[humanrebar]

> ...and be the only entity that can produce new original Mickey Mouse content?

This is confusing to me. If copyright is up on Steamboat Willie, producing derivative works based on Steamboat Willie has to be allowed, so original content that remixes and adds to Steamboat Willie to make a new cartoon must be OK.

[josho]

That’s correct. But Disney has trademarks around Mickey. So you can’t call your work Mickey Mouse. And you may find yourself in court if your work too closely matches any of the trademarks Disney has on the Mouse. So it will be risky as Disney may wish to drown you in legal filings based not on copyright but trademarks.

[humanrebar]

You'll probably find yourself in court in any case. That doesn't mean that Disney is right, just powerful.

And there is such a thing as fair use in a trademark. Being descriptive is fair use of a trademark. You can market your breadbox as being compatible with Acme Bread. And you can describe your Sherlock Holmes book as containing Sherlock Holmes and as an extension to the public domain canon.

I don't see why Mickey Mouse gets special treatment just because he's also on logos and such. Disney, at the least, is forcing a conflict between trademark law and public domain law to see what it can get away with.