
Mickey Mouse and Batman will soon be public domain - Tomte
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/a-whole-years-worth-of-works-just-fell-into-the-public-domain/
======
ikeboy
>On January 1, 2024, we'll see the expiration of the copyright for Steamboat
Willie—and with it Disney's claim to the film's star, Mickey Mouse. The
copyrights to Superman, Batman, Disney's Snow White, and early Looney Tunes
characters will all fall into the public domain between 2031 and 2035.

I guess 5-16 years counts as soon these days?

~~~
mcv
If you consider the time needed to pass the legislation necessary to prevent
this, then yes.

~~~
gowld
Why? It takes one session or less for Congress to pass a pre-written law that
updates some numbers in existing law, as has been repeatedly done over
decades.

~~~
mywittyname
Exactly. Disney just needs to call in the "favors" they are owed from the
Congressman they supported during the elections. Maybe sprinkle in a media
campaign to fear-monger the fact that "Disney might lose Mickey" as an
insurance policy.

------
sjs382
I guess soon we'll be able to retire the old Slashdot rule:

> In the USA Copyright lengths are very simple. Anything older than Mickey
> Mouse is public domain and everything else is still copyrighted.

(via
[https://m.slashdot.org/thread/28736323](https://m.slashdot.org/thread/28736323))

~~~
taf2
2024 is still a few years away... maybe too soon to count those chickens since
they haven't hatched?

------
riskable
This article is making a big legal mistake I think... You _should_ be free to
make a Mickey Mouse doll with modern colors and white gloves after Steamboat
Willie enters the public domain because those would be _derivative works_ (of
the original). The colors of the character's clothes can certainly be
_trademarked_ but after the initial copyright expires any and all color
combinations should be fair game (legally speaking).

If this were _not_ the case the entire body of case law on derivative works
would be turned on its head. The entire _point_ of derivative works law is
that there's an original that everything else is based on. If the original is
public domain _any variation thereof_ is also public domain from that point
forward except for _exact replicas_.

Meaning: You can produce all the Mickey Mouse stuff you want as long as you're
not literally copying something that's still under copyright. Mickey Mouse
dolls are fine as long as your artwork wasn't literally copied & pasted.

~~~
lucasverra
What if i make, market and sell (in 2024) a doll with just a pixel (or point)
of a different colour (assume green on red pants) and argue that point of
green showcase a different mickey, with eco friendly thoughts ? Every thing
else would be very similar

~~~
nkrisc
Judges aren't computers and won't be fooled by that. They are humans who are
very familiar with humans attempting to deceive.

------
rendall
<< The same legal issues will arise when other iconic characters... Winnie the
Pooh, and so forth—fall into the public domain >>

Psst! Winnie the Pooh is already in the public domain! q.v. A.A. Milne.

It's the cultural gravity-well of disnified Pooh Bear that triggers my teeth-
gnashing irrational hatred of Disney, more even than the unconscionable
copyright shenanigans or treacle blanching of global culture or 'get-em while
their young' marketing tactics. I quietly toss any Disney materiel that
manages to appear in my 3 y.o.'s life, and replace it with original sources.

~~~
giancarlostoro
Having had worked for Disney in Orlando I sometimes feel the same. I just
don't get it, they're not bad movies, but it scares me to see just how
attached people get to Disney. Now that they own Star Wars and Marvel I've
lost interest in both just because I knew once they took Star Wars they would
milk that cow as much as possible. I am still kinda mad they took away the
awesome game studio. They really could of made amazing games, instead we've
got EA making Star Wars games.

~~~
eddieroger
I agree that people can get pretty tied to Disney and have seen it, but why
does that impact your love for the things they own at all? People were fanatic
about Star Wars before, but if Fox had put the same marketing power behind it
as Disney does, would you felt the same? Or Marvel - had the parts of the MCU
that Sony owns been bigger, would you like Spider-Man any less?

~~~
giancarlostoro
I wasn't as big into Star Wars or Marvel before the buy out, so now I'm less
likely to be, except Deadpool, now I feel like it's going to be beaten to
death by Disney.

------
CM30
Aren't there trademarks involved? The original stories would be public domain,
but I'm not sure how easy it'd be to market them without Disney/DC's
permission.

There's also the fact that copyright over characters is tied to their first
appearance, and (especially in Batman's case), most other recognisable
characters from the series aren't public domain. So you could write a Batman
story, but it couldn't involve Robin, or the Joker, or hell, any of Batman's
familiar rogues gallery.

But it's nice to see this about to happen none the less.

