The natural conclusion of your principle here is eternal corporate copyright. When would you be comfortable with Mickey Mouse (or anything else) going public domain? 200 years? 300? Should it ever?
My point is that Mickey Mouse is a trademark. An Apple patent expiring doesn't allow people to using Apple logos. Likewise a Disney copyright expiring shouldn't allow people to use Mickey Mouse.
The cartoons themselves and any characters that aren't still in regular use is fair game.
> how long is “fair” for a government granted monopoly to one of the worlds richest corporations? Especially one busily buying up IP after IP that it did not originally create?
I agree it sucks, but this is why we need to make sure we understand the difference between content and trademarks. eg anyone can make a movie about Thor since that folk story is public domain. And I agree the copyright on content like the Marvel Universe movies shouldn't be around 100 years (I forget the exact duration, but it's always being extended anyway -- which I also disagree with by the way).
> The natural conclusion of your principle here is eternal corporate copyright.
No, that's literally the exact opposite of what I'm saying!! I'm saying that the character "Mickey Mouse" should have different rules applied because he is more than just a creative figure. Because he is a trademark. And thus trademark rules should apply to him in addition to copyright rules. However any content with Mickey Mouse in should be public domain after a reasonable period and that period currently is not reasonable.
Music has similar distinctions. A song will have different copyrights on it, for the performance, for the writing, possibly any artwork (eg album cover).
> When would you be comfortable with Mickey Mouse (or anything else) going public domain? 200 years? 300? Should it ever?
Personally I think 20 years is reasonable for the cartoons. For the mascot, he should be trademarked (and is), so as long as Disney are using his likeness.
Trademarks protect the consumer as much as the buyer. The only reason someone would want to put two "golden arches" on their burger joint is to make people think it's mcdonalds. That's bad for mcdonalds the company sure, but it's also bad for the customer who thinks they're getting a certain "standard", and do not deserve a counterfeit good.
The consumer is protected, the company has recognisable authority and the concept exists within public space.
I guess the biggest distinction between Sherlock Holmes and Mickey Mouse (aside the estates that own them) is that Mickey is a design as much as a character. The 3 circled motif is iconic enough that there is an ongoing spat between Disney and Deadmau5 -- though I do side with Deadmau5 on that, if just as a middle finger to Disney :D
I'm not suggesting law should stipulate that fictional characters need a design before they can be trademarked nor that Mickey Mouse shouldn't be trademarkable. Just that there is definitely an unclear grey area and I don't really know the answer to your question. But it is a very good question that gave me pause for thought.
What you're describing is most closely described as trademarks but even there, you couldn't use Apple's name and logo to promote something in a non-competing sector. The best you could do is have a name or logo that was similar but which couldn't be confused with Apple, as well as being in a non-competing sector. Using Mickey Mouse wouldn't to promote new or used cars wouldn't even fly under trademark laws because you're using the trademark rather than a similar but unrelated one.