In 1998, Congress passed S. 505, which came to be known as the Sonny Bono Act. This landmark legislation extended US copyright protection by 20 years, thereby increasing copyright ownership from the life of the author plus 50 years to the life of the author plus 70 years. Consequently, the duration for protection of works owned by corporations increased to 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation. The motivation for this change included harmonizing with international guidelines, such as those of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Berne Convention, and providing intellectual property (IP) owners with economic benefits that align with the increased average life expectancy of individuals. However, behind these laudable goals, many opposed the extension. During hearings, several legal experts testified before the congressional committee, stating that extending the copyright term would not benefit the public. Some stated that extending the copyright term would not improve the constitutional goal of copyright, which is the “promotion of the progress of science and useful arts”. Legal scholars point to Disney’s lobbying for the extension of the Copyright Act rather than adherence to international IP law as the real motivation for extending copyright. Since 1990, The Walt Disney Company has lobbied Congress to extend the length of the copyright act to delay the animated film “Steamboat Willie” from entering the public domain. For many observers, it was not the film entering the public domain that prompted Disney’s vehement lobbying, but rather the prospect that Micky Mouse, as the company’s brand symbol, would be available for use by other companies. Opponents of the bill suggested that Disney was more concerned about the diminishment of the Mickey Mouse brand value in subsequent merchandise and derivative films. With the passage of what some call the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act,” Congress extended US copyright protection, providing Disney with protection of its most valued asset until 2024. As such, with the passing of S.505. Disney was able to retain copyright and trademark rights for later iterations of the characters, significantly limiting competitors’ exploitation. Nevertheless, Disney’s actions have significant implications for the future of copyright law and for the extent to which other parties can exploit an artistic work after it enters the public domain.
Now that the original film is in the public domain, several organizations have taken advantage of this to create “derivative” works featuring the original characters from “Steamboat Willie”. On April 2, 2025, director Steven Lamorte released a comedy horror film titled “Screamboat,” whose protagonist looked very similar to Mickey Mouse. The was the first of several parody films, including “The Vanishing of S.S. Willie”, “The Mouse Trap”, “Mouseboat Massacre”, and “Mouse Horrors”. Films based on literary works that have entered the public domain have been the staple of independent studios. Shortly after A.A. Milne’s “Winnie-the-Pooh” entered the public domain in 2022, Altitude Film Distribution released “Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey,” a low-budget slasher film about the beloved character Winnie the Pooh and his attempt to seek revenge for the death of Christopher Robin. After the movie earned $1.8 million at the box office, a sequel to “Blood and Honey” was released in February 2023.
A recently filed lawsuit seeks clarity regarding the use of characters from “Steamboat Willie” in an ad. The personal injury law firm Morgan & Morgan intends to launch a nationwide advertising campaign featuring Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse, but fears that Disney’s legal team would oppose any advertisement featuring characters from “Steamboat Willie”. As a defensive motion, Morgan & Morgan filed a lawsuit seeking a court order that the commercial does not violate any of Disney’s rights. The 37-second, black-and-white commercial shows Mickey crashing a boat into Minnie Mouse, prompting her to call the law firm. The ad includes a disclaimer stating that the video is not endorsed by or associated with Disney. In the suit, Morgan & Morgan claims that, “Disney has a well-documented history of aggressively enforcing its asserted trademark rights, including filing infringement suits against parties using depictions of ‘Steamboat Willie’ characters despite their public domain status”. Disney countered by stating it has economic interests in the Mickey trademark for licensed merchandise. Concurrently, Disney has filed a lawsuit against Satéur, a Hong Kong-based jewelry company, for trademark infringement. In this case, Disney argued that the expiration of the copyright associated with “Steamboat Willie” does not permit companies to infringe Disney’s trademark for Mickey Mouse. Disney’s legal representatives state that Satéur’s jewelry creates a false impression that the company’s products are officially licensed Disney merchandise and, as such, are sanctioned by Disney. The lawsuit seeks an injunction against Satéur from selling the jewelry or using Disney’s trademark in any other way, along with monetary damages.
These two cases follow a series of court decisions involving Disney characters. In Walt Disney v. Air Pirates, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Mickey Mouse, as a cartoon character, enjoyed copyright protection. This case is interesting because it established that literary characters, including comic book characters like Mickey Mouse, are copyrightable, since they have physical as well as conceptual qualities, “and are more likely to contain some unique elements of expression.” In DC Comics v Towle, the Ninth Circuit, applying Air Pirates, to the ‘Batmobile’ in a case that dealt with the qualification of an automobile as a ‘character’ for copyright protection. The court’s decision stated that “copyright protection extends not only to an original work as a whole, but also to “sufficiently distinctive’ elements, like comic book characters, contained within the work”. The court stated that a character to be copyrightable, it must have “(i) both physical and conceptual qualities, (ii) be sufficiently delineated to be recognizable as the same character whenever it appears, and (iii) be especially distinctive and contain some unique elements of expression”.
Mickey Mouse has had a significant impact on the history of animated film and serves as the central brand of Disney’s movies, theme parks, and merchandise. However, as the iconic character has entered the public domain, the enforcement of Mickey Mouse’s intellectual property has been questioned amid a wave of third-party use. This includes using the character as the basis for new works in new media, a practice Disney itself has used to create some of its most iconic works. For example, Disney’s first full-length cartoon, “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs”, was based on a Brothers Grimm fairy tale, a work that had entered the public domain at the time of Disney’s creation. Blurring the distinction between copyright and trademark may have profound implications for defining public knowledge and the very concept of the public domain.
References
DC Comics v Towle, 802 F. 3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2015) (“DC Comics”)
Walt Disney Prods. v. Air Pirates, 581 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1978)
The Analytical Musician 