Early Mickey Mouse Finally Enters Public Domain (bbc.co.uk) 65
Steamboat Willie, a 1928 short film featuring early non-speaking versions of Mickey and Minnie, is widely seen as the moment that transformed Disney's fortunes and made cinema history.
Their images are now available to the public in the US, after Disney's copyright expired.
It means creatives like cartoonists can now rework and use the earliest versions of Mickey and Minnie.
In fact, anyone can use those versions without permission or cost.
But Disney warned that more modern versions of Mickey are still covered by copyright.
'We will, of course, continue to protect our rights in the more modern versions of Mickey Mouse and other works that remain subject to copyright,' the company said.
US copyright law says the rights to characters can be held for 95 years, which means the characters in Steamboat Willie entered the public domain on Monday, 1 January 2024.
Those works can now legally be shared, performed, reused, repurposed or sampled.
The early versions of Mickey and Minnie are just two of the works entering the public domain in the US on New Year's Day.
Other famous films, books, music and characters from 1928 are now also available to the American public.
They include Charlie Chaplin's silent romantic comedy The Circus; English author AA Milne's book The House at Pooh Corner, which introduced the character Tigger; Virginia Woolf's Orlando; and DH Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover.
this is good but... (Score:3, Insightful)
let's be prepared for mickey to start appearing in the worst most cringe stuff online. "oh hes the villain in a bad horror plot? wow, didn't see that coming"
Steamboat Willie horror cruse moive comeing soon (Score:3)
Steamboat Willie horror cruse movie coming soon
Re:Steamboat Willie horror cruse moive comeing soo (Score:4, Funny)
steamboatse
Re:Steamboat Willie horror cruse moive comeing soo (Score:4, Funny)
This truly is the worst timeline.
Re: (Score:2)
Steamboatmurdered
Re: (Score:2)
You did realize that once you would post that, someone would have to make it, right? And you said it anyway!
This is why we can't have nice things :-O
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Years ago at an anime convention I remember hearing a story of a guy who had bought some cells for Gundam and because he had the original art you tried printing t-shirts off of the cells. Bandai caught wind of it and didn't do anything until all the t-shirts were printed and then sent the
Re: this is good but... (Score:3)
Owning an original piece of art doesn't mean you have the copyright. The most the guy with the cels could do would be to publicly display them. This is the same sort of foolish behavior that the dopes that bought that Dune book the other year engaged in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:this is good but... (Score:5, Informative)
It's not that simple [duke.edu].
Re: this is good but... (Score:3)
That article seems consistent with what he said. You can use a voice, and one might make the argument that a generically high voice is likely fine. However if you clearly impersonate the specific voice they use, it's likely a risk. Same about appearances, colorize it, but if you alter the design or assign colors consistent with Disney's own colorization, that's risky. Maybe you could argue the color red for clothes isn't significant enough to be subject to copyright, but they make it clear that historica
Re: (Score:3)
If you read through the full article, you would find that there was a colorized poster of Mickey Mouse from 1928, matching his current coloration. And also that minor changes to a character are not copyrightable anyway.
One could also add that while Mickey does not make clear words in Steamboat Willie, he does make noises, and they're in his squeaky mouse voice. And if you think that the concept of a character making words instead of noises is copyrightable, well, I don't even know how to respond to that.
O
Re: (Score:2)
(In fact, I'd argue that the noises he makes in Steamboat Willie sound more like they belong to his current voice than the voice he had in his first talkie, Karnival Kid (1929))
Re: (Score:2)
Pepe the Frog finally has some company.
Re: (Score:2)
let's be prepared for mickey to start appearing in the worst most cringe stuff online.
And ads/commercials... Michelob Mouse
Re: (Score:2)
Except that Mickey Mouse is still trademarked. Disney can and will protect the trademark. So no "Pooh" style horror slasher films with Mickey. You can now excerpt larger portions of the movie now without needing to claim fair use, you can show the entire movie with a heavy metal sound track (beware of the musicians suing you, so stick to your own score).
