RSS
Turns Out Disney Might Not Own The Copyright On Early Mickey Mouse Cartoons
from the oops dept
Remember the recent story we had where some researchers noted that, despite the conventional wisdom (and claims from Time Warner), it appeared that Time Warner probably did not own the copyright on Happy Birthday? Of course, the company still collects millions for it, because people assume they do, but the historical evidence suggests that this is really incorrect. Now it turns out that the same thing may be true for Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse. This is rather noteworthy considering both the history of Mickey Mouse, as well as how much effort Disney has always put towards copyright extension just as the supposed copyright on Mickey Mouse was about to expire.
Now, to be clear, Disney can continue to hold the trademark on Mickey Mouse for as long as it continues to use the mark in commerce, but the copyright should go into the public domain eventually -- meaning others can make use of the early works, as long as it's clear that they're not doing so as Disney. So what if all of these copyright extensions were for naught, and the copyright had already expired?
There seems to be rather compelling evidence that this is the case, and many legal scholars agree. Basically, Disney was a bit disorganized early on and appears to have screwed up the original copyright claims on some early Mickey Mouse shorts, which based on the law at the time would nullify the copyright altogether. Now, this would only count for those early clips, which had a slightly different version of Mickey.
Not surprisingly, Disney isn't particularly open to this argument. Not only does it dismiss the concept out of hand as "frivolous," it has also legally threatened a legal scholar who first published an analysis saying that the copyright was invalid. In a letter to the researcher, Disney warned him that publishing his research could be seen as "slander of title" suggesting that he was inviting a lawsuit. He still published and Disney did not sue, but it shows the level of hardball the company is willing to play.
Of course, the story can be different when Disney is on the other side of the coin. When it was discovered that someone else (other than Disney) probably held the copyright for Bambi, Disney went ballistic, throwing out arcane legal concept after arcane legal concept to come up with anything that would get the copyright out of the hands of this other potential owner. Disney basically threw every potential legal argument against the wall -- including claiming both that Bambi was in the public domain and that Disney owned the copyright to it.
Unfortunately, none of this is likely to amount to much. It's unlikely anyone will actually challenge Disney on the copyright of early Mickey Mouse (or that anyone will challenge Happy Birthday's copyright either). However, once again, we find that the supposed "ownership" of certain things isn't quite as clear cut as some would like you to believe.
20 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Dutch Government: Make European Copyright Exceptions More Flexible
- Protecting The Artists? Disney's Marvel Uses Copyright To Crush Already Broke Ghost Rider Creator
- How Does The Penalty For 'Content Theft' Match Up With Similar 'Crimes'?
- Disney Refused Invitation From Senator Feinstein To Meet With Tech Companies Over PIPA/SOPA
- Pixar Trademark Lawyers Being Kept Busy: Fighting Pixar Petroleum, While Being Fought By The Atlanta Braves Over 'Brave'
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Mmm Minnie
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I think they are referring to Steamboat Willie, who eventually became Mickey Mouse.
The argument could be extended that copyright applies to Mickey Mouse, but not Steamboat Willie, arguing the case that these two characters are just that, 2 different characters.
If so, then Steamboat Willie may be open to public domain, while Disney holds the rights to Mickey.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If you have seen someone singing Happy Birthday in a restaurant, a park, or at a school, you should tell ASCAP so that they can arrange for a license. If you are an offender, you should apologize and offer to pay whatever is due — a nickel, a quarter, a dollar — whatever ASCAP demands.
Incentive to create ?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Happy Birthday copyright
No one officially sings "Happy Birthday" any more out of fear.
Happy Birthday Sean Connery, actor, born 8/25/1930
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
it was UB!.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Just out of interest, if it turns out that WB doesn't own the copyright on Happy Birthday, or that Disney doesn't hold the copyright on Steamboat Willie, what happens to the thousands of people who have been forced to pay for their use by WB / Disney in the past?
Do they just have to grin and bear it, or can they get their money back because Disney/WB had no right to ask for the money in the first place?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mmm Minnie
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Public Domain = Public Domain
As long as they are subject to copyright law, it is in my view, the legal equivalent of "Robbing from the Public Interest".
As a visual representation, I see it similar to a city building a 2 mile long park complete with beach and boardwalks. Then some neighborhood clown puts a 8-foot fence around the park and starts charging admission.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I think they are referring to Steamboat Willie, who eventually became Mickey Mouse.
OK, that would make Mickey Mouse a derivative work of Steamboat Willie. But then you go on to say
The argument could be extended that copyright applies to Mickey Mouse, but not Steamboat Willie, arguing the case that these two characters are just that, 2 different characters.
So how could they be two separate works if one is a derivative of the other?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Wouldnt they have to be two SEPERATE works for one to be derivative of another?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Boycott Disney
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
So how could they be two separate works if one is a derivative of the other?"
It's entirely possible. Look at Superman and Superboy. The later is a derivative of the former, but they are considered two entirely separate characters under copyright laws, to the extent that DC Comics stopped using the name Superboy (even going so far as to killing off or changing the name of any character called Superboy), due to a copyright lawsuit by the estate of the character's creator. So far as I know, said lawsuit has not gone to court yet.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Yeah, can't say I argue that anymore. It makes your stomach turn - what they used to be and what they are now.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, just the opposite because the derivative work would contain elements of the other and thus not be completely separate from it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Under copyright law for a work to be considered a derivative of another work it must contain elements of that other work. It is therefore not a completely separate work. "Derivative work" is a legal term in copyright law and is not generally defined by the genealogy of comic book characters.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment