The Mouse is Free. It's Public Domain Day 2024. 

THE MOUSE REVOLT HAS BEGUN !✊✊✊

The mouse revolt has begun

First reply... I guess, hey listen if ur actually first it just didn't load 4 me

如果你翻译了这个，那么你很可能会被破坏。如果你不想承受这种困境的后果，那么你必须在老鼠爬进来之前分享这个。🎉🎉🎉😊😊😊 这些表情符号使得这被伪装成一个以老小鸡为食的骗局。但是无论哪种方式。匆忙！为了你自己！！！！！！！

Intellectual property isn’t real property! Only physical property is!

Weren’t they technically just European fairy tales? I don’t think there was a copyright on Cinderella and Snow White.

@@morganb8250when the system was invented they immediatly enter the public domain, because they were old enough

The irony from anti-copyright idiots like you is that you don't understand that there weren't a lot of players in Disney's sphere at the time which gave them carte blanche to make works based on classic stories so iconic and singular no idiots using the public domain alone could ever match without the comparison from the onset. For further irony, you fail to understand that Disney from the get go has made creating their own stuff or legally purchasing someone else's stuffconveniently

​@@morganb8250 You could argue that they are therefore public domain.

Never thought about that but yeah, pretty crazy

This is going to be fun to watch how this will go down

I thought Popeye was already in the public domain because Max Fleischer Studios never renewed their copyright

Why wouldn't that already be in porn? That stuff isn't regulated...

Literally a developer already has a Mickey Mouse horror game in the works and waited until today to announce it

‘Just when you thought it was safe to take a steamboat down the Mississippi River…Mickey becomes a murderer’

It isn't ironic. It's modern capitalism. Use the current rules to make money, then use that money to maintain a monopoly.

Greed is ungrateful to the hand that feeds it.

Been said to death, but it's basic business. Use a hack to get ahead, cut off that hack so no one can overtake you

⁠@@kena4977 Capitalism, or rather, the free market is a term used to describe an economy with little restriction that is primarily facilitated through supply and demand. At its most fundamental level it is the ability for individuals and individual (private) owned companies to compete in the economy. Most countries in the world, including America are mixed economies. Disney is a publicly traded corporation, it is not private nor capitalistic, and collaboration with politicians to create legislation which restricts competition is not a quality of capitalism.

Rules for thee, not for me 🙄.

Can't say I've ever actually seen the front page to Wikipedia lol.

wikipedia has a front page?

@@rachelhughes8487 Oh, it's pretty cool. They always feature a few articles that are interesting if you like going down random research rabbit-holes.

Bro really just sat there for news years like 👁️👄👁️

I bet reading school dictionary’s is your idea of a vacation. /j

That’s actually lovely

What if they do a copy-left with it, so everyone can do a Peter pan, but should also donate to charity

I believe that law only applies in the UK, and only to Barrie's original stage play.

​@@yankis.That's a ridiculous statement. Public domain is a good thing.

@@davitdavid7165 that's not how copyleft works. copyleft is licensing under a license that allows free use as long as any work making use of your work is also using a free license. like cc-by-sa or the gpl.

prob

They have the opportunity to do the funniest thing right now.

That was definitely a calculated move.

Right

i find that really funny tbh

I read about that. In that country Disney hadn't used it as a trademark yet so there was nothing they could do.

@@KasumiKenshirou Lmao I love that

and in brazil, there is not only goku, but spongebob in certain restaurants' logos (there is a "krusty krab" in my own home city)

​@@lu0z9_the_Inot the same, those are ilegal and are copyright infringement, the case in Paraguay is funny ybecsuse they got the actual right to use Mickey's face as their logo, although only the face facing left funnily enough, front facing Mickey is Disney's property.

Lofi beats to sail a boat/get a girlfriend to 😂

😂

I'm excited to see what people will do with them, because we can't have a 'blood and honey' situation with most DC characters because DC themselves have made evil and horror versions of these characters, superman has had a bunch of evil versions through the last half century so I can't see people trying to make more of this because it is already becoming somewhat stale, same applies to Batman to a much larger extent thanks to elseworld stories and the horror theme that has become a part of Batman as a whole. I personally can't wait for when they go to public domain because Marvel will be able to put them in their comic universe, in 10 years... Spiderman teaming up with Superman and Batman regularly could be within our reach... The world's finest will be in our hands

Supermans first appearance in Action Comics will be the one entering public domain. which means we can get superman #1 for FREE comic book collectors will be TICKED. if anyones sitting on those for investments better unload them soon.....

