# So is Mickey Mouse's copyright up or not? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 23, 2003, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-mickey-mouses-copyright-up-or-not/150522 "2003-01-23T20:17:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2003, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-mickey-mouses-copyright-up-or-not/150522/21 "2003-01-24T22:53:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Exapno Mapcase \* > \*\*BTW, the consensus of lawyers that I’ve read on the Eldred case is that SCOTUS had no real alternative. The Constitution allows Congress to set “limited times” for copyright protection. 95 years is not perpetuity. Whether it is the right amount of time is a separate issue, but not one for SCOTUS to decide. \*\* This might be true, but other lawyers are arguing that the decision gives Congress effective license to set indefinite periods, because all they have to do is set a new “limited period” every 20 or 50 or whatever years. Having extended the copyright on all this stuff, they can simply revisit the issue when that extension runs out. Dissenting Justice Breyer noted the effect that the Act would have when he > [@](#): > > used economic data to show that the copyright extensions in the Bono Act would grant copyright holders 99.8 percent of the benefits they would get from a perpetual copyright. In contrast, he noted, the costs to researchers of locating and purchasing copyrighted works are prohibitive. > > (_Washington Post_, 16 January 2003, p. A1) Also, given that the ostensible reason for extending the copyright was to serve as an incentive for artists etc. to create such works, it is interesting that the two dissenting justices, Breyer and Stevens, concluded that Congress’s decision > [@](#): > > essentially conferred a windfall on existing copyright holders and their familial or corporate heirs, without any corresponding increase in creative effort or public knowledge. > > (ibid.) And not only do corporations enjoy the same rights as individuals in our brave corporate world, they sometimes get special favours when these issues are considered, such as: > [@](#): > > The act extended copyright terms from 50 years after the author’s death to 70 years, or, **in the case of anonymous or corporate works, 95 years** from publication. > > (ibid., emphasis mine) ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-mickey-mouses-copyright-up-or-not/150522/22 "2003-01-25T00:46:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ftg \* > \*\*Ask just about any writer, director or actor of a movie made in the 50s or earlier and they will tell you "Yes, put it in the public domain. I haven’t got a red cent from it in years. > > Ask the remaining cast of “Gilligan’s Island”. Same response. They (and the writers, etc.) stopped getting money after the 3rd rerun. Ditto other TV shows of that era. > > Ask Tony Orlando if he would like his song “Tie A Yellow Ribbon” to be in the public domain and he would say “Yes.” He hasn’t performed the song in years because of a dispute with the corporation that owns the rights (but didn’t write the song). In none of these cases do the people involved hold the copyrights. _Of course_ they’re not getting paid. Let me know if Sherwood Schwartz – who wrote and created “Gilligan’s Island” and who owns the copyright – feels the same way. And if they _had_ been getting paid, making it PD would make sure that was cut off immediately. Thanks a lot, buddy. Now, ask J.D. Salinger whether he doesn’t want to get paid for “Catcher in the Rye” any more (it’s been 50 years). If Salinger can get paid for something for 50 years after it’s creation, why is it wrong for a corporation to be paid? > [@](#): > > The TV and movie industry are incredibly abusive in keeping the IP creators from getting money from their work. They make the RIAA look like a charity by comparison. Sure, but at least they can be made to pay. If the work is declared PD, how does that help the IP creators pay their bills? Complaining that corporations are abusive about copyrights while trying to cut back the copyright term is like complaining that someone is stealing a man’s watch while you’re trying to grab his wallet. > [@](#): > > Interesting. I would have thought otherwise; after all, you can say “Hand me a kleenex” without fear of litigation, you just can’t bring out your own brand of tissues with that name. But there you go. If you use “Hand me a kleenex,” and Kimberly Clark found out about it, you’d get a firm letter from their lawyers reminding you that the name Kleenex is a trademark and to avoid using it that way. They don’t bother to litigate, since sending the letter protects the trademark, but they could if they wanted to. Take a look at Writer’s Digest and see the ads telling writers not to use trademarks incorrectly. > [@](#): > > Do you have a link to more information about that case? IIRC, it was a suit against Eternity Press for the publication of “The Uncensored Mouse.” Here’s an article: “Eternity Puts The Uncensored Mouse On Hold” p. 19 (Comics Journal #130 July 1989) 1. Eternity Comics. 