The giant Disney keen to protect its little mouse Mickey, before it enters the public domain

In a few days, the shift will take place. Nearly a century after his arrival on screens, the famous Mickey mouse will enter the public domain on Monday, opening the way to potential revivals, adaptations and derivative products, but also to legal battles with Disney.

The copyright for the cartoon “Willie’s Steamboat,” a 1928 black-and-white short film that introduced the general public to this rodent that became a global pop culture icon, expires on January 1, after 95 years , under American law. A deadline well known to filmmakers, fans, lawyers specializing in intellectual property and even managers of the Disney group, who have succeeded in the past in extending the duration of these copyrights.

“This is a deeply symbolic and highly anticipated moment,” said Jennifer Jenkins, a public domain specialist at Duke University. Anyone will now be able to freely copy, share or adapt “Willie’s Steamboat” and “Plane Crazy” – another animated short from 1928 – as well as use the first versions of the characters appearing there, including Mickey and his companion Minnie.

Disney will continue to protect the copyrights of recent versions of Mickey

But to do this, creators will have to tread carefully. In a press release to AFP, the multinational Disney assured that it “continues to protect (its) rights on more recent versions of Mickey and on other works remaining protected by copyright”. “The Mickey Mouse most familiar to current generations of Americans will remain under copyright protection,” he continues, saying he expects “this will give rise to legal skirmishes.”

The character appearing in these first cartoons is a filiform and mischievous creature, quite far from the current appearance of the mascot. Formal notices could thus be sent to creators who dare to use more recent elements of the character, such as his red shorts or his white gloves, predicts the researcher. Furthermore, if copyright ends on January 1, this is not the case for those protecting the registered trademark.

source site