"An early Walt Disney movie featuring the first appearance of Mickey Mouse is among the copyrighted works from 1928 moving into the public domain on Jan. 1, 2024.... 'What is going into the public domain is this particular appearance in this particular film,' [says Kembrew McLeod, a communications professor and intellectual property scholar]. That means people can creatively reuse only the Mickey Mouse from
Steamboat Willie. Not the Mickey Mouse in the 1940 movie
Fantasia. Nor the one
on Mickey Mouse Clubhouse.... New versions of Mickey Mouse remain under copyright. Copyright applies to creative characters, movies, books, plays, songs and more. And as it happens, Mickey Mouse is also trademarked.... 'And of course, trademark law has no end, adds Harvard Law School professor Ruth Okediji.... As long as the mark remains distinctive in the supply of goods and services, the owner of the trademark gets to protect that trademark. 'It's something copyright scholars like myself have been concerned about.... This effective undermining of the public domain by allowing trademark law to effectively extend the life of a copyrighted work.....'"
From
"'Steamboat Willie' is now in the public domain. What does that mean for Mickey Mouse?" (NPR).
The most NPR part of that article is telling us that in "Steamboat Willie," as opposed to later versions of Mickey, "his roots in the blackface minstrel shows of the time are more apparent."
ADDED: From a 2019 Snopes article,
"Was Mickey Mouse Modeled After a Racist Caricature Named 'Jigaboo'? Mickey Mouse may have a connection to minstrel shows, but he wasn't based on a racist 'Jigaboo' character":
Here's how M. Thomas Inge described Disney's famous character in his essay "Mickey Mouse":
"Like Felix, Bimbo, Oswald, most of the animated film characters who preceded him, Mickey had a black body and head, large white eyeballs, and a white area around the mouth -- all characteristic of African Americans as portrayed stereotypically in cartoons, illustrations, and advertising of the time and based on the image of minstrel show performers in black face. When white gloves were added, Mickey moved even closer to his sources. None of these characters retained, however, any of the language or cultural nuances of black life, although Mickey has sometimes been thought to retain some of the free-swinging style of the hipster and trickster."
पोस्ट्स
४६ टिप्पण्या:
I listened to some NPR the other day. Gag!
NPR. Of course they are. The real racism n this country is from the left's projection.
But what about Minnie Mouse? Is she in the public domain now?
Answer: She’s alway been public property, that turophilic trumpet!
That “roots in blackface” remark is so typical of that taxpayer-funded absurdity. What is NPR other than a welfare program for village idiots?
Scott Adams put Mickey into his Dilbert today. It's available on X.
And no, it is not necessary to say formerly Twitter.
I chose NPR for this story because it was the one that explained the all-important trademark point. I didn't check every other major media outlet, but the ones I did check either didn't mention or didn't explain trademark. That put NPR at the competent level, and everyone else pathetic. The standard is low, but NPR still won.
As we do every New Year's Eve, we watched "Holiday Inn". This time we noticed that the ratings alert at the start of the film includes "blackface". Fair. If they're going to warn me for smoking, they should certainly list blackface.
if any of you haven't listened to NPR for a while, i Strongly recommend that you do.
I'd suggest listening at 4:00 (the start of All Things Considered). You'll be given a list of topics for that hour, and Then! the 4 minute "news". Try to make it that far. For a bonus round, try listening to the first segment of All Things Considered.
If you listened to NPR in the olden times (1990's?) and haven't listened for a while, you'll be:
shocked, stunned, staggered, saddened, and scared
If you've been listening to NPR the whole time, you will be a Very Good example of the Frog in the pot of slowly boiling water.. You probably didn't even notice the changes.
Personally, i listened to NPR at 4pm, Every evening on the way home from work (from 1985 until 2017).. Then missed the next few years..
When i listen now, i'm (fill in the S Adjectives). They don't even Pretend to be non biased now.
heck, they don't even pretend to be News now.. They are the wokest pile a sh*t
Of course if they rendered Mickey Mouse in anything other than black and white nobody would know now would they NPR?
I suspect nobody there understands movies were once almost exclusively shown black and white...
Michele Boldrin on intellectual property is a net loss to an economy, i.e. you'd do better without it.
...and NPR is rendered like the Soviet era Pravda but what of it?
According to Scott Adams you can use the black and white version of micky.
As for the color ve that's a Grey area.
John Henry
Even in death, Mickey's copyright serves as a warning of the corrosive effect of intellectual property law.
Just as Disney should not have been able to extend copyright indefinitely by buying politicians, so too it should not be able to extend indefinitely by making minor cosmetic changes in the mouse.
And the only reason Trademark law can undermine public domain protections is that trademark law is too strong, too far reaching. The constitutional protections--copyright and patent--protect creations, things people make and bring to the public. Trademark takes things that already exist out of the public domain and hands them over to private interests.
So Steamboat Willie enters the public domain and is immediately canceled for being racist. There's a conspiracy in there.
Oh my, what would they think of Bosco? That cartoon was a lot more blatant, Mickey without mouse ears.
And still very popular on TV when I was little.
