D&D 5E Steamboat Willie Available on DMs Guild!

[overgeeked]

But the character Mickey Mouse is in the public domain, at least the earliest versions of him. The US patent office has ruled that you are permitted to use a trademarked name to refer to a public domain character in your product, as long as the use is descriptive and doesn't give any false impression about the origin of the product. This particular is clearly labelled "not affiliated with Disney", so it should be clear.

Trademarks are far more limited in what uses they protect that copyright is. Of course that's unlikely to help you if Disney sends a takedown request to DMs Guild. The golden rule is that he who has the gold makes the rules.

Yep. And companies still sue people over violating the trademark of public domain works. Conan, for example, is public domain, yet the owners of the Conan trademark will sue you if you use the name. If you can afford to fight their lawyers, you might win. Otherwise trying to fight that battle will land you in the poor house. Being right doesn’t matter. You have to be able to afford to fight incredibly rich companies in court for years to prove you’re right. Welcome to the US legal system.

 

[Steampunkette]

This is by no means legally established and you should consult with an experienced IP lawyer before assuming such and publishing something.

You're right that it isn't legally established.

And it won't -be- legally established until someone does it.

However, by the law as it stands, Mickey in Red Pants is in the public domain so long as anyone can find a 1928 picture of him in red pants released by Disney... Otherwise we get that next year based on the 1929 poster I linked.

That said... Disney probably intends to pick someone who uses Mickey in a commercial fashion that they can try to insinuate infringes on their modern copyright (like using the wrong eyes or something) or somehow reflects poorly on Disney itself to absolutely demolish in court both as an example to others and with the intent of using the legal system to force a judicial ruling that essentially extends copyright beyond the letter of the law.

Some kind of "Well the original owner's company is still using it so the copyright isn't expired even after 95 years!" or some other malicious interpretation.

 

[Mannahnin]

That's cool. But Disney still holds the trademark to the name "Mickey Mouse." This will get pulled down if Disney's lawyers catch wind of it.

Yup. I just came here to post this. "Mickey Mouse" is not in the public domain.

But the character Mickey Mouse is in the public domain, at least the earliest versions of him. The US patent office has ruled that you are permitted to use a trademarked name to refer to a public domain character in your product, as long as the use is descriptive and doesn't give any false impression about the origin of the product. This particular is clearly labelled "not affiliated with Disney", so it should be clear.

Trademarks are far more limited in what uses they protect that copyright is. Of course that's unlikely to help you if Disney sends a takedown request to DMs Guild. The golden rule is that he who has the gold makes the rules.

Exactly. The character's name in the movie Steamboat Willie is Mickey Mouse.

 

[MGibster]

But the character Mickey Mouse is in the public domain, at least the earliest versions of him. The US patent office has ruled that you are permitted to use a trademarked name to refer to a public domain character in your product, as long as the use is descriptive and doesn't give any false impression about the origin of the product. This particular is clearly labelled "not affiliated with Disney", so it should be clear.

Bingo. At least here in the United States, trademark cannot be used to prolong copyright indefinitely. I know we have people who are far more knowledgeable about trademark than I am, but trademark basically exists to help avoid customer confusion and is only applicable to specific situations. For example, King Arthur is the trademark for King Arthur Flour. I can still write a story, make a video game, or paint and sell a picture of King Arthur without running afoul of King Arthur Flour's trademark. Nobody who buys my King Arthur computer game is going to confuse me with the flour people (probably).

 

[Oofta]

Bingo. At least here in the United States, trademark cannot be used to prolong copyright indefinitely. I know we have people who are far more knowledgeable about trademark than I am, but trademark basically exists to help avoid customer confusion and is only applicable to specific situations. For example, King Arthur is the trademark for King Arthur Flour. I can still write a story, make a video game, or paint and sell a picture of King Arthur without running afoul of King Arthur Flour's trademark. Nobody who buys my King Arthur computer game is going to confuse me with the flour people (probably).

Hmm, gives me an idea for something to publish on DmsGuild...

 

[overgeeked]

Bingo. At least here in the United States, trademark cannot be used to prolong copyright indefinitely.

While true, you have to be able to afford to fight that battle in court. For years. Against Disney's lawyers. Before you'll be eventually, maybe, found to be correct. In the mean time, you'll go bankrupt long before that.

I know we have people who are far more knowledgeable about trademark than I am, but trademark basically exists to help avoid customer confusion and is only applicable to specific situations. For example, King Arthur is the trademark for King Arthur Flour. I can still write a story, make a video game, or paint and sell a picture of King Arthur without running afoul of King Arthur Flour's trademark. Nobody who buys my King Arthur computer game is going to confuse me with the flour people (probably).

The important bit that's being overlooked here is that the King Arthur Flour people don't have a trademark for books, video games, art, etc. Their trademark is for baking, baking magazines, flour, etc. It's limited scope. That's not the case with Disney's Mickey Mouse. They have every conceivable trademark filed and they protect them vigorously. Games, software, books, etc. are all covered by Disney's Mickey Mouse trademarks. So this runs afoul of those trademarks.

 

[MGibster]

While true, you have to be able to afford to fight that battle in court. For years. Against Disney's lawyers. Before you'll be eventually, maybe, found to be correct. In the mean time, you'll go bankrupt long before that.

The important bit that's being overlooked here is that the King Arthur Flour people don't have a trademark for books, video games, art, etc. Their trademark is for baking, baking magazines, flour, etc. It's limited scope. That's not the case with Disney's Mickey Mouse. They have every conceivable trademark filed and they protect them vigorously. Games, software, books, etc. are all covered by Disney's Mickey Mouse trademarks. So this runs afoul of those trademarks.

I don't think it does run afoul of Disney's trademark. Given that there's a big disclaimer saying it isn't a Disney product, they would be hard pressed to demonstrate that this caused any confusion among buyers. Nobody thinks this is a Disney product.

 

[overgeeked]

I don't think it does run afoul of Disney's trademark. Given that there's a big disclaimer saying it isn't a Disney product, they would be hard pressed to demonstrate that this caused any confusion among buyers. Nobody thinks this is a Disney product.

Again, common sense doesn’t matter. How spicy Disney’s lawyers want to be is what matters. And depending on how they’re feeling on a given day, people can be made homeless and bankrupt.

 

[Dire Bare]

Wow! I've been waiting for Mickey Mouse to enter the public domain so that someone would create D&D content using the character . . . . . wait, no I haven't. Meh.

I'm already tired of folks opportunistically creating Steamboat Willie products, trying to somehow cash in on the character entering the public domain. I have zero interest in Mickey Mouse D&D.

 

[MGibster]

Again, common sense doesn’t matter. How spicy Disney’s lawyers want to be is what matters. And depending on how they’re feeling on a given day, people can be made homeless and bankrupt.

Common sense, or at least legal sense, does matter. Disney's lawyers can't manufacture a valid lawsuit out of thin air. And they're going to be very careful in how they push this issue as it might not go their way.