The expected Disney/Pixar split probably has some fans crying themselves to sleep at night, but Disney is now threatened with an infinitely bigger blow: the loss of Mickey Mouse and his pals. That's right, the house that Mouse built might soon be faced with losing exclusivity on its franchise characters.
According to Business 2.0, the Supreme Court will soon decide when Mickey and his friends should become part of the public domain. Eric Eldred is at the center of the controversy, arguing that since Disney often borrowed from old tales to make new ones, it's only fair that people should be allowed to use Disney's intellectual property. The guy does have a point—Disney continues to make tons of cash off of stories it pulled from the public domain, such as Snow White, Pinocchio and Cinderella. If Eldred manages to win this case, Mickey could be waving bye-bye to Disney as early as 2004.
What does this all mean? Let me make some sense of this. Eldred has involved himself in a struggle to overturn a 1998 law that extends the period of time that creative works are copyright protected. Over at his nonprofit Web site (http://www.eldritchpress.org/), he republishes the text of books that passed into public domain, such as The Scarlet Letter. I guess he wants to get his grubby little paws on early Walt Disney works.
In 1998, Congress passed (and President Clinton signed) the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. This extended the life of copyrights for an additional 20 years (70, from 50) and gave copyright owners new protections. Works owned by corporations were extended from 75 years to 95 years. Business Courier points out that Congress has extended copyright terms 11 times since 1962, and every time, it was just as the copyright on the first Mickey Mouse cartoon, Steamboat Willie, was set to expire. Hmm ...
What do I think of all this (it is my editorial outlet you know)? When the public is free to use old footage of Mickey Mouse like he's a ten-cent whore, the Disney empire will be hit hard. Sure, the company used older stories to make movies that in turn brought Disney huge profits, but taking away its biggest and most distinct franchise character is a pile of crap.
"They were given a limited monopily," Eldred told reporters. "They can't have it forever, but that's what they want."
Now, I won't pretend to know the full extent of copyright laws. I do know that the idea of works eventually passing into public domain was to allow others to build upon and extend people's projects after creators have been compensated. But there's an inherent difference between a story such as Robin Hood and short Mickey cartoons. I don't understand how Disney is "monopolizing," as Eldred called it, when that something is a work and a character created by the company itself—and still in use on a grand scale. You can bet the folks at Warner Bros. are watching this one closely. Although the effects of losing Bugs Bunny to the public wouldn't be as damaging as Disney losing Mickey, it will still be a detriment.
Rarely would you see me defending a huge, all-encompassing corporation. But copyright laws should be tweaked to deal with the realities of present-day. Walt may be gone, but his empire lives on, and those within it deserve to be the only ones to build upon and extend projects he created. It's unfair to pass a character such as Mickey Mouse into public domain when its current owner is still utilizing and making money off of it in an extreme way. Mickey Mouse is Disney. Disney is Mickey Mouse.
End of story, morning glory.
Chris Douvalas
- Discuss this topic here.
- Keep it on the Buzz-Wire for up-to-date information on the subject. The court date is Oct. 9!
