Disney loses famous Mickey Mouse copyright in 2024, along with many others
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 июн 2024
- Copyright protections on many well-known books, films and musical compositions are set to expire in 2024. Disney's Mickey Mouse is getting a lot of attention as one famous iteration of the classic mouse is set to enter the public domain. CBS News' Jo Ling Kent has the story.
"CBS Saturday Morning" co-hosts Jeff Glor, Michelle Miller and Dana Jacobson deliver two hours of original reporting and breaking news, as well as profiles of leading figures in culture and the arts. Watch "CBS Saturday Morning" at 7 a.m. ET on CBS and 8 a.m. ET on the CBS News app.
Subscribe to "CBS Mornings" on RUclips: / cbsmornings
Watch CBS News live: cbsn.ws/1PlLpZ7c
Download the CBS News app: cbsn.ws/1Xb1WC8
Follow "CBS Mornings" on Instagram: bit.ly/3A13OqA
Like "CBS Mornings" on Facebook: bit.ly/3tpOx00
Follow "CBS Mornings" on Twitter: bit.ly/38QQp8B
Subscribe to our newsletter: cbsn.ws/1RqHw7T
Try Paramount+ free: bit.ly/2OiW1kZ
For video licensing inquiries, contact: licensing@veritone.com
What a way to end Disney's 100th Anniversary
Best way that could have happened
Lol
The lamest 100th anniversary for any major Corporation ever.
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.
your pfp looks like the ytp community watching disney lose copyright of this
For those who haven't figured it out, it's the first Mickey Mouse design to end up in the public domain, not the character itself
They say that 2 minutes into the video
The character is part of the design. So the original hats yet will be public domain as well.
You can call him Mickey, but you can’t advertise it’s Mickey
Some people still won't get it, so Disney will cash in with the lawsuits
what's the difference?
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.)
Anyone could make movies or content based on the folk tales and old stores, you just couldn't use the exact cartoons that Disney cartoonists created.
@@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.
Ok mom we heard you
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
They didn’t “lose” anything, it just finally went to Public Domain after _95 years_
Well they did lose copyright and exclusive use of the early version of the character.
Disney has become the epitome of "you either die a hero, or live long enough to become the villain."
Well said
Ooooh great comment mate!
Too bad they trade marked nearly every single aspect of the classic Mickey Mouse making it not even worth it to try remake Mickey
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).
They've been villains since the mid 2010s
I'm so glad they acknowledged that Disney also just repackages older stories, they're built on works in the public domain
Walt should come out of his freezer.
You are able to trademark your take on a public domain story.
Lets unfreeze walt so he could deal
With this mess.😂
@@nehemiahpouncey3607Antifreeze is delicious, in the end.
@@nehemiahpouncey3607 you believe that conspiracy theory... huh?
I love the fact that CBS still had to pay for the footage since they published it one day ahead of New Years Eve
🤣
Ha! 😂
Ha
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.
Oldest known human lived to 122 (Jeanne Calment)
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.
@@ironhell813 You call others dumb but don’t understand the difference between a trademark and a copyright…
The oldest human lived to 122. Recently a 119 old woman died, and some 110 year olds are alive today.
Let me make this perfectly clear; Disney’s only losing the old version of Mickey, they’re not losing Mickey entirely.
it's a free country not a *rent* free country
Yes, that was in the news segment
they already made that clear in the bit.
Wow, thanks for being perfectly clear. I loved the way you repeated what the video said and tried to pass your comment off as an original thought.
@@PapagenoMFSome people don't watch the whole video, or click and immediately scroll to the comments. I think it's reasonably valid.
They aren’t losing the trademark. They’re losing the copyright. Massive difference.
Seriously, its not that hard.
What's the difference?
@@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.
I'm curious where the term "Mickey-Mouse" (as in a cheap or poor way of construction) lands?
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.
For those who don’t know it’s the first Mickey Mouse design to end up in the public domain not the character itself
Yes thank you for copying word for word the top comment that told us this already 3 days ago lol
What does that mean tho, the design but not the character
@@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.
you mean the character end up in public domain???
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.
It's not even that, it's just the Steamboat Willie motion picture, not even the design. Disney holds a trademark on the design.
@@TechDealsno, they don’t
@@TechDealsif that was the case the millons of Mickey Mouse horror games/movies would be taken down
@@TechDealsalso that’s not how trademarks work
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
Maybe as far as movies are concerned but not merch
@@gloriouslumiQuick someone create a Hobo Mickey movie, perhaps riding in a near empty box car, whistling a tune. Okay, perhaps that only a scene.
@@TheMirovampiroBob Iger, is that you?
Can you imagine WB taking advantage of this and giving us another moment where Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse are together at the same time?
yesss please
Like on Roger Rabbit?