~~~
beokop
That’s not how this works. The actual books/movies/cartoons that Batman
appears in will eventually be public domain — you’ll be legally allowed to
copy, edit and distribute these without restrictions. However, “Batman” (the
idea, the concept) is still protected by trademark laws making it illegal to
produce new (non-derivative) Batman books/movies/cartoons without the
trademark holder’s consent.

~~~
habitue
> “Batman” (the idea, the concept) is still protected by trademark laws making
> it illegal to produce new (non-derivative) Batman books/movies/cartoons
> without the trademark holder’s consent

This isn't true. The concept of Batman as it existed in the comics that are in
the public domain is open to being remixed and put into new stories and
derivative works. Even with the name "Batman" and even without giving any
credit to DC comics whatsoever.

What the Batman trademarks are able to prevent is someone trying to use the
Batman name to confuse consumers into thinking some product is being sold by
DC comics.

As the article points out, the exact borders of what trademark can be used for
in terms of merch is fuzzy, but a specific strategy that doesn't work is using
a trademarked name to prevent creation of copies or derivative works of
something in the public domain

When creating new works with Batman, you'll have to fastidiously avoid using
any elements of the character that were introduced later, but you should be
good.

~~~
avar
> When creating new works with Batman, you'll have to fastidiously avoid using
> any elements of the character that were introduced later, but you should be
> good.

Everything in your comments makes sense except this part. If this goes as
currently planned Batman will be in the public domain, but not e.g. Batwoman
(introduced decades later).

However, I can make my own new superhero now called Foobarman and introduce a
Foobarwoman without anyone having grounds for saying I'm ripping off Batman.

So if Batman is in the public domain I'll be able to have a Batwoman. Having a
female version of a character isn't per-se a copyright violation just because
that path's been taken before.

Of course if I go further and actually rip off entire stories involving
Batwoman I'll be in trouble.

~~~
habitue
> if Batman is in the public domain I'll be able to have a Batwoman. Having a
> female version of a character isn't per-se a copyright violation just
> because that path's been taken before.

I think you're making a legal argument, and I have no idea if your
interpretation is what the court has already decided/will decide.

------
tyng
If a cartoon character is still in commercial use and being further developed,
I'm not sure if it's good practice to turn it into public domain. I don't
think there had been corporations/artists that have had the longevity of
Disney, and the fact that Disney has continued to invest in and develop the
characters over the years makes this somewhat of a special case (compared to
other literature characters where the author stops developing them after they
are published).

I'm no copyright lawyer nor do I know much about copyright laws, but one
should recognise the positive effects of copyright protection, which
encourages innovation and investment. Those incremental investments Disney has
made should be acknowledged.

But of course, the danger in this argument is that in the future someone can
just make tiny face-value 'investments' into their copyright to argue for an
extension, that would be detrimental to the whole copyright vs innovation
balance.

~~~
humanrebar
> If a cartoon character is still in commercial use and being further
> developed, I'm not sure if it's good practice to turn it into public domain.

Disney doesn't have any issues defending its repackaged public domain products
like fairy tales. I don't see why Mickey Mouse would be harder to brand and
market than the Disney princesses.

~~~
cptskippy
At this point he's probably a trademark. Everything by Disney uses Mickey
Mouse badges or iconography to identify itself as Disney.

~~~
moate
IANAL, but the Mouse Ears logo is different than the character himself. Fewer
things are branded with Mickey's face.

------
Traster
Steamboat Willy was 1928. In 1998 when the latest copyright changes were made
it was 70 years old when copyright was extended from 75 years to 95 years. So
frankly it's not unrealistic to say we're no closer to Mickey Mouse being out
of copyright than we were in 1998.

~~~
_archon_
Is there legislation pending to alter the copyright term again? If not, then
we are indeed closer.

~~~
lenocinor
Yeah, and it's better than that actually, in that the RIAA specifically said
they weren't even pursuing the idea last year.

