What is copyrighted?

[Alee Enn]

When I was younger, I'd write song lyrics. These were the days before the internet and mobile phones. There was this rumour, a myth, that if you mailed to yourself, and then didn't open the envelope, a copy of the lyrics to your song(s) it would be a form of copyrighting your song(s) because you'd have proof you wrote those lyrics at that time, if it ever went to a court of law. I have no idea if this method was ever used or if it would have worked.

So with the European Copyright Directive now having passed, and European countries now having two years to implement the law(?) I for one would like to have a better idea of what is considered copyright and what isn't, partly to make things easier for myself and partly to be able to defend anything I may have copyright over. How could I defend the copyright on content I created or own, if I don't know whether it is covered by copyright?

You might think everything you create is covered by copyright, but not necessarily so. As I understand it, it is a grey area of law. For example, a photographer went out to where some monkeys were, left a camera that would take a photo and came back to see what happened. He found a pic of a monkey grinning into the camera. You probably know the picture I refer to. There then became a legal discussion as to who owned the copyright on the picture. The photographer? It was his camera after all, but no. It was decided the monkey had copyright over the picture. Don't ask me how that works, I am not a legal expert.

So if I took a picture of you striking a pose, do I have copyright over the picture? What if I took a picture of a fish? Or a sunset? I am not going to assume that just because I took the picture on my camera (or phone as it is these days) that I have copyright over the content, and neither will an algorithm.

What has an algorithm got to do with this? Well, when Article 13 is enforced, and while it is an unknown at this point if the UK will enforce it, we have our own mess to deal with right now, this forum will at some point have to enforce it. How can I know I won't be in breach of article 13? I need clarification and education.

(please also notice I've used no links, quotes or images in this post)

[felter]

Myself I just don't get copyright at all, fullstop. I just don't get how someone can do some work and still get paid for that work 50 years later after making several hundreds of millions (in any currency) from that work. It's not right or fair don't get me wrong I think everyone is entitled to make a fair share on their work but many, many years later to still think and demand that you still be paid for some work you did in an afternoon. It's the good old question when is enough enough. I just think it is pure greed to the highest level. Then you have the part where the copyright can be sold to someone else, who had absolutely nothing, nada, zilch or anything to do with with something but they now have to be paid for it, that's a totally different kind of greed that should never be allowed at all.

I did some work many years ago that was pretty darn skilled, not everyone could do it to the level that I could and many people enjoyed my work, why am I not still being paid for it, what makes me different from them, what makes them different from all of the rest of us that work day in and day out to make ends meet, why should they be paid for an afternoons work when the rest of us have to work every afternoon.

I just don't get copyright, if they want more money, then let them do more work for that money, just like everyone else.

[Alan Phipps]

@ felter: The difference there is that you were paid for doing that afternoon's work at an agreed rate of pay or with an agreed sum. You knew pretty much what you would get for doing it while or before you did the work (as long as you met or exceeded the required standards and maybe met any potential bonus criteria). So that was of relatively low risk to you.

For copyright material etc, the originator usually does not get paid while researching and doing the work at all (unless offered loans that must be met and repaid with interest later on) and instead takes a risk that an as yet unknown and hopefully sufficient income will be generated by the product of that work over some period in the future. Naturally, in that case, they don't want others plagiarising and distributing that original work for free or for their own profit rather than for the originator. Hence the introduction of copyright, patents, trademarks, registered brand-names, IPR and anti-piracy measures, etc.

There is also the issue of 'ownership' of the product. Did you own the product of your afternoon's work after you handed it over? The original copyright products remain the property of the originators (or their agents) until additional or changed ownership rights are licensed or sold.

[Morkonan]

When I was younger, I'd write song lyrics. These were the days before the internet and mobile phones. There was this rumour, a myth, that if you mailed to yourself, and then didn't open the envelope, a copy of the lyrics to your song(s) it would be a form of copyrighting your song(s) because you'd have proof you wrote those lyrics at that time, if it ever went to a court of law. I have no idea if this method was ever used or if it would have worked.

