Comment by hnlmorg | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hnlmorg | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Patents last 20 years. Mickey Mouse has been copyrighted for nearly a century - more than most human lifetimes

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.

How does it work for "Sherlock Holmes"? He is in that boat already. The last novel was published in 1927 so still copyrighted, but most of it is public domain. Considering you can still buy the novels you would think his name and appearance would be trademarkable, but shows and movies are in the clear as long as they stick to the public domain part of the lore.

If the author had succesfully registered Sherlock Holmes as a trademark back in 1875, and kept efforts at protecting and re-reggistering that trademark continuously, then yes it should be a trademark, just like Bass is. A trademark isn't just the name "Bass" though, but clearly if someone else created a beer called Bass they'd have a job on to explain how it's not the same Bass that Bass trademarked.

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.

If the concern is the protection of the consumer then why not just grant an enforceable "Authentic" badge? The consumer can see then what is and isn't legitimate. Companies will certainly capitalise and make said badge prominent and bring to court those that falsely use it.

The consumer is protected, the company has recognisable authority and the concept exists within public space.

That's what a trademark is

That's a really interesting point :)

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.

I should be able to use Mickey to promote a car dealership. Anything that's not a competing media organization, really.

Why should you? Why should copyright by applied differently for car dealerships vs Disney?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com