Things will go into the public domain in 2019 unless Disney gets Congress to extend it again. Even though Mickey Mouse wouldn't go into public domain until 2023, I have read that Disney will want to act before 2019 to keep the dam from bursting on new public domain works.
> Even if Mickey’s copyright does expire in 2023, Disney has no less than 19 trademarks on the words “Mickey Mouse” [...]
> According a precedent set in a 1979 court case, a trademark can protect a character in the public domain as long as that character has obtained what is called “secondary meaning.” This means that the character and the company are virtually inseparable: upon seeing it, one will immediately identify it with a brand. [...]
> In other words, Disney has ingrained Mickey Mouse so deeply in its corporate identity that the character is essentially afforded legal protection for eternity, so long as Disney protects him (trademarks last indefinitely, so long as they are renewed).
This is why I've never understood the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. They don't need it.
I mean, let's say the Steamboat Willie short was public domain. Disney doesn't make any significant money selling it, so no real direct loss. The character name is still trademarked, so that's not available for use.
What exactly is the possible harm to Disney?
Remember the bumper sticker of Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes pissing? They don't want stuff like that polluting their brand. They also don't want to compete with old cartoons that are good and would be free to broadcast, and they don't want their old racist cartoons distributed.
AIUI, the copyright extensions give Disney more control over the Mickey Mouse trademark. Without it, it could be used in defamatory ways by their competitors.
Good. I don't really care about Mickey, rather everything else.
It's much better if Disney uses the already perpetual nature of trademark rather than continuing to push for distorting copyright.
I don't know that they really would be satisfied with that though, since they have so much under copyright that wouldn't get this kind of trademark treatment.
I don't know. If someone wanted to upload a 100-year-old Steam Boat Willie video to YouTube, they shouldn't be sued for describing the video accurately. That is, describing the contents of the video as "Mickey Mouse" is accurate, not unfairly leveraging trademarks to confuse consumers. We shouldn't have to relabel the video Whistle Mouse Drives A Boat.
Trademark doesn't restrict description. It restricts, well, trade. This thread contains numerous references to Disney, an even more valuable trademark than Mickey Mouse, and there's nary a problem.
