Dan O’Neill predicted the future by 53 years.
He initiated a countercultural assault on Mickey Mouse in 1971. The adorable mouse was depicted in the underground comic book “Air Pirates Funnies” smuggling narcotics and having oral sex with Minnie.
Disney filed suit against O’Neill for copyright infringement, as he had anticipated. He perceived it to be a satire of the law. However, following eight years of litigation, he was left with an unpayable judgment. In order to avoid incarceration, he consented to abstain from drawing Mickey Mouse in the future.
“It remains a crime in my eyes,” O’Neill, 81, stated from his residence in Nevada City, California, during a telephone interview. “Drawing Mickey Mouse would make me liable to Walt Disney for a $190,000 fine, an additional $10,000 in legal fees, and one year in prison.”
On January 1, Mickey and Minnie will become public domain. Thereafter, Disney’s exclusive copyright over the earliest iterations of the characters shall no longer apply. Those in the underground, including cartoonists, filmmakers, novelists, and composers, will be free to do with them as they please.
For an extended period of time, Mickey Mouse has represented the copyright conflicts. The expiration follows his début in the short film “Steamboat Willie” 95 years ago, and is a significant symbolic milestone in addition to its practical implications.
Jennifer Jenkins, director of the Duke Center for the Study of the Public Domain, remarked, “This is a major one.” “It’s finally happening; the copyright community is in a state of tremendous excitement.”
On January 1, Jenkins releases an extensive catalogue of works that enter the public domain, granting artists unrestricted permission to modify and reinterpret them. Tigger is featured on this year’s list; similar to Mickey Mouse, he debuted in 1928. “Lady Chatterley’s Lover,” “All Quiet on the Western Front,” and “The Cameraman” by Buster Keaton are additional works from 1928.
Recent celebrations have taken place. Twenty years passed after Congress extended copyright terms in 1998, during which time nothing entered the public domain. Since 2019, when copyright protection for works recommenced, “The Great Gatsby,” “Rhapsody in Blue,” and Winnie the Pooh have all been in an open season.
Recent adaptations of these works may provide a sneak peek into the future that Mickey Mouse will experience.
Jenkins stated, “‘Just add zombies’ seems to be a popular idea.”
“The Great Gatsby Undead” and “The Great Gatsby and the Zombies” appeared on Amazon on January 2, 2021, respectively.
Additionally, one must consider the cannibal film “Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey,” which was included on numerous critics’ lists of the worst films of 2023. The film, distributed by Fathom Events and released in the United States in February, garnered considerable media attention due to its shocking nature. However, despite this, it has only amassed $5 million in worldwide earnings to date.
Prof. Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard law scholar and longtime advocate on copyright issues, remarked, “Many individuals engage in numerous activities.” “This is the matter on which the attention of Hollywoodites is not directed.” An extraordinary variety of individuals create for the sheer enjoyment of it.
It is possible that Lessig positioned Mickey Mouse at the epicenter of the copyright debate just as much as anyone else. Without the 20-year extension, which Disney’s copyright on its emblematic character would have expired in 2004, he emerged as the preeminent detractor.
Lessig referred to the legislation as “the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.” He cannot recall whether he originally coined or borrowed the term, but it stayed due to his frequent usage.
Without a doubt, Disney advocated for the bill. However, there are those who contend that its significance in the legislation has been overstated, citing the fact that numerous other copyright holders, such as songwriters and the George Gershwin estate, advocated for it as well.
“Disney’s reputation for menace has always been slightly exaggerated. “They make a convenient bogeyman,” said Southern Illinois University law professor Zvi Rosen, who argues that Disney’s lobbying did not significantly influence the outcome. Following the passage of the law, the public discourse shifted its focus to Mickey Mouse.
Lessig adamantly opposed the extension to the Supreme Court level. He posited that the potential for Congress to consistently grant extensions could circumvent the constitutional requirement that copyrights be “for limited times.” Although he was defeated 7-2, the discourse contributed to the growth of the Creative Commons movement and an increased understanding of the advantages of “remix culture.”
Lessig stated, “That movement awoke individuals to the critical need for balance in this.” Initially, this conflict amounted to a straightforward struggle between the hijackers and the proprietors of the properties. And by the end of that era, it was clear that a much broader spectrum of interests, such as access to knowledge and education, were at stake.
As the extension period approached its conclusion in the 2010s, there was speculation that Disney and other copyright holders might exert pressure for an additional extension. However, that never came to pass.
Some contend that copyright holders did not attempt to obtain an additional extension because they anticipated a deluge of opposition. It eventually became evident that Mickey Mouse would indeed enter the domain of the public.
“It is substantial,” stated Lessig. “We can only hope that this signifies the commencement of a fresh phase.”
He maintains his endorsement of reforms that would grant access to an extensive collection of cultural production that is currently inaccessible due to its lack of commercial value and uncertain ownership.
Lessig stated, “The greatest flaw in copyright is that there is no way to determine who owns what.” “It is the most inefficient system of property ever created by man.”
