Mickey's Copyright Adventure: Early Disney Creation Will Soon Be Public Property (nytimes.com) 82
The version of the iconic character from "Steamboat Willie" will enter the public domain in 2024. But those trying to take advantage could end up in a legal mousetrap. From a report: There is nothing soft and cuddly about the way Disney protects the characters it brings to life. This is a company that once forced a Florida day care center to remove an unauthorized Minnie Mouse mural. In 2006, Disney told a stonemason that carving Winnie the Pooh into a child's gravestone would violate its copyright. The company pushed so hard for an extension of copyright protections in 1998 that the result was derisively nicknamed the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. For the first time, however, one of Disney's marquee characters -- Mickey himself -- is set to enter the public domain.
"Steamboat Willie," the 1928 short film that introduced Mickey to the world, will lose copyright protection in the United States and a few other countries at the end of next year, prompting fans, copyright experts and potential Mickey grabbers to wonder: How is the notoriously litigious Disney going to respond? "I'm seeing in Reddit forums and on Twitter where people -- creative types -- are getting excited about the possibilities, that somehow it's going to be open season on Mickey," said Aaron J. Moss, a partner at Greenberg Glusker in Los Angeles who specializes in copyright and trademark law. "But that is a misunderstanding of what is happening with the copyright." The matter is more complicated than it appears, and those who try to capitalize on the expiring "Steamboat Willie" copyright could easily end up in a legal mousetrap. "The question is where Disney tries to draw the line on enforcement," Mr. Moss said, "and if courts get involved to draw that line judicially."
Only one copyright is expiring. It covers the original version of Mickey Mouse as seen in "Steamboat Willie," an eight-minute short with little plot. This nonspeaking Mickey has a rat-like nose, rudimentary eyes (no pupils) and a long tail. He can be naughty. In one "Steamboat Willie" scene, he torments a cat. In another, he uses a terrified goose as a trombone. Later versions of the character remain protected by copyrights, including the sweeter, rounder Mickey with red shorts and white gloves most familiar to audiences today. They will enter the public domain at different points over the coming decades. "Disney has regularly modernized the character, not necessarily as a program of copyright management, at least initially, but to keep up with the times," said Jane C. Ginsburg, an authority on intellectual property law who teaches at Columbia University.
"Steamboat Willie," the 1928 short film that introduced Mickey to the world, will lose copyright protection in the United States and a few other countries at the end of next year, prompting fans, copyright experts and potential Mickey grabbers to wonder: How is the notoriously litigious Disney going to respond? "I'm seeing in Reddit forums and on Twitter where people -- creative types -- are getting excited about the possibilities, that somehow it's going to be open season on Mickey," said Aaron J. Moss, a partner at Greenberg Glusker in Los Angeles who specializes in copyright and trademark law. "But that is a misunderstanding of what is happening with the copyright." The matter is more complicated than it appears, and those who try to capitalize on the expiring "Steamboat Willie" copyright could easily end up in a legal mousetrap. "The question is where Disney tries to draw the line on enforcement," Mr. Moss said, "and if courts get involved to draw that line judicially."
Only one copyright is expiring. It covers the original version of Mickey Mouse as seen in "Steamboat Willie," an eight-minute short with little plot. This nonspeaking Mickey has a rat-like nose, rudimentary eyes (no pupils) and a long tail. He can be naughty. In one "Steamboat Willie" scene, he torments a cat. In another, he uses a terrified goose as a trombone. Later versions of the character remain protected by copyrights, including the sweeter, rounder Mickey with red shorts and white gloves most familiar to audiences today. They will enter the public domain at different points over the coming decades. "Disney has regularly modernized the character, not necessarily as a program of copyright management, at least initially, but to keep up with the times," said Jane C. Ginsburg, an authority on intellectual property law who teaches at Columbia University.
No it won't (Score:3, Insightful)
No it won't because Disney will spend a fortune extending copyright duration again .
Re:No it won't (Score:5, Interesting)
Not in three days (and they publicly announced, a couple of years back, that they wouldn't be asking for any more extensions anyway.) And Congress isn't in session right now. So, no, they won't be.
Perhaps their attorneys realized that regardless of copyright status, the character is still covered by trademarks, which do not expire except through non-use.
