The Mickey Mouse Copyright Runs Out in 2024
globaltoynews.com
globaltoynews.com
It seemed harmless, but now that I see 30 year olds that have an obsession/mental illness with these company's IP/corporate mascots that I think there might be something wrong with marketing to children. Even the ones aware they are being dragged on nostalgia trips have no defense. (Me included, I haven't found a Zelda game since TP above a 7/10, yet I feel compelled to play every single one. This is even more apparent with BOTW/TotK where despite these being different from Zelda, an open world with zelda skinned on it, I still need to play it.)
EDIT: Yes I agree about religion, sports, potentially colleges, and that adults can be brainwashed too.
Yes there can be predatory practices, but that's what laws are for. Bad behaviour should be curtailed, and I'm sure there are cases where Disney may have crossed the line, but simply becoming or being popular isn't a crime, or certainly shouldn't be.
How about the uneducated people? Or those still brainwashed? Those children are sacrificed to Nintendo and Disney?
Lets not pretend we all have perfectly free will and that humans aren't animals.
EDIT: Flappy bird isnt a great example, because it wasnt marketed to children. Nintendo and Disney go to great lengths to find ways to insert them into children's lives at the youngest possible ages.
Who are you to decide who is "brainwashed" and who is merely enjoying something? Who are you to feel entitled to "protect" other adults against themselves?
The prime example is a toddler.
I can't think of any exceptions, but any sort of marketing to children seems to be brainwashing. They don't have the ability to resist bright colors, music, and in-group bias.
I've done this on my own kids to teach them phonics and numbers. Lucky that there isnt any corporation with the exclusive ability to sell the number 7 or the letter F. At age 2, they all know the phonics.
Its pretty messed up.
I'm pretty sure there are. Those letters and numbers were sponsoring shows, and they had to get the money for that somewhere, presumably their corporate overlords.
It sounds like we are willing to sacrifice the lower class and children of brainwashed parents.
So do almost all other parents I know, btw.
I’m up for effective fair and reasonable regulation, but banning all marketing to children is bonkers. No children’s books, cartoons, TV shows or movies at all? How do you even define marketing to children objectively? It’s absurd.
Unfortunately it is a fact there are people that find it hard to function in a sophisticated technological society. McNamara’s Morons, while an unfortunate term, is a real issue. That’s why I’m in favour of decently funded effective social services. If people genuinely need help they should be able to get it.
I’m basically a capitalist, because I think capitalism embodies essential individual economic freedoms. But all economic systems have failure modes, and I think it’s in everyone’s interests to live in a supportive egalitarian society.
> How about the uneducated people? Or those still brainwashed?
Did you also stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night?
Good for you. I didn't take that level of a position, we had a Wii in the house and watched some Disney movies. We've never been a big TV watching family though, we'd only watch stuff we chose to watch, like specific TV shows and movies but never just had the TV on. Of course I ensured my girls were educated in the classics. Sailor Moon, Buffy, Xena, MLP:FIM and such.
Some religions take 10% of your adult income. Buying a Zelda game or Marvel movie ticket is peanuts in comparison.
Some of it can just be nostalgia, and some people might be well aware of that and not, you know, have a "mental illness" because something from their youth evokes nice feeling in them as an adult.
There are plenty of Zelda fans who never played the original or any 2D ones at all, and just love BotW and TotK, even people who are older. BotW was my favorite Zelda since the original, partially since it shared its exploratory spirit much more than any other game in the series (TotK is unfortunately much too similar to BotW, not different enough to present a new experience).
I say let people obsess over whatever they want as long as they don’t hurt other people, because you know what I find way scarier than a 30yo obsessed with Princess Peach? A government that gets to decide when I’m obsessed with something to the point that I need to be cured or re-educated.
But a whole lot of Nintendo's first party games, including BoTW/ToTK-- deserve far better than 7/10 (metacritic 97 / 96, "universal acclaim"). Even if they are not too much like the first things I loved in the Zelda franchise.
Because Mickey Mouse has been around for nearly a century. Multiple generations of kids grew up with it, but the obsession millennials have with this stuff is nearing, what you called, “mental illness” tier.
They have a rather honest business model: they sell you a console, fun games (IMO most Zelda and Mario games are actually very good) and that's it. There are some microtransaction games as well (the mobile Mario Kart, which they actually seem to have made that way only reluctantly because hordes of uses complained that the mobile Mario platformer had a one-time fee for the whole game) but they're not the worst offenders in this respect and they're far from being a core part of the franchises, at least for now. (*)
I have myself been a fan of Marios and Zeldas since I was a kid and I don't see them as having had a negative influence on my life. Which cannot be said about much of the microtransaction-ridden spreadsheets that pass as games these days, especially on mobile. Or even more legitimate games like MMORPGS (WoW, etc.) which have more reasonable business models but still seem to be designed to cause insane levels of addiction.
