who now writes Popeye as well as his own Something Positive webcomic. Sounds like he's intending to "play it straight" as an actual sequel of silly adventures in the vein of the rubber-hose characters as they already are, rather than adapting them into some other genre. He also provides a little commentary.
It's only two pages in so far, but we'll see if/how it pans out, both artistically and legally.
The last line of commentary from the first installment is rather telling.

“So here’s hoping Disney doesn’t sue me anyway. -R.”

Because that’s absolutely a thing they can still do regardless of the copyright status of Steamboat Willie.
 


J.Quondam

CR 1/8
The last line of commentary from the first installment is rather telling.

“So here’s hoping Disney doesn’t sue me anyway. -R.”

Because that’s absolutely a thing they can still do regardless of the copyright status of Steamboat Willie.
For sure. The merest whiff of a misapplied DMCA notice - much less a full lawsuit on the real trademark issue - could easily shut down a small potatoes creator like him.

Disney and other Big Content have done such things before, and won't be stopping anytime soon.
 

Remove ads

Top