Re: No it won't (Score:3, Interesting)
They have enough other characters that Mickey and Minnie have become obsolete. I was just there and we saw those two in only very limited circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
Given Kathleen Kennedy they will probably focus on some more feminist characters.
Re: No it won't (Score:1)
You are talking about sjws right? Right?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And Lord Farkward will give us back our swamp, too, just as soon as we rescue the princess for him to marry.
Re:No it won't (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not actually all that surprised. The constitution clearly says that copyrights are to last for a limited duration - and while the 100 year mark is largely a psychological barrier, it's *really* hard to sell a duration over a century as meaningfully "limited".
Combine that with a public that has become increasingly hostile to copyright excesses since public internet access put citizens doing in more direct confrontation with an overbearing law... and I imagine the political capital needed to pass a further extension would be a LOT more expensive than it was back when the law only really affected professional counterfeiters, and bootleggers selling copies out of the back of their van.
And the trademark thing - which strikes me as a completely bullshit end-run around the limits of copyright that we need to address. Trademarks are supposed to protect the integrity of a brand - you could argue that the "mickey mouse head shadow" logo has indeed been used as a trademark - but the character itself? No. And definitely not, e.g., the Marvel Universe characters and many others.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not actually all that surprised. The constitution clearly says that copyrights are to last for a limited duration - and while the 100 year mark is largely a psychological barrier, it's *really* hard to sell a duration over a century as meaningfully "limited".
It's hard to sell a duration over twenty years as meaningfully limited when the ostensible purpose is to promote continued creative production from an inventive or artistic mind. The time range needs to be less than the working period of an average person. From beginning of adulthood to acceptable retirement age, then divide that by two or three. If your book did really well the first twenty years after you published it, then hopefully you saved well.
Re: (Score:2)
They still have a year in which to try and extend the copyright period.
If they do try to extend copyright though the whole "for limited times" argument goes out the window.
Re: No it won't (Score:2)
Umm, no. Trademarks expire through non-use. (Score:2)
the character is still covered by trademarks, which do not expire except through non-use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Trademarks rights must be maintained through actual lawful use of the trademark. These rights will cease if a mark is not actively used for a period of time, normally five years in most jurisdictions.
In the case of trademark registration, failure to actively use the mark in the lawful course of trade, or to enforce the registration in the event of infringement, may also expose the registration itself to become liable for an application for the removal from the register after a certain period of time on the grounds of "non-use".
I.e. All they have to do is publish a small commercial run of trademarked stuff from time to time and they can keep all the IP they stole until the heat death of the universe.
Eventually, humanity will have to invade a parallel universe to be used for purposes of storing and publishing DisneyTM properties.
Cthulhu will be a bitch to a drawing of a rodent. Then he will be assimilated into the House of Mouse.
Four obstacles to a Chaz Bono Act (Score:5, Interesting)
The opinion of the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft was that "harmonization" to the copyright term of a substantial foreign market for U.S.-produced works to prevent rule of the shorter term from causing practical problems is an acceptable excuse for a term extension, distinguishing it from "legislative misbehavior" of repeated extensions primarily to circumvent the constitutional "limited times" restriction. Timothy B. Lee reported five years ago that Hollywood studios weren't interested in trying to push a third successive extension. [arstechnica.com]
I see at least four obstacles to a Chaz Bono Act:
1. Proponents of an extension might have trouble avoiding legislative misbehavior when drafting a bill. The only trading partner I can think of with a longer copyright term to which to "harmonize" is Mexico, and most U.S. political capital related to Mexico may have been spent on the 2018 renegotiation of NAFTA [wikipedia.org].
2. Defenders of the public domain have shown since the SOPA debate in 2012 that they are capable of organizing opposition.
3. Lee's article states that the Authors Guild appears willing to fight Disney on this.
4. The Republican Party controls the House of Representatives as of a week from yesterday, and members of the Republican caucus have shown interest in repealing the 1998 extension. Some reports call Senator Josh Hawley's Copyright Clause Restoration Act bill a way of punishing Disney for its opposition to Florida's "don't say gay" Parental Rights in Education Act.
Re: (Score:3)
We have a new Supreme Court whose ethics are questionable at best. Relying on them not to serve a corporate interest is not necessarily a reliale bet.
Re: (Score:2)
We currently have a Supreme Court whose interpretation of the Constitution is more aligned with that of the Republican Party. This means that if they do twist the interpretation of Constitution and statute to serve an agenda, it could very well be in favor of The Walt Disney Company's opponent. See my point number 4.
Re: (Score:3)
That's what the person you responded to said. A Supreme Court whose ethics are questionable at best.
Re: (Score:2)
Politics has gone far down the social path rather than economics. Ie, the anti-woke crowd is driving the normally pro-corporate Republicans, leaving the normally pro-worker Democrats seem to be the defenders of corporations at times, which is a strange state of affairs.
Also I think there's some competition going on, with Florida and Texas trying to prove that they can be just as crazy as California and New York.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The SCOTUS's interpretation of the Constitution as of late is what's called "strict constructionist". That is, the words in the Constitution mean what they say as written when written. If that aligns with the Republic Party, that just means that the current Republican platform includes strict-constructionism. Imagine being able to unilaterally change the terms of a contract by redefining terms. That's where nonsense like "Well, $technology didn't exist in the 1700s, so it's not protected" comes from. I
Re: (Score:2)
>Political capital related to Mexico...
I... don't think that's how political capital works. Your political capital is whatever I'm willing to do for you, so that you'll do other things for me. Or because you have already done so. Or because I want to stay on your good side. "Related to X" is only relevant if I really don't like X, and have already yielded as much as I'm willing to on that front.
And I don't think most US politicians actually give much of a $%#@! about Mexico either way, except when f
Re:No it won't (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA addresses this. After the MMPA, this would be extremely difficult push politically. Reading between the lines, it looks like they are laying the groundwork to be able to defend the character designs as Disney Trademarks. That would allow public distribution and use of the original film, but new works containing characters substantially resembling the original would be a Trademark violation. I can't recall this ever being used or litigated, so it's new legal ground and a court will have to draw a line on it.
IANAL, but if I had to guess, the court will end up threading a needle where you can watch or distribute all or a portion of the original work, i.e. your characters can watch Steamboat on their TV inside their film, but you won't be able to create new animations substantially resembling the trademark of the original character. Whatever lawyer thought that up needs to get a gold star for cleverness. (To be clear, I'm not defending Disney. I feel the current copyright term is far too long. I respect that it's a clever legal strategy, not an ethical one.)
Re: (Score:2)
TFA addresses this. After the MMPA, this would be extremely difficult push politically. Reading between the lines, it looks like they are laying the groundwork to be able to defend the character designs as Disney Trademarks. That would allow public distribution and use of the original film, but new works containing characters substantially resembling the original would be a Trademark violation.
I'm not sure that's quite correct.
Steamboat Willie is about to be public domain, once that happens you can redistribute Steamboat Willie or even release a new work featuring a character based on that original Mickey Mouse.
What you can't do is modify that character in any way reminiscent of a more modern Mickey, since that's definitely still under copyright.
It's also unclear if you could call your media based on that original character "Mickey Mouse", since that's still trademarked. I suspect you could relea
Re: (Score:2)
It's also unclear if you could call your media based on that original character "Mickey Mouse", since that's still trademarked. I suspect you could release a cartoon using a mouse that's clearly identifiable as Mickey Mouse from Steamboat Willie (with no touches of a later version) but using the name (or even image) for marketing purposes might get you in trouble.
You can use the name "Mickey Mouse" to refer to the copyright expired Mickey Mouse, all of George Lucas's rabid Star Wars character name trademarks to the contrary. You can also use the image. That has been litigated with respect to Winnie the Pooh. Trademark doesn't work that way. Trademark exists to protect the origin of a product, and the Supreme Court for the last two decades has hewed very close to a literal interpretation of the word "origin" in terms of commerce. It's the company which produced t
Re: No it won't (Score:1)
"It's also unclear if you could call your media based on that original character "Mickey Mouse", since that's still trademarked"
you cannot use trademark law to stop anyone from calling something that it is.
steamboat willie has mickey mouse in it, thats a fact. disney cannot stop people from say pressing blurays and on the cover putting down it has mickey mouse in it. if you redrew that mickey mouse then you wouldnt be able to call it mickey mouse but who would want to redraw that ugly version of mickey mous
Re: (Score:2)
What you can't do is modify that character in any way reminiscent of a more modern Mickey, since that's definitely still under copyright.