------
krmmalik
I'd be so excited if Superman ever entered the public domain. Then I'm
convinced we'd get much better adaptations than the drivel we've been seeing
for the last several years.

~~~
msbarnett
> I'd be so excited if Superman ever entered the public domain. Then I'm
> convinced we'd get much better adaptations than the drivel we've been seeing
> for the last several years.

Individual works are entering the public domain, but what you’re proposing is
much trickier and largely unsettled legal territory.

When early Superman stories enter the public domain there’s no legal guarantee
that courts will agree that this includes the right to tell new stories with
the character. Further it almost certainly DOESN’T include the right to tell
stories about the characters using elements that come from later, still-under-
copyright works — and much of what we think of as Superman’s mythos comes not
from the early comics but from the 1940s radio show (flight rather than big
jumps, The Daily Planet, Perry White, Jimmy Olsen, kryptonite, “look, up in
the sky...”), or from silver age comics of the 50s and 60s (Braniac, Bizaro,
Zod, most of the characteristics of the arctic fortress of solitude, vision
powers, breath powers, kandor...).

It’ll be decades before a recognizable Superman mythos is public domain.

~~~
incompatible
What about "Superman" as a trademark? I assume it's already fine to make
characters with Superman-like powers but with another name.

~~~
msbarnett
> I assume it's already fine to make characters with Superman-like powers but
> with another name

You may want to take a look at the outcome of National Comics Publications,
Inc. v. Fawcett Publications, Inc.
[https://bit.ly/2CHZt0i](https://bit.ly/2CHZt0i) the courts have and will slap
down clearly “ersatz Superman” characters.

edit: had to use a URL shortener because HN keeps mangling the Wikipedia URL

~~~
em-bee
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Comics_Publications,_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Comics_Publications,_Inc._v._Fawcett_Publications,_Inc.).

(HN removes the last ".", adding another makes the url work :-)

~~~
msbarnett
Ah, thanks! I couldn't figure out how to get it to stop eating that

------
afarrell
This sounds like something that isn’t going to happen unless senators actually
get reminded that this is a thing people care about. Has Ron Wyden (D-OR)
indicated that he knows that he might have to fight to keep public domain day
from being postponed again?

Has anyone written to their representatives about this? Are we going to be
proactive or are we waiting to organize a defense of the public domain until
_after_ a bill to attack it has passed the House?

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
>And assuming Congress doesn't interfere, more works will fall into the public
domain each January from now on.

>On January 1, 2024, we'll see the expiration of the copyright for Steamboat
Willie—and with it Disney's claim to the film's star, Mickey Mouse. The
copyrights to Superman, Batman, Disney's Snow White, and early Looney Tunes
characters will all fall into the public domain between 2031 and 2035.

Given this list, I don’t see Disney, Warner Brothers, and DC comics all
sitting idly by. If I was a betting person, I would bet that Snow White will
not enter the public domain on the 2030’s.

~~~
swiftcoder
Isn't Snow White (as in the fairy tale) centuries out of copyright? Disney's
specific version will still be protected by trademark, so at best one gains
the right to host the Disney footage online in 2030.

~~~
wbillingsley
Apparently Disney's names for the dwarfs, other than Sneezy, are copyright. So
pantomimes regularly turn up with a slightly different array of dwarfs. (And
different songs, of course)

------
sytelus
I think major beneficiary would be the cloners and fake product manufacturers
in China. You can expect thousands of questionable quality but very cheap toys
with Mickey Mouse theme getting dumped on to Amazon.

~~~
astrodust
Don't confuse _copyright_ with _trademarks_.

Mickey Mouse is still trademarked. The movies and books are copyrighted.

Also where have you been for the last hundred years where knock-off Disney
everything has been the norm?

------
faissaloo
I'm curious how long the legal charade of IP can last before people realise
how unworkable and detached from reality the concept is.

~~~
gear54rus
It's not about "people" or "reality", it's about filling already fat copyright
holders' bellies with more caviar, nothing more. The Wall has already been
built, no need to be outraged now.

------
nikofeyn
can someone explain? i was under the understanding that it's the works that
are under copyright and will be what enters the public domain and not the
mickey mouse character as a whole. so people can go off and remix steamboat
willie and the mickey mouse representation found there, but it isn't like
another company can suddenly take the mickey mouse character and start using
it in a broader sense. is that not correct?

~~~
culturedsystems
When Steamboat Willie enters the public domain, those aspects of the Mickey
Mouse character that are in that film will also be in the public domain, so
people will be able to use the Mickey Mouse character, as long as they don't
use aspects of the character that were introduced in later (and so still
copyright) works.

Something similar happened a few years ago with Sherlock Holmes [1]. The
original Sherlock Holmes stories are public domain, and so the character can
be used without the permission of the Conan Doyle estate. However, some of the
later stories are still under copyright, so anything about the character which
only appears in these later stories cannot be freely used.