That form of Copyright is granted at the time you wrote the words. The whole "main yourself" thing is just a halphazard way to "prove it." A more sure way is to mail it in a Registered Copyright process, like this. In any event, you don't have to do any of these things for the written word.

...You might think everything you create is covered by copyright, but not necessarily so. As I understand it, it is a grey area of law.

It is not a grey area of law. It's very specific. Where it gets general is "copyright infringement and use."

For example, a photographer went out to where some monkeys were, left a camera that would take a photo and came back to see what happened. He found a pic of a monkey grinning into the camera. You probably know the picture I refer to. There then became a legal discussion as to who owned the copyright on the picture. The photographer? It was his camera after all, but no. It was decided the monkey had copyright over the picture. Don't ask me how that works, I am not a legal expert.

The monkey was not granted legal rights of copyright for that photograph, as far as I can tell, and appeals by various activists groups were not heard. WIPO article

So if I took a picture of you striking a pose, do I have copyright over the picture? What if I took a picture of a fish? Or a sunset? I am not going to assume that just because I took the picture on my camera (or phone as it is these days) that I have copyright over the content, and neither will an algorithm.

Because it involves another person, I can't really comment on it intelligently. But, AFAIK, you would have copyright over that photo.

What has an algorithm got to do with this? Well, when Article 13 is enforced, and while it is an unknown at this point if the UK will enforce it, we have our own mess to deal with right now, this forum will at some point have to enforce it. How can I know I won't be in breach of article 13? I need clarification and education.

(please also notice I've used no links, quotes or images in this post)

If you're thinking about "memes" - BBC - Memes are safe

Do you have a specific question about creative copyrights? Like, one area or some work you have created?

Myself I just don't get copyright at all, fullstop. I just don't get how someone can do some work and still get paid for that work 50 years later after making several hundreds of millions (in any currency) from that work. It's not right or fair don't get me wrong I think everyone is entitled to make a fair share on their work but many, many years later to still think and demand that you still be paid for some work you did in an afternoon. ...I just don't get copyright, if they want more money, then let them do more work for that money, just like everyone else.

The reasons behind Copyright have nothing at all to do with "money."

It's not about money, it's about allowing "art" and other creative endeavors to thrive and to still be created. THAT part is supported by artists and creators being guaranteed that they will and can be paid for their work and can financially benefit from having created it. Without that part, the idea is that many creative efforts that benefit our culture will be stymied because creators can not feed themselves by... creating.

Yes, money is a component. But it's part of Copyright Law because that is how creators can be encouraged to continue creating and can make a living doing it. By enforcing copyright, the creative and artistic people in our societies can continue to create and contribute to our culture.

There's also a very real concept of an individual owning their own labor. That's part of it, but the enforcement of copyright is for the benefit of all.

PS- For all, a "YT: A Fair(y) Use Tale on exactly what Fair Use and Copyright is all about. Love this clip.

[Alee Enn]

Do you have a specific question about creative copyrights? Like, one area or some work you have created?

I don't have anything specific to ask, but created this thread as a response to the EUCD passing yesterday. I am trying to clear up what we can and cannot do to be within the bounds of Article 13 when it eventually comes into force. Even if the UK does not enforce it, taking a stance that they are not in Europe and thus not bound by it, I'd still have to be careful when interacting with any site that it is enforced on, such as this forum.

I feel that this discussion is very important. A lot of information about the EUCD and article 13 and article 11 is flying around, and not all of it accurate. I beg the moderators to be lenient with this thread and split off any posts that venture into the taboo territory of doing illegal stuff. The idea is to clear up misinformation and help each other cope with the EUCD, not circumvent it.

And thank you for your replies, you cleared up a few points of confusion already

[Morkonan]

Do you have a specific question about creative copyrights? Like, one area or some work you have created?

I don't have anything specific to ask, but created this thread as a response to the EUCD passing yesterday. I am trying to clear up what we can and cannot do to be within the bounds of Article 13 when it eventually comes into force. Even if the UK does not enforce it, taking a stance that they are not in Europe and thus not bound by it, I'd still have to be careful when interacting with any site that it is enforced on, such as this forum....