Yep, but with Mickey in his Steamboat Willie design.@@micks336
@@micks336better character than mickey
OMG YES
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.
Once you dive deep into Disney's history then you'll truly understand why
Can you provide a link to an article or two?
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
Why what?
Gets pretty dark..
@@ELMRB Can YOU provide a link to an article or two?
It's sickening that copyright expiration dates have been lengthened and lengthened at the behest of corporations like Disney.
Why?
@@Furienna because it proves that those with money and power can be above the law. It's not fair for other artists and their creative works
How long should they be allowed to have copyright for
@@tuckerbugeater for the lifetime of the creator, plus 70 years after the creator's passing
@@tuckerbugeaterthey *should* only last a few decades, or maybe until the death of the creator.
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.
Let’s be fair. WB also built their animation back catalog the same way.
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.
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.
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.
Funny thing is, most of the most known movies of Disney, came from the public domain. Also interesting how they fought to keep the rights longer
Facts 💯
Rules for thee not for me
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 said something logical!
@@IntyMichael Mickey mouse is almost 100 years old. That's not an old character then like snow white?
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.
That's a straight up lie, things go into the public domain every year
@@gregoryblack8109 Those being things that used to already be public domain years ago before the last copyright extension legislation.
@@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.
lol that has nothing to do with that. It’s called not having the imagination to create your own works instead of leaching off of domain.
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.
But honestly no one is looking at that and going oh look what happened to Winnie the Pooh. We know who the real Winnie the Pooh is.
@@WildBison74 True enough. 😁
I love just how quickly the internet responded to Mickey going public domain 😂
100 years later and that animation still looks soooo good.
This Mickey looks way better than the modern one too, which has the blank stare of Michael Myers from Halloween.
Because it's been preserved and remastered digitally.
The original film may still exist, but would be in rough shape.
@hughmann you are right but you missed the point
@@hughmann1537but the animation would be the same
Does it though
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.
Yup. The Mickey Mouse Law.
Proof that the government works for corporations - instead of the people.
@@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.
Yep
@@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
So can restaurants sing happy birthday now?
It’s weird that people don’t know copy rights don’t last forever I believe trade marks last longer, or you have to renew it or something like that
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.
Public domain is the key concept. If Disney used stories in the public domain, it was fine.
Anyone with a brain already knows that. Half their early works were based on Grimm's fairy tales.
@@LazyIRanch _Wholesome 100_
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.
It was supposed to be no more than 56 years from publication, and THAT if the rights holder remembered to renew it within 28 years.
@@JCCyC Originally, it was half of that: 14 years, and another 14 if it’s renewed. Now it’s nearly a century hahai
@@JCCyC Should be 20 years like a patent, we should easily be able to use anything created before 2000s.
I had no idea… what the hell
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！！！！！！！
This is actually very cool. Now people can do whatever they want with steamboat willie (arguably the best mickey version in my opinion) someone out there gonna give this character the love they deserve
not really
they are making horror movies and games about mickey now
I hope people don't make a scary movie with Mickey Mouse like they did with Winnie the Pooh.
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.
Taxation is theft, as well as copyright is a detriment to intellectual expression
@@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.
We could get proper Star Wars prequels or sequels made by someone competent!
@@MikehMike01 Hell yeah! We still have to wait a few more decades though…
All of this should have been in public domain during the 90s
yup
@@4-kathryn wow
Facts
And…?
R.I.P. Mickey Mouse
November 18th 1928 - January 1st 2024
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
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.
Modern looks terrible. Original looks amazing.
Which I’m OK with because since when was the last time Disney use the old original 1920s Mickey Mouse
When do the copyrights on the later versions expire ?
@@theelmonkafter 120 years, but because Steamboat Willie was made prior to that change of law, they had to keep it at the original 95 year timeline
It's only a matter of time before modern Mickey falls into this same 'boat'.
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.
Not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing.
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.
@@Byrd21590Okay, what's stopping you from adapting those same public domain stories?
@@aolson1111 currently nothing. Guy before seemed lost. Trying to explain it.
It's only the first iteration/black and white version of mickey mouse
They said at the end that they don’t need to see a horror Mickey Mouse movie, but it’s already being produced, which was more predictable than the passing of time itself.
Good. The expiry date for copyrights should be less than 95 years, as it is now, honestly. Should probably be 50 years or so
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.
Look at software. Open-source is abundant, and the norm whenever an individual releases one.
Nowadays you gotta be careful where you get inspiration from cause if it's too similar you could get a strike
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
@@night6724Naw
@night6724 only for two more decades. 2044, and it is public domain. 70 years from the author's death.
Now Sora can summon old school Mickey at anytime for FREE!
If Sora comes back in the next Smash Bros, this should be part of his moveset.
Nintendo, make it happen!
imagine some indie dev creating a knockoff KH with all of the public domain characters.
Square Enix be like “yasss mobile game cameo”
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.
I bet people can draw these characters in there own style. Like it doesn't have to stay in the steamboat wille style, but can't be any other mickey mouse styles that have been out by Disney
Good news!
The original creator is long gone and it's an atrocity, that a soulless corporation can hold onto the rights so long
It was disgusting that Disney got the copyright timing extended to begin with, especially after they took advantage of other works in public domain
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.
How tf is it disgusting? It's their property, they should be able to extend it as long as they want to.
@@com.grenateExactly, no one is above the law.
@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.
The only thing I realize is I'm getting old whenever a character enters the public domain.
You were born in 1928?
@@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.
@@Bromon655 Some of us know folks born in 1930
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.
Me too. I've been in the public domain for just over a decade.
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.
Reduce the time for copyright to become public domain there's no reason these companies should be able to have a monopoly on an idea so far after the death of a creator.
Whoever edited that transition at 2:44 deserves a raise
😂
👏👏👏
😂😂
Those who grew up with YT are now becoming professionals...
tf man 😬
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.
@@RedFactionMaps But isn't that "incredible art" that Disney "made their own" not partly based on someone else's "art"?
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.
True, Little mermaid, lion king (hamlet), beauty and the beast and countless others. Thor even I’ve heard has been in public domain for some time…
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.
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
They didn't "lose" it, the copyright ended.
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.
steamboat willie didn't have the gloves, it for sure isn't the most iconic
Very streamlined and elegant design.
nope, they already trademarked willy by putting it in the animation studio logo
@@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?
we doomed!
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.
Just give it time...
Look at the end title 1:09, Mickey is wearing white gloves.
If that film is Public Domain, then the white gloves are, too
Steamboat Willie was inspired by Buster Keaton's Steamboat Bill, Jr. I highly doubt Mr. Keaton was acknowledged by Disney for this.
@@kinyutaka And he obviously has pupils too.
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 RUclipsrs 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.
Skibidi Toilet
The Peter Pan Copyright rightfully belongs to The Great Ormond Street Hospital as J. M Barrie wanted it to be. It's up to them to apply to keep the copyright every time it's period is due to expire.
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.
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
Actually Peter Pan will never become public domain. The British government passed a special law giving it perpetual copyright.
@@iPyromantic Walt was also a union buster. Which is sordidly accurate.
@@iPyromantic Is it confirmed that he was antisemitic? Like, do you have any links with reliable information?
If you take the steamboat mickey and modify it to your taste, can Disney say you're modifying their new Mickey character, which is still copyrighted, to your taste? How can this be decided?
They've been using that exact clip in some of their newer productions, im sure they'll find a way to copywrite the new use before anyone can get hold of it
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.
That explains all the Cthulhu I remember seeing back in those days
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.
Disney is taking some hits as of late, they *finally* couldn’t waste money extending copyright for a non-profitable character.
@@Dr.Oofers thank god, some hopeful news. Even the EU isn’t happy about Disney being a creep!
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".
4:22 The presenters made me laugh!
Why is nobody talking about the fact that Superman and Batman will be public domain in a couple years?
This honest reporting is what we need to see more of.
it's a little debatable how honest or in good faith this really is... just given who/what CBS as an entity is. but yeh, wow...
Terrible take this is a niche small situation about copyright not a controversial take on politics where honesty is actually important
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.
@@GrogedUpCopyright law is NOT niche and it IS political. And why would we ever need to ration where we do and don't apply honest journalism
CBS? Honest reporting? Lol
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
Or get laws passed that preserve the copyright beyond even the lives of their children. Which is a tad bit excessive.
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
@@isaacargesmith8217 I am not reading all that but I see what you mean with the first sentence
@@Saedrisin short, modern feudalism.
As one certain principal said “copyright expired”
Is it valid for a full audio-visual composition Steamboat Willie (including whistle song melody)? Or is it just the first design of mickey mose?🤔
What a year it was for Disney. Box office failures, writers and actors on strike, and now their most iconic character is in the public domain.
The old version mind you. Not the current. But Stull
Yeah I think they'll be just fine lol
Only the old depiction of their most iconic character, which I doubt they care much about since they haven't used it in ages.
@@remnant24they’re literally the reason it takes so long for content the enter the public domain now
Fr we will all probably be dead by the time Elsa from frozen goes into the public domain
It would be interesting if Universal makes a Mickey Mouse movie.
They could, they just can't call it Mickey Mouse, they have to call it Steamboat Willie
@@idkalan00i feel like that’d be cooler anyway
@idkalan00 Wait. So Steamboat Willie is the actual name of the mouse in that short?
@@jareththegoblinking3191Yes it is the black and white mouse turning the wheel is actually Steamboat Willie
Whether anyone will make anything or not I am 100% sure someone will definitely make a Micky Mouse horror movie. 😂
That gener is famous for ripp off.
