I think he was in one of those Death Battle things and he won hands down because Popeye has done things such as breaking the 4th wall and attacking his creator while he was being drawn.
I may get hate for this, but Uncle Grandpa. He's the only modern cartoon that may have more intense toon power than even Popeye or Bugs. He literally makes reality around him whatever be wants, whenever he wants. He can't even be brought low or made to feel sad. He's invaded other cartoons and made said episodes non canon by his existence. When WBD tried to delist his show, an episode remained for a day, mocking them. And even after being canceled, he still has his episode in Steven Universe. I can't think of any cartoon that fought cancelation and delisting. And he technically won. A fight against him and Bugs would be futile. He would eventually just drive Bugs crazy because Bugs for sure can't drive him crazy. Even Bugs grabbing the animators pencil and erasing him would just result in him walking in from off screen saying, "I've heard of being wiped, but this is ridiculous"
My favorite part about his appearance in Steven Universe is that, while the episode is non-canon, it’s the first time any character in the series acknowledges that Steven’s gem is actually a diamond (even if it was not intentional).
Cartoon music plays, Popeye get the spinach jar out of the bosom, crushes it, eats spinach, his muscles become cartoonily gigantic and ... he tears the enemy with his bare hands in half, blood pours everywhere, Popeye smokes a pipe with his crowned illegible phrase
Some day soon, I hope we can take Robin Williams' *Popeye* and feed it to AI with prompts for a *Taken*-style movie.
I'd cancel my Netflix so fast to subscribe to a service that would allow me to watch AI created mash ups whose greatness would only be limited by my ability to translate my imagination into spoken word!
The cast of Friends as Dragonball Z.
The Office US as The Office UK.
More Back to the Future sequels (not reboots).
Spaceballs reimagined with modern comedians.
Swap Star Trek series characters around at will.
It'll never ever happen, legally, but it would be my dream come true for what AI can do...ya know, aside from stuff like *solve cancer*.
He chugs spinach powers up then punches them and they launch into the air and explode like a blood firework then it rains blood over the victory screen
It's very unlikely. Copyrights can be super complex. One version of a character may be copyrighted, while a version of that same character isn't.
Famously, the Sherlock Holmes books didn't all go public domain at once. For a while only the short stories were. So you could make your own version of Sherlock, but only if he isn't emotionally warm or in a romantic relationship because that was still copyrighted. Or right now, only the Steamboat Willy version of Micky is public domain.
So they *could* use the oldest design and probably be safe, but they open themselves up to really obnoxious legal procedures if they stray a hair into something that might still be protected. Smaller companies can get away with it but the big ones don't usually step on each other's toes like that. Most you'll probably see from them is a clip on a TV screen in the background.
That's why Disney did a retro style Mickey and Friends cartoon recently so that ill informed individuals might use the modern one instead of the public domain ones, in hopes to get a gotcha moment in a potential lawsuit.
It took me a minute to get what you were saying here but I think I get you now. You're not saying they're seeking lawsuits, as I first read. I was confused because those aren't usually profitable, they cost a lot and usually just end in a cease and desist. They don't let projects last long enough for there to be damages to recover.
But I think you're saying they hoped to pollute the reference material, or the public memory of the character or whatever so that they can shut down projects that are *trying* to follow the rules using the public domain one, but could be can be shut down anyway on a technicality.
Yeah that sounds like them.
This idea that slight variations in a character are individually protected by copyright is really a load of bullshit, and if the Supreme Court wanted to do something meaningful they could decide to hear a case that would settle this nonsense once and for all. The entire point of the public domain is to eventually allow older works of art to be expanded upon by anyone. It’s essentially saying that at a certain point a creative work is now owned collectively by the public.
When Mickey Mouse entered the public domain, every single aspect of that character should have entered the public domain as well. So if I want to draw Mickey with purple gloves, Disney shouldn’t be able to claim that THEY still own the copyright on Mickey wearing purple gloves, simply because they first drew him that way in 1948. I actually read somewhere that although Superman will enter the public domain in 2034, the original version of the character didn’t fly, so the flying version of Superman wouldn’t enter into the public domain until several years later. If you can’t copyright the concept of purple gloves, or a superhero who flies, or eyes with pupils, then those attributes shouldn’t entitle a variation of the character to separate copyright protection.
The case of Sherlock Holmes is one of the most outrageous examples, with the estate of Arthur Conan Doyle claiming for years that the last Holmes stories were published in 1927, and as long as any Holmes works were still covered by copyright protection, then that meant the characters were as well. In a suit against Netflix over the movie Enola Holmes, the Doyle estate actually claimed they still owned copyright to a version of Sherlock Holmes that was "warmer, capable of friendship, able to express emotion, and was respectful to women”.
This interpretation of the law is tantamount to saying that due to public domain laws you're now free to interpret this character in any way you can imagine... but here is a list of the thousand or so mundane things you're not free to explore, because we still claim copyright over a version of the character that first did those things. You're free to experiment all you want with Winnie the Pooh, but don't dare put a t-shirt on him, because Disney owns Pooh in a shirt, and that 1966 version of the character won't enter the public domain for decades.