As I understand it from previous discussions here and elsewhere, the whole idea was in response to some blatant content-jacking being done by some websites that are just content-stealers and re-labelers. So, someone would create a site that just goes out and steals news articles and rebrands them as its own. Instant content generation, no costs, no royalties or reprint considerations given, etc.. That made people angry.

Then, the whole "Youtube clip-hijackers" thing came up. It seems, and I know this is difficult to imagine happening, that some Youtube channels do nothing else but display video of commercial productions that are actually not owned by the channel creator. They then attempt to get advertising revenue from displaying these copyrighted works without making one tiny bit of effort to comply with "Fair Use" law. I know, right? Outrageous to think someone would do that!

And, now everything just got a heck of a lot more complex. How is "channel creator bot" going to know what's legal?

That is what, as I understand it, this law is all about. It's about websites stealing copyrighted works and then doing nothing at all to comply with existing Fair Use law but still managing to monetize that effort and get advertising dollars and all that. Well, you can't exactly find these people easily, right? By the time anyone tracks the creators down, they're long gone and the accounts that were being paid have long been drained. Who are you going to sue when the creator is Anonybot_87?

"I know, we'll sue the registered host! LOLZ!"

Edit:Add - This is what an attempt to get a private agency to help enforce the Law looks like. To get help with enforcing a "Law," which is usually in the domain of "Law Enforcement" a government threatens to fine/imprison private agencies that knowingly or unknowlingly participate in violating said Law. In that way, they ensure that private agencies will take action to enforce the Law and they can limit their own efforts and expense to enforce the Law by simply overseeing the activities of private agencies and not individual infractions. It "works" after a fashion, but things like this have to be very carefully constructed or you will soon NOT HAVE any such private agencies because nobody wants to "assume the overwhelming regulatory risk of operating as a private agency." It's a very touchy thing and many fear the E.U. has rushed to judgement here without understanding the environment they are trying to regulate.

/sigh

That's one thing that has caused a bit of a stir as you can imagine. Youtube doesn't particularly feel like being sued every day, all day, forever... And, neither does any other legitimate host. But, whatevs, the E.U. Law'dmakers are "internetz savvy," right? And, I'm sure as soon as they passed this law they all went to their Myspace pages and updated them.

Memes are safe. Anything covered in "Fair Use" is still safe. You can post pics and discuss them or use them to help demonstrate a point or expand your own commentary with impunity - No problem, you're safe. Egosoft if safe. Even if you accidentally linked to a youtube video that was, in fact, in violation to this law you and Egosoft would still be safe - Egosoft isn't hosting anything other than your own typed text. They are not a willing third-party participant in some attempt to violate E.U. 13.

That being said, Egosoft is in Germany and they have their own laws, too, concerning the granting of Copyright. Copyright enforcement is an "International Treaty thing." The E.U. Ruling, however, may have specific implementation in German Law and, AFAIK, those are the laws governing our EULA and TOS and Egosoft. They will know how best compliance should be met in keeping with German Law.

[Alee Enn]

While I can understand why memes would be considered safe or fair use as parody, it's the image used that could be copyright. To describe an example (because I'm still trying to post as if Article 13 and Article 11 are now in force) if I drew a picture in MS Paint of an image, that would be my creation, and thus not subject to someone else having copyright, no matter how similar the image is to the original, as long as there are some differences. If I then make a meme with my created version of an image, that meme is ok, no copyright content has been used, or I own the copyright of that content. If I used the original image for the meme, I don't own the copyright on that image, and if you used my created version of that image, you wouldn't have my copyright permission to use my version. Even if it falls under fair use as parody.

And that is why I am coonfused as to what is and isn't going to be bound by the EUCD.

[Morkonan]

While I can understand why memes would be considered safe or fair use as parody, it's the image used that could be copyright.

The fact that you can use such an image in such a work is why "Fair Use" exists.

To describe an example (because I'm still trying to post as if Article 13 and Article 11 are now in force) if I drew a picture in MS Paint of an image, that would be my creation, and thus not subject to someone else having copyright, no matter how similar the image is to the original, as long as there are some differences.

