I just think that this so dumb Disney needs to keep all the rights because they know how to make people happy giving the rights to someone else is the wrong way to go Walt is rolling over his grave right now by this whole thing.
i don't think i've ever seen a news agency openly fire shots at a company like Disney in this way. directly pointing at Walt Disney using public domain works, and also how Disney played a part in IP extensions. Actually pretty respectable reporting here ngl.
It's CBS, which, while it has decent reporting, is more importantly, owned by Paramount (which is controlled by National Amusements, which frankly, I didn't even realize) and thus has both an incentive and a likely prerogative to double down on this. While I'm certain that there are plenty of honest people in the news room at CBS, their superiors are probably goading them into this story. It's Disney losing its copyright to the Steamboat Willie version of Mickey though, so I couldn't care less. If this were ABC reporting this, I would have done a legitimate double take, but then I would actually have to respect ABC to begin with.
I wouldn't really call that firing shots. It's not like they were saying Disney bought out politicians and threw their weight around to get extensions, or that Walt Disney was ripping off public domain works. They were just saying facts.
Hughes public domain works, that’s not a negative thing. It’s not firing a shot, and neither is reporting on extensions, though I’m glad they mentioned it. It’s not like Disney’s trying to hide or deny any of this
@@flowrebaz6189 WB made relatively few theatrical animated features other than early shorts. Meanwhile, Disney essentially invented the feature-length animated film with Snow White and they went many decades with one or more perpetually in development.
It astounds me that Disney is against copyright infringement when *their entire early catalog was based upon work written by other people,* primarily in western Europe (eg. Grimm brothers etc.)
@@DoctorKnox I think you’re missing my point, I find it ironic that Disney calls foul for copyright infringement when the very company itself was founded upon that basic premise
@@djvelocity They didn't steal anything though, they used the stories. That's like saying Universal stole Snow White when they did Snow White and the Huntsman. All they did was use an existing story and basically wrote their own "fanfiction" on it. That free use. Since Universal did Snow White and the Huntsman it goes to show that there is no issue taking an existing "public domain" and turning it into something to make profit. The Brothers Grimm were long into the public domain, and even they didn't make most of their stories. Most Brother's Grimm stories were even older folk tales that they altered and made into full stories. It's a little different than creating an entirely new character and copywriting that character (Mickey Mouse). Heck, even the Brother's Grimm were copywritten at one point.
But this is not copyright infringement, quite the opposite. The copyright has expired so is fair game, just as the tales Disney used before. What I don’t like is that they got to force congress into extending the expiration date till now
That’s only true for the really old fairy tales like Snow White or Sleeping Beauty as there was never a copy right on them. For newer material like Peter Pan they bought the rights.
Finally someone mentioned how Disney exploited the public domain a lot to make their empire, meaning that Disney has no ground to complain about losing Mickey.
Mickey brings in a pittance compared to the rest of Disney's portfolio these days. He just isn't as profitable as he once was. They aren't complaining anymore, he's expendable
I had never heard of this. this is such an insightful comment to a unique perspective that no one has ever, ever addressed. thank you for changing my life. i'm now free
Indeed. And if you ask me which version of Mickey Mouse comes to my mind now, it is the one from South Park, where he beats a member of a boy band because of his refusal to wear a purity ring (and if you haven't seen that scene, maybe it's for the best).
@@jahjoeka Copyright is the protection of works such as films and books. The protection only lasts the life of the author plus a certain amount of years. Trademarks are the protection of words, symbols and phrases. Trademarks last forever as long as they’re still being used or until the word/phrase becomes too general to be protected. Ex: Hoover (the company) lost the TM over their name when it became a common replacement word for vacuum cleaners.
Yeah it's the wrong word because the mickey symbol will forever be Disney's trademark but the copyright of the character itself is now free use like jane austen characters and fairytale characters. Now disney just has to do it the best against anyone who tries to make money off of mickey the character.
They didn't have just 1 extension, they kept doing extensions and if they thought they would lose a lot of money, they would keep making new laws to allow them to keep it copyright forever. Remember, just because copyrights are legally set to expire, doesn't mean billion dollar companies will allow them to expire. Therefore, other Disney copyrights, might not expire.
@@Sharpe1502 the European Union will not be happy about Disney extending its copyrights for too long. It’s had enough extensions already! Also, Disney frigging likes the Mexican copyright term of life plus a century.
@@SlapstickGenius23 the eu doesn't really matter in this case as holly wood is in the us and they follow us laws. maybe eu studios could make movies based off disney properties but they wouldn't be allowed in the us. not alot of studios will do much with disney properties
There was a number of decades where we had NOTHING enter the public domain because of the copyright extension legislation. This is what led to many smaller books, music and films becoming forgotten because all the fans who might have remembered and made new works based on them were now too old or passed away. This should have been portrayed as a robbery of the public by the hands of large media corporations.
Yes, totally agree. It isn't the Mickey Mouse etc or the famous films or books, it is the ones that have just been totally forgotten about and zilch could be done with them until they entered the public domain.
@@gregoryblack8109since 2019, yes! But for 20 years before that, nothing entered the public domain (minus some weird exceptions) because corporations convinced congress to extend the copyrights from 75 years to 95 years. If you try to look up “what entered the public domain in” and type any year after 1999 and before 2019, you’ll just see results of what could have entered the public domain if not for the extension.
God it is about time this happened. Every single time it came close to this Disney would somehow find a way to extend copyright, to the point that the 14 year long term of copyright has become a term of Life of the Artist + 70 years, meaning that the maximum term is 180 years (assuming that the artist lives to 110, the oldest a human has been known to live), which is simply insane and subverts the purpose of copyright entirely. I do believe that Disney has tried to fight this, but a maximum term of 220 years sounds absurd even to those in Congress thank god.
All of these depictions of Mickey are illegal, it shows how much Americans don’t understand their own intellectual property laws, all these games are still illegal, only the films are legal NOT THE CHARACTERS IN ANY FORM, they’re design marked and all of these games and new movies will be taken down if they are not in parody or fair use which COMMERCIAL USE IS NOT LEGAL
I'm fine with the 70 years after an artist's death rule. Like if someone creates such a hugely successful work, they deserve to at least comfortably set up their kids and grandkids.
I don't think many people understand what the public domain is for. Originally copyrights only lasted 14 years. As you can see in the video it was used to inspire and reinvent many things as Disney did. With copyrights lasting 100 years or more there is a lot less things being inspire and reinvented
You see it online. You create a project the slightly resembles thr same style of universe like Star Wars and it's instantly taken down. Doesn't even have to look like a character.
@@Mockthenerd Yeah it’s insane. Or like how in their song “Bittersweet Symphony,” the British Rock band The Verve sampled a short instrumental segment of an obscure 1965 orchestral adaptation of the Rolling Stones’ song “The Last Time.” The Verve completely created a new song that was their biggest hit (look it up and you’ll recognize it). Well, because of that short instrumental sample that nobody had even heard of, The Verve got sued by Allen Klein (the Stones’ former manager who owned the orchestral piece) and every cent of the profits from Bittersweet Symphony (which vastly surpassed the sampled piece in popularity) goes to Allen Klein. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards liked “Bittersweet Symphony” and declined to get involved in the lawsuit. However, they gained writing credits, even though they didn’t care about the orchestral piece or have any involvement in its creation. It was all the greed of their managers. Even the guy who wrote the instrumental line used in the song was against the lawsuit, saying the whole thing made him feel sick to his stomach. But that’s the music industry for you; the producers, agents, etc will always pursue every penny they can get even when they don’t need it. Couldn’t even let a new artist make any money from their work. Wherever corporate/media/industry lawyers can go after you for copyright infringement, they will.
You certainly can't tell from the way it's been twisted around, but the original idea of copyright law was to give creators a reasonable time to make some money from their creations and then add them to a robust Public Domain.
Copyright in America was created to put a LIMIT to the typical English guild perpetual appropriation of works. Its original term was 14 years with a single extension of 14 more years, after which it ensured entering the public domain for the promotion of arts and culture that would make derivative works of it (just like Disney and many others did). But corporate interests pushed this to a century or more, almost destroying its original purpose. This is why Lawrence Lessig and others came up with Creative Commons, so that authors have a choice to declare their works from Public Domain to different levels of reduced copyright. This is why you can use music in your videos online, heroes like Kevin MacLeod declared their works CC and you only need to give attribution OR pay a one fee of $30 per song.
IT'S ABOUT TIME! It's totally hypocritical for a company that's made so much money off of public domain stories to have a strangle hold on copyright. The public domain is for everyone! our culture is enriched when our artists and writers have a deep and varied field of past works to build upon. Disney proves this themselves: they wouldn't be the company they are today without public domain stories like Cinderella, The Snow Queen, 1001 Nights...
They drastically change the public domain stories into their own though. Also original disney focused on animation. They are who they are because of the incredible art they created, not because they re-told classic tales.
Disney owns so much of the media that people in the U.S. are likely to have seen. People can't (legally) touch the stories that inspired them when they were younger, because Disney's right to it is held as sacred. Even stuff that was already in the public domain has Disney versions now that can make it risky to make an adaptation of.
You sound naive. Every company tries to protect its property. It's not just Disney. Apple recently had to withdraw some of its watches from the US market for a similar reason.
Glad to see you all acknowledge how Disney used works already in the public domain to build it's corporate empire without being neutral and asking if it's really okay for people to challenge corporations.
I am the youngest of 4 siblings, my sisters are 15 and 17 years older than me. They read me stories when I was little... fairy tales... the original Grimms Fairy Tales. It was disappointing to see "Cinderella", Disney version for the 1st time because they left out ALL the good parts! Where's the scene where the 2 step sisters carve their feet up so the bloody stumps can fit inside the glass slipper, yet Prince is too dang stupid to notice blood gushing everywhere? How about that sweet scene at the Royal wedding, when birds peck out the eyeballs of the wicked step sisters? Where'd that silly "fairy godmother" come from? In the original, no fairy godmother, Cindi gets her ballgowns and accessories at her mother's grave, BUT she gets to party at the castle for 3 nights in a row, each night she gets a different fancier dress than the last one. I liked that part. Some birds toss her the stuff she wears. The same birds who later eat the stepsisters' eyeballs. How dare Disney mess up such a precious, sweet story!
@@LazyIRanchnobody said they messed them up. But half of Disney's iconic properties would simply not exist if the same copyright laws that Disney lobbied and pushed for extended to the works that they made into movies.
5 million views 10,000 comments Both the video and most of the comments all have it wrong. Disney lost the COPYRIGHT on the motion picture "Steamboat Willie", they did NOT lose the TRADEMARK to Steamboat Willie (or Mickey Mouse). Disney has been using the look of Steamboat Willie as their Disney Film Animation intro for a few years now as a trademark. Anyone trying to use it in a motion picture will get sued for that the same way you'd get sued by Coke for making a soda pop with a swoosh on your can.
What a way to start the year honestly. It feels good to continually hear the phrase "we can finally do to Walt Disney what Walt Disney has done to the public domain". It's about time.
Disney has use stories and made millions from them. Most notable Lion king and little mermaid were not Disney originals but stories told by Disney their way.
The Harvard law professor made a really good point. Disney had taken a bunch of public domain stories and turned them into their own. Like Snow White or Peter Pan. So they should be in favor of stories and characters being available to the public…. But on a more personal note, Disney deserves to lose these iconic characters because they have tarnished Walt Disney’s name and shouldn’t be able to gatekeep his work anymore. They’re not the same company they were even 10 years ago. They don’t deserve to still claim name to the iconic Walt Disney stories after what they’ve done to their IPs
My grandfather was (to use the term loosely) friends with Walt Disney, and while he made a lot of wonderful things, he also made a lot of terrible things, and was antisemitic as hell. (Hence why I don't totally understand my grandfather's relationship with him, since he was and we are Jewish.)
@@iPyromantic Antisemitism was rampant and on the rise due to the ongoing eugenics movement at the time, it was just considered science. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
I went through dive (edit where I try to look up things I learned from rumors), and I've learned that I have heard a bunch of rumors. However I am still hundred percent certain Disney will try to take down any small person thing with a similar art style or picture, because the person would not have money. DISNEY LISTS $330,000 CRISIS PR JOB AFTER CEO INSULTS STRIKING ACTORS AND WRITERS Disney Owes $240M for Stealing Ideas Failed trademark opposition by Disney over a 3-circle silhouette I've heard disney sues anything with three circles Also: Lemming Suicide Myth Disney Film Faked Bogus Behavior (killed Lemmings) Also it's a monopoly Disney Domination: How three circles have come to rule the world Also DISNEY ANNOUNCES THAT THEY ARE MAKING A BENDY AND THE INK MACHINE THE MOVIE! Also you cannot look this up on google which is weird: Disney taking down art Also it owns the three circles @@mmkelite
That the public domain is treated as a special status rather than normal is evidence that corporations have successfully messed up our attitude towards creativity. Before 1976 in the U.S., copyright lasted 56 years at most; before 1909, it only lasted 28. (In most cases, it was only 28 and 14 years since most copyrights weren't renewed.) Copyright lasting only 28 years would mean we'd at least live to preserve, share, enjoy, and make adaptations of works we loved as children.
But it also means more crap would be put out. Why do you think the Tolkien family was so protective over the IP? LotR is JRR Tolkien’s creation period. Nobody is entitled to make adaptations of them
Only the early versions of Mickey Mouse especially Steamboat Willie in 1928 will enter the public Domain, while Disney retains the trademark and copyright for the modern versions of Mickey Mouse.
@@highrfreeqncs4564like how the character looks, features, what they wear. But having that personality, story, and its many forms of media are still theirs
@@highrfreeqncs4564 look at how this Miceky is drawn and compare that to the Mickey we know today. The original appearance is now free to advertise anything.
I really have to roll my eyes that it's only the "Steamboat Willie" version entering the public domain. The only notable differences between the designs is that the current version has white eyes and gloves, while the old version has solid black eyes and no gloves. I'm sure Disney is going to be obnoxiously aggressive about suing to distinguish a difference as people start using Mickey, and I hope the judge who hears the case tells them they're out of luck and the designs are too similar to distinguish from each other.
No one is going to get confused and use the modern version of the character. If I was going to do a Mickey Mouse animated short, I would at the very least be aware of what version I am free to use.
I've always thought the original image of Mickey from Steamboat Willie is his most iconic look and I prefer it to his more commercialized modern presentation. So this is a huge win for the public.
@@phillipanselmo8540 All that matters is that Mickey is finally up for parole and he'll finally be FREE from the chains that held him captive for 100 years in the joint! Can you imagine how he had to compromise being in the can for 100 years?
Why are you people always outraged at everything? Calm down. I don't like Disney but I'm pretty sure extending copyright protection really isn't a big deal.
@@iexist.imnotjoking5700the big deal is that no one else has the ability to get this done as it’s basically having the law make an exception for them, just because they throw insane amounts of money at it (the people approving of the extension, as well as getting it done legally speaking). They shouldn’t be above the law, but such is the way of massive corporations in the US.
@GTXTi-db5xu No, they really shouldn't. Copyright was original "this PERSON created this. While he is alive, he can decide what is done with it, and we will toss a few more years after their death to their estate". Disney, among other groups and companies, has long been pushing to have companies almost be people. Just like science builds on the discoveries of others, art builds on the creations of others, and locking down creative works for seventy to a hundred years AFTER the death of the creator is a tradegy.
I'm shocked they came out with All Quiet on the Western Front film two years ago... I imagine they could have waited two years to release and save a boatload on paying royalties to the copyright owner
Depends on which studio produced it. If it’s the same studio (or whoever now owns them) that produced the 1930 and 1979 versions then it maybe consider them remaking their own film as they would own the copyright to the film adaptation.
@@Bromon655 heck, I was born in 1953 and seeing as most music was already in public domain, I knew many songs thanks to their use in movies / cartoons, which never would have happened if copywrite was longer back then. Bill Clinton changed much of that.
Bad news, if you are realizing this now, that means you are now much older than the average age when one realizes they are "getting old". Let me explain. Movie and media companies (Disney included), successfully fought very hard to exclude their characters from entering public domain just purely out of greed. As result many of these characters are entering the public domain much much later, with restrictions, or maybe not even at all.
Kingdom Hearts is licensed by Disney. If old school Mickey shows up, it doesn't even matter if he's in public domain. He already appeared in the Timeless River world in Kingdom Hearts II.
Oswald, the lucky rabbit also hit public domain in 2023 though of course, not as popular as his brother Mickey, he was technically the very first mascot of the Disney company and Walts first sucess. However, his rights were lost to Universal due to a back handed move on Charles Mintzes part, which is why Mickey was created. The day Disney left Universal tucked in his briefcase were the sketches of Mickey.
@franksantacruz4521 Not many have heard such, because Oswalds a very forgotten toon. Walt for the rest of his life fought to get Oswald back, 4 times he almost had him, Oswald was his second cartoon son. He loved Ozzie as much as Mickey and wanted him back horribly. He was required by the company in 2007 but only seen even with Disney a handful of times. However there's been rumors of them making a show and bringing Oswald to the front more, Disney's Once Upon a Studio made waves in the Fandom space as that was the first time ever Mickey and Oswald had met and interacted on screen, Disney Speedracers brought him into the Modern day in 2023 with his wife Ortensia the Cat. Fun fact Oswald is the only Disney Character to have 420 confirmed children, dubbed the Bunny Kids seen first with his original short Trolley Troubles and he's the only one to have a switch in wives as Fanny was replaced with Ortensia after a few shorts.
most (if not all) of his disney era shorts were already in public domain, as the copyrights for those were never renewed after disney lost oswald, and they expired in the early 30s. when disney was making epic mickey, the exchange with universal was less getting the rights to those shorts, but more just getting the actual surviving reels, as they were in universal’s possession iirc
@@franksantacruz4521 why be so rude? Please check your manners at the door. Not everyone knows this either. How lucky you must be to know such key information. I'm sure you are great at trivia games. Now Please educate us all on more of what you know? And speaking of manners, I'm sorry I couldn't resist being sarcastic here. I just always feel one turn deserves another.🙃
@cheetosan Problem was, however, the character was fully owned by Universal still because they were making Oswald shorts up until the 40s and 50s. It just wasn't under Walt. It was continued through Mintz and a very familiar animator and director known as Tex Avery also worked on Oswald at this time until Tex of course went to Warner and co created Bugs and that crew. So Universal did own the rights to Oswald, but yes by 2007 it was more so about acquiring those shorts.
For those who have no clue about this situation, It was actually the first design of Mickey Mouse to end up in Public Domain, not the character itself.
Honest? the title literally lies and says "mickey mouse" to bait you into clicking because "steamboat willy" isn't as good of a title. Then changes the claim in the article. It's literally a lie as the title. To manipulate for clicks. Most people will read the title as fact and move on. It isn't honest.
No one could destroy Disney’s amazing legacy than Disney itself and they’re doing it wonderfully. They succeeded on destroying Star Wars, Marvel, Indiana Jones, Willow, and lf course, their own films.
Copyright is nice for people to credit the original creator, but some companies take it to the extreme and sue over the stupidest things so its a love-hate relationship for me
Games Workshop has entered the chat ……. Which is why they changed the Names to ALL the factions in the games , because they keep losing fights over name like Space Marine, imperial guard, etc.
Companies love monopolies, and copywrite was literally made with the intent to be a legal one for original ideas. It was well and good originally, but they kept lobbying to make the terms longer and longer til those monopolies became exceptionally unfair to anyone that wasnt a mega-corp. They're so far beyond anything that would benefit smaller groups that only big companies like warner bros, comcast, disney, and so on benefit from. The 25 plus 25 more years if you renewed was much more reasonable (even if I still think thats too long, 50 years in total is a tad much and imo should have been 15 or 20 plus a renewal instead of 25), since works that people didnt care much about went public in 25 years since no one renewed them but people could still renew them once if they're still using that work. Life + 70 years in most countries and 95 years is BEYOND excessive. That skips ENTIRE generations even AFTER the author's death which is just absurd. Its pure greed by mega corps that want to hang onto their precious monopoly IPs like marvel and stuff instead of taking risks and making anything new nor giving anyone the chance to compete with them and make a better version of something they used to own. Pure greed
About time, should be public domain ages ago. I suppose Disney can still continue to use all those assets if they want to, but so will other artists, and we may see some more quality works hopefully.
I once got a cease and desist email for a t-shirt i designed with a mickey on it and my first positive spin thought was "Oh damn, I'm big enough to be acknowledged by Disneys legal team" lol
Idk, might just speak more for the abilities of Disney's legal team. They're vast enough that they have the time and energy to go after a dead 6 year old.