[1] [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/sherlock-holmes-
no...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/sherlock-holmes-now-
officially-copyright-and-open-business-180951794/)

------
bopbop
There was a great list on BoingBoing recently of works entering the public
domain this year:

[https://boingboing.net/2018/12/31/thanks-
justin.html](https://boingboing.net/2018/12/31/thanks-justin.html)

Also a rather sadder list following it of works that won't be (yet) because of
the copyright extension.

------
waylandsmithers
When that time comes I think it will be a good litmus test of where we stand
in terms of corporations and the rule of law. I would be surprised if Disney
didn't already have an army of lawyers, lobbyists, and fixers working on this.

------
cmroanirgo
This is what I don't understand. To me, it seems a bit more complicated to me
than a simple 'copyright expiration'.

As far as I understand copyright, it stops anyone copying the exact same
_original_ image/music/video.

Derivative works have always been allowed, but it's generally a Trademark that
stops the derivative works dead in their tracks, as far as I understand. Also,
is there a statute of limitations on Trademark? ie Can Disney keep up their TM
on Mickey, stopping anyone else from using it?

So all I think this really means is that the original videos are now in the
public domain.

~~~
pjc50
> Derivative works have always been allowed

Other way round - copyright has always covered derivative works, that's how
the GPL operates. And why you need to clear every sample you use in a music
track.

~~~
apocalypstyx
I've never understood why I see so many posters on HN (and in other tech-
related circles) who seem to think derivative works have no legal
encumbrances.

~~~
warent
Probably just taking for granted (understandably so) the fact that so much of
what we develop with has extremely flexible/forgiving licensing

------
lifeisstillgood
So we might see Steamboat Willie knock off videos coming soon?

This is where I think we need a common video stamping agreement- something
like taking key frames in a video and hashing them, then signing the hash, and
storing that in the metadata - I can rerun the check and so be sure that the
certificate signing the hash is disney - if not just do not run the video.

I know this sounds like EU central copyright database thing but if we have to
have some copyright (which I think we do) we then need a automated way to
verify which is some form of database (decentralised for preference)

~~~
caf
If you want to be sure that you're watching the Disney original, just look for
the video that says "Steamboat Willie, presented by Disney". _That 's_ what
trademark law protects - it stops other businesses from passing off on your
reputation.

------
chrischen
Even if someone is in the right, what is to stop Disney using frivolous
lawsuits to deter people from exercising their rights?

~~~
NegativeK
PR. And if they're meritless, sooner or later a judge would get really angry
at Disney and make them hurt.

~~~
falcrist
The term you're probably looking for is "vexatious litigant"... though I
seriously doubt Disney's legal team would let that happen.

------
crescentfresh
Sorry for the naive question, can anyone explain what it means for something
to enter the public domain? What is the public domain anyway? Is there a
database somewhere of all the public things?

Does it mean anyone can put batman on a t-shirt, sell that t-shirt and keep
all the profit? Does it mean batman movies can be pirated without
repercussion?

~~~
clarkmoody
There is the _Public Domain Review_ [1] "dedicated to the exploration of
curious and compelling works from the history of art, literature, and ideas"
that have fallen into the public domain.

Think about Shakespeare's works for a good example of something in the public
domain. Anyone can use Romeo & Juliet's characters any way they like.
Similarly, there is a huge amount of derivative work of _Price and Prejudice_
[2]

[1] [https://publicdomainreview.org/](https://publicdomainreview.org/)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_literary_adaptations_o...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_literary_adaptations_of_Pride_and_Prejudice)

------
bitwize
No they won't. These characters are not only copyrighted, but trademarked as
well, and that's perpetual.

------
FloNeu
Shitty click-bait - we all know disney will just pay-off some politicians and
keep it's ip out of the public-domain. As they did the last few times. The
have 12/16 years time still

------
leowoo91
If I understand correctly, you can only use the initial art as it is, but
nothing else. Latter colorful work and trademark(not even related) should be
still far from allowance, legally speaking.

------
huffmsa
Sopa was 7 years ago? Wow.

------
PhasmaFelis
Is there reason to assume that Disney won't wreck it again? Because I remember
seeing "Mickey Mouse is about to be public domain!" headlines 20 years ago.

------
chris_wot
I have a theory that in the next 50 years these copyright extension will
become less relevant as more and more creative works start using less
restrictive licenses.

That’s my hope, anyway.

