Naw, they already do that with fan generated animated princess porn.
Note that as son as Winnie the Pooh entered the Public domain they made and released a really bad schlock horror film,
I do not wanna see MM horror films.
Again, I’m still not sure this is true. Trademark is long-lived, but it seems pretty narrow. If you used the images filed with the USPTO: sure. That’s trademark infringement, without a doubt . If you made an original animation using Steamboat Willie as the source images and manipulated them (for the sake of argument, just altered the aspect ratio, its rendering grid and colorized it in time with music or something), it doesn’t seem the trademark holder would be able to do much about that other than harass you. We’d be just manipulating Steamboat Willie, which is clearly in the public domain at this point. Heck, I’d think we’d be fine even if we left the original credits legible; which would kind of blame Disney for our sins, or credit them for the genius of it all.
A less distinct area would be if you made a completely new cartoon with a mouse that looked like the Steamboat Willie mouse, but never quite resembled the trademarked image, didn’t call him the trademarked name “Mickey Mouse” and didn’t try to establish that as you brand (say, it was a one-off, and you never used the Mickey-ish images in advertising). I think you might end up in court, but under most circumstances you might prevail.
But I’m not a lawyer, not even a bad one. I’m just a nitwit who has most of an education in art and music, and likes to to occasionally contemplate work that will dabble in the edges of what is going to cause a lawsuit, as far as this topic is concerned.
The obnoxious thing about trademark law is that there is what the law might technically allow, and then there is what the real-world practice actually is.
Trademark has to be actively defended. The trademark holder has to show a clear and consistent record of protecting the mark against any and all possible infringement. If the holder has not done this, then an outside party accused of infringement can defend themselves by claiming that the holder has not defended their mark, and that it has become a generic term. “Refrigerator” and “zipper” used to be trademarks, but they were not adequately defended, and now they are generic descriptors which may be used by anyone. This is why, if you are an author (for example), and you publish a novel in which a character colloquially refers to “kleenex” or “band-aid” in a generic way, like normal people do, you and your publisher will receive a stern letter from Kimberly-Clark or Johnson & Johnson (respectively) advising you that these are trademarks and the proper usage is “Kleenex® brand facial tissues” or “BAND-AID® brand sterile adhesive bandages.” They (probably) won’t sue you or try to force you to have the book withdrawn and corrected; they’re just establishing the paper trail for future actions.
Occasionally the protection rises to another level. The classic example is the Mattel company’s lawsuit against the band Aqua for their song “Barbie Girl.” There was basically zero chance the company would succeed; the song was clearly fair use, and the company was seen, in popular opinion, as being obnoxious assholes for bringing the suit. However, the nature of trademark law basically obligates the company, as trademark holder, to sue, even in cases like this when they know are essentially guaranteed to lose. They judge that the six or seven figures of legal expense are a necessary cost, against the possibility that failure to defend the mark will result in its loss, and the corresponding loss of nine or ten figures of future revenue when “Barbie” becomes a generic name for “plastic glamour doll.”
In this context, it’s unsurprising that Disney, in particular, is extremely aggressive about protecting its marks. In 2019, they objected to the use of Spider-Man on the gravestone of a child who died of a rare disease and who was a fan of the character (cite). Before that, they established a record of suing day-care businesses who innocently paint famous Disney characters on their walls (cite); the bad publicity this engenders, and the fact that the small businesses are just making a child-friendly setting and do not profit directly, are irrelevant. Disney even sued the Oscar broadcast for using Snow White in a dance routine without permission (cite).
So what will actually happen when Steamboat Willie becomes public domain material? What will happen is this: Disney will sue everybody who does anything with it, anything at all, beyond simply reproducing the film exactly as-is.
They will lose many of these suits. They don’t care. They will sue anyway, because they have to, in order to establish the boundaries of what is allowable and what constitutes infringement.
