Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by II2II 1276 days ago
The issue, as it is presented in the article, is with how copyright law intermingles with trademark law. They noted that people will be able to distribute the original short. They also noted that any unique works that incorporate the iconic mouse (even in its original form) may run into litigation. Given Disney's financial interest in The Mouse, I suspect they were understating it.

It is easy to oversimplify what is going on here if it is only viewed through the lens of copyright. While it would be easy to dismiss trademarking a character in most fictional works as doing an end-run around copyright law, The Mouse appears to have been a fairly consistent and identifiable part of Disney's image for decades. In the casual meaning of the word, it has been a trademark of the company. There is also a question of how the evolution of the character plays a role. As far as I can tell, Steamboat Willy is dead an Mickey took his place. Disney's trademarking of Steamboat Willy can be construed as an attempt to do an end-run around copyright law, but the visually similar Mickey has had a more enduring (and endearing) history.

Or perhaps certain types of trademarks, in the legal sense, should have a limited duration as well. I don't know of many companies that have maintained an immutable corporate image across decades simply because it does not make sense. Culture changes, and companies should be adapting with the times.

4 comments

> As far as I can tell, Steamboat Willy is dead a Mickey took his place.

The character in Steamboat Willie is Mickey Mouse. There’s no one named Steamboat Willie in the animation. That said there have been several visual evolutions of the character given the same name, and Disney may claim newer versions are still copyrighted.

Trademarks are about consumer protection (first-most) and possibly also 'brand dilution'.
Sure, in the case of Disney/Mickey, trademark is a (huge) factor. But in the vast majority of cases there is no trademark issue, only copyright.
Trademarks should be limited to providing identification for a business, not something that applies to products or cultural elements.

You shouldn't be able to hold a trademark on "Star Wars" or "iPhone," but should be able to for LucasFilm or Apple. All product names should be effectively generic.

Copyright and patents should just be straight up abolished, or at least severely scaled back and limited to 1-3 years.

So in your world when I go to the mall. I buy an iPhone from a cellphone store. Id have no confidence on it being the Apple iPhone.
So then LucasFilm would set up a subsidiary called "Star Wars: The Force Awakens LLC" and license the trademark to themselves to sell the generic "Movie" product, or whatever loophole works. Trademarks could be more restricted, but they serve a purpose to both consumers and brands.
Why would that be good?