"Modern Mickey" is only a year after Steamboat Willie.
Re: (Score:2)
That would allow public distribution and use of the original film, but new works containing characters substantially resembling the original would be a Trademark violation. I can't recall this ever being used or litigated, so it's new legal ground and a court will have to draw a line on it.
It is not new legal ground. This has been litigated extensively, culminating in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. et al., 540 US 806 (2003) [publicdomainsherpa.com], decided by the US Supreme Court. The circuit court and appeals court both sided with Fox, agreeing that Dastar had somehow infringed on Fox's rights by not crediting Fox. The Supreme Court intervened, and slapped them down. The usual quote from the ruling is:
Assuming for the sake of argument that Dastar's representation of itself as the "Producer" of its videos amounted to a representation that it originated the creative work conveyed by the videos, allowing a cause of action under section 43(a) for that representation would create a species of mutant copyright law that limits the public's federal right to copy and to use, expired copyrights.
Followed by:
A statutory interpretation that renders another statute superfluous is of course to be avoided.
Basically, because copyright law exists and is distinct from trademark law, its t
Re: No it won't (Score:1)
Scare tactics (Score:4, Interesting)
and DMCA auto take downs? (Score:5, Interesting)
and DMCA auto take downs?
Flood the Internet (Score:3)
Flood the Internet with Steamboat's Willie. Every search for the character should be Google bombed into animated porn.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure this is what that Pooh horror movie is all about. Disney fought to keep the copyright so badly that now that the original Pooh is in public domain, the way to hurt them for their nonsense is to poison the well when searching for the name by making a horror movie pop up in the search results.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also just good marketing perhaps. Take a big name, one that's got nostalgia at least, and use it to drive interest in your movie. It's not just Pooh here, there were some other horror movies reusing older characters that were either out of copyright or bought out cheaply (Banana Splits comes to mind). Add a twist in your ten cent budget movie and it gets free marketing. Remember. this isn't rich Hollywood with a lack of originality, but the cheap underbelly with even less originality desparate for
sorry, slapped this together quickly (Score:2)
Narrator: In A.D. 2202 ROBOT WAR Was Beginning.
DizNee: What Happen?
LaWYER: Somebody Set Up Us the COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT.
teh intarWebz: We get MEME.
DizNee: What!
teh intarWebz: Give us the LULZ.
DizNee: It's You!!
Stable Diffusion: How are you vermin!!
Stable Diffusion: All Your IP Are Belong to Us.
Stable Diffusion: You are on the way to irrelevence.
teh intarWebz: What you say!!
Stable Diffusion: You Have No Chance to Survive make your time.
Stable Diffusion: HEAR'S LOAB-by....
teh intarWebz: DizNee!
DizNee: Take Off Every 'LIVE ACTION REMAKE'!!
DizNee: You know what you doing.
DizNee: Move 'STAR WARZ SERIES'.
DizNee: For Great LULZ.
Copyright vs trademark (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Copyright vs trademark (Score:2)
Re:Copyright vs trademark (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure you'll be able to sell the Steamboat Willie video; trademark is supposed to prevent consumer confusion about the *origin* of goods, and in that case it's the real thing.
Disney will no doubt push the boundaries of trademark law litigating against *derivative* works, arguing that, for example, they dilute or tarnish their still-valid trademark.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure you'll be able to sell the Steamboat Willie video; trademark is supposed to prevent consumer confusion about the *origin* of goods, and in that case it's the real thing.
Disney will no doubt push the boundaries of trademark law litigating against *derivative* works, arguing that, for example, they dilute or tarnish their still-valid trademark.
The third world still will be able to flood the first world with Mickey Mouse toys and napkins so long as they don't write "Mickey" on the box.
