Here’s a strange one. This Florida man bought a drawing of Mickey Mouse speaking into a telephone at a garage sale over 20 years ago. He believes that this was the first ever drawing of Mickey. He’s asked Disney to authenticate the drawing multiple times, but they’ve refused. Now, he is planning to sue Disney for $50 million, and the rights to the Mickey Mouse character and Walt Disney’s life story.
This poses many questions, mainly:
Why does this man think he’s going to win the lawsuit?
How does owning a picture of a character give you the rights to that character? By that logic, anyone who owns an original drawing owns the rights to that character.
What does he plan to buy with the money if he wins? Based on an earlier case in this vain, I presume he plans to buy a rocket car and a solid gold house.
That’s just odd … why does he think he can get $50 million for this? For …owning the picture? For them refusing to comment on his assertion that it’s original?
At least in the Simpsons, the guy claimed that he made up the character. This guy just admits that he bought the picture in a thrift store for $3. And for some reason, he deserves $50 million for this.
Hey, just this morning, my daughter ate her morning eggs ‘n’ cheese off my old Mickey Mouse plate! The thing is over 30 years old. Guess they owe me a few million, too!
For the same reasons people sue studios/record companies because they claim their work was stolen. In this case, however, he probably knows it’s a long shot.
It does not. First of all, according to the law at the time, the drawing has no copyright protection. It probably wasn’t registered (required back then) and it certainly has no copyright notice (also required). Further, the copyright on the drawing would have expired and I doubt it’s been renewed.
What was copyrighted was “Steamboat Willie.” I believe that’s still under protection.
In addition, Disney has registered the likeness of Mickey Mouse as a trademark. It doesn’t matter that there were earlier versions*; unless the drawing was registered as a trademark, then Disney’s claim is the valid on.
At best, the man is trying to apply the 1977 Copyright Law to a work created in then 1920s – and the 1977 law specifies that the copyright owner is the creator of the work, not someone who buys the work.
*Mad Magazine’s Alfred E. Neuman has various antecedents, but Mad owns the trademark.
I highly doubt it’s original anyway. The drawing shown in the OP link looks nothing like the early versions of Mickey. Plane Crazy and The Gallopin’ Goucho were both made before Steamboat Willie. Note the eyes especially.
Disney is the poster boy for those that want to limit the renewals/extensions of copyrights. I think they have had their rights over the original Mickey stuff extended at least twice.
That was my thought, too…I wonder what has this guy so convinced it is that old. Of course, anyone who thinks they can take on Disney over something like this and win has got to be a little loo loo, if you catch my drift.
Oh, that’s right…sorry. Can they test it that specifically…the 20s vs. the 30s, for instance? Carbon-dating seems impractical for this purpose. I guess if the composition of paper and ink changed during that time, you could. I wonder if it did.
I can’t think testing the drawing would be useful unless they can prove it was some specific sort of ink or paper that was absolutely not available after 1928 or something… Not too likely.
I think we are on to something with the phone type, though. I just did a quick search and couldn’t find any examples of that style of phone receiver before 1934 – and even that 1934 phone was a German model which may not have been commonly available in the US. Seems like Disney’s lawyers might be able to prove that those receivers weren’t around until well after Steamboat Willy.
It seems pretty obvious to me that he’s not expecting to win anything from Disney, he just wants their attention so they authenticate his drawing so he can get more money for it.
As did many others. Mickey came out in 1929. Copyright law at the time was 28 years, with a 28 renewal allowed. Disney renewed, and the work was under copyright when the law was changed in 1977.
Disney did not have anything to do with the extension of copyright law. The first change, life plus 50, was urged by creators all over the US and the world, and was in line with the standard of the Berne Copyright Convention. When Berne extended the term to 70 years (a change that originated with the desire of the government of Munich to prevent Mein Kampf from falling into the public domain), the US adjusted its law to match the law in all the other countries in the world.
Disney certainly supported the change, but they did not originate it, especially since courts had established that even if the copyrights had expired, Disney still held the Mickey Mouse trademark, and publishing anything with Mickey would be violating their trademark. The change did not affect that, so it really didn’t matter to Disney if there was an extension or not.
Are you saying that if Steamboat Willie fell out of copyright, no one could reproduce it because of the trademark? Certainly no one could create their own Mickey Mouse cartoon, or produce Steamboat Willy pjs with Mickey’s face, but not be able to reproduce that particular cartoon? Or isn’t that what you were implying.
I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that Disney put some serious lobbying behind the latest extension specifically to keep the oldest cartoons from becoming public domain.
RealityChuck, I corrected you the last time you posted this incorrect explanation of copyright law in this thread. Please get your facts straight. The Berne Convention on Copyright only requires life+50 years. The US extended its copyright due to strong lobbying of copyright owners in the US, Disney being a major part of that. The majority of countries that are Berne signatories do not legislate life+70, as the US and some European countries do.
Edit: Sorry, that came off more confrontational than I had intended. I’m assuming that you didn’t see the further discussion in that other thread.
That’s not even a particularly 30’s style. As drawn, it looks more like a “G1” receiver - this is the flat-backed type most people think of when they think of a phone.
The “F1” receiver was the one that tapered to a point and was all but impossible to cradle on your shoulder and was in wide use in the 40s and 50s.
Back in the late 20’s and 30’s, you’d have generally seen the “spitcup” style receiver.
I guess if the composition of paper and ink changed during that time, you could. I wonder if it did.
