tonight on Yahoo they had an article about a website fighting copyright laws and Disney may lose the copyright to the earlier images of Mickey :crying: I think that stinks!
Here is a link to the article.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021007/ap_on_hi_te/copyright_challenge_2

Sorry, but this is cause celebration to me! I have said this since they first over-turned the copyright.. IT SHOULD HAVE NEVER EVER HAPPENED! NO company I do not care who they are, should have the right to over-turn the length of copyright. Public domain is there for a reason, so it will enrich us all, and challenge companies to keep coming up with new original things thus making sure creativity doesn't stagnate.

In my opinion:

If DIsney loses Mickey, several of it's major things will fall apart.

Example: What's the point of going to Disneyland to see Mickey, if we can go see him at a local Carnival? Why go to the Disney Store to buy things Mickey, when there's 4000 copies available.

Well, not quite so fast. I'm not a lawyer, but I am almost certain that Walt Disney Company has trademarked the image and character of Mickey Mouse. What that means is that when the copyright for some of Mickey Mouse's earliest works expires (such as Steamboat Willie), others may be able to use still images directly from those expired works, but I highly doubt companies will be able to use Mickey lock, stock, and barrel to promote their own things.

Originally posted by MonorailMan
Example: What's the point of going to Disneyland to see Mickey, if we can go see him at a local Carnival? Why go to the Disney Store to buy things Mickey, when there's 4000 copies available. Like they say in the article, only the very early style Mickey would be released. So if you want the current version of Mickey (Fantasia onward) you'd still have to go to Disney for it.

Originally posted by Cadaverous Pallor
Like they say in the article, only the very early style Mickey would be released. So if you want the current version of Mickey (Fantasia onward) you'd still have to go to Disney for it.

Sorry, jumped to conclusions. :o

Lani is mostly right as well...the only stuff that will be outright copyright free is images directly from original materials: cartoon movies, comic strips, promo stuff etc. and ONLY the old Mickey design (shoebutton eyes). It MIGHT be possible to make something new with the old Mickey design, but even if the ruling were over-turned, this part would still be a very gray area, and Disney could still possibly sue on the grounds that it is a trademark used in later merchandise (in other words, the trademark is protecting later works using the same old design, but not the original works). One immediate benefit would be that historical things with Mickey that Disney has suppressed would once again be able to come to light (such as the original racist/violent Gottfredson comic strips, and some of the early cartoons, which I doubt will be uncensored on the DVD release because they sure weren't on the laserdisc version released several years back).

There is a point, if there is any gray at all to it, Disney can sue the living daylights out of anyone trying to use the image - even if they're in the right. That should discourage people for a while.

Obviously Disney pushed on this issue because of the time frame for Mickey Mouse images. However, this is an important issue for alot of things as one copyright extension can lead to more. That is, in 2023, Disney will just start lobbying again and get another 20 years. The way Mickey has evolved and been used as a trademark may make this a somewhat moot issue for Disney but other works are locked up also. I'm not following this too closely, but I do hope the law is overturned, although I don't see it being unconsitutional, so I'm not sure it will be.

OH I totally see it as unconstitutional on several grounds: first the senator that drafted the bill for the new copyright (sonny Bono) was not unbiased: he had a stake in making copyright longer for his own copyrighted works. Secondly the bill did not have a fair vote: it was voted on after he died, and many voted out of sympathy towards "his last cause", rather than what the bill actually stood for. I Firmly beleive that had Bono not died, the bill would have went down by a fair margin. Plus Disney AND Warner bros had a heavy influence in the proceedings... sorry but NO company should be able to influence this kind of thing it should be absolutely untouchable. Years of copyright and extensions should be set at one amount and NEVER touched. This is the one single law that I think should never ever be "updated" or touched, it should have remained the authors lifetime, plus the original 20 years thereafter. NOTHING should have changed that --how is it suddenly fair to say "oh but Mickey Mouse is an icon that shouldnt become public", when so many other companies and individuals have allowed their creations become public domain for years according to law? Disney is nothing special in the eyes of the law and should have been treated as every other company that ever came down the pike. Its not like they were the first ones to ask for that kind of extended protection either, but the law ALWAYS in the past upheld the original ruling. It's enough to make me wonder if Disney didn't pay a judge off to change things cause it was never possible before.

Note: I'm not a lawyer, nor a constitutional scholar, nor do I even own a very good dictionary (that isn't holding open a door, I mean).


Originally posted by Tigertail777
OH I totally see it as unconstitutional on several grounds: first the senator that drafted the bill for the new copyright (sonny Bono) was not unbiased: he had a stake in making copyright longer for his own copyrighted works.

That's not unconstitutional. His personal stake in the outcome seems to make it a bit of conflict, but there is nothing in the constitution about it. Also, Sonny Bono was a Congressman from Palm Springs, not a Senator (thank God).

The Yahoo article linked above notes that this protection has been extended 11 times in the last 40 years. So, obviously, other people besides Sonny Bono have put an effort into this.

Originally posted by Tigertail777
Secondly the bill did not have a fair vote: it was voted on after he died, and many voted out of sympathy towards "his last cause", rather than what the bill actually stood for. I Firmly beleive that had Bono not died, the bill would have went down by a fair margin.

Well, voting for someone's "last cause" is not unconstitutional either. It could have gone down had he not died, who really knows. I tend to think the influence of industry lobbying groups also had strong impact and this legislation would have passed regardless. This is borne out by the fact that the copyright protection has been extended previously.

Originally posted by Tigertail777
Plus Disney AND Warner bros had a heavy influence in the proceedings... sorry but NO company should be able to influence this kind of thing it should be absolutely untouchable. Years of copyright and extensions should be set at one amount and NEVER touched. This is the one single law that I think should never ever be "updated" or touched, it should have remained the authors lifetime, plus the original 20 years thereafter.

I think lots of people would agree that corporations should not have the type of influence on Congress that they do. However, it is also not unconstitutional and it happens all the time. In fact, courts have held that it is unconstitutional to NOT let companies and individuals have influence with their representatives. They claim it is an abridgement of free speech. I'm not saying I agree with that, but it is a consideration.

Again, most of the stories that I have read indicate that this is not the first time the copyright law has been extended. So, it's not like Disney just woke up and did this on their own.

The more likely constitutional challange appears to be based on the fact the words "limited time" that Congress can protect works is being trampeled on with all these extensions. That might fly, it might not.

A Washington Post editorial on this very subject from today's (October 16, 2002) paper can be found here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32259-2002Oct15.html).