Mickey's copyright?

[ghasty]

Anyone catch this story in the LA Times over Disney's copyright of Mickey may be invalid? Seems to be reaching...

Disney's rights to young Mickey Mouse may be wrong - Los Angeles Times

[Toad's Buddy]

OH NO!!!! First Oswald, now Mickey????

[ToddBreakey]

Disney's lawyers have lots of cash backing them. They will get it worked out.

[ChrisX]

Todd basically sums it up well. The issue of copyrights and trademarks is a complicated and precarious one. I saw this comment on another site and thought it really summed it up well

"The money to be made by non-trademark exploitation of the early Mickey material (and let’s keep that straight — just because the copyright may be in the public domain doesn’t mean that Disney doesn’t hold trademarks on the MM name and even the early likeness) to make it worth anyone actually fighting this battle. Disney could (and likely would) make it a long, expensive fight for anyone who chose to venture in… and the winner would not establish any right for himself that he did not establish for anyone else, thus putting himself in immediate competition with everyone else."

It's nice to write articles in law review articles arguing a point but its a whole different ball game when you have to start paying court and filing fees, devoting thousands of billable hours to research etc.etc. When it comes down to it I am not sure you will find that many people who will find it worth their while to push this issue with Disney.

[ghasty]

So true....and hey,they did keep Pooh...just think of the fight on your hands over Mickey.

[epcotbarbiefan]

They kept Pooh because the other side was found guilty of illegally acquiring evidence from Disney property....Had the Milne family descendants not been so underhanded, it may have been a different outcome (that is, IF they could've proven their case, which I'm convinced of without the illegal evidence)