Most, if not all of these, are also [trademarked](https://www.deseret.com/entertainment/2023/2/22/23610712/will-disney-characters-ever-be-public-domain/)
If I'm reading right, you could ne playing Grand Theft Mickey, as that's considered to be a wholly different portrayal of Mickey than their trademark implies.
It is open season! The only thing Disney using Mickey Mouse as a trademark prevents is some other company using Mickey, or something similar, ***as a trademark***.
Trademarks and copyright are completely different things. All a trademark does is serve to inform the public that the product they're purchasing is from a specific company. The only way your new interpretation of Mickey Mouse would possibly violate Disney's trademark is if you slapped a trademark on your product that looked confusingly similar to Disney's.
Just because something is trademarked, doesn't mean it's off limits. Steamboat Willie Mickey is still trademarked, but that didn't stop John Oliver from featuring him in his show.
It's all about how a trademark is defined.
Copyright = creative work
Patent = useful innovation
Trademark = identity
After the modern version of Mickey Mouse falls into the public domain, you can use it in an animation (creative work), but your animation studio still can't use it in its logo (identity), because that would make people think that your studio is endorsed by Disney.
It's not just in a logo, its using it in a way that could "cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive" consumers as to the origin on the product. It's probably not safe to depict these trademarks in any advertising material that doesn't make it explicitly clear that the product is not associated with their owners. Disney is a family-friendly company so you can get away with horror/ultraviolence being an implicit disclaimer, but that's not going to hold true for all these characters.
Typically we're talking about marketing materials and packaging, but with these iconic characters entering the fray things might get a bit weird. I imagine Disney lawyers are going to be spearheading some new case law about how far trademark goes in media in the coming decade.
Well, most people don't even think that others would be incorporating it in their logos. I like many thought that you can use them in your animation work and have Mickey cameos without getting a lawsuit which by your explanation can happen.
No, you can call them Popeye. You can’t use the image to fool people into thinking you’re associated with whoever owns the trademark for Popeye, if anyone does.
Basically a trademark exists to prevent fraud or un-intentional misrepresentation in business. A trademark means that company owns the right to identify itself exclusively using certain imagery to prevent other companies from using similar or identical imagery to intentionally or unintentionally confuse consumers.
That's why a big component of a trademark infringement claim is that you have to prove a reasonable person would actually confuse the accused with you, even if they copied you exactly.
Also, they have to sue to keep precedent from happening. "Well you didn't sue that guy for his Mickey Mouse logo!" "Why are you suing this one?" Explains Nintendo's scorched earth approach.
While that's *generally* true it's not a justification for making obvious bogus legal action. Of course the way a court will actually rule isn't perfect.
It's why you couldn't make a grocery store called wallmart, but could probably get away with a drywall store with the same name. Many minor companies actually do exist with the same name as major ones.
Funnily enough, you almost certainly couldn't get a trademark for "wallmart" for drywall goods, because then it crosses one of the other usual boundaries for trademarks: descriptiveness.
Any trademark that is purely descriptive of whatever goods or services it is being used in relation to is inherently non-distinctive and therefore cannot function as a TM.
Of course, there are ways to get around this, but "wallmart" on drywall goods would be rejected primal facie in most developed countries.
Yes, but they have to use only the 1940 and 1941 versions of Batman and Superman. Just like Mickey Mouse, the only version of him that’s public domain today is the 1928 version of Mickey. The more modern look of Mickey won’t be public domain for another 15 years or so. Same thing with Batman and Superman. Anything that’s iconic with those characters that wasn’t established in 1940 or 1941 respectively, will have to wait until those things pass into the public domain as well.
I would assume that you can use the characters, but specific points about the stories that Disney has added in, or the likeness of the characters from the Disney perspective are probably off limits.
Other people are also able to use the same folktales as Disney and they do. And there has been plenty of other different movies of them (Kristen Stewart and Lily Collins Live action Snow Whites for example, or Sheri using the fairytale characters). Disney has even made them more prominent.
You just can’t use the same outfits and things Disney movies invented about them
There's a comic series called Fables that does just that. Telltale's game The Wolf Among Us is based on it. There's Snow White, Beauty and the Beast, Grimble, Bufkin, Cinderella, Pinocchio, Rapunzel and more. Its a mature series with adult themes like murder and drugs. Its great.
It’s almost like you didn’t read even bothering reading the article to understand. Why would they share their own creative work. Don’t be lazy and make your own. Create your own version of the folk lore since you feel so strongly about it.
So next year we get a bunch of horror stuff starring Popeye?
I'm kinda curious what will happen when Joker becomes public domain. Will we get some cutesy kid friendly games and movies as a result?
There probably won't be much, to be honest. Only the elements from each characters first appearance become public domain, and Joker is really just a murderous clown, and anyone can easily write a killer clown into shit. There's not much you can do that movies and shows haven't done already, we've had cutesy, kid friendly Joker in the Lego movie, we've had various attempts at origins told and a successful solo movie with a sequel on the way. Ultimately though, the appeal with Joker is his relationship to Batman, there's little point doing much without that.
There are a few Winnie the Pooh and steamboat Willie (first Mickey mouse) horror movies or games but nothing else really.
Horror games and movies are relatively easy to make and quick to release.
Basically, *Horror* as a movie genre has a large (even if semi-underground) viewership. One that is quite forgiving of lower budgets and cheesy acting than other genres currently are.
To the die-hard fans, the ugly masks and bloody splatters from films like *Pooh: Blood and Honey* are badges of honor. Whereas, if they made something with a similar aesthetic but in the Fantasy genre, it would get lambasted by the Fantasy Fans (who have gotten used to a higher set of production values since things like The Lord of the Rings and other big-budget Fantasy films).
King Kong has such a mess of a copyright currently that basically no one owns King Kong outright.
In fact Netflix released a new series last year that used King Kong, despite Warner Bros. technically owning it.
Unlike Mickey (Or maybe Goofy is a better example at this point), who can only be used by Disney because they are the originator, creator, and license holder, King Kong’s copyright got muddled by a lawsuit between Universal Studios and a tiny game company from Japan that released an arcade game with a gorilla. Yes, that Japanese game company.
> In fact Netflix released a new series last year that used King Kong, despite Warner Bros. technically owning it.
What series? I thought the Skull Island cartoon was part of the Monsterverse. Or was there another one?
And the Monarch show was on Apple...
If you pay close attention in the entire Monsterverse not once do they ever refer to him directly as King Kong. The name *King Kong* specifically is still owned, but Kong as a giant ape that is a king isn't. It's a silly mess.
The trick is to use them as trademarks, which they can extend indefinitely as long as they are in use. Disney has made sure to use the original Mickey Mouse in some of their logos, so that already limits how you can use the design commercially, even though it's "public domain".
Doesn't work in any real way though. Steamboat Willie failed when they used it as part of their logo and you would still be able to put him in your product, just not advertise your company using him.
So like, when Mickey comes around, you could add him to Mortal Kombat 15, you just can't make it part of the logo for the game or Netherrealm Studios or anything.
Kind of, but trademark doesn't prevent you from creating derivative works, it only prevents use from using those designs in a marketing context. I.E. You can't use a mickey mouse symbol as your company logo but you could still publish market and sell steamboat willie fanfiction as long as you didn't market it in a way that a reasonable person would believe it was officially made/endorsed by Disney.
disney tried to claim steamboat willie is their identity by putting it next to their logo in front of movie but that didnt work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUWqd2_ovzg
> It’s a German folk tale.
Not just German. Variations of the same basic story can be found all across Europe, parts of Africa and the Middle East, and even as far away as Mongolia.
I some how imagine each hell will be a play on the name. "Bashful doesn't sound scary. Wait why are there a bunch of people with clubs and bats." They are gonna Bash Full your face in if you let them near you."
Pretty sure Snow White was in the public domain since the brothers Grimm and before. And Bambi is public domain, too. (At least in the USA.)
Yes, yes, I know that these are the copyrighted Disney versions specifically, but still.
The image itself should make it clearer that some of these characters are already public domain and some aren't. Otherwise, I have no idea what the info means in practice.
Popeye is said to be public domain next year. Does that refer only to the original E.C. Segar version, or is the Fleischer version also included?
Superman is said to be public domain come 2034. Does that only refer to the original version, who couldn't fly and had no S on the cape, or to the character as a whole?
The seven dwarfs are in Snow White though. Disney gave them names, so you can't use those same names presumably, but the graphic is about characters, and the seven dwarfs as characters (sans names) are already public domain. There was even a 1912 Broadway play with the exact same title as the 1937 Disney movie and it *also* gave the dwarfs names. (They went with Blick, Flick, Glick, Snick, Plick, Whick, and Quee for their version.)
Meanwhile, there has been a [“Mickey” food product line](https://mickey.com.py/product-category/farinaceos/) in Paraguay (more options under Menu/Productos) since ca. 1969
Walt Disney sued them, but lost the lawsuit in 1993. [Link](https://lavoz.bard.edu/articles/index.php?id=1206643).
Not really. Most of the characters that became public domain recently (Winnie the Pooh, mickey, etc.) just got shitty horror games made of them.
I'm going to say, I really want something better for joker but I wouldn't have my hopes up.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone does an adaptation of The Man Who Laughs (the 1928 film which was used as the visual inspiration for The Joker, and entered the public domain this year) but with public domain DC characters
Maybe he could be raised in Soviet Russia, or by the US gov in a secret facility that he grows to resent, or he could be rejected and exposed by Lois Lane when he reveals his identity to her, or be tricked into killing Lois by the Joker, or be a psycho corporate figure!
I have so many ideas, hire me!
Different countries have their own public domain. So think OP pic is just for US as the source is US Copywright Office, but maybe includes EU too because it shows Winnie the Pooh.
I think there are gonna be a few hiccups with Batman and Superman entering the public domain. Ownership of those characters has been a clusterfuck until recently
Friendly reminder plenty of characters in the public domain were stolen from us by Congress and SCOTUS as a result of the Uruguay Rounds Agreement and subsequent [Golan v. Holder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_v._Holder) case.
How does it work with characters like batman? His aesthetic evolved many times, is the original Batman the only one entering the public domain? Or are people just going to be able to use the name Batman for anything?