(*) I cannot say the same of Disney. At least a few years ago, the only Star Wars game available on mobile was an insanely predatory gacha that extracted literally thousands of dollars from people to buy a single character that would be obsolete in a few months. I spent a few years addicted to it (not buying anything, but still wasting precious time in a repetitive and unfun grindfest), as at that point I didn't know how that kind of designer drug worked, I just downloaded it because it was Star Wars and got sucked in. It's been my first and last game of that genre, and I do hope that my kid keeps well away from those.
A more charitable read of the situation is that you've grown attached to the lore, characters and aesthetics (both visual and musical cues/themes) such that you're looking forward to the next installment of this work of fiction.
That's just Nintendo being good stewards of a franchise. There's millions of alternate pathways Nintendo could start making gobs of money (look at what The Pokemon Company turned that franchise into these days, yeesh!) But by taking their time it signals to me they really do think hard and long about every aspect of the design (naturally, nobody and no game dev team is perfect though).
> Zelda, an open world with zelda skinned on it
That's being deliberately reductive. And whatever the point, according to the creators BotW/TotK is the future direction of the franchise (similar to Link to the Past setting up OoT, WW, TP and SS). I'm not a fan of this "not MY Zelda!" attitude. Zelda II was shit on but it had a lot of cool ideas, and now thanks to the Zelda Cycle it's back on people's radar. Same for Major's Mask and Wind Waker to an extent.
BotW is a triumph and it'd be hard to convince me otherwise. (I did lose interest in TotK after leaving the starting area, but I blame that on the reuse of Hyrule. I don't want to hunt hundreds of Koroks again, I already did that!)
I didn't get the Link's Awakening remake because I'm extremely sensitive to frame stutter and Nintendo never fixed it, but it's an easy recommendation for 99% of Zelda fans who don't like the new direction. I'm hoping they tackle the Oracle games next and include the cut content from the cancelled third game.
I am half suspecting they are going to try and argue it's a trademark or something.
If a book published by Penguin enters the public domain, it doesn’t mean you can start using the Penguin logo on any book you want to publish.
> [John Oliver] also pointed out that Disney has some registered trademarks that include the original Steamboat Willie Mickey, speculating that as the reason they included that version in the Walt Disney Animation Studios opening logo.
https://deadline.com/2023/04/john-oliver-tests-disney-lawyer...
The segment is worth a watch. They’ve used the character a couple of times already and probably would’ve done it more if not for the hiatus caused by the writer’s strike.
There was one other copyright extension that affected Mickey Mouse but that one, as far as I've been able to tell, Disney played no significant role in. That was the Copyright Act of 1976. I have little doubt that Disney was in favor of the 1976 Act, but so was almost everybody else.
That's because the 1976 Act was a major rewrite of US copyright law to take into account the massive technological changes that had happened since the 1909 Act, and to make US copyright law more compatible with the Berne Convention so that the US could join (which happened later with the the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988).
Besides, it’s only ‘steamboat Willy’ that enters the public domain which has little relevance to today’s Mickey Mouse.
There is a ton of precedent on the issue of how much expression and creativity is required to assert copyright. One of the key questions is whether it is plausible that someone just accidentally duplicated the same thing, or if it is the result of actual copying.
Given how iconic Mickey Mouse is, I would be shocked if white gloves and the exact color scheme weren't copyrightable.
However, if you base your character on the ideas formed when you observed the representation of the other character, that's a derivative work.
For someone like Mickey who has been in many works, if one of the works is out of copyright and you base a new work on that, that's fine (if we ignore trademark concerns). But if your derivative work happens to look a lot like an existing derivative work still under copyright, that's likely going to be seen as infringing the work under copyright. Independent creation is a valid defense for copyright infringemen, but isn't very credible in this case.
Trademark has totally different issues. Which will be an issue for selling and advertising derivatives of works Disney uses as trademarks.
Its about making everyone else bend the knee.
Be afraid of Disney, the fear keeps you in-check. Show that you are all-powerful and can change laws on a whim, even when they don't need to. Make everyone know you are the only source of classic characters. (Maybe Nintendo too, who also indoctrinates children with their corporate IP.)
This is also starting to cut into film revenues. While park attendance remains high, it's been some time since they had much success at the box office. They're laying off large blocks of people. They just aren't as all powerful anymore.
There is no denying that DeSantis is a rising star in the Republican Party and has become very influential.
When did this happen? Specifics, please.
https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/politics/disney-gov-ron-de...
Other prominent Republicans are similarly opposed to DeSantis’s actions in this case.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3980792-gop-preside...
https://www.thestreet.com/travel/desantis-faces-right-wing-c...
A fun use case for this new found freedom would be a Smash Bros style fighting game with out of copyright characters.
Imagine classic steamboat Mickey fighting it out with classic Peter Pan.
Once the copyright expires, the original steamboat Mickey character and likeness can be used it all kinds of things. Violent video games, horror movies, a like of Mickey Mouse furry costumes, … you name it.
As long as you stick to the original design (sorry, no white gloves!) and do not in any way label your product as “Disney”, it wouldn’t be in violation.