The exciting thing about those characters going public domain is that they're still heavily used by their owners. The problem with the current system is that by the time these properties become public domain, they're usually no longer beloved, recognised, or relevant to the public zeitgeist anymore - whereas superman and batman very much are; so I'm curious how that would not only effect how DC uses these character going forward, but how the public will handle these characters too.

​​@@mateushenriquepinheiro3197First off: tacky. 2nd: They'll be able to put the very basic versions from their first comics. No iconic logos (trademark), Superman couldn't fly back then, had no Kryptonite, Batman has no Alred, batmobile was just a normal car, etc.

​@@N313GrayFoxKryptonite came from the radio program, as did Jimmy Olsen, Perry White, and the Daily Planet. And if the prevailing legal theory is correct, all old radio programs are public domain (not sure what the reason is; I think it's because they don't have the then-required valid copyright notices?). If you wait a couple more years, you get redhead Lex Luthor and x-ray vision. Plus the Fleischer cartoons are also public domain. So for Superman, you'd actually get a pretty extensive toy box to use almost right off the bat.

It would be happening if the length of copyright were as short as it should be. Intellectual property law in general is a completely broken system that holds back our creative and intellectual development as a species massively.

Totally agreed. Should be criminal to just nearly forget about your own copyrighted material, only to then gatekeep it when someone makes a *fan game* about it or something.

estimating on the original 1909 copyright law, we could've seen magnavox odyssey games be in the public domain (if copyright for games works like that)

@@shoe_plays why exactly don't they? Is it because video games weren't invented yet?

@@Arcademan09 because it was repealed and superseded by the Copyright Act of 1976.

If you'd like, Wikipedia has a list of every major thing entering the public domain this year. Check something along the lines of "Public Domain in 2024"

Check Steve Shives then.

The Duke School of Law releases a run down of everything that entered the public domain every year. Austin took much of the information in this video from that article and others on their site. Just look up 'public domain day' to find their webpage.

Good idea, @imcurrentlynaked

Do you need to be spoon fed everything. A short google search will give you the answer.

That's actually a thing with video games, it's a loophole in video game copyright known by some as the abandonware clause, which exists because the infringer can only be sued for any theoretical damages caused by the unauthorised distribution, and if a game isn't being actively distributed officially, there are no real damages to speak of, so companies usually don't bother at that point.

@@Granolora which begs the question of what happens when the company goes under and nobody buys their assets before then

Abandonware is a bit of a grey area (last i checked) but coming after you for sharing copies of a game that isn't sold anymore has not (yet?) been successfully done by any developer or publisher of digital games AFAIK. If any of the above is incorrect, please feel free to @ me! My dive into this rabbit hole has been a while and legislation changes.

@@Granolora I think this doesn't always apply- Disney can (and does) sue and remove Club Penguin private servers and fangames, yet both the original and Island games have been shut down and Disney no longer uses the franchise despite holding the rights to it.

You're dammn right. Same with books, movies, tv shows - if you arn't using it, there should be no reason to stop others.

that'd be interesting

Also why they created derivative versions of some of their characters like the Miles Morales version of Spider-Man. Due to the way the copyright extensions are written, it was a possibility that Marvel could've lost Spider-Man to co-creator Steve Ditko's heirs. They two parties recently settled their dispute so they don't really need Miles Morales anymore.

I LITERALLY HAVE A SHIRT WITH MICKEY WEARING A STORMTROOPER HELMET LMAOO

@@KasumiKenshiroumiles morales was created before Disney bought marvel.

fr imagine seeing old cartoons become popular again and having terrible modern stuff pushed away If so, que sh'boom by the chords

​​@@sneak1677 Foolish way of looking at things. There are just as much mediocre and bad cartoons from 'classic' eras as there are great and fun cartoons nowadays

@@scr0ngle108 Sure but I'm pretty sure old scooby doo is better than modern scooby doo

I'd just give him blue pants to be safe

yeah the new mickey looks so similar to the old one I could see disney trying to sue everyone that decides to use him

@@roberine7241 Give em' a new hat and dont make the personality to appeal 4yo and you safe

Yep, considering almost everybody alive has the more modern iterations of Mickey Mouse burned into their long-term memory, if you even by mistake put an aspect of him into the work, Disney will go after you.

2024: The Battle for Etsy Public Doman.

Plus the mere fact that after your dead, who will copyright really benefit in almost a hundred years? If I was a creative, I wouldn't want my great-grandchildern to be deadbeats coasting off my legacy. I would want them to get out there and make something of themselves, write their own creative venture. Heck, even expand upon my original works if they so choose to. The Doyle Estate is a good example of how greed can tarnish the reputation of a family name though, and it'd be best if Copyright was just heavily laxed alltogether.

I also see public domain as "end of the cannon". Like if you want to protect your copyright from any future "rewrites" then make anyone can use so none can be taken seriously, because it not from original copyright holder.

When you put it that way, that's another reason why public domain is extremely helpful, especially regarding academics and personal/creative pursuits ^^

Imo as an artist, musician, and producer, I personally think that copyright shouldn’t exist and it definitely shouldn’t hold a penal penalty if infringed. Like it’s stupid that copyright infringement can be a 5 year sentence, but in Ohio if someone were yo attempt to pay a minor to sleep with them it only carries a maximum of 3 years. According to the law it is more serious to infringe upon someone’s intellectual property than it is to be a predator… Disney themselves only exist because of the public domain since most of their intellectual properties are adaptations of public domain material.

Really? Damn now I want a video explaining how in the world that's possible

Yes. But Austin has already made a video where he decided the characters he will use in his Superzeroes universe. Which are: Atlas, The Spider Queen, Catman, Blue Bolt, Landor, the Six-Gun Gorilla and little Red Ridding Hood.

you are just lying, its not possible to use them

I'm pretty sure all three are owned by DC, and their copyright is still active - in fact, the watchmen comic was supposed to include these characters, but DC got cold feet at the idea of killing some of them having just bought them, and thus Moore (the watchmen writer) created knock-off versions that are probably more well known now.

DC definitely owns the trademark for those characters, so I'm pretty sure you'd have to avoid mentioning them by name

Well Disney trademarked it.

@@Person-wz6iy fine I'll make Epic Willie then!

@@sawkchalk6966”just wait till you see my epic willie!”

Wait theres an Epic Mickey 2?!

​@@patrickshell2813Yes, there is. It's been out for a while.

There are some of the newspaper comic strips in the public domain as well. A guy tried to publish them in the 90s under the title "The Uncensored Mouse", with an entirely black cover, no images or mentions of Mickey on the cover, but Disney sued him and shut him down. I don't know the details of the case, i.e., whether Disney actually won the case or the other guy couldn't outspend Disney's lawyers and gave up.

Unless the law is fixed to something reasonable, that will apply to works that are produced after some date, but does not apply to works produced prior to that. The "author's life plus 70" rule should at minimum be adjusted to say that in the absence of a registration establishing the author's date of death, unregistered works would time out after 95 years if not registered, or 70 years after the last date the author was registered as still being alive (so if someone authored a work in 1980 at age 15 and was still alive in 2060 (age 80), that person could register their work and protect it until at least 2150. If the person ended up dying in 2070 at age 105, the estate would have until 2105 to register the person's death, which would extend the copyright to 2140. I think the time scales involved are absurdly long, but specifying that a work's copyright can only be pushed out to "life plus 70" if the copyright office is given some searchable notice that would allow them to say whether a work's author had been alive in the past 70 years would hardly seem an onerous registration requirement. Incidentally, I also think there should be a "finder's copyright" that would allow someone who discovers an obscure work to receive an exclusive short-term publication right without having to add any original content of their own, provided that they escrow a "best available copy" of what they encounter. At present, if someone were to find a formerly unknown work that was written 100 years, edit in some of their own original content, and never release the original, they would be entitled to many decades of copyright protection in exchange for their effective destruction of the original work. Congress could far more effectively "promote progress in the sciences and useful arts" if they were to allow people discovering such works to receive e.g. 10 years of exclusive publication rights in exchange for ensuring that unaltered originals would be publicly available after that.