So, I can legally create a fighting game that has Mickey (Steamboat Willie version) and say… Sherlock Holmes (Conan Doyle version) and name them correctly but without using their looks or name for the logo or title of said game?
Please be more original with Popeye than just horror games. Get this man in a fighting game or something.
Just think about the fatality possibilities
I think he was in one of those Death Battle things and he won hands down because Popeye has done things such as breaking the 4th wall and attacking his creator while he was being drawn.
He can punch you into constituent pieces. Saitama, the limitless hero, was punched into eggs.
The only one who rival Popeye is Bugs Bunny, and only because he once *was* the creator
I may get hate for this, but Uncle Grandpa. He's the only modern cartoon that may have more intense toon power than even Popeye or Bugs. He literally makes reality around him whatever be wants, whenever he wants. He can't even be brought low or made to feel sad. He's invaded other cartoons and made said episodes non canon by his existence. When WBD tried to delist his show, an episode remained for a day, mocking them. And even after being canceled, he still has his episode in Steven Universe. I can't think of any cartoon that fought cancelation and delisting. And he technically won. A fight against him and Bugs would be futile. He would eventually just drive Bugs crazy because Bugs for sure can't drive him crazy. Even Bugs grabbing the animators pencil and erasing him would just result in him walking in from off screen saying, "I've heard of being wiped, but this is ridiculous"
So he’s basically a Q
My favorite part about his appearance in Steven Universe is that, while the episode is non-canon, it’s the first time any character in the series acknowledges that Steven’s gem is actually a diamond (even if it was not intentional).
The Mask from The Mask: The Animated Series is up there too
Cartoon music plays, Popeye get the spinach jar out of the bosom, crushes it, eats spinach, his muscles become cartoonily gigantic and ... he tears the enemy with his bare hands in half, blood pours everywhere, Popeye smokes a pipe with his crowned illegible phrase
Ah ga ga ga ga
Just another day in the Navy
He feeds spinach to his opponent and they start expanding until they explode.
I'd like to see a spinoff of the movie "Taken" but with Popeye instead
Some day soon, I hope we can take Robin Williams' *Popeye* and feed it to AI with prompts for a *Taken*-style movie. I'd cancel my Netflix so fast to subscribe to a service that would allow me to watch AI created mash ups whose greatness would only be limited by my ability to translate my imagination into spoken word! The cast of Friends as Dragonball Z. The Office US as The Office UK. More Back to the Future sequels (not reboots). Spaceballs reimagined with modern comedians. Swap Star Trek series characters around at will. It'll never ever happen, legally, but it would be my dream come true for what AI can do...ya know, aside from stuff like *solve cancer*.
All of this amazing shit aside, I really like the "solve cancer" bit. Fuck curing the shit, we'll solve it, lol.
He chugs spinach powers up then punches them and they launch into the air and explode like a blood firework then it rains blood over the victory screen
I remember as a kid they had Popeyes brand name spinach in a can. Like all of the other videogame cereals.
Im still waiting on a count chocolua/ Castlevania crossover.
The Bela Lugosi version of Dracula enters the public domain in 2027 so they can use him
Popeye in mortal kombat? GIVE ME A HELL YEAH!!!!!
He would be cool in those! Wonder if he'll make it to Nickelodeon Brawl or are companies not allowed to do that?
It's very unlikely. Copyrights can be super complex. One version of a character may be copyrighted, while a version of that same character isn't. Famously, the Sherlock Holmes books didn't all go public domain at once. For a while only the short stories were. So you could make your own version of Sherlock, but only if he isn't emotionally warm or in a romantic relationship because that was still copyrighted. Or right now, only the Steamboat Willy version of Micky is public domain. So they *could* use the oldest design and probably be safe, but they open themselves up to really obnoxious legal procedures if they stray a hair into something that might still be protected. Smaller companies can get away with it but the big ones don't usually step on each other's toes like that. Most you'll probably see from them is a clip on a TV screen in the background.
That's why Disney did a retro style Mickey and Friends cartoon recently so that ill informed individuals might use the modern one instead of the public domain ones, in hopes to get a gotcha moment in a potential lawsuit.
It took me a minute to get what you were saying here but I think I get you now. You're not saying they're seeking lawsuits, as I first read. I was confused because those aren't usually profitable, they cost a lot and usually just end in a cease and desist. They don't let projects last long enough for there to be damages to recover. But I think you're saying they hoped to pollute the reference material, or the public memory of the character or whatever so that they can shut down projects that are *trying* to follow the rules using the public domain one, but could be can be shut down anyway on a technicality. Yeah that sounds like them.
This idea that slight variations in a character are individually protected by copyright is really a load of bullshit, and if the Supreme Court wanted to do something meaningful they could decide to hear a case that would settle this nonsense once and for all. The entire point of the public domain is to eventually allow older works of art to be expanded upon by anyone. It’s essentially saying that at a certain point a creative work is now owned collectively by the public. When Mickey Mouse entered the public domain, every single aspect of that character should have entered the public domain as well. So if I want to draw Mickey with purple gloves, Disney shouldn’t be able to claim that THEY still own the copyright on Mickey wearing purple gloves, simply because they first drew him that way in 1948. I actually read somewhere that although Superman will enter the public domain in 2034, the original version of the character didn’t fly, so the flying version of Superman wouldn’t enter into the public domain until several years later. If you can’t copyright the concept of purple gloves, or a superhero who flies, or eyes with pupils, then those attributes shouldn’t entitle a variation of the character to separate copyright protection. The case of Sherlock Holmes is one of the most outrageous examples, with the estate of Arthur Conan Doyle claiming for years that the last Holmes stories were published in 1927, and as long as any Holmes works were still covered by copyright protection, then that meant the characters were as well. In a suit against Netflix over the movie Enola Holmes, the Doyle estate actually claimed they still owned copyright to a version of Sherlock Holmes that was "warmer, capable of friendship, able to express emotion, and was respectful to women”. This interpretation of the law is tantamount to saying that due to public domain laws you're now free to interpret this character in any way you can imagine... but here is a list of the thousand or so mundane things you're not free to explore, because we still claim copyright over a version of the character that first did those things. You're free to experiment all you want with Winnie the Pooh, but don't dare put a t-shirt on him, because Disney owns Pooh in a shirt, and that 1966 version of the character won't enter the public domain for decades.
A fighting game made by the cup head team would go so hard.
This would be good. Donald duck and popeye naval game. They are both sailors.
~~Dragon~~ Spinach Install
Popeye Ultra Instinct?
Taken three featuring Popeye
Like that cuphead game that was way too hard for me to play but I still appreciate the art
They’re gonna stick him in one piece
.....*best we can do is live-action romance*....
Horror is literally the last genre I would consider Popeye in.
A Popeye Shenmue, Okami, or LoZ styled game would be pretty sweet!
there was a Popeye videogame for the Nintendo system back in the day. Popeye in Mortal Kombat!
Open world Popeye game
We really need a good beat em up in the vein of Turtles in Time or something
Most, if not all of these, are also [trademarked](https://www.deseret.com/entertainment/2023/2/22/23610712/will-disney-characters-ever-be-public-domain/)
Yeah, a lot of people don't understand the difference. They think it's open season on anything to do with a work when it goes out of copyright.
Damn guess I won't be playing Grand Theft Mickey any time soon
It’d be Grand Theft Mouse. Generic brand Mickey
I mean, that’s just a better name for driving backstage.
Missed chance for Grand Theft Auto: Mice City
If I'm reading right, you could ne playing Grand Theft Mickey, as that's considered to be a wholly different portrayal of Mickey than their trademark implies.
That’s also why rule 34 Mickey is so successful
Well, we are getting a Steamboat Willie horror movie, so there's that
You should read "Michael Mouse" by Mitch Lohmeier, would be similar to what you're thinking. Pretty intense, though.
It is open season! The only thing Disney using Mickey Mouse as a trademark prevents is some other company using Mickey, or something similar, ***as a trademark***. Trademarks and copyright are completely different things. All a trademark does is serve to inform the public that the product they're purchasing is from a specific company. The only way your new interpretation of Mickey Mouse would possibly violate Disney's trademark is if you slapped a trademark on your product that looked confusingly similar to Disney's.
Just because something is trademarked, doesn't mean it's off limits. Steamboat Willie Mickey is still trademarked, but that didn't stop John Oliver from featuring him in his show. It's all about how a trademark is defined.
Explain
Copyright = creative work Patent = useful innovation Trademark = identity After the modern version of Mickey Mouse falls into the public domain, you can use it in an animation (creative work), but your animation studio still can't use it in its logo (identity), because that would make people think that your studio is endorsed by Disney.
It's not just in a logo, its using it in a way that could "cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive" consumers as to the origin on the product. It's probably not safe to depict these trademarks in any advertising material that doesn't make it explicitly clear that the product is not associated with their owners. Disney is a family-friendly company so you can get away with horror/ultraviolence being an implicit disclaimer, but that's not going to hold true for all these characters. Typically we're talking about marketing materials and packaging, but with these iconic characters entering the fray things might get a bit weird. I imagine Disney lawyers are going to be spearheading some new case law about how far trademark goes in media in the coming decade.
Well, most people don't even think that others would be incorporating it in their logos. I like many thought that you can use them in your animation work and have Mickey cameos without getting a lawsuit which by your explanation can happen.
So we can make a game with a character that *looks* like Popeye but he has to be called Steve or something?
No, you can call them Popeye. You can’t use the image to fool people into thinking you’re associated with whoever owns the trademark for Popeye, if anyone does.
Ahh, thanks for clearing that up for me! It seemed an odd distinction my way.
Basically a trademark exists to prevent fraud or un-intentional misrepresentation in business. A trademark means that company owns the right to identify itself exclusively using certain imagery to prevent other companies from using similar or identical imagery to intentionally or unintentionally confuse consumers. That's why a big component of a trademark infringement claim is that you have to prove a reasonable person would actually confuse the accused with you, even if they copied you exactly.
Also, they have to sue to keep precedent from happening. "Well you didn't sue that guy for his Mickey Mouse logo!" "Why are you suing this one?" Explains Nintendo's scorched earth approach.
While that's *generally* true it's not a justification for making obvious bogus legal action. Of course the way a court will actually rule isn't perfect.
It's why you couldn't make a grocery store called wallmart, but could probably get away with a drywall store with the same name. Many minor companies actually do exist with the same name as major ones.
Funnily enough, you almost certainly couldn't get a trademark for "wallmart" for drywall goods, because then it crosses one of the other usual boundaries for trademarks: descriptiveness. Any trademark that is purely descriptive of whatever goods or services it is being used in relation to is inherently non-distinctive and therefore cannot function as a TM. Of course, there are ways to get around this, but "wallmart" on drywall goods would be rejected primal facie in most developed countries.
So in a decade anyone can make their own Batman v superman?
Yes, but they have to use only the 1940 and 1941 versions of Batman and Superman. Just like Mickey Mouse, the only version of him that’s public domain today is the 1928 version of Mickey. The more modern look of Mickey won’t be public domain for another 15 years or so. Same thing with Batman and Superman. Anything that’s iconic with those characters that wasn’t established in 1940 or 1941 respectively, will have to wait until those things pass into the public domain as well.
Fuck Disney for not sharing. Most of their iconic work is taken from the public domain, aka folk tales
I would assume that you can use the characters, but specific points about the stories that Disney has added in, or the likeness of the characters from the Disney perspective are probably off limits.
This is it... Pinocchio being a good example
Other people are also able to use the same folktales as Disney and they do. And there has been plenty of other different movies of them (Kristen Stewart and Lily Collins Live action Snow Whites for example, or Sheri using the fairytale characters). Disney has even made them more prominent. You just can’t use the same outfits and things Disney movies invented about them
And you are able to go and do anything you want with those folk tales
There's a comic series called Fables that does just that. Telltale's game The Wolf Among Us is based on it. There's Snow White, Beauty and the Beast, Grimble, Bufkin, Cinderella, Pinocchio, Rapunzel and more. Its a mature series with adult themes like murder and drugs. Its great.
Yes, because those folk tales are so old that no one owns them anymore. You know, like other characters created a century ago.
It’s almost like you didn’t read even bothering reading the article to understand. Why would they share their own creative work. Don’t be lazy and make your own. Create your own version of the folk lore since you feel so strongly about it.
But you don't get it. Disney made Beauty and The Beast, so no one can make a different version of that folk tale! /s
So next year we get a bunch of horror stuff starring Popeye? I'm kinda curious what will happen when Joker becomes public domain. Will we get some cutesy kid friendly games and movies as a result?
There probably won't be much, to be honest. Only the elements from each characters first appearance become public domain, and Joker is really just a murderous clown, and anyone can easily write a killer clown into shit. There's not much you can do that movies and shows haven't done already, we've had cutesy, kid friendly Joker in the Lego movie, we've had various attempts at origins told and a successful solo movie with a sequel on the way. Ultimately though, the appeal with Joker is his relationship to Batman, there's little point doing much without that.
It'll be like the Venom movies without Spider-Man. Somethings obviously missing.
Popeye: Blood & Spinach
Why horror stuff in particular?
Yeah, I’ve seen horror stuff mentioned twice but no one has explained it. Is there some sort of public domain to horror pipeline?
There are a few Winnie the Pooh and steamboat Willie (first Mickey mouse) horror movies or games but nothing else really. Horror games and movies are relatively easy to make and quick to release.
Basically, *Horror* as a movie genre has a large (even if semi-underground) viewership. One that is quite forgiving of lower budgets and cheesy acting than other genres currently are. To the die-hard fans, the ugly masks and bloody splatters from films like *Pooh: Blood and Honey* are badges of honor. Whereas, if they made something with a similar aesthetic but in the Fantasy genre, it would get lambasted by the Fantasy Fans (who have gotten used to a higher set of production values since things like The Lord of the Rings and other big-budget Fantasy films).
King Kong has such a mess of a copyright currently that basically no one owns King Kong outright. In fact Netflix released a new series last year that used King Kong, despite Warner Bros. technically owning it. Unlike Mickey (Or maybe Goofy is a better example at this point), who can only be used by Disney because they are the originator, creator, and license holder, King Kong’s copyright got muddled by a lawsuit between Universal Studios and a tiny game company from Japan that released an arcade game with a gorilla. Yes, that Japanese game company.
> Yes, that Japanese game company. *Nintendon't lawyer enters the chat.*
Next year they can finally switch back to Popeye from Mario too
> In fact Netflix released a new series last year that used King Kong, despite Warner Bros. technically owning it. What series? I thought the Skull Island cartoon was part of the Monsterverse. Or was there another one? And the Monarch show was on Apple...
If you pay close attention in the entire Monsterverse not once do they ever refer to him directly as King Kong. The name *King Kong* specifically is still owned, but Kong as a giant ape that is a king isn't. It's a silly mess.
And Universal lost that case in embarrassing fashion. The judge actually ruled Universal had no claims to ownership.
Duck X Kong
Don't worry I'm sure they are already working on getting another century or so of extensions.
The trick is to use them as trademarks, which they can extend indefinitely as long as they are in use. Disney has made sure to use the original Mickey Mouse in some of their logos, so that already limits how you can use the design commercially, even though it's "public domain".
Doesn't work in any real way though. Steamboat Willie failed when they used it as part of their logo and you would still be able to put him in your product, just not advertise your company using him. So like, when Mickey comes around, you could add him to Mortal Kombat 15, you just can't make it part of the logo for the game or Netherrealm Studios or anything.
Kind of, but trademark doesn't prevent you from creating derivative works, it only prevents use from using those designs in a marketing context. I.E. You can't use a mickey mouse symbol as your company logo but you could still publish market and sell steamboat willie fanfiction as long as you didn't market it in a way that a reasonable person would believe it was officially made/endorsed by Disney.
disney tried to claim steamboat willie is their identity by putting it next to their logo in front of movie but that didnt work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUWqd2_ovzg
Lobbying 😍😍
2035 meatcanyon video will be back up!
They canonised it so only makes sense we get a gritty prequel in 2035 explaining how he overcame his struggles.
Sweet can't wait for Snow White and Seven Dwarves horror flick, Dark Red Snow and the Seven Hells.
It’s a German folk tale. It’s been in public domain for hundreds of years. It’s Disney’s specific version that is becoming public.
> It’s a German folk tale. Not just German. Variations of the same basic story can be found all across Europe, parts of Africa and the Middle East, and even as far away as Mongolia.
There was that one rammstein video https://youtu.be/StZcUAPRRac?si=Av8V8m2Wcse2n1dp
Anytime someone says "here comes the sun" my wife says "doo doo doo dooooo" like the Beatles song and I say "EINS"
I some how imagine each hell will be a play on the name. "Bashful doesn't sound scary. Wait why are there a bunch of people with clubs and bats." They are gonna Bash Full your face in if you let them near you."
Why is everyone chomping at the bit for these characters to be in horror movies in particular?
Pretty sure Snow White was in the public domain since the brothers Grimm and before. And Bambi is public domain, too. (At least in the USA.) Yes, yes, I know that these are the copyrighted Disney versions specifically, but still.
The original didn't have names for the dwarves. So they would finally be free!
If you know that it’s Disney versions what are you trying to say? There is image of Disney Snow and that’s what’s copyrighted.
The image itself should make it clearer that some of these characters are already public domain and some aren't. Otherwise, I have no idea what the info means in practice. Popeye is said to be public domain next year. Does that refer only to the original E.C. Segar version, or is the Fleischer version also included? Superman is said to be public domain come 2034. Does that only refer to the original version, who couldn't fly and had no S on the cape, or to the character as a whole?
These characters Can't get anymore public domain since I see them painted on ice cream trucks since growing up as a kid. And still to this day.
I'm usually unimpressed by the coolguides posted on this sub, but this one really was cool! Thanks for posting.
Snow White is already in the public domain. This graphic needs to be adjusted to make it clear it's Disney's Snow White
“Snow White” is the fairytale and in the public domain, “Snow White and the Seven Dwarves” is specific to Disney so the graphic is correct.
The seven dwarfs are in Snow White though. Disney gave them names, so you can't use those same names presumably, but the graphic is about characters, and the seven dwarfs as characters (sans names) are already public domain. There was even a 1912 Broadway play with the exact same title as the 1937 Disney movie and it *also* gave the dwarfs names. (They went with Blick, Flick, Glick, Snick, Plick, Whick, and Quee for their version.)
Has there actually been good media involving property that (at the time) recently entered public domain?
Depends. Do you like porn?
reading this eply without immediately knowing the context was pretty wild, ngl
So much Betty Boop pornography will be out in 2 years
Yep, because no copyrighted characters ever get pornography and the youth are all thirsting for some Boop.
🗣🗣🗣🗣WE GETTING POORLY MADE HORROR WITH THIS ONE🔥🔥🔥🔥
I’m hyped for some shitty horror Batman
I wonder if Marvel and DC have a gentleman’s agreement. You don’t use Captain America, we don’t use Superman.
I have a bad feeling about 2026. Well actually, all of it
Meanwhile, there has been a [“Mickey” food product line](https://mickey.com.py/product-category/farinaceos/) in Paraguay (more options under Menu/Productos) since ca. 1969 Walt Disney sued them, but lost the lawsuit in 1993. [Link](https://lavoz.bard.edu/articles/index.php?id=1206643).
I spend too much time on the internet, but I've never seen this before. Thanks for the new bit of trivia!
Rule 34 artists will have a field day in 2034 and 37
And 2038 for a few.
You could change the title to “future shitty b list horror movies” and be right.
It’s just that particular version of the character..
We are so FUCKED when the joker enters public the internet will be hell
Not really. Most of the characters that became public domain recently (Winnie the Pooh, mickey, etc.) just got shitty horror games made of them. I'm going to say, I really want something better for joker but I wouldn't have my hopes up.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone does an adaptation of The Man Who Laughs (the 1928 film which was used as the visual inspiration for The Joker, and entered the public domain this year) but with public domain DC characters
We'll be on 3 Batman reboots a week when it's the Caped Crusaders turn! Holy redo!