Under the terms of copyright law, the film is public domain. If I make a copy of it and put it on a disc and sell it, that’s legal and permissible. That much is black-and-white true, but that’s pretty much it, and then the ambiguity starts. If I put a modern Mickey Mouse on the cover of the disc, that’s a trademark violation and Disney would prevail in their suit. If I put the original Steamboat Willie mouse on the cover, Disney will sue, and it’s unclear how courts will rule. If my cover is plain text saying only “Steamboat Willie,” Disney might not sue, but if my text says “Mickey Mouse in Steamboat Willie,” Disney will likely sue, and again it’s unclear how courts will rule. If I add smaller text saying something to the effect of, “Mickey Mouse is a registered trademark of the Disney Corporation, and this is merely a fair-use descriptor of the content of the public-domain film ‘Steamboat Willie’ that does not intend any dilution of the trademark,” maybe I can prevent that lawsuit, or at least improve my chances of winning it.
It gets even murkier from there. Let’s say I choose to produce a full-on remake of the movie, keeping the original script and settings and re-animating it with modern techniques. According to copyright law, this is legally permissible, because my remake is a derivative work based on public-domain material. (Rough but not precise comparison: Kevin McClory remaking Thunderball as Never Say Never Again.) However, I guarantee that Disney will still sue. As above, they would probably expect to lose, as the law in this scenario is reasonably clear. But do I have the millions of dollars that will be required to prove they don’t have a case? Because that’s what it will take.
Or let’s say I’m a pop star, and I want to use clips of Steamboat Willie in a music video. As public-domain material, this is absolutely allowable. But … what will Disney do? It probably depends on how I use the film. If I just take unaltered snippets and sprinkle them into my video without any other changes, I will probably get a letter from Disney advising me of their trademark position and not to do anything further with the character. But if I edit the footage to create new visuals — say, I take the famous clip of Mickey steering the ship’s wheel while swinging his hips and whistling, and I extract Mickey and erase the wheel and put him behind a twerking dancer with his hands on her undulating body — I vastly increase the likelihood that Disney will take action. Again, there is absolutely a legal argument that this usage is allowable with public-domain material. But do I have the financial resources to carry this argument to its conclusion in court?
I’m confident in my original assertion. Disney will not “lose control” of Mickey Mouse, because they will fight tooth and nail and spend vast sums to ensure they do not. The original film will enter the public domain, and extremely narrow usage of its material will survive scrutiny. Everything else will be out of bounds, if not in terms of legal abstraction than certainly in terms of practical application.
Or, maybe not…
Great! I’ve been waiting for “Steamboat Willie 2: Vengeance” to come out for years.
As far as I’m concerned Mickey can remain a Disney property forever. And Superman can stay a DC property and Spider Man a Marvel property. I think we need a new term. . . Legacy Property? Or something. . . . IANAL.
Everyone always cites Disney going after daycares as an example of Big Mean Ol’ Corporation, and I’ve got to say that I just don’t see it. For perspective: There’s a daycare around here (that Disney presumably hasn’t noticed yet) called “The Magical Kingdom”. The decorations at the place consist entirely of Disney characters. All text on the signs is in the “Walt Disney” font. They’re clearly trying to establish themselves in the public mind as “the Disney daycare”, and they’re doing that because Disney has very successfully built an image for themselves as a family-friendly company (whether that image is accurate is irrelevant; the point is that the company has expended a lot of effort to create the image).
Meanwhile… all of the daycares around here prominently display a poster showing a rating, from 1 to 5 stars. I assume the rating is done by some local-government agency, and they’re required by law to show the poster prominently, because every single daycare has one. And The Magical Kingdom has a 1-star rating. How do you suppose Disney would feel about “the Disney daycare” being rated rock-bottom? How do you suppose they should feel?
And now suppose that it wasn’t just a bad rating. Now, suppose that there were some real scandal at that place (that, remember, the Disney corporation has no part in operating). Would it be fair to Disney for there to be headlines “Disney daycare under investigation for child abuse”, or whatever?
Disney stopping a daycare from branding themselves that way isn’t an unfortunate side effect of trademark law. It’s precisely the reason why trademark law is necessary and appropriate.