Re: (Score:3)
Trademark law only protects the indication of origin. If it's clear that your "'Pooh' style horror slasher films with Mickey" are totally unaffiliated with The Walt Disney Company, then you should be able to win the inevitable court case. It just may take decades and millions of dollars of litigation as The Walt Disney Company tries to grind you down.
(Key word: "should".)
Re: (Score:2)
The good news is that Disney has stretched themselves way too thin with their endless acquisitions, and the fact that all their movies are tanking means that their pockets aren't as deep as they used to be.
Re: (Score:3)
let's be prepared for mickey to start appearing in the worst most cringe stuff online. "oh hes the villain in a bad horror plot? wow, didn't see that coming"
People are already on it, of course. Indie game devs; the lowest rung of creativity.
https://wdwnt.com/2024/01/horr... [wdwnt.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Looks good, I hope someone makes a 3D pack for JDOOM or something.
Re: (Score:3)
The early mickey mouse cartoons are pretty cringe worthy as is. Mickey constanly tried to force himself on Minnie.
Here's one, Plane Crazy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Already? (Score:2, Funny)
However will they be able to make money off this cute character with such a short copyright period?
Better extend it another 50 years just to be safe.
Re: (Score:1)
...and let's be honest, no one gives two shits about mickey effing mouse. No one watches MM cartoons, no one cares - no one. There won't be any IP infringement cases, because no one gives a shit.
The whole subject is a complete waste of everyones time. Copyright should have been 50 years and not a minute longer - and even then, that's too much.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair: IP Infringement cases aren't really about infringement. They're not about some artist wanting to keep control of his creation - e.g. to prevent Mickey Mouse from appearing in toilet paper adverts.
They're about money.
If you have lots of money, and commit copyright infringement: Yep: There will be members of the legal profession salivating at the prospect of going after you.
If you have no money, and commit copyright infringement: You're not safe either - especially if it _looks like_ the copyright
Re: Already? (Score:4, Interesting)
There are examples of copyright being used to protect the artists vision solely based on merit regardless of money.
Famously, companies were lined up to throw money at Bill Waterson to make all sorts of Calvin and Hobbes merchandise, but he didn't want it, so or didn't happen.
Admittedly you do have the tasteless Calvin peeing on things decals that he hasn't taken legal action, but if not for copyright, you'd have all sorts of Hobbes dolls, a cartoon series, and so forth. The Calvin decals fly under the radar by being very small fry, but broadly his creative intention has been preserved, despite how much more profitable the alternative would have been.
Re: (Score:1)
On average though was it worth it?
Only until the time is right and (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be down with Disney having to pay millions of $$$ to keep the copyright.
(and we could reduce the term to 50 years while we're at it...)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Disney knows that it doesn't need to.
Disney also has trademark protection on Mickey Mouse, which lasts as long as the trademark is still in use.
Re: (Score:2)
Does trademark protection work if I don't claim my Mickey stuff is WD's Mickey stuff?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd expect it to be so.
Re: (Score:1)
The link you are looking for. (Score:3)
January 1, 2024 is Public Domain Day: Works from 1928 are open to all, as are sound recordings from 1923! [duke.edu]
Early Mickey Mouse? (Score:1)
So before noon Mickey? Once he has had his coffee, joint and lunch he is still copyrighted? Just checking as I don't want to break any of mankind's precious laws.
Mickeypedia (Score:4, Informative)
never forget (Score:4, Interesting)
Just in case you ever thought you should feel bad for copyright holders when you're looking for a torrent of your favorite copyrighted work.
The Mickey Mouse Protection act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The court case to challenge the clearly unconstitutional extension of copyright
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Well worth reading the SC's opinion, and especially the dissents by Breyer and Stevens.
It's a great example of how these "brilliant" legal minds sometimes get shit very, very wrong.