@@junkiejackflash And a daycare somewhere that they somehow discovered to have paintings of Disney characters inside the walls. There's a sewing shop in my town that had wood cutouts of 1930's Mickey and Minnie adorning the building the last time I saw it. I wonder if those are still up.
unless u fully drew it and it wasnt a copy and paste then yeah they should go after you cause you're selling their character design. Make your own characters,
A Swedish cartoonist published cartoons of a “duckish” figure being anything but Donald Duck in character: Arne Anka (Donald Duck is named Kalle Anka in Sweden). Disney sued him because it was a duck figure named Anka (=duck) However the cartoonists manage to fight Disney in court by changing the character a bit… Adding a tiny line that he argued was the string of a mask… And arguing that the figure wasn’t really a duck, but someone permanently wearing a duck mask! Arne Anka is likely one of the more famous truly Swedish cartoons. Not for kids though! And the Woke Hunters in the US would have serious “woke issues” with that character. It isn’t published any longer, but if the Donald Duck copyrights expires anytime soon, I would hope the cartoonist makes the masked figure take of his duck mask… and “voila”… it’s Donald himself!
@@abrakkehakka1357I think toward the end this video mentions more things that copyrights expire for soon, and I think they said Donald Duck’s copyright expires in 2025. Watch it to see if I’m remembering correctly though.
I remember when Lovecraft's works started entering the public domain. Didn't move the needle much for movies or books, but games (analogue and digital) exploded with Cthulhu.
Disney has done an amazing job of obscuring the fact that many of their foundational characters and stories were in the public domain. I've met many people that thought they invented Snow White, Cinderella and the rest. Anyhow, as a programmer, I am already contemplating a Mortal Kombat style game featuring Mickey, Winnie the Pooh, Cinderella, Tarzan, etc. "Fatality!"
You just did a fantastic job of illustrating the difference between what Disney does vs what is being done to them. Reviving disused works is quite different than doing what you want with works that are actively in use by the entity that makes them. Disney has plenty of stuff ripe for public domain, Mickey just ain't it.
I really hope this is done respectfully. I totally balked at the concept of this new Mickey Mouse being drawn like he was back then… just seemed overly contrived… but now with all those cartoons and more up for the taking, so many cool things can be done with them and another legacy can be created, or some kids can have fun, crap all over it until people get sick of it and that’ll be it 🤷🏻♂️ I don’t even care for or watch Mickey Mouse but I respect history when history should be respected.
Fun fact; the first time Mickey Mouse was drawn with pupils was on the invites to the Snow White afterparty, after the success of that iconic film they made invites of Mickey looking down at a golf club since he was golfing. They added the pupils in so he could look down at the golf club. Pretty sweet right? I think Defunctland has an awesome video of him talking about the insane afterparty. It’s interesting if anyone wants to see 😂
The one thing I'd like to see come out of this is famous characters from other companies cosplaying as Steamboat Willie Mickey, like Mario and Garfield, and even Mickey's longtime rival Bugs Bunny.
Lionsgate doesn't have a famous cartoon character from their company because Lionsgate is known for horror, action, thriller adult movies and television shows especially their biggest box office movies, such as John Wick, The Hunger Games, The Hellboy Trilogy, The Expendibles, The Rambo Trilogy, The Blair Witch, and Saw. In my opinion Billy The Saw Puppet is Lionsgate's own Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny.
In other words, the lawyers at Disney calculated that the cost of further lobying to (yet again) extend the copyright duration is lower than the potential profit for keeping the copyright and further milking Steamboat Willie for a few more bucks.
People are way more aware of shady copyright extensions nowadays. They would most definitely face significant blowback if they tried to do it again. Or at least, I would hope so.
@@son_guhun from who? People in the US aren't even able to unite to fight for their own country's future, so I can't see them mounting a successful counter to copyright! EU etc maybe, potentially even China, India etc may unite in it, or if not, it might at least light the flame & see a united attack on future copyright extensions, so probably best not to light that flame
@@mehere8038 People in China? What? lol. They could barely fight to get the draconian COVID lockdowns of 2022 to stop. I doubt copyright law is something they could democratically influence at this time. Though I guess the CCP would currently be against copyright extension, since it mostly benefits US media megacorps, so the people may not even need to influence them. I really don't think the topic of copyright is as much a part of the Zeitgeist in India or China as it is in the US (or the EU, as you mentioned). A lot of the copyright awereness people have nowadays comes from consuming and creating independent internet content, so countries that have had larger internet participation for longer are more likely to be aware of it. Finally, being against copyright extension is a pretty bipartisan sentiment in the US, afaik. So it's really not as complex to get their legislature to block it as it would be to "unite for the country's future".
Blood and Honey is the exact reason, as an artist, the idea of my work one day becoming open for anyone to use is a little scary. Not like my works are popular enough to be copied someday, but the idea of someone using my characters to do horrible things is troubling.
I normally hate network news, but was pleasantly surprised by this video. I thought the editing was great, especially the cuts of Minnie Mouse laughing and “The End”. I thought they covered the issue succinctly with some interesting insights and thankfully bereft of any detectable politics or ulterior motive. It feels like they pulled editors from Big Brother to do this show and I’m into it.