2. The Uncensored Mouse. 3. Mickey Mouse. 4. Disney mice. Call no.: PN6700.C62no.130 ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-mickey-mouses-copyright-up-or-not/150522/23 "2003-01-25T05:10:09Z")
**Reality Chuck** is of course right that your examples are fatally flawed, **ftg** , but I don’t understand what your point would be even if the people mentioned were the copyright holders. Putting something into the public domain guarantees that the original copyright holder will never see another penny. Or are you trying to say that because these people aren’t getting any money, they want vindictively to deny anybody else from making money? That’s not exactly sound public policy. The book industry avoids these problems because the writer _is_ the copyright holder, not the publisher. It is an entirely different economic structure. In the tv and movie industries, it is the producer (independently or as a studio) that retains the copyright. That’s why the producers get the Academy Award for Best Film. They are the owners. Residuals can be negotiated as part of the process, and the various Guilds now routinely make these part of the negotiation process. The reason that residuals were not routinely negotiated 50 years ago is that nobody thought that these products had an afterlife. But this is an argument _for_ the extension of copyright, not against it, because it says that no one can predict when a piece of IP becomes valueless to the orginal copyright holder. Oh, an a nitpick: > [@](#): > > Ask the descendents of the women who wrote “Happy Birthday” if they are sad that it’s going to be in the public domain soon. Of course not, no one in the family has gotten a cent for it in years. As far as I know, this isn’t true. When the song is used _commercially_ royalties still have to be paid, and they do indeed still make money from the song. Again, the proper length for copyrights is an issue for debate. (There’s probably one going on in GD right now.) The Supreme Court chose not to get into that debate. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-mickey-mouses-copyright-up-or-not/150522/24 "2003-01-25T05:42:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ftg \* > **Ask just about any writer, director or actor of a movie made in the 50s or earlier and they will tell you "Yes, put it in the public domain. I haven’t got a red cent from it in years."** Bad comparison. The actors, writers, directors, etc. worked for hire. They were never the copyright holders. Ask the movie studios who made the films or who curently own the rights. > [@](#): > > **Ask the remaining cast of “Gilligan’s Island”. Same response. They (and the writers, etc.) stopped getting money after the 3rd rerun. Ditto other TV shows of that era.** That’s a royalties issue, not a copyright issue. > [@](#): > > **Ask the descendents of the women who wrote “Happy Birthday” if they are sad that it’s going to be in the public domain soon. Of course not, no one in the family has gotten a cent for it in years.** The copyright is not going to expire until 2011. If the descendants of the authors aren’t making any money on the copyright, it is perhaps because they long ago [sold the copyright](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000728.html) of the song. It currently belongs to Warner/Chappell Music Group. ---
**Author:** ![DRomm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce73a5/32.png) [@DRomm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DRomm)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-mickey-mouses-copyright-up-or-not/150522/25 "2003-01-25T06:15:53Z")
I dunno. I felt for Irving Berlin when “Alexander’s Ragtime Band” fell out of copyright \during his lifetime\. Still, when Disney owns “Steamboat Willie” and AOL owns “Happy Birthday”, it’s hard to build up much sympathy for an extension. Personally, I liked the concept of “Life plus 25 years” (or some variant) guaranteeing that the actual creator and immediate relatives were protected, but that the work would eventually pass into public domain. If you’re going to make exceptions, fine, but make them exceptions and don’t screw up the whole system. I wouldn’t mind a way to \buy\ extensions. I’ll let Disney have the mouse as long as it means less taxes for me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-mickey-mouses-copyright-up-or-not/150522.md?page=1)