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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, history, mickey mouse, ownership
Companies: disney
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Mmm Minnie
[ 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ 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 ?
[ 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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
it was UB!.
[ 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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mmm Minnie
[ 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.
[ 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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Wouldnt they have to be two SEPERATE works for one to be derivative of another?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Boycott Disney
[ 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.
[ 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.
[ 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.
[ 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
But since the financial bligation ncurred that way would be a debt, you could offer payment in the form of 150,000 pennies. Refusing a legal tender payment of a debt discharges the debt in the amount of the offered legal tender payment..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
INOA BEAUTY | Party Makeup, Hair Cutting, Styling & Beauty Salon
hair cutting and styling,beauty treatments,brazilian keratin treatment,derma roller, waxing and facials,
wedding and bridal makeup pedicure incorporating gelish nail polish, threading, waxing and facials.
Web Address:
http://inoabeauty.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]