Disney's Legal Loophole: Extending Copyright With Creative Law

The Walt Disney Company has successfully lobbied for copyright extensions in the United States, with critics deriding the legislation as corporate welfare. Since 1990, Disney has sought to extend the copyright on its earliest Mickey Mouse cartoons, leading to the nickname The Mickey Mouse Protection Act. The company has also been involved in legal cases surrounding arbitration, including a wrongful death lawsuit, where Disney attempted to dismiss the case entirely. This has led to discussions about whether signing up for Disney+ impacts a person's right to sue the company.

Disney's influence on copyright law

Disney has been a fierce defender of its intellectual property rights, filing many lawsuits against companies and individuals for copyright and trademark violations over the years. The Walt Disney Company has been lobbying for copyright extensions since 1990, earning the nickname "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act" for delaying the entry of the earliest Mickey Mouse cartoons into the public domain. This has been criticised as corporate welfare, benefiting only a few wildly successful franchises like Disney.

Disney has successfully lobbied for extended terms, changing copyright law and preventing authors and creators from building on popular ideas. The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 extended copyright protection to the life of the author plus 70 years, and for corporate works, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation. This effectively froze the advancement date of the public domain in the US for older works.

Disney has also held trademarks on its characters, including "Steamboat Willie", Mickey Mouse's first appearance. Trademarks do not expire as long as the correct paperwork is filed, and they protect against consumer confusion. Disney has released some content for public consumption, such as "Steamboat Willie" on YouTube in 2009, but it remains unclear if they will try to extend copyright terms again in 2024 when Mickey Mouse is set to enter the public domain.

The Mickey Mouse Protection Act

The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, widely known as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, was passed in 1998. The Act extended copyright terms in the United States, delaying the entry of early Mickey Mouse cartoons into the public domain.

The Act was the result of lobbying efforts by The Walt Disney Company, which began as early as 1990, to prolong copyright protection for its intellectual property. The initial term for Steamboat Willie, the first Mickey Mouse cartoon, was set to expire in 1984 after 56 years. However, this was extended multiple times, including in 1978, 1998, and 2024, with the latter two extensions attributed to the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. The Act effectively froze the advancement date of the public domain for works covered by older fixed-term copyright rules.

While the copyright for the earliest Mickey Mouse cartoons has now expired, Disney still owns many trademarks associated with the character, including the words "Mickey Mouse," the classic and modern designs, and a composite image showing Mickey's evolution. These trademarks can be renewed in perpetuity, allowing Disney to maintain control over the use of Mickey Mouse in merchandise and preventing consumer confusion. However, other companies can now create their own Mickey Mouse-related content, as long as they do not infringe on Disney's trademarks and make it clear that they are not affiliated with Disney.

Disney's argument for arbitration in a wrongful death lawsuit

The interpretation of the arbitration agreement was key to Disney's argument. The defence lawyers, White & Case, claimed that the arbitration clause covered all disputes with the company, regardless of the nature of the claim. However, the connection between a personal injury claim stemming from allergen-tainted food and using a streaming service was tenuous at best. Despite this, Disney maintained that the arbitration agreement waived Piccolo's right to a jury trial and that the case should be handled through arbitration instead of the courts.

Corporations like Disney often favour arbitration because it is assumed that professional jurists will take a more dispassionate view of the evidence and damages than jurors, who might be swayed by their emotions. Disney's argument in this case set a precedent that any person who signs up for Disney+, even for a short time, waives their right to a jury trial against any Disney entity. This interpretation of the arbitration agreement was not without criticism, and legal experts questioned its validity.

While Disney's argument for arbitration in the wrongful death lawsuit had some legal basis, it was ultimately withdrawn. Disney's decision to change course and not seek arbitration was influenced by public opinion and the potential impact on their reputation. Despite withdrawing their motion, Disney's arbitration clauses still exist on various platforms, including streaming services and park entrance tickets, which could pose a similar legal challenge to others in the future.

Disney's impact on trade surplus

Disney, formally known as The Walt Disney Company, is a multinational entertainment and media business based in Burbank, California. It was founded in 1923 by brothers Walt Disney and Roy O. Disney as a small animation studio, which grew over the following decades into one of the largest and most recognisable media outlets in the world. Disney's impact on the trade surplus is significant, given its diverse business segments, including theme parks, media networks, film studios, and streaming services.

Disney's film studio division, the Walt Disney Studios, is a major player in the industry, encompassing various production companies such as Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar, Marvel Studios, and Lucasfilm. The success of their films can impact the trade surplus through box office revenues and merchandise sales. Additionally, Disney owns television networks such as ABC, ESPN, and the Disney Channel, generating revenue through advertising and subscription fees.

Disney's theme parks and resorts, including Disneyland and Walt Disney World, contribute significantly to the trade surplus through ticket sales, merchandise, and tourism. The company's presence in the tourism industry can also positively impact the surrounding economies, creating jobs and stimulating local businesses. Disney's impact on the trade surplus is also evident in its consumer products business. Disney is the largest consumer products licensor in the world, licensing its characters and stories to third-party manufacturers to produce and sell Disney-branded products. This global manufacturing and supply chain network spans over 100 countries, creating jobs and generating revenue for various economies.

Disney's streaming services, particularly Disney+, have become increasingly crucial to the company's performance. Rapid changes in subscriber numbers can significantly affect the stock price and, consequently, impact the trade surplus. Additionally, Disney has made strategic acquisitions over the years, including Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, and 21st Century Fox, which have provided growth avenues and increased their market valuation.

Disney has successfully lobbied for copyright extensions, such as the Copyright Term Extension Act, to protect its intellectual property. This has delayed the entry of early Mickey Mouse cartoons into the public domain, leading to criticism and the nickname "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act". Disney's influence on copyright law can impact the trade surplus by extending the profitability of their franchises and affecting the competition in the media and entertainment industry. Overall, Disney's impact on the trade surplus is substantial, given its diverse business segments and global presence. The company's performance in various industries, including entertainment, media, and consumer products, contributes to the United States' trade surplus and shapes the global market.

Disney's lobbying for copyright extension

Since 1990, The Walt Disney Company has been lobbying for copyright extensions. This was done to delay the entry of the earliest Mickey Mouse cartoons into the public domain, leading to the nickname "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act". Disney's lobbying efforts, along with the US Congress' argument that economic benefits would not be achieved if US copyright law was not harmonized with the European Union, were the primary contributors to the enactment of the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA).

Disney was the primary lobbying organization for the CTEA Bill, both within the US House of Representatives and the US Senate. Other supporters of the CTEA included Time Warner, Universal, Viacom, ASCAP, the major professional sports leagues (NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB), and the family of slain singer Selena Quintanilla-Pérez. Proponents of the CTEA argued that it was necessary due to the increase in human life expectancy since the original Copyright Act of 1790, and that a difference in copyright terms between the US and Europe would negatively affect the international operations of the entertainment industry.

Opponents of the CTEA, however, consider the legislation to be corporate welfare and have tried unsuccessfully to have it declared unconstitutional. They argue that most works bring in most of their profits within the first few years and are then pushed off the market by publishers, so there is little economic incentive to extend copyrights except for a few wildly successful franchises, such as Disney. They also see successive copyright extensions as a "'slippery slope' towards perpetual copyright terms, which would nullify the intended effects of copyright law.

In May 2022, Senator Josh Hawley introduced a bill to roll back the copyright term for new works to match the 1909 Copyright Act and retroactively target Disney. However, this bill was criticized for violating international agreements and the Fifth Amendment protections against eminent domain. Despite this, the battle to prevent copyright term extensions is ongoing, as critics argue that AI developments will reshape the copyright landscape and that companies like Disney have already benefited from previous copyright term extensions.

Frequently asked questions