70 years is so completely nuts. If the author dies at 70, the copyright will in all likelyhood expire when the creator's grandchildren's grandchildren have a teenage child of their own.

Are you saying he’s going to die soon? The copyright law (since he’s not anonymous) is after his death +70 years.

@@zoeherriot No? It's death +70 years or 95 years after release. If yours was true Mickey wouldn't be public domain until 2036.

@@Broswald_Inc no. “The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. “ - copyright dot gov I presume Mickey comes under “work for hire” - or it’s covered by different rules due its creation date.

​@@Broswald_IncYou are confusing individual vs corporate copyrights.

@@WXKFA ok

The Hobbit is the one I’m most excited for. I bet we’re gonna get some awesome stuff once that’s free to use. (Also excited for whenever Narnia enters public domain. Maybe we can get a complete set printed with the right reading order on the spines…)

​@@thatonepossum5766glad to see I'm not the only one driven absolutely mad by the incorrect "official" reading order.

Disney turned into Scrooge Mcduck a long time ago

When you wish upon a star, anything your heart desires will come to you!

​@@user-iy1xv6jl9iI don't trust these people

Lots of their work should already be, especially Star Wars. The fact you have to pay royalties to some company with deep pockets just to watch the old Star Wars films is absurd.

Wait… could they technically argue that until next year anything made with Mickey has to have him be mute? xD

​@@thatonepossum5766probably not, but I wouldn't be surprised if they tried it.

​@@thatonepossum5766The only way I could see having him speak being a problem is if you use a voice that's too similar to one they've used for him before

Silent version of Plane Crazy is already public domain as of 2024. With Music version next year 2025

@@thatonepossum5766 No, surely they can't rightly claim to own the very idea of mickey talking. But they do own the specific writing and performance of the voice used in their cartoons, so copying that is restricted.

we shall see

Not a bad idea

Loved that movie!

Sounds embarrassing

thats fucked up

@@zymosan99 Disney managed to copyright public domain characters, what'd you expect from them?

It’s smart

TBH, that would be way better than the idea of not having copyright protection at all, like some extremists would often like to propose.

You're thinking about this wrong; because you're a precision-designed consumer who is always worried about what YOU get for doing nothing. Think about it this way: "If you come up with something unique and great, it will be protected for you and your family for a long time. We don't allow people who are the true innovators to be shamelessly ripped off as soon as they create something. America rewards success." I know this hasn't occurred to you, because the only thing you've created is something your mother taped to the fridge when you were in kindergarten.

what about GOOFY copyright?

If you really think people will stop creating because their great great grandchildren would no longer recieve royalties then I don't know what to say to you ​@@mercster

​@@mercster"America rewards success" 😂 that's such an absurdly idealistic argument to make. The current system rewards rich people in charge of corporations, not creators.

There is a public domain superhero wiki (I think)

Google "Public Domain Day Website" the first result is a Duke University website that might be of use to you

Project Gutenberg isn't bad for literary public domain works

There are a few lists on Wikipedia of public domain movies, images, etc. The Digital Comic Museum has a huge record of public domain comics available for free (signing up for a free account also lets you download PDFs and stuff).

​​@@theagentsquidfiles504it's very obviously run on donations. But as one born in the 80s, the very bare bone website is actually very familiar and easy to use for me 😅. All hail project Gutenberg!

Hey Vsauce, Michael Mouse here. Steam Boat Willy is copyright protected, or is he?...

The Steamboat Wilie version, not the more modern version we see in cartoons like Mickey Mouse Funhouse.

Only Minerva calls him that.

Just hope that there are GOOD uses for the character instead of just continual shit posts.

He makes this point because tons of people are wringing their hands and writing about how Mickey falling into the public domain is a tragedy because not-so-family-friendly works will now be created.

But trademark can't be used to resurrect an expired copyright, so Disney is on shaky ground.

on the upside, now it is public I Imagine modern cartoons will be pushed away in favour of better, older cartoons

He's OUR fursona now

@@ride-playerbb2818 publicly assigned mandatory fursona

Make something that's actually good.

I think somebody is already doing the horror film.

Touhou is a great example of this, that universe is majorly built up by the fans, although technically it isn't in the public domain but the creator pretty much allows any and all fan works.