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.
the people that took over Disney after Walt Disney died threw his morals out the window as fast as they could but lied and said the company still held them.
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.
Oh wow Like I never heard of this fact from Walt's life... in all the documentaries and books...Oh thank you for your two cents.
@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.
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.
damn shame that disney's the reason that we have to wait 100 years for anything to enter public domain.
Mickey mouse is a trash character and because Disney is so evil Mickey mouse place is in the trash
@@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.
that's a really meaningful perspective. thank you liberated soul@@stellviahohenheim
Thank God for the originals and that people aren't allowed to misrepresent the works of the original artist
No way, did private news channels mentioned definitions as public domain?
People seem to be missing the part where it says "ONE FAMOUS ITERATION OF THE MOUSE". That means NOT ALL of Mickey's appearances, only the oldest one.
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.
It's a good start though
@@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
Even though it's just the Steamboat Willie version of Mickey entering the public domain, this is still HUGE news.
So now since it’s on public domain what can they do to the steamboat Willy version?
Yeah
@@Elpinchecrizzbasically anything you can think about
Their gone make him gay
@@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.
If something enters public domain it can be used by others without copyright claims?
yes
People already reuse older designs still under copyright. I see art and animation on Instagram every day. This isn't news. It just means now you'll get to commercialise it legally.
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!"
i don't really like fighters, but cool!
@@ETXAlienRobot201bruh it’s a RUclips comment not a text message
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.
@@GrogedUpAnybody who uses the word "bruh" has no room to judge anybody for the way they comment
I would love to play this game! I really hope you complete it at some point. I would definitely play it. Maybe make a Muugen build at the very least
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 😂
Crazy
Fascinating
Mesmerizing
I love defunctland and I’m glad to see another avid viewer, I wonder if he’ll cover this in a documentary perhaps
fun fact just because fans associated steamboat willie with mickey mouse doesnt mean he or she are the mouses you always assumed they were
You would've thought with such an iconic piece of animation that Disney would've been doing everything to keep control of this. It is history...then again...maybe somebody somewhere can do something with Mickey 1.0.
The DID do everything they could. Copywrites only last 75 years. The Disney lawyers held onto him for 95 years! The kept him tied up in court with 20 years of appeals until the copywrite office finally said "enough".
The copyright should've never lasted for this long
Disney's lawyers would still probably figure a way to successfully sue those using Disney's Mickey Mouse on fan made art
You can win and sue Disney for attorney fees.
@@nellyvg825Mickey moudr is ok to use, just not Mickey Mouse
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
Mickey Mouse is still active.
STEAMBOAT WILLIE is public
You can use similar sounding names like Mickie Mouse or Mick E. Mouse though, and not violate trademark.
So for example if i wanted to make a childerens book off mickey mouse but it wouldn’t be possible because of trademark
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?
@@funkyfranxSouth Park gets away with it because it’s parodic and therefore fair use
And it still shows copyright claim on the video while it’s uploaded for me lol
The indefinite lifespan of corporations has negative implications that have never been weighed or considered, prior to the implementation of the corporate framework.
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.
Hmmm....Interesting.🤔 I never heard of anything like that. Thanks for sharing and good to know.😯
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.
@@laurarules3642 yeah, it was Spider-Man.
Yet they claim they can't go after those who use the Punisher skull as a hate symbol.
@@EmeraldLavigne what did you expect when corporations have been legally defined as people
There is no reason for copyright to last that long.
Half of the time would be easily enough
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.
@@Ghost0fDeath1 Not that easy. Given people dont live the same amount of yours and during your lifetime your copyright remains regardless.
Does it not dawn on them to renew the copyright?
You can't indefinetely renew a copywrite, there's a limit and they've well passed it.
Why are copyrights 100 years old? And not longer?
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.
Mario as Mickey, Peach as Minnie, and Bowser as Pete. That would be fun.
This Steamboat Willie Mickey Mouse could work in Super Smash Bros next to the likes of Mr Game & Watch
But of course, Mickey and Bugs were seen together in Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
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.
@@themeparkreconnoiter9787 My Little Pony: The Movie (2017) 🤨
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.
Tbh I'm actually surprised they correctly named the character as Frankenstein's monster.
What about the screenshot of Mickey’s Mixed Up Adventures? I have seen many modern shows about Mickey Mouse. So Why leave those out?
Putting Winnie the Pooh in anything negative at all should be illegal. I despise that terrible movie.
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.
It wasn’t the first
those superman cartoons were hard AF@@emberleaf2341
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
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.
thanks to big corporate lobbying to politicans for making that hell happen.
It really is crazy. Nothing should last for that long.
people are getting sued because they think they can just sell mickey products now. it's just the very first design, not the whole character of today.
Crazy how clean the hand drawn animation is.