The name Mickey Mouse is protected under Trademark, and as such, use is risky if you fail to separate your version from Disney (Its why the Pooh horror exists, because while the original Winnie the Pooh went into the public domain, Disney still owns its protected versions thereof) The very specific character as depicted in Steamboat Willie is going public domain. Its also floated that the reason Steamboat Willie started appearing as an animated logo was an attempt to maintain protections under Trademark law
Using the ‘character’ without the name has been legal for ages though. South Park has shown a high-pitched voice, pseudo-Mickey Mouse that goes ‘Ha Ha!’ every other sentence. It’s clear who it is, they just haven’t mentioned his name. So what’s changed if we still can’t use the character now, name and all?
no IP should be bloody copyrighted for 120 years. should've stayed at 14 with a chance to renew it once for 14 more. that is what was intended and should've stayed at. no creator would enjoy the fact their creation stays in their hands 50+ years after they'd passed.
@@Elpinchecrizz I can't imagine even the land of uncopyright & bootlegs can think of anything to sell this. I bet everyone was just waiting for the winning formula.
This is a great victory for creative artists who support public domain. Disney has been ruthless in copyright for far too long. Plus these creations deserve to be in the public domain. Edit: Okay, I don't think I explained it thoroughly enough. What I mean by public domain is that many of the movies made by Disney were all adaptations of fairy tales from Europe, Asia, Africa and more and a lot of them were considered "public domain" at the time. Since Disney made their versions of them, that gives them the right to copyright laws. But because Disney became such a big name, Many fans, use Disney's work for many things like fan-related content or for critical reviews and others. Disney became more restrictive on their copyright laws because of that. But now that Disney's work is entering public domain, it's a good thing for Disney fans to use it as a base for inventing creative stories with Disney as an inspiration.
@@Bfkcjscbsnjciconic works have come from people adapting public domain works, the first Frankenstein film is really important horror, Disneys snow white and little mermaid are very important pieces of animation Early dragon ball is just journey to the west Its a wonderful life has most of its beloved reputation thanks to it being in the public domain showing how the public domain can affect culture Allowing artists to adapt shift and change works as they please is important in helping art and artists develop
@@l2919 Yeah that's all well and good a hundred years ago, but it's a little too late for classic Mickey here to be a cultural change for creative artist...without being a creative artist on this niche design.
They better not expend the copyrights on this stuff again. They are hurting every creator by doing this. If anything, we need the copyright length to be decreased
I remember I went to a Walmart to have some copies of old photographs made. I was told that even though my family had owned the photographs for the previous 75 years, I could not make the copies, the reason I was told that Disney had a law passed protecting intellectual property and the rights belonged to the yearbook company from the 1940's. So even though the yearbook had been bought and paid for, I still couldn't get copies made. This applies to everyone.
Yeah and then there was that horrific true story of some young boy that passed away and he loved some Disney character I can't remember which one and they had this character put on their sons grave and Disney took them to court or threatened legal action and they had to replace the gravestone
Funny how government of the people, by the people, and for the people has turned into government of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations. Disney used a similar law to go after the parent of a 3 year old who died & had Spider-Man on his headstone because he loved Spider-Man.
@@EmeraldLavigne The punisher one's even weirder because that's a trademark issue too which they legally HAVE to go after or else they lose the rights (like is the case of peeing calvin decals based on calvin and hobbes), and trademarks are forever unlike copywrite (unless they conflict with a public domain work which has precident for the public domain work to win over trademark law) but only last so long as you keep them secure. Band-aid used to be a trademark but it became so generally used that the company lost the trademark name and now it's just a word everyone uses for a number of brands. Its also why the red cross is so aggressive towards things like video games that use red + signs.
These world famous characters have transcended their original roles as commercial products and become part of our collective artistic heritage it’s good that everyone will be able to use them now.
@@stellviahohenheimI get you’re using such language to provoke a rise and very critical of Disney but note that you are talking about corporate Mickey, not the character itself. Consider the soul of its one youthful and optimistic self, liberated from corporate tyranny.
@@Raynb1232Yeah, but you still own the 1920s version. And what are they going to do if you do? Sue? They already lost to a local company in the other side of the pole.
And Disney will likely make great use of that distinction. An easy mistake to make but an expensive one. Also reminder that while Winnie the Pooh entered the public domain the version with the red shirt is a different design that Disney still has an active copyright on.
@@johnatkinson1111I think your Winnie the poo example shows that for the most part this is still a big hit for Disney. Blood and honey set out to do exactly what it wanted. All the way down to having Winnie the poo on the title. Nobody saw the trailer and thought "idk.... that's not the iteration I know". The same goes for mickey. When people start doing their adaptations they'll avoid litigation if they aren't stupid and everyone will still know what's up. I am curious about the details though. Does there character have to be black and white and dead eyed or can he just not have the iconic colors. He's such a basic design that I doubt the specifics could be too complicated.
There's going to be a lot of litigation about that. Disney will try to claim that the Steamboat version and super-narrow to limit the derivative works, but I think good lawyering and the right cases could open the door to more popular Mickey interpretations.
@ErikNonIdle Definitely not. Especially if it's not in black and white. If there's any skin color, gloves, or pupils, it's technically a different character not under public domain
There's a bare mention of Frankenstein's monster in this piece. The point there is that what was protected was strictly that specific look of the monster (flat head, neck bolts, etc.), which was dreamt up by makeup artist Jack Pierce.
Saying Sherlock Holmes didn’t get fanfare is crazy as well. It’s why we got Elementary, Sherlock on the BBC, the Sherlock Holmes Movies starring Robert Downie Jr., and the Enola Holmes stories featuring Henry Cavill as the character.