Re: Copyright vs trademark (Score:1)
Theyâ(TM)ll probably name it Dickey or Lickey, and then weâ(TM)ll have Tik Tok videos of people laughing at them being it wrong. In reality, they got it right to avoid the lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
"Lickey Louse"?
Me? I'd buy a Lickey Louse T-shirt.
Re: (Score:2)
American Mouse!
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the toys look like steamboat willie they will be perfectly legal. Packaging cannot have a disney logo, but otherwise it is fair game third world or first world.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt Disney would be spending insane amounts of money to extend copyright protections if the only thing that changes when the copyright expires is the public can distribute a single Steamboat Willie cartoon, they haven't been able to monetize in 70 years. There is something else, some other use they are worried about.
Re:Copyright vs trademark (Score:5, Informative)
they haven't been able to monetize in 70 years.
Steamboat Willie is actually on Disney+
Re: (Score:2)
As of Jan 2024, you can put it on youtube netflix or archive.org. legally and sell it, repackage it, colorize it etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Steamboat Willie has been on YouTube 13 Years (Score:2)
Re:Copyright vs trademark (Score:4, Informative)
There is something else, some other use they are worried about.
Modern Mickey with white gloves appeared in 1929, that's only one year later than Steamboat Willie...
Re:Copyright vs trademark (Score:5, Informative)
While the copyright on that particular Steamboat Willie cartoon expires, the trademarks for Mickey Mouse do not. So, someone can copy the cartoon, and re-distribute it, but any other uses of Mickey will still be protected by Trademark laws. So you can not sell Steamboat Willie version Mickey Mouse merch, or derivative works with out licensing from the House of the Mouse. FYI
So you are saying that if I take a frame from "Steamboat Willie" and print it on a T-shirt, I will be sued for infirnging Disney's trademark? I don't think so. Disney cannot use trademark law to perpetuate their copyright unless the image falsely claims to be authorized by Disney. See Licensing Commercial Value: From Copyright to Trademarks and Back [columbia.edu].
Re:Copyright vs trademark (Score:4, Insightful)
Disney cannot use trademark law to perpetuate their copyright
They can, however, use it to protect their trademark. Which the law requires they defend, lest they potentially lose it (the most valuable trademark they own). That's why they defend it so vigorously.
And I'm certain the Disney can afford more (and better) lawyers than you. So good luck with that t-shirt business.
Re: (Score:2)
Disney cannot use trademark law to perpetuate their copyright
They can, however, use it to protect their trademark. Which the law requires they defend, lest they potentially lose it (the most valuable trademark they own). That's why they defend it so vigorously.
And I'm certain the Disney can afford more (and better) lawyers than you. So good luck with that t-shirt business.
You are quite right that Disney can afford more and better lawyers than I can. However, it seems unjust that Disney should be able to prevent me from making use of a public domain image just because they are rich. This smacks of "might makes right". If I subtitled the image "not authorized by the Walt Disney Company" they would probably still come after me, but perhaps I could persuade a rich foundation to support me.
Re: (Score:2)
However, it seems unjust that Disney should be able to prevent me from making use of a public domain image just because they are rich.
That is because you do not understand the difference between copyright (which expires) and trademarks (which do not).
This smacks of "might makes right".
It smacks of "copyrights and trademarks serve entirely different purposes, and have entirely different laws to govern their use."
Welcome to grown-up land.
Re: (Score:2)
However, it seems unjust that Disney should be able to prevent me from making use of a public domain image just because they are rich.
That is because you do not understand the difference between copyright (which expires) and trademarks (which do not).
This smacks of "might makes right".
It smacks of "copyrights and trademarks serve entirely different purposes, and have entirely different laws to govern their use."
Welcome to grown-up land.
I am assuming that Disney has a trademark on Mickey Mouse and on the contemporary shape, but not on the name or shape of the main character in "Stemaboat Willie". Since maintaining a trademark requires paying a fee every few years, I think that is a reasonable assumption. Under that assumption it would not be a violation of either copyright or trademark law to make use of the images in "Steamboat Willie" after its copyright expires. However, it is likely that Disney would go after anyone who did, like Wa
Re: (Score:2)
Since it is a frame of Steamboat Willy and Steamboat Willy (the film) will be in the public domain you would be ok to use it on a t-shirt. You would probably run into trouble though if you tried to sell a t-shirt with your own drawing of Steamboat Willy on a t-shirt (assuming Disney bothers to protect their trademark on Steamboat Willy).
