[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Ashcroft Accepted forReviewbySCOTUS
- To: "'dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Ashcroft Accepted forReviewbySCOTUS
- From: Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:10:22 -0800
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com]
...
>
> Think of Disney -- all in a panic about losing the exclusive rights to
> Mickey Mouse. This tends to indicate that they fear they have nothing
> of equal prestige with which to replace him. Being given yet
> another 20
> year reprieve, there is nothing to motivate Disney to create
> yet another
> marquee character. They can simply rest on there legally preserved
> laurels.
>
I still don't see why they need copyright extension to protect
Mickey Mouse. Aren't trademark protections essentially unlimited?
Can't they trademark both the phrase "Mickey Mouse" and the image?
--
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com
186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!