I tend to think kids don't pick up on minstrelsy so it has no impact on bias.
"if any of you haven't listened to NPR for a while, i Strongly recommend that you do."
Yeah, it's eye opening. Racism, sexism, DEI, abortion, climate porn. Rinse and repeat. Extra points for combinations. The last NPR piece I sat through was on how to get people of color into EVs.
So, the trademark on that cartoon figure, which almost any child could draw, lasted 100 years? That is truly amazing and horrifying. All just to protect the mighty Disney empire.
This law is broken, and should be repaired, but nothing shall be done.
There are two public radio stations near me. One is as described above, A non-stop woke-a-thon about struggling oppressed folks that, supposedly, inhabit every square meter of the earth.
The other plays interesting music. Some blues, progressive rock, country-folk, and local artists. No news, and no political invective. I quite like it, and I've been tempted to sign up during their fund raising drives.
And in other news on the race relations front it is rumored that the CDC is about to claim toe nail fungus is a racist disease. As the symptoms are a blackened area of the toe nail and can be cured by the application of a white cream.
Black, white, and grey were the available colors, that might have something to do with it.
Ann sez : That put NPR at the competent level, and everyone else pathetic. The standard is low, but NPR still won.
NPR has the problems of US media in general. "Elitism" for primary example. They find a fairly interesting essay in "New Yorker" magazine by a famed-name writer, and bring him/her/it in. An superb essay by the best lawyer nobody outside the four-state area (KS, NE, IA, MO) has heard of, that was published in the "Kansas City Star" -- never gets a second of air time.
With this and most issues with more than one perspective and those evenly distributed -- NPR tends to bring in one and only one "analyst" who defends the elite view, and strawman's all opposing views. It's rare to have two, or more, analysts on the radio. (PBS at least pretends to table a range of opinions. )
The other major issues are sensationalism and innumeracy, but those don't particularly pertain in this Micky Mouse discussion. Another day, maybe.
So I have a question about the application of trademark law in this instance where there are small, almost imperceptible changes to the subject (Mickey Mouse) over the years, all versions being considered as trademarked. If Disney can claim each small change to MM as a distinct version that is owed a separate trademark, then couldn’t I use the general image of MM - but with a very small (almost imperceptable) change - and claim that it is not a trademarked version of MM, since very small changes are part of what makes each version separately trademarkable?
The clue that it's black face is that they call Mickey Willie
What does AI say about it?
Pejorative Racism: Is there anything it can't do?
Did Mickey Mouse just enter the public domain?
Why not?
It's been years since Disney entered the pubic domain.
Not mentioned is the disappeared Disney classic Song of the South, with Brer Rabbit, Brer Fox, and good old Uncle Remus. Zip a dee doo dah!
I think Trademark protection is much more limited than copyright protection, but as the article referenced trademark dilution might become the Disney legal team's new forte. And in the current age where seemingly anything will offend some set of people this might keep Steamboat Willie on his Steamboat.
Trademark law resists algorithmic simplification. It's centered on the likelihood of consumer confusion, so it involves balancing of multiple factors.
There's always going to be tension between trademark law and artistic freedom. The Supreme Court's dog toy/whiskey case last year seemed to assign greater weight to protection of marks than to protection of works of imagination. But case law is likely to develop further.
Answer: She’s alway been public property, that turophilic trumpet!
Strumpet!!! Goddammit. Rot in the deepest Hell, auto-correct.
Why didn't M. Thomas Inge start with mice as they actually appear and reason from there? Could it be because Professor Inge was engaged in motivated reasoning?
Here's a picture of a common mouse (Mus musculus).
Notice its skin is pink though its fur is black or dark brown. Where the fur is thin, around the mouth and eyes especially, the pink skin shows through.
And here's Mickey. His skin is pink. It's his fur that's black, like a real mouse.
Does Steamboat Willie drink malt liquor?
No?
Case closed...
"If they're going to warn me for smoking, they should certainly list blackface."
What does Ted Danson have to say?
I was disappointed about the multiple extensions on Copyright that Disney managed to get from politicians. Legislative bodies seem to be easily swayed by celebrity, even of a cartoon mouse. Much popular music should already be in the public domain, but isn't because of Congressional meddling.
However, I am less concerned about trademarks because they affect physical works sold in tangible form: manufactured items, as opposed to an artist who performs a Bob Dylan song live, for example. A trademarked Coca Cola bottle from the 1930s will still have the trademarked logotype on the bottle. We don't want "legal" forgeries of these kind of artifacts, just as counterfeit Mickey T-shirts would degrade the value of Disney intellectual property if allowed. Too bad Disney does not enforce their trademarks in China with the same vigor they go after their fellow Americans who violate their marks.
So the news is about art and the public domain, but NPR turns it into a discussion of race.
They certainly know their audience.
If Disney can claim each small change to MM as a distinct version that is owed a separate trademark, then couldn’t I use the general image of MM - but with a very small (almost imperceptable) change - and claim that it is not a trademarked version of MM, since very small changes are part of what makes each version separately trademarkable?