~~~
mywittyname
I think they matter more than ever. Today, content is king and being able to
ham-string up-starts by effectively eliminating several generations worth of
content is great for established business interests.

If copyrights were only good for 30 years, then it would be cheap to start
streaming services for music and movies. There's tons of great movies and
music that you could to bootstrap your operation. Movies like Back to the
Future could be freely viewed on YouTube.

Public domain works are incredibly valuable. Which is exactly why our founding
fathers put the management of such powers in the hands of the federal
government.

------
wrycoder
I would hope so. I'm older than the hills, and I was obsessively drawing
batmobiles as a kid.

------
mywacaday
I own a batman.tld, no idea what do do with it though, any suggestions?

------
km3k
I still think Disney and others will make one more push for extension in 2023.

------
Y_Y
We'll see about that. They've clung to their creators this long.

------
Apocryphon
Imagine the fanfiction renaissance that is about to be birthed.

------
pugworthy
I'm curious about mashups here...

------
niceworkbuddy
Do they?

------
shmerl
_> So if the usual suspects had pushed for another copyright extension, they
would have had a serious fight on their hands. Digital rights groups, online
activists, and lobbyists from big technology companies would have swarmed
Capitol Hill making the case against copyright extension. Evidently, major
rights holders didn't have the stomach for another battle like that._

The fight now should go the other way - reverting current insane copyright
term to its previous lengths. Copyright lobby might not be able to extend it
more, but it doesn't mean that the current one is acceptable.

~~~
CM30
Agreed. What's more, this is exactly what the 'left' wing political parties
should be doing about now. They always say they can't get young people to
vote. They always complain about losing to their opponents or what not.

Well, maybe actually saying they'll fix copyright laws, throw large
corporations to the curb and actively fighting to reduce the term to a
reasonable length may help with that. Show they're not corporate shills, and
do something that younger people may actually support them with.

Is that enough on its own? Hell no, there are tons of things these parties
need to do to win trust back. But it would be a great rallying point for them,
and get a decent amount of support from internet folks and younger people.

~~~
brobdingnagians
The problem is that they are corporate shills. There are quite a few things I
wish the Democratic party would do that I'd support, and lots of them they did
historically. Even if they were still actually pushing anti-war, freedom of
speech, and related things then that would be fantastic, but lately they seem
to tow the same line as the Republicans on those issues.

~~~
SquishyPanda23
> The problem is that they are corporate shills.

I really think the defining political problem of our age is campaign finance
reform and to a lesser extent election reform.

~~~
stochastic_monk
Which is the primary aim of the new democratic house. I would not consider
someone trying to limit corporate control of politics a corporate shill.

~~~
sidlls
The primary aim of the new democratic house is to continue in the same way
under the same leadership as they have for the last 30 years. They're a
conservative party who mainly want the same things as Republicans, but have
somehow managed to bamboozle a whole new generation into thinking they're the
party of civil rights, egalitarianism, labor, etc. They're about as interested
in campaign and election reform as the Republicans.

~~~
stochastic_monk
How do you square your claims with this _?

_
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18802997](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18802997)

~~~
sidlls
Politicians lie, and words are cheap.

~~~
stochastic_monk
I’ll re-evaluate them after I see what this house does. I certainly don’t want
what the current party in power does.

------
hyperpallium
It's adorable how people think Mickey Mouse will enter the public domain.

~~~
dang
Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

------
ddingus
No they won't. I do not believe for a minute big content will let that happen.

They should. Not doing it is theft.

Disney made great use of the Brothers Grimm, and has no interest in giving
back. All greed and the desire to avoid another Disney from happening.

FREE THE MOUSE

~~~
jjeaff
What is the argument for not protecting copyright? What public good does
making Mickey Mouse public domain serve?

~~~
wolfgke
> What is the argument for not protecting copyright?

Copyright is censorship.

~~~
dehrmann
The fair use doctrine provides enough outs that it's not outright censorship.

~~~
wolfgke
> The fair use doctrine provides enough outs that it's not outright
> censorship.

In Germany's analogue to the US-American copyright law (Urheberrecht), there
exists no fair use doctrine.

EDIT: And even if we ignore this: a little less censorship is still a
censorship.

~~~
dehrmann
There's a balance to strike between intellectual property and censorship.

------
oh_sigh
Maybe I'm wrong here, but I don't see why Mickey or batman should be public
domain. Both of them are being actively used by their companies, it's not like
they are abandoned cultural memorbilia.

~~~
colejohnson66
They’re still trademarked

