RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Ashcroft Accepted forReviewbySCOTUS

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Stearns [mailto:sterno@bigbrother.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 4:32 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Ashcroft Accepted 
> forReviewbySCOTUS
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 18:10, Richard Hartman wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Is there any example of something where a trademarked character came
> into the public domain?  Let's assume that a Mickey Mouse movie is
> released into the public domain.  At that point, I can create 
> derivative
> works and do whatever I want to that item since it is no longer
> protected.  
> 
> So couldn't I, in theory, construct entirely new cartoons as 
> derivatives
> of that original work?  I mean if I took a screen capture of 
> Mickey, and
> made it so I could re-animate him in whatever way I wanted, wouldn't
> that be legitimate?  Perhaps I couldn't call him Mickey Mouse in this
> new work, but could I use his image legitimately?  
> 

Not sure, but I think both phrases and images can be trademarked.

Otoh, perhaps only the still image can be a trademark ... so as
long as he never hit that particular pose you'd be ok ;-)

-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!