Sure. But defending your actions would be extremely costly and that is what Disney depends on as the enforcement mechanism. They have unlimited litigation budget compared to most of us.
Further, I question the "almost imperceptible" part of your query. Are they? Or is it color, then the change in his clothing (perhaps in reverse order), then the illustrative (3D shading) versions? Those are significant enough to warrant a new copyright to protect their IP, in my experience (redesigning corporate logotypes). Works derivative of their IP by others would be challengeable. For example if you did a Rasta Mickey with dreadlocks or a truly 3D rendering that made the mouse look like claymation instead of 2D cartoon. Both of those would trigger a dispute that your version relied on Disney's to be recognizable. They file new copyrights not because it is a new character but as a CYA move that they can afford to do and defend.
So, DeSantis' campaign against the Mouse is actually woke? I look forward to the strange new respect coming his way in NPR, NYT and WaPo. A fawning interview with Rachel Maddow or Sharpton or Morning Joe on MSNBC will breathe new life into his primary. This could be the Black Swan event of 2024!
I’m just shocked that Althouse is posting something featuring use of the J-word. While less heard than the N-word these days, it is certainly every bit as offensive.
People are never as fragile as the bullshit narratives presume.
In the spirit of the times - aren’t clowns “whiteface”? Aren’t their exaggerated features emphasizing perceived negative white features? And don’t they exaggerate negative white characteristics?
Um, it was a black on white cartoon. Black is how you made characters stand out. Next we'll be told Daffy Duck was modelled on an "uppity" black man.
Blogger Whiskeybum said...
So I have a question about the application of trademark law in this instance where there are small, almost imperceptible changes to the subject (Mickey Mouse) over the years, all versions being considered as trademarked. If Disney can claim each small change to MM as a distinct version that is owed a separate trademark, then couldn’t I use the general image of MM - but with a very small (almost imperceptable) change - and claim that it is not a trademarked version of MM, since very small changes are part of what makes each version separately trademarkable?
According to the internet there is something called Trademark Tacking. Which to my untrained eye looks like it is way to lump the date of protection of all those similar but slightly different Disney uses of the mouse to the earliest use date. I'm not certain how this would affect another person's use of a similar but different Mickey Mouse, but it could be that while there are no copyright restrictions it still violates trademark law.
Also according to the internet there is something called Trademark Dilution. Again to my untrained eye this looks like what Disney would use against people who are using a non-copyright-protectable version of the mouse in a way that isn't a brand for a good or s service, which presumably would fall under normal trademark infringement. It sounds like as far as dilution goes, the courts look at different factors:
(1)the degree of similarity between the mark or trade name and the famous mark; (2)the degree of the famous mark's inherent or acquired distinctiveness; (3)the extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaged in substantially exclusive use of the mark; (4)the degree of recognition of the famous mark; (5)whether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark; and (6)any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.
Again to my untrained eye I'm not sure how this would all play out but I'm presuming that slight changes to Mickey which may be distinct enough for avoiding copyright issues might still not avoid trademark issues. Also apparently Fair Use applies to trademark as well, so presumably parodies of Steamboat Willie are acceptable.
rhhardin, tim maguire:
I certainly concur with what you are saying, but let's help resolve the problem by abolishing the bullshit analogy phrase "intellectual property" from our vocabulary and substitute the much closer to home "intellectual monopoly".
They say that he who controls the terms of the debate controls the debate, and I'd love to see the proponents of this nonsense having to defend "monopolies" rather than "property".
"I'd love to see the proponents of this nonsense having to defend "monopolies" rather than "property"."
If Disney supported conservative causes, that idea might gain some traction.
rehajm said...
Of course if they rendered Mickey Mouse in anything other than black and white nobody would know now would they NPR?
I suspect nobody there understands movies were once almost exclusively shown black and white...
Calvin's dad explains this.. In Detail color photos of a black-and-white world
Mason G,
I'm picturing having to defend the next version of the Mickey Mouse Perpetual Copyright Act during congressional hearings on this subject.
Part of the spectacle would be changed, in the minds of the typical non-closely following the subject person, from "of course Disney gets to keep their own property" to "Why Is the government giving them a perpetual monopoly?"
Given that the relevant part of Art I Sec 8 begins “To promote the progress of science and useful arts..." I think a fair argument can be made that works of mere entertainment deserve *less* protection than patents and works of scientific understanding. If 20 years is good enough for patents, then surely it's good enough for novels, plays, cinema, and the like.
Voice 1—‘My paw saw Mickey back in ‘42. Cheeks flushed with booze. Questions of race hovered around him in the hot, smoky bar. So did some flies.’
Old-timey Voice 2–‘I was worried about my brother in the Pacific. That little rat could sing, boy. What Mickey brought was relief and we sure needed the smiles.’
Cut to Woody Guthrie. From Real American History, By Ben Berns.
Mickey Mouse's face is white, not black in Steamboat Willie.
Like I keep saying, this "Almost everything in old movies is blackface and offensive" stupidity has got to stop.
I did see that Disney is filing copyright takedowns on YouTube today (1/3/2023) over the music in Steamboat Willie.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा