Mickey Mouse belongs to all of us now
Turns out Disney never controlled the US government, thankfully
At the stroke of midnight on January 1 of this year, a significant event quietly transpired in the crazy and wonderful world of intellectual property.
Disney's "Steamboat Willie," featuring the first iteration of the iconic character Mickey Mouse, entered the public domain. That this actually happened surprised many who believed the all-powerful, mega-corp Disney would somehow prevent its precious IP from leaking into the global commons. Surely, went the consensus logic, since Disney literally re-wrote the rules for copyright extensions, it must be able to act just as strongly today?
This belief Disney has an outweighed influence on copyright law is widespread. All the “smart and cool” people believe it. But unfortunately for them, it’s a myth. One that has certainly helped paint Disney as a ruthless behemoth that shouldn’t be messed with, but it is a myth nonetheless.
Let's unravel this myth and explore the real story behind copyright extensions, focusing on the broader implications for intangible assets and the legal landscape of copyright.
Big, Bad Disney vs the People?
Basically, the myth holds that Disney, through immense lobbying power and financial influence, single-handedly secured extensions to keep its character Mickey Mouse from entering the public domain. The story about big, bad Disney is persistent, partly because it reinforces the popular notion of a powerful corporation bending the law to its will. It suggests that Disney alone shaped the destiny of copyright law to protect its most valuable intangible asset.
While it’s accurate to say that Disney did lobby for copyright term extensions, the truth is more complex and involves a coalition of various stakeholders in the creative industries.
The journey of copyright term extensions began in the 19th century. The first major extension occurred in 1831, largely influenced by Noah Webster, who successfully lobbied for an extension to secure the financial future of his spelling book. Through sheer force of character (and good timing) Webster managed to wrestle an extension of the copyright term from 14 to 28 years with an optional 14-year renewal.
In 1909, another extension took place, this time increasing the renewal term to a maximum of 56 years. Mark Twain (real name Samuel Clemens) was a vocal advocate for copyright reform and he played a significant role in the public discourse surrounding this extension, likely because he was an established author at this point.
The Copyright Act of 1976 was another significant change. It extended the term to the life of the author plus 50 years. This change was advocated by many different types of authors, composers and publishers. It was at this point that Disney began to show interest in term extensions, but it wasn’t showing too much enthusiasm for copyright term extensions just yet.
The most significant extension came with the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998, often dubbed the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act." This act extended copyright terms by 20 years, making it life plus 70 years for individual authors and 95 years for corporate works.
As you can see, the time window for copyright was creeping up for more than 100 years, with dozens of parties involved at various times and for different reasons. These groups included not just Disney but also the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) and other major players in the creative industries. Far from being about patch protection, the goal for most of these entities in extending copyright was to harmonise US copyright law with the Europe, which was widely seen as being more progressive in this branch of legislation.
The myth about Disney selfishly changing copyright rules was bolstered by media portrayals and public perception, but it overlooks that the CTEA had widespread support at the time. The CTEA faced legal challenges, most notably in the case of Eldred v. Ashcroft, where opponents argued that the extension violated the "limited Times" clause of the US Constitution. However, the Supreme Court upheld the CTEA, stating that Congress had the authority to extend copyright terms.
This is an important point. Despite what many people think, it isn’t easy to bend the Supreme Court to the will of a corporation. The Supreme Court exists to interpret the Constitution to respond to a changing society and the impact of new technologies. The Court needs to hear a good case for change, it doesn’t just alter the legal bedrock of the US on a whim.
Protecting your intangibles
Understanding the history of copyright term extensions – especially in the US – is crucial for business professionals dealing with intangible assets. Copyrights, trademarks and patents form the backbone of many companies' value, particularly in the creative and tech industries.
For businesses, the key takeaway is that while the corporate world is dog-eat-dog, there are crucial moments when it may be smarter to play as a team. The copyright landscape is constantly evolving. In the age of artificial intelligence (AI), copyright is front of mind for most companies in the creative industries. Sometimes it’s better to cooperate so that everyone can get back to competing.
The history of copyright term extensions highlights the need for businesses to stay informed about emerging or possible changes in copyright law that could impact their assets. Being proactive in anticipating these changes can go a long way in helping businesses plan their IP strategies effectively.
For companies with significant IP investments, the economic stakes are high. Copyrights generate revenue through licensing, sales, and other forms of exploitation. Effective lobbying helps protect these assets from erosion by securing robust legal protections against unauthorised use and infringement.
Setting the Disney myth aside, lobbying isn’t a dirty word. Businesses are perfectly rational to influence legislation. By participating in industry groups, businesses can help shape policies that protect their interests. Lobbying for better copyright protections provides every company with a competitive edge and helps to enhance their reputation, translating into better partnerships and increased market share. What’s not to like?
And if businesses can be guaranteed a protection for their innovation, are they more likely or less likely to invest in more ideas and research? The evidence is fairly conclusive that it boosts R&D, rather than diminishes it.
In the end, the entry of the Mickey Mouse character "Steamboat Willie" into the public domain marked a significant moment in copyright history, not because Disney failed to extend its protection one last time, but because it highlighted the balance between private interests and public good in copyright.
It showed that nothing is forever and no company is omnipotent. Of course businesses like Disney should have first dibs on any innovation they produce. But at some point, innovation belongs to everyone.
After all, the public has an enormous influence on whether a character like Mickey Mouse becomes popular in the first place. Surely we should be compensated for this invisible labour as well.
All we ask is to be allowed to use Mickey Mouse for our memes without fearing a copyright strike. Is that too much to ask?