Only the look of the monster was protected because the Frankenstein story itself was written by Shelley in 1818 so the classic movies were based on a public domain story. Circle of life.
@@FailedKingthat’s not correct. The earlier movies and shows were officially licensed by his estate. The copyright on Sherlock Holmes didn’t expire until January 2023, only a year ago. His estate had control of the character before then and issued licenses ($$$$) to the various companies that made movies and shows about him. If the licenses were royalty-based the estate (i.e. his descendants) may continue to get a percentage of sales of copies of those specific movies and shows, but they won’t be able to negotiate licenses or royalty contracts on future works based on the character.
Not only that, but two generations of monster high toys and cartoons was Mattel and universal studios collaboration, before third generation and collaboration with nickelodeon.
It is to avoid people going ham. Right now its during the creators life + 70 years. And thats more than fine. Steamboat Willie would actually not be public domain after current copyright law.
What’s really cool it’s the very first time that we have music synchronized with animation. That’s what makes Steamboat Willie so significant and animation history.
It isn't, actually. I shall point you to Max Fleischer's My Old Kentucky Home in 1926. This predates Steamboat Willie (1928). A lot of people forget about Max because he was Disney's rival. He also made the first Superman cartoons.
Max Fleischer had talkies two years before Disney, the reason why people think Steamboat Willie was the first was because of an intense PR campaign on Disney’s part that worked. Fleischer and Disney HATED each other, largely because Max Fleischer was such a pioneer in animation and Walt Disney was taking all the credit. There’s even a few Betty Boop cartoons from the 1920s where Mickey Mouse makes a villainous cameo because of their rivalry
The Plane Crazy story is actually even more interesting than just the name change. The short, along with at least one other, was produced while Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks (the artist and animator for the original Mickey Mouse rubberhose cartoons) were working for Universal Studios producing Oswald the Lucky Rabbit. The shorts were produced in secret as Walt and Ub and the rest of their team were fed up with Universal and about to pitch their shorts to theaters on their own. Perhaps the most amazing thing about that is just how quickly the cartoons were able to be produced as Ub Iwerks was an incredibly talented animator who could wrap production on shorts quicker than anyone else known at the time, so the two secret Mickey cartoons were finished in that week and ready to be shown to theaters hot off the artist's table.
We don't know how much Disney tried to avoid this... But all efforts sooner or later, would end up like this. With all the things, that company has done in the past years, it became different from what it was decades ago.
Disney had copyright laws revised numerous times to allow his company to retain the rights to characters and stories that should have long been released to the public domain.
We do know how much, and it was plenty. Mickey was supposed to go public domain many times, including one time in 1983. Almost every copyright law extension was done on behest of Disney.
What the guy says at 01:11 is one of my biggest pet peeves about humans. He talks like it's a good thing. 95% of RU-vidrs rely on the intellectual property of others in order to "create" their "content". That's not being creative, that is theft, regardless of legality. You like a song? Great, then listen to the song like the end user you are. Nobody needs to see your "reaction video", retrospective, analysis, or any other unwarranted, unearned excuse you dreamed up to manipulate people into viewing your video based on something YOU DIDN'T CREATE. You want to be creative, be creative and share that with people. Far more satisfying and rewarding, than your views coming from peoples interest in something you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH. Same goes for Mickey Mouse. So what it's in the public domain? Doesn't mean anyone who uses Disney's creation is worthy of a dime, or anyone's interest. Everyone always trying to do what someone else is doing. Use your own brain.
@@blumoon131 yeah a fair bit before he became public domain, they i think traded the rights to all his copywritten shorts for one of their sports or news caster's contracts to another company (though I think maybe with the exception of later shorts that were made by that company that also tied into their other series that the disney company didnt really care much about). They repurchased the rights to him and kinda tried to use him but didnt do much with him. Some of his shorts were already public domain since they werent renewed but he himself was still owned by them since the first short he was in wasnt public ( a characters first appearance has to be public for them to be part of the public domain). Very recently tho his first appearance, being his first short, became public domain so now he's public domain in turn.
About bloody time...Disney did enough damage with lobbying to change the rules of Copyright far too many times. Which is ironic considering most of their classics are reimaginings of public domain works.
We all know copyright on pop culture icons shouldn't last 100 years. Besides, loss of sole ownership doesn't bar the creator from continuing to profit and tout their status as the creator
Had we kept with the original implementation of copyright, *everything* prior to the mid 90's would now be in the public domain. Which means artists could have been using those works to build on over all these years. Because the original duration was something like 14 years with a possible renewal for another 14 years. So, anything more than 28 years old would be public domain. And, Disney has been a primary culprit in pushing the current corruption of our copyright system. It was *never* intended to be a lifelong protection, much less beyond your life like it is now. The constitutional basis for copyright (or patents) directly says "for limited times". US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8: "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;" Could someone please explain how something that extends past your lifetime is a "limited time"? The entire concept of "intellectual property" protection as specified by the Constitution is a limited window of opportunity in which the creator has exclusive rights, with their creations then going into the public domain. The public as a whole benefits from a growing body of public domain works. The creators have a robust public domain to base their works on, protection for a time from being copied, and an incentive to do it again (since the protection expires). Everyone benefits. At present, the only one that benefits is the one holding the "effectively forever" copyright. The public doesn't benefit, since it doesn't add to the public domain, we just get to pay for preventing ourselves from using it. And, our public domain is, as a result, dying. Other creators don't benefit, since they don't have a growing public domain as a resource. Even the actual creator doesn't benefit, since the rights are usually owned by a corporation. Which has led to such idiocies as a musician actually being sued for, essentially, sounding like himself. (See John Fogerty) I also don't really see anything in there to indicate the idea of corporate ownership of said rights. It specifically says Authors and Inventors. Personally, I feel that copyrights and patents should stay with the actual Author or Inventor, just as the Constitution says.