You would be incorrect. Two examples that immediately come to mind:
Mickey’s Christmas Carol (1983) (which also featured Minnie, Donald Duck, Goofy, etc.)
A Goofy Movie (1995) (which has a cameo for Mickey and Donald) - it was a spin-off of an animated TV series, Goof Troop.
This Wikipedia page list dozens of appearances for Mickey over the last few decades; though most are cameos, there have been two animated TV series over the last decade, which also featured many of the other Disney characters from the original shorts.
The Trademark Office lists 64 entries for Design and/or Word Mark entries for “Mickey” AND “Mouse”, although only 30 of them are live. They cover huge areas of commercial activity, but not everything, nor do the designs appear to cover any images except the standard modern one. Caveat: I am not an expert and did just the most basic search.
Of course Disney can sue you. Anybody can sue anybody for anything and deep pockets usually win. Yet Disney doesn’t own the earth. One reason for that is that if they sue and lose, then everybody can copy the winner. And they do lose.
Best of all, you don’t have to put out any money at all. Somebody else with deep pockets will do it first. Just wait for the outcome of that case. Or cases, I should say, because a million people are going to test the waters at once and even Disney can’t afford to take them all on. I’ll bet that by the end of 2024, we’ll have a pretty good understanding of where the lines are.
Don’t forget that The Galloping Gaucho and Plane Crazy also date from 1928 and will enter public domain at the same time. (All items from the year become public domain on January 1 of the year 95 years later.) 1929 featured a full dozen Mickey movies that pop out of copyright in 2025. Disney made more than 100 Mickey movies before WWII. Don’t get focused on Steamboat Willy. Disney would be very smart to roll with the tide and not waste too much money making itself look bad.
I’ve seen that font used on a children’s dental office. Certainly Disney has the font trademarked, right?
IIRC Fonts cannot be copyrighted (the names can have protection, but not the glyph shapes)
Brian
Which has no relevance at all to trademark law. The whole point of this thread is that copyright and trademark are two completely different things, and the copyright status of a movie has no impact whatsoever on the trademark implications.
Looks like the name of a font can be trademarked. Design patents may be applicable (yes, different than trademark).
I think if it went to trial, would a reasonable person confuse a daycare that uses a Disney™ font/typeface (but does not use any other Disney IP) as a daycare that is run by the Disney corporation?
(I realize the example daycare DOES use additional Disney IP, and IMHO probably crosses the line)
Brian
I heard that Minnie was fucking Goofy.
I could see that if there were many Pooh stories.
But the magic of the original books is that they are a finished work.
No sequals, trilogies, ongoing characters, spinoffs etc.
You might as well try to paint Mona Lisa’s daughter.
As of today, Steamboat Willie is now public domain. Enjoy your new year.
They made a crappy horror film once the copyright ended.
So, If I were to brand my product/service with Spencerian Script like these famous examples:
R.5c9ac9b6ffb1dc3d82471746047a5451 (2200×1900) (bing.com)
OIP.GKjLcEy4mPb_LHV427u8uQHaEo (474×296) (bing.com)
…a script/font that existed before Coca-Cola and Ford were founded, I could be in legal trouble?
IANAL, but based on what I’ve read that’s not a copyright issue, that would be a trademark issue. If using those scripts for your product introduced confusion in the marketplace then they would have a good case, regardless of the age of the fonts. And both Ford and Coca-Cola have more lawyers than you.
^^^ I believe this is correct. Trademark is about market confusion, for the most part.
If you are selling a beverage, particularly a soft drink, and your label uses the Coca-Cola font, they will hammer you immediately, and you will lose.
But if you’re using the Coca-Cola typeface on packaging for a product completely unrelated to the beverage industry — feminine pads, say, or brake fluid — you have a much better chance of surviving a lawsuit, if they even bother. They might just send a stern letter informing you of their trademark in their market sector, and firmly advising you that expansion of your product line in their direction will be met with legal action.
(I will now clear the microphone to allow the inevitable jokes about how Coca-Cola and brake fluid are not actually that dissimilar.)