Yeah, didn't they just mention that on Collectors Call (11/5/23)

This comment has been removed.

They have to their OWN versions of Winnie... The character itself is now p.d. so whoever wishes to do their own version can, just don't make it a copy of the Disney version.

The 1928 Steamboat Willie version of Mickey Mouse "copyright" is the only thing going into Public Domain. The character itself is "trademarked" (which has no expiration). There's not a lot anyone will be able to do with that version, aside from airing it freely.

Ultimately, Mickey Mouse is still a legally protected "trademarked" Disney product as well as their other characters. Meaning no one can use the likeness of any of their characters without Disney's approval. In essence Disney hasn't lost anything.

Technically you may be correct. All the same, courts have ruled that trademarks were not meant to REPLACE copyrights. Some companies are doing this, such as with Buck Rogers I believe. So far, the ploy hasn't been terribly successful as I understand it. A certain "Mr. Mouse" has already shown up in a famous ongoing animated series, with more to come if you wish to investigate.
Copyrights are generally 50 to 70 years in most countries I'm told. The 95 year thing badly needs to be reversed in the US. Permanent ownership was never intended, else there wouldn't be any public domain at all. Having it it extended linie this was one of Disney's more greedy financial crimes in my opinion. Most of us aren't going to live to be 95, so it's pretty absurd to start with.

I wasn't looking to be technical on it. But they should wrap copyright and trademark protection in to one package and that protection should be perpetual. Extend the amount of time that individuals etc.... need to renew that protection. or make it one and done. There's someone making money off that as well.

As far as Public domain and what you mention I don't agree with that regulation. Not to use Disney as an example (as there are many corporations, etc...) worked hard developing, creating, improving their products. It's their property....No one else's. And as such it should be preserved as theirs.

As the Public Domain Rule seems to have some ambiguity to it, regulators should focus on clarifying/simplifying that rule, as to what is or isn't allowed or remove the rule altogether.

By its definition it seems to be there to encourage new creative works, however in use it looks to be quite the opposite- as the public,individuals ,others are looking to piggy-back of others work. There doesn't seem to be any creativity involved there.

PS Add: Disney is also very generous with their " Disney's United States of Frozen! "program for schools nationwide through Music Theatre International and their support on other productions as well. Wouldn't exactly define them as greedy.(jmo).

Thanks for the detailed info. Very interesting.

Believe it's 95 in almost every case. I've noted here and there where items technically still under copyright are reissued in some form or other. I suppose so much material put there, mu j from companies with no successors, it's all but impossible to cover everything. Disney's meddling caused a lot of material which should be p.d. now not to be. I have little use firvthem frankly, as greed is not always good. These copyright laws are usually 50 to 70 years in almost all other nations btw.

Congratulations and good luck!