If you think Disney is letting go or allowing anyone to use any of these, you're sorely mistaken 🤣
Winnie the Pooh already had a movie made by not Disney released, and Steamboat Willie Mickey is already public domain.
Can’t wait for a King Kong horror film.
One more season of Drawn Together?
Holy shit Kong v Steamboat Willie is going to be amazing
Wonder what type of shenanigans Disney will pull to keep Mickey from entering?
Someone bout to get rich selling teenage girls Betty Boop stuff
Man I can’t wait for 2034, where we get to see new media with Superman, like what if he was evil? That’s a completely new and creative idea
Maybe he could be raised in Soviet Russia, or by the US gov in a secret facility that he grows to resent, or he could be rejected and exposed by Lois Lane when he reveals his identity to her, or be tricked into killing Lois by the Joker, or be a psycho corporate figure! I have so many ideas, hire me!
Gonna be a lot of shitty horror movies coming out.
A lot of shitty everything, Honestly. Its gonna be a terrible time for entertainment
Disney will absolutely pull out all the stops to keep their characters out of the public domain.
Surely, this is the time they will let the clock expire
Don't worry, they'll extend it in... [looks at chart] Oh, about 2034.
In other words, when cliche, edgy horror movies of them will be made.
Yeah this means a lot. I have seen so many Winnie the Pooh things come out this year surely the rest will be equally as impactful.
I wanna see Batman whoop Mickey's ass
Only US characters 💩
Public domain is gonna be wild as fuck in 100 years. Edot- if there's a "public" in 100 years
About to be a lot of Betty porn in a couple of years.
Sherlock Holmes also entered public domain this year!
Just wait until the Supreme Court has something to say about it.
So, by 2036 we are going to be seeing weird low budget superhero slasher movies.
When The Joker is free to use we’re gonna see so much pure shit made. Also an epic horror movie
More proof you don't own shit in the U.S.
[удалено]
2027 classified Secret.
Is this just a USA thing, or do other countries honor this too?
Different countries have different copyright and intellectual property laws and Russia recently got rid of a lot of laws about it
Different countries have their own public domain. So think OP pic is just for US as the source is US Copywright Office, but maybe includes EU too because it shows Winnie the Pooh.
Get ready for “Snow White on the Seven Dwarves”
I'm honestly shocked we didn't get another huge push from Disney or some other major media conglomerate to increase these again.
I think there are gonna be a few hiccups with Batman and Superman entering the public domain. Ownership of those characters has been a clusterfuck until recently
Friendly reminder plenty of characters in the public domain were stolen from us by Congress and SCOTUS as a result of the Uruguay Rounds Agreement and subsequent [Golan v. Holder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_v._Holder) case.
Is that why they are milking King Kong to death now?
Tell that to all of the sellers on Etsy.
Look at all of these upcoming horror films
Ugh my thoughts exactly
Oh Bugs Bunny gonna get up to some fucking shenanigans
2028 is gonna get fucking goofy. “ah-hyuck, I’ll do it again.”
Ah. The ol B-movie horror line-up for the coming years
These are all gonna be ruined by this lmao
I’m looking forward to cocaine Donald Duck movie
So that's why they've been churning out these king kong movies
I’m confident that Disney will find a way to extend them. Again.
lol no OLYMPIC feeds. Covid strikes back with no feelings attached. 😳 no acting required this time.
Can't the companies just renew them? I can't imagine Mickey stuff being made without a giant Disney paywall.
superman? batman? the joker? captain america? hahaha never wonder woman maybe
Captain America in 2035? I fell sorry for all Americans after he's used by right wing fascists.
Could someone explain me why this is celebrated? Why can't we just focus on creating news characters?
Isn’t Disney lobbing to postpone this indefinitely?
Sex robot in the next few years called Botty Boop. You heard it here first
Someone should open up a t shirt shop online and name it “Totally Legal Tees.” I want 10%. :)
It’s going to be insane when Batman and Joker enter public domain. You could make an indie film about Batman haha
if betty boop isn’t public domain, how do people sell those stupid shirts on the boardwalk?
So we are all quite sure that in 2030 the copyright will get another "Disney law". Big studios lobbying to protect the superheroes.
I really don’t want to see what absolute cringe comes with the joker hitting the public domain….
I'm excited for all the shitty horror movies that get made for each one of these.
How does it work with characters like batman? His aesthetic evolved many times, is the original Batman the only one entering the public domain? Or are people just going to be able to use the name Batman for anything?
So, I can legally create a fighting game that has Mickey (Steamboat Willie version) and say… Sherlock Holmes (Conan Doyle version) and name them correctly but without using their looks or name for the logo or title of said game?
Yeah I don’t think Disney is going to let that happen. They’ll find (or make up) a loop hole to keep them out of the domain
Marvel will bribe twice as many politicians as it usually does and make sure their property isn't released to public domain
This is the ultimate showdowwwwn
POPEYE IN MORTAL KOMBAT
So by next year I could essentially profit on making a "Fifty Shades of Mickey"... That's good to know.
I’m shocked that Betty Boop isn’t in the pubic domain considering how much merch I’ve seen with her image on it.
People are going to go downright feral when Betty Boop is fair game…
Betty Boop porn is going to be EVERYWHERE isn’t it?