Star Wars _used to be_ close to that, until Disney attacked the Expanded Universe and eclipsed the canon by ignoring countless hours of work by hundreds, if not thousands of dedicated creators just to shoehorn their nonsensical retcons.

I'd honestly rather see people make new stuff. Star Wars doesn't need to be public domain to take inspiration from it. I mean, Star Wars itself started from George Lucas wanting to make a Flash Gordon movie.

This is why strong copyright should exist for no more than 50 years. The strongest properties would experience a new life while the people whom it meant the most to were alive. The copyright system creates great things, but also denies us masterpieces that die with the generation who knew the works best.

You might even say it's Plane Crazy!

At most, they could try and keep later iterations of Mickey from falling into public domain, but what's gone into PD cant be copyrighted, apart from iterative differences between derived works. But considering their recent difficulties and internal woes, i dont think theyre in the same position to lobby as hard as they used to. It seems they're taking the approach of aggressively trademarking instead. Which means you can use Mickey, but only Disney can put him in their logo and monetize his likeness in anything branded.

This is awful

@@animezilla4486what’s awful. them losing? because that’s actually quite funny.

I can see them using Mickey to make a parody on how bad Disney is, which is the boring option. Or they could reinvent the character and give him a more meaningful purpose that pays respects to him without forcing a comparison to the studio that made him, imagine that in a DreamWorks movie (for this example a hypothetical Shrek 5) they have to cross a mystical river to get across and the characters ponder how they are gonna do it, just then we hear the familiar jingle as a steam boat approaches and the joyful mouse ask them if they need any help. I think it would be a much better way to use him instead of making mickey be a character used to make fun of Disney, he is more than just the mascot for Disney and the amount of videos that only use him as a spokes person or personification of everything wrong with Disney just feels... Wrong.

@@mateushenriquepinheiro3197 honestly i want them to make the best Mickey yet, make him be in a movie on the same level of puss in boots 2 and make him super likable, you get to have a great character and dunk on Disney at the same time, 2 birds 1 stone situation. That would be amazing! Lol

Smaug hoarding his gold.

Wow you showed them

They can't. Disney's lobbying influence has been greatly exaggerated.

niiiice

Many copyrights are owned by individual authors or creators.

20 years isn't even long enough for One Piece to finish. Also: there wouldn't be a Star Wars with such a short copyright, because George Lucas would've just made a Flash Gordon movie instead.

Corporate works still get a 95-year copyright term. If it's non-corporate work, then it gets the 70-year term.

@@diddyphukkingkong393 Only ‘works for hire’ get 95 years, which isn’t what he said.

​@@JordisYoutubing I'm aware of that. What do I care what he said.

@@diddyphukkingkong393 You replied to ME who was mentioning something HE said.

39 minutes in

Disney lobbyists would never allow it.

@@jer1776Also It’s not just Disney as you see in the video. Comcast, Paramount, Warner Bros, and sports leagues will fight that too.

It stagnates innovation not letting you use other people’s ip’s? Why don’t you do some innovating yourself and come up with some original ideas, or is that too hard?

​@@Quaquadaqu Many people are afraid to do just that because of potential lawsuits from copyright trolls because something could be seen as too close to an existing work. Even if you think the original 14-28 year is too low, dont you think 40 or 50 years is better, especially to prevent old works from being lost to time?

That would be nice but the challenge is that they might as well have used Original Characters as most of those are Unknowns anyways.

If the work is bad, fanfiction is the ultimate condemnation of a work and an author. That is equivalent to saying “you and your work is a joke at best and a blight on average, and here is why”.

How does Disney rely on steamboat Willie or Mickey Mouse other than him being a logo? Disney has many ip’s more valuable than Mickey.

@@Quaquadaqu Read your last sentence and take a walk through Disneyland or Disneyworld. It is abundantly clear that the mouse carries the weight of the entire company. It is because he’s the logo and mascot that gives the company it’s overall branding. The marketing, the kids shows, the merchandise, everything. If you walk around Florida, even on the outskirts of orlando, it is extremely common to see people wearing Mickey Mouse shirts. They’ve even got subliminal advertising down pat. When you rely on one thing, you will inevitably stunt your growth and come to a holt creatively. They will continue to milk the mouse for everything it has. Force of IPs into public domain will birth creation. It’s an incredibly big deal.