It is what it is... Lovely Evils in the blood of Mankind. But that said... Currently in America. No one can renew Copyrights anymore. It's Life+70 Years for individual IP Holders and 170 for corporate IP Holders in regard to Copyrights. Once that duration ends, then it becomes public domain. Of course... That won't stop the corruption if Disney intends to sue the Hell out of everyone for doing what is legal to do. Sadly... In regard to Public Domain Works. There is a history of sueing as if it was copyrighted.
I dont agree with any of this, others artista should focus on originality and create new things, if i create a character and do a cartoon i dont want it to become public domain, if the public did nothing and i Alone bad the idea to create everything, why its should become public domain? Its just wrong
@@emanuelpinto5643 Then why should you expect society to provide you with protection for your creation? You wish to benefit from the societal protections of copyright, with enforcement paid by the public, yet deny contributing to the public domain in return? Why should we? Copyright is not a natural human right. It is entirely a construct of society and requires a society to enforce. There is no reason to expect a society to provide you protection of your creation with nothing in return. It is selfish to do so. There's also the actual constitutional fact that the power of copyright is specified to be for a limited time.
@@brolinofvandar True... And the Natura of Art is very much the same. If they want Copyrights, then they must follow Public Domain too... Otherwise... Well... China can simply take their "entitled" art. I am amused by those who wish to be protected by the law but never to follow through with its entirety, out of pathetic selfishness for a mortal human. Evil smiles.
@@emanuelpinto5643 Legally speaking... Under USA Copyright Law. Your Copyright over your Character is Life+70 years or 170 years for corporations. You would be long gone before that time runs out unless you're a corporation. And by then, you wouldn't be the artist anymore, after about 40 to 60 years of your human life. Before 2000s... That duration was only 14 Years and you can Renew your Copyright. However, that's not a law anymore. Outside of the legal stuff... Art is art. Your art will be forgotten in the next decade if it couldn't make history to begin with. Such is reality and humans die for lesser.
Since it wasnt mentioned in this report, the parent organization of CBS also lobbied for the Copyright Term Extension Act at the time. All the media companies like Disney, Time Warner, Universal, Viacom, and all the major sports leagues lobbied for the extension.
The Disney Co is the single largest benefactor of public domain works, and also the single largest contributing factor to the stagnation of the public domain. Copyright needs to be returned to its original intention, a brief period of exclusivity to protect the creative works of visionaries and encourage them to create more, not a century long legislative mechanism for mega corporations to appropriate and sit on ideas while they suck every last drop of cash they can out of them.
@@billbill9499 but they may have to soon due to their continued failures in the box office, they spend hundreds of millions on these to get a few million back no matter your budget when you lose to much money you lose to much money, multimillionaires are just people that have had some luck or skill and gained a fortune, but when they start thinking they can do whatever they want, the audience majority puts them down.
Just remember, only the designs and versions of Mickey, Minnie, Pete, and even the Ostrich that are seen in "Steamboat Willie", "The Gallopin' Gaucho", and the silent version of "Plane Crazy" are truly public domain. Plus the mid 30s "Mad Doctor" is only public domain by technicality cause they never renewed the copyright for that one. So please seek an actual lawyer or just copyright consultant if you ever want to adapt or distribute that last cartoon. Im just a normal guy spreading the word of the main 3. Anything else made later is still in the hands of the bigwigs at Disney.
In regards to American Copyright Law. There is no such thing as Renewing your Copyright. Only for Patents (kind of for Patents. Since often times, there is an expiration date upon forming the Patent by about 20 to 25 years) and Trademarks, but not for Copyrights. Once that Life+70 years for an individual or 170 years for corporate Copyright Ownership is over. Then it's automatically in the Public Domain. That said... Nations may heavily differ or not even have Copyright Laws. And true, about versions of Mickey. Sadly... This is America. A corrupt AF nation unless you got money and a whole lot of it.
@@MangaGamified True... But it is what it is. I can understand that most of the millions of profit in the CEO's salary is blocked chained cash. However, that rarely is the case, given Publicly Traded Companies and Investors who do that already.
You mean the kind of "creativity" like Blood and Honey? 'Cause sorry/not sorry but in that case i'd rather have these stories unavailable to the public.
@@blue-uo6yl No, it actually wasn't. Though Kimba the White Lion and The Lion King's plot SOUNDS very similar, with similar names. If you actually watch Kimba the White Lion, it's FARRRR from The Lion King. There's a really good video essay by YMS if you want to check it out.
I just hope people don't do to Mickey Mouse & other disney characters what they did to Winnie The Pooh because that was just awful & horrifying to watch
@@gabrielgarza3707 I bet there will be more horrors that depict Micky Mouse soon enough. For now, a shooter will come out called Mouse that is right on the alley
About time its ridiculous that a company still has right to something that all of the creators of are probably no longer living. I think all works should be public domain once all the original actors and creators pass away.