Re: (Score:2)
Since it is a frame of Steamboat Willy and Steamboat Willy (the film) will be in the public domain you would be ok to use it on a t-shirt. You would probably run into trouble though if you tried to sell a t-shirt with your own drawing of Steamboat Willy on a t-shirt (assuming Disney bothers to protect their trademark on Steamboat Willy).
I suspect Disney does not have a separate trademark on the lead character in Steamboat Willie, as distinct from Mickey Mouse.
If I were to take a still from the Steamboat Willie film and clean it up to make a nicer, but still recognizable, image for a T-shirt, the image would still be in the public domain. If I were to alter it significantly I might be able to get my own copyright on the resulting image. It would be derivative of Steamboat Willie, but it would have a stand-alone copyright since it would be
Re:Copyright vs trademark (Score:5, Interesting)
Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox (Score:3)
I doubt it. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Kellogg v. Nabisco, 305 U.S. 111 (1938), that a trademark cannot be used to extend the effective term of exclusive rights in an expired patent. It applied similar logic to copyright in Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox, 539 U.S. 23 (2003). The exclusive right to prepare and distribute derivative works of Steamboat Willie and Plane Crazy is one of the exclusive rights set to expire in just over a year. When it expires, under the logic of Kellogg and D
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, our companies will finally be allowed to be Mickey Mouse operations, with Mickey Mouse engineering, and Mickey Mouse logistics, and a Goofy sales team.
Re: (Score:2)
Emphasis mine.
You absolutely *CAN* create derivative works of it, as long as they do not feature that character. You could create an otherwise identical cartoon featuring a different titular character where the resulting work could as obviously a Steamboat Willie derivative as you wished, but because you are not reusing the Mickey Mouse character, you'd be in the clear.
Re: (Score:2)
According to Ars Technica/Timothy B. Lee you can definitely create and sell a Steamboat Willie toy if the Mickey represented looks like Steamboat Willie. Wait a year and you can give the toy white gloves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what they've been doing for quite some time now. The effect is that our entire culture, from 1928 onward, has essentially been under indefinite copyright. Its about damn time that finally ended.
Re: (Score:2)
I am relying upon those future generations to mow the lawn over my grave, so I don't want to piss them off just yet.
Draw your own fucking rat (Score:2)
Mr. Tchaikovsky would like a word... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Likely they hired their own orchestra to create a new performance of it, to which they owned the rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Likely they hired their own orchestra to create a new performance of it, to which they owned the rights.
Musical performances and musical arrangements have separate copyrights. Disney could have infringed even with their own orchestra.
But Russia didn't accede to the Berne Convention until 1994. Tchaikovsky was out of luck.
Unjust laws (Score:3)
Disney will change logo to baby Yoda (Score:3)
with declining birthrates there are fewer kids and...
what kids there are, are not watching Micky Mouse and...
the big money-makers are now Star Wars and Marvel and
then you can happily make your meme of MickyMouse in a mouse trap and no one will care
Sure it will... (Score:1)
Watch, Der Mousehaus will line some pockets and get it extended again.
Satire and parody is still protected (Score:3)
For example, from 1967, the Disneyland Memorial Orgy, by Wally Wood, commissioned by Paul Krassner.
https://www.thesnipenews.com/2... [thesnipenews.com]
Seriously? (Score:3)
In 2006, Disney told a stonemason that carving Winnie the Pooh into a child's gravestone would violate its copyright.
How incredibly douchey can you be? I'm glad to see they backed down on that one;
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/2... [upi.com]
But they seem to have not learned anything at all;
https://nypost.com/2019/07/06/... [nypost.com]
Cannot understand why Disney is so protective (Score:1)
Micky Mouse is a relic. Sorry but it's true. There are no Micky Mouse movies, or TV shows, or books, or toys, or anything, that I'm aware of.
1928 ?!?!?! (Score:2)
95 years is why decent people should ignore copyright.
Free Skiing Trips (Score:2)
Steamboat Willie Is A Dead End For The Geek (Score:2)