Breyer understood (so did Stevens),
This analysis leads inexorably to the conclusion that the statute cannot be understood rationally to advance a constitutionally legitimate interest.
They broke the contract. Fuck 'em.
Re: (Score:2)
get shit very, very wrong.
Depends on which "shit" you're talking about. I'm sure they got all the shit that concerned them right.
Re: (Score:2)
So... I own a copy of a very rare specialty book (25, maybe 26 copies known to still exist, of the original 300) that has a stated copyright of 1936, but AFAIK was never renewed, and the owner died in 1937 (and has no extant legal heirs).
When can I digitize the durn thing and make it public?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. Well in that case... I could have digitized it a couple years ago, which was when I tripped over a copy at a giveaway price. Thanks.
Parallel universe Mickey (Score:2)
I don't care at all about Disney products and am not interested in them, but there is potential in evolving the characters in different ways than Disney did, like a parallel universe Mickey Mouse. Take MM from Steamboat and modernize it, but modernize it in a different way, so it won't infringe Disney's copyright. Create a new universe for it and different stories. Free the mouse. Embrace and extend it.
Thunder and Restoration (Score:1)
Trademark (Score:4, Informative)
It will be somewhat difficult to do to much with this without impinging on Disney's trademarks. Yes, you can copy the original works now (but be careful, as any copies you'll find probably have restoration work that has a newer copyright). With some careful work to avoid any modern work, it can be used and redistributed. This is going to be part of a growing library of video that will show up on TV sets in the background for new movies and TV shows that don't want to pay licensing fees for such material or produce something new.
Re: (Score:1)
Disgusting (Score:1)
We should all seed torrents, with a good conscience, until copyright privilege terms are 5 years.
America has failed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Nobody cares anymore (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The T-Shirts and Toys are all that's left. (Score:2)
The royalties on Mickey Mouse and other Disney images are the only money-makers that Disney has left now. They won't let their rights expire on any of the current stuff for another 50 years at least.
Finally taking it back. (Score:3)
This is being framed as the opposite as what it is.
Walt Disney made a living out of stealing stories from storytellers, and locking our culture behind his brand. Even today, when discussing the 12 labors of Hercules, we can't freely tell the stories without worrying about Disney lawyers insisting elements of the story belong to them.
We, the public, grant limited rights to works of art and creativity in order to encourage it's creation. Mickey rolling into the public domain represents Disney finally honoring a deal they've welched on countless times before.
This is our collective culture. We granted a 12 year monopoly on the images if Steamboat Willie in 1928. That means it took an additional 84 years after our terms to promote the progress of science and useful arts expired. Every copyright duration extension granted represents wholesale theft from the public domain, and they would have done it again if they thought they could get away with it.
They've been strip-mining our culture for 80 years, and now that there's nothing left to steal it's become a steady diet of remakes, reimaginings, and low quality sequels & prequels.. I'm looking forward to increase in quality this represents. The mouse can't steal from itself. It's the angry ghost of Walt Disney competing with Disneys modern buy-the-franchise-and-beat-it-to-death business model.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious who will step up to the plate. Right now, we have a ton of cringe-worthy stuff on Tik-Tok, but for something that is going to be a work that our grandchildren will appreciate, it is hard to tell. Will we remember what new IP is being made as the equivalent of "penny dreadfuls"?
I'm hoping for a new wave of indy studio makers to come around. Heck, good video equipment hasn't been cheaper, be it software from Black Magic, solid cine quality cameras, or even using phones for the video. The probl
...and Tigger too! (Score:1)
I've always been a big fan of public domain. I was the Project Manager on over 50 books at Project Gutenburg. I am also a Winnie-ther-Pooh fan as well. So the second book (and final) book "The House at Pooh Corner" of the two book series also reached public domain in the United States on Jan 1, 2024 giving us access to Tigger. Tigger only first appears in the second book.
I choose my login name "GnuPooh" in the 1990's hoping that some day the bear would be some day be Free. I got that two years ago and I'm g