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

[Paul Farquhar]

When Sherlock Holmes entered the public domain there was a lot of excitement. Because Holmes is an interesting character, and some people created great stories with him (as well as a lot of bad ones).

But Mickey Mouse is an incredibly boring character. He is as dull as ditchwater. No story is better with Mickey Mouse in it. The only reason people are trying to make things with Mickey Mouse is in a fairly pathetic-looking attempt to make themselves look tough by trying to antagonise the biggest kid in the playground.

 

[MGibster]

Oh no, it runs afoul because it says 2 things: Mickey Mouse & Steamboat Willie, both of which are Disney trademarks.

In the United States, you cannot use trademark to indefinitely extend a copyright. That's just not how the law works. It has already been established that when a character becomes part of the public domain anyone can use them. People are free to use the 1928 version of Micky Mouse and even create their own derivitive versions so long as it doesn't infringe on any current copyrighted version of the character. Disney may be able to use legal shennanigans to give someone a hard time for using Micky Mouse, but they're going to have to be careful because they could always take a hit for filing a SLAPP suit or even worse they might lose the case which would only embolden more people to use Micky Mouse.

Even the public domain version of Daredevil from Lev Gleason can't be sold in a comic called Daredevil because Marvel owns the trademark "Daredevil" for pretty much everything. You see him in miniseries dedicated to him as Reddevil, Death Defying Devil, even just "The Devil" while the interiors will refer to him as Daredevil.

So what you're telling me is that you can still use Daredevil just so long as you don't create any confusion that this comic is produced by Marvel?

 

[MGibster]

When Sherlock Holmes entered the public domain there was a lot of excitement. Because Holmes is an interesting character, and some people created great stories with him (as well as a lot of bad ones).

And the estate of Arthur Conan Doyle argued in court that because Holmes and Watson were still featured in stories that were currently copyrighted, nobody should be able to use those characters. i.e. They made an attempt to indefinitely extend copyright and the court smacked them down.

I'm with you on the Mouse. I did see a few Mickey Mouse cartoons when I was a kid, but they were mostly produced decades before I was born. He was more of a mascot to me than a character. But I think Disney made an effort a few decades ago to reintroduce Mickey to a younger audience and they started producing new cartoons featuring him. So to younger people, he might actually be a character again.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Mickey Mouse may be pretty boring in most of his cartoon appearances, but he also features in a bunch of excellent comics where he goes on adventures and solves crimes. That aspect of the character is still under copyright, but someday....

Edit: Mickey Mouse in Death Valley was published in 1930, so just 2 more years until action hero Mickey enters the public domain!

 

[billd91]

Mickey Mouse may be pretty boring in most of his cartoon appearances, but he also features in a bunch of excellent comics where he goes on adventures and solves crimes. That aspect of the character is still under copyright, but someday....

Yes, many of those Disney comic books were actually quite good. The Donald Duck and Scrooge McDuck ones were particularly good, but the Mickey Mouse ones were pretty good as well.

 

[Willie the Duck]

But Mickey Mouse is an incredibly boring character. He is as dull as ditchwater. No story is better with Mickey Mouse in it. The only reason people are trying to make things with Mickey Mouse is in a fairly pathetic-looking attempt to make themselves look tough by trying to antagonise the biggest kid in the playground.

Yes and no.
First, yes, no one is doing anything with Mickey Mouse this year except because they see it as somehow sticking it to the mouse and really cheesing off a big corporation (with whom they may or may not have existing axes to grind).

Second, Micky Mouse is incredibly boring in most modern media (where he is, naturally, corporate-mascot-level dull and inoffensive), as well as in the cartoon shorts that are now passing into public domain (where he mostly interacts with whatever sight gags the animators came up with). In the early daily comic strips written and drawn by Floyd Gottfredson, he was an interesting and engaging character, at least within the context of early-mid 20th century US children's entertainment. That Mickey was brash, rambunctious, sometimes pretty ornery -- threatening to take someone's block off more than a few times, and brandishing/firing a revolver recklessly with disturbing regularity. There are trade paperbacks of the old strips, which I'd recommend to anyone interested in the early days of comic arts (and anyone with kids old enough to listen to a discussion about differing generational standards about gun use/smoking/depictions of gender and race/etc.).

 

[teitan]

In the United States, you cannot use trademark to indefinitely extend a copyright. That's just not how the law works. It has already been established that when a character becomes part of the public domain anyone can use them. People are free to use the 1928 version of Micky Mouse and even create their own derivitive versions so long as it doesn't infringe on any current copyrighted version of the character. Disney may be able to use legal shennanigans to give someone a hard time for using Micky Mouse, but they're going to have to be careful because they could always take a hit for filing a SLAPP suit or even worse they might lose the case which would only embolden more people to use Micky Mouse.


So what you're telling me is that you can still use Daredevil just so long as you don't create any confusion that this comic is produced by Marvel?

1: I didn't say extend the copyright. I didn't even imply it. The trademark prevents the use of the terms "Mickey Mouse" & "Steamboat Willie" as a selling point for your PD derived product.

2: No, you can not publish a book called Daredevil or a toy, movie, TV series about a disabled Superhero (the original was mute) or any superhero. You can work around it on the title, you can call him something else entirely on the cover, like "Death Defying Devil" and "Red Devil" but you can not call him Daredevil on the cover or a toy. Same reason that DC can't call Captain Marvel... Captain Marvel. Marvel owns the trademark on Captain Marvel so all appearances by the DC owned Captain Marvel said "SHazam" on the cover while in the interior he was called... Captain Marvel. In toys he was called "SHazam". SO much so that people now think his name is... Shazam and therefore DC has changed his name to Shazam. They aren't even the Marvel Family, they are the Shazam family.

Alan Moore wrote a series called Marvelman in England, when it was imported to the US Eclipse received a C&D from Marvel and so they decided to change his name to Miracleman.

None of these are examples of extending copyright. They are Trade Mark issues.

 

[teitan]

But I think Disney made an effort a few decades ago to reintroduce Mickey to a younger audience and they started producing new cartoons featuring him. So to younger people, he might actually be a character again.

It was less than a decade ago but he has continually been featured in animation since he was introduced. So it wasn't an attempt to reintroduce, it was a repackaging with modern storytelling. They did animated movies and specials with him throughout the decades.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Mickey Mouse may be pretty boring in most of his cartoon appearances, but he also features in a bunch of excellent comics where he goes on adventures and solves crimes. That aspect of the character is still under copyright, but someday....

Edit: Mickey Mouse in Death Valley was published in 1930, so just 2 more years until action hero Mickey enters the public domain!

But there is nothing stopping you creating a comic strip about an action hero anthropomorphic mouse detective (who caries a revolver, smokes, and gets into fist fights) right now. There is nothing remotely copyrightable in that concept. It wouldn't add anything to your comic strip, either artistically or commercially, to make your protagonist a dull corporate mascot.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

But there is nothing stopping you creating a comic strip about an action hero anthropomorphic mouse detective (who caries a revolver, smokes, and gets into fist fights) right now. There is nothing remotely copyrightable in that concept. It wouldn't add anything to your comic strip, either artistically or commercially, to make your protagonist a dull corporate mascot.

Using an established character in your story means you can jump right into the action instead of using page count on introducing the setting and characters.

And it can absolutely help you commercially if it's a character that people like and want more stories about. Disney has been using Mickey as a dull corporate mascot for years now, and that means the market demand for action hero Mickey is currently not beeing met.