Hacker News Reader

Comment by londons_explore | Hacker News Reader

Disney now uses that 'steamboat willie' intro clip at the start of most of their stuff.

Are they trying to use it as a trademark, and therefore use trademark law rather than copyright law to stop people using steamboat Willie publicly?

View on HN

The Mickey Mouse head is literally the logo of the Disney corporation, it is and it will remain their trademark in perpetuity(or for as long as Disney exists).

Trademarks are different than copyright - you can't start a company and use Mickey mouse as your logo for instance, because then the trademark law would kick in. But you can still make your own story/cartoon/film with Mickey Mouse the character and it should be fine.

I don't really have a problem with Disney Corporation using Mickey Mouse as their logo, Trademark, and otherwise as an identifying characteristic - So long as I can distribute the works that have fallen out of their exclusive use period, and create new works that don't pretend to be related in authorship. Mickey Mouse as a trademark makes sense - Mickey Mouse as a weird exclusively distributed hole in public consciousness, where most anyone who's paying attention can point to the nearly-century-old origin but not offer it up for critical discussion - That's where it got weird.

Everyone should know Mickey Mouse. Everyone should be able to see the original Mickey Mouse cartoons, as authored by Walt and Ub. Everyone should also be able to comment on and redistribute their commentary on such, original cartoon included in full. Now they can.

Only the steamboat Willie version, the one without gloves .

Also practically it doesn’t matter whether it could be fine, most businesses can’t afford to fight an extended legal battle with Disney

Someone, in one of these threads a few weeks ago, posted what was claimed to be a movie poster/ad from the same year with his red pants and gloves:

https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/22084

If you could verify the timing on that I guess it would go into public domain as well.

You can see gloves in Steamboat Willie’s outro too, on both Mickey and Minnie.

You don't have to wait until the end. They're also in the title card. In other words, he's got gloves on in his very first appearance.

Came here to mention this. That poster is a full color Mickcy with gloves from 1928, and I would love to hear from a copyright lawyer if this Mickcy is also in the public domain.

Mickey's so high profile that I bet someone out there would be more than happy to go to court with Disney over this. I mean if you have money and lawyers, then this is a sure way to turn them into publicity, especially if you win.

John Oliver started baiting them a while back... https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/04/john-oliver-dar....

And nothing happened, right?

Parody has a much lower bar to hop over. Disney isn’t suing people over mouse rule 34 either (at least not that I’m aware of).

However if you advertise it in any way using Disney’s trademark expect to be sued and spend millions defending, even if you wouldn’t eventually be found to be infringing (which you won’t because you’ll run out of money long before that question gets in front of a judge or jury).

>>which you won’t because you’ll run out of money long before that question gets in front of a judge or jury

Isn't that what would happen if you literally spent zero money on the case? If Disney sends you threatening letters, then finally sues, then maybe even gets an induction to block whatever your product is in the meantime......if you refuse to engage with them, never hire any lawyers to reply to anything or communicate.....you will end up in a court room by default where you can present your case, with zero money being spent until that point(I'm not counting any business losses).

I'm just saying that people lose millions before they get to court by building massive legal defences, hiring law firms and spending years arguing, instead of not engaging at all and going to court(which I understand is not preferable for many many many different reasons, but if you really believe the case is solid then forcing Disney to go to court might work)

Trademark law only stops someone else using the character to represent themselves as Disney, or where is might cause confusion around that. A simple prominent disclaimer can fix that.

That's assuming Disney could ever register the trademark, which is not a given, no matter how often they use it.

> A simple prominent disclaimer can fix that.

Disney can and will allege that the disclaimer fails to prevent confusion and take you to court regardless. And then you have a legal battle to prove that it does “fix that.” A legal battle that will cost you millions of dollars and years of your life, neither of which you will get back even if you win.

The question would be, do you want to fight Disney lawyers to make the argument that your use was not as a trademark, represented as Disney, or that it might cause confusion? With or without a disclaimer.

I'm picking up on a lot of undertones in these comments and elsewhere something like an argument that while it may not technically be copyright infringement in 2024 onward, it will remain de facto off-limits simply from the threat of having to deal with lawsuits from Disney, no matter whether they're actually well-founded. What's missing from that argument is an acknowledgement that there are organizations for the public good that are more than willing to litigate over this (and happen to be bigger targets, too). Wikimedia, for example.

There is no DMCA analogue for trademarks, so, for example, YouTube has no obligation to automate trademark complaints or to resolve disputes between trademark owners and video creators, so almost every case will go through the court, and overloading courts with bogus cases can have consequences for them.

YouTube technically has no obligation to comply with DMCA takedown notices either; there is no direct financial penalty for failing to do so. Rather, the DMCA provides a "safe harbor" exempting YouTube from liability for infringement, then removes that safe harbor if they fail to comply with a takedown notice.

For trademarks, there simply is no safe harbor, and thus no conditions under which it can be removed. That means there isn't a codified process for YouTube to follow; but the stick they can be beaten with at the end of the day -- infringement litigation -- is the same in either case. You can bet they'll do what they can do avoid it.

You can be sure YouTube will make BrandID, this time to satisfy jurisdictions without nominative use of trademarks, such as Turkey.

DMCA doesn't require automation for copyright takedown requests. You can use a PO box in Guam if you like.

If you want to make a logo that has the likeness, then you may have a point.

If you're making a work derivative of Steamboat Willy then Disney has no basis to sue you, regardless of what trademarks they claim.

Probably, at least for cases where ‘the public’ won’t see it as them being aggressive if they go after use of the image.

FTA: “He believes Disney's active use of the trademarked versions in Steamboat Willie merchandise, new animated shorts, and even a studios theatrical logo, is "Disney's way of safeguarding the characters if they want to go the legal route in any egregious use of the characters".”

That attempt would be a little funny and desperate. It reminds me of apple's ham-fisted approach to thwart third party repair shops.

https://repair.eu/news/apple-uses-trademark-law-to-strengthe...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com