Yes and no. If the image is purposefully intended to copy the original copyrighted work, then you must then also demonstrate appropriate Fair Use in other ways. You can not draw a picture of what is obviously "Donald Duck" and then paint his shirt red and call it "original art." Keep in mind, things can be "Trademarked" too, which enters into a whole other set of conditions that include things like shapes and characters and even color-combinations. Trademark is a much stricter form of protection in that it is much more preceise.

If I then make a meme with my created version of an image, that meme is ok, no copyright content has been used, or I own the copyright of that content.

You own the copyright, but not because of what you drew since it is a derivative with little attempt at significant alteration. Instead, you own it because of what you then used it for - Fair Use. If you drew something that looked just like Donald Duck and then used that image to parody Donald Duck or drew on social understanding of Donald Duck to then provide additional commentary and meaning to what you were discussing, it's all in Fair Use as far as "Copyright" would be concerned. "Trademark", however, is a bit more diligent, but there are a few things there that would probably still allow for Fair Use up-to-a-point. You can not redistribute for sale a "Trademarked" thing. That's partly the purpose of Trademark protection. (As I understand it.)

If I used the original image for the meme, I don't own the copyright on that image, and if you used my created version of that image, you wouldn't have my copyright permission to use my version. Even if it falls under fair use as parody.

And that is why I am coonfused as to what is and isn't going to be bound by the EUCD.

I couldn't just link your image and claim "copyright" over it. You couldn't just copy/paste an image snagged off of Disney's website and then claim "copyright" over it. Significant and obvious alteration may have to be included and, of course, the way in which the image was used must also be examined.

You couldn't get in trouble by taking a photograph someone else created and has a Copyright on and then using it to illustrate a point in your discussion of a subject. You might, however, get into deep trouble by using a photograph and then claiming that photograph as your own, without significant alteration, and then commercializing that by selling it in a compilation, or alone, without appropriate licensing and permissions from the original creator/copyright owner.

Note: I am not an attorney. If you have any practical concerns in this area, there are websites and forums that specialize in answering Copyright/Trademark questions. And, again, German Law is not something I am familiar with. What I have stated is a reasonable understanding of the subject that could apply, here. It's not a professional or legal understanding under German Law ™.

[Alee Enn]

Thank you Morkonan, it just goes to show how confused I am about all of this. There is also an interesting point that prompts a question from me, I am in the UK, this forum is in Germany. For our example, let's say I uploaded something that could be considered to have content that is copyrighted, which country's laws take effect? (both now, and after the EUCD is enforced, what changes?) Are UK laws enforced because I'm the one uploading the copyrighted content? Are German laws enforced because the site I'm uploading to is in Germany? Or is there another variable I haven't considered?

[Alan Phipps]

As a partial answer, here in the UK you occasionally find apparently broken or blocked links to say music or video in posts in these forums that most/some other nations' users can obviously open. That is in part because the UK has different and probably more strict internet browser generic copyrighted material protection filters compared to some other countries. So in some respects the detection and filtering can be local to the recipient's nation regardless of the actual country of source or hosting.

[pjknibbs]

As a partial answer, here in the UK you occasionally find apparently broken or blocked links to say music or video in posts in these forums that most/some other nations' users can obviously open. That is in part because the UK has different and probably more strict internet browser generic copyrighted material protection filters compared to some other countries. So in some respects the detection and filtering can be local to the recipient's nation regardless of the actual country of source or hosting.

I don't think that's done on the browser side, I think it's blocked by the ISP using DNS. They'll use that technique for other things as well--for instance, if I go to www.teamviewer.com then my ISP redirects me to a page saying TeamViewer can be used by scammers. Yes, I know it can, but I kind of need to use it legit, Talk Talk...

[Alan Phipps]

Thanks for that additional useful info although I did mean more filtering 'of the browser' rather than 'by the browser'.

[linolafett]

There is also difference between "copyright" and "interlectual property".
You can grant someone the copyright for your work, but you can not transfer the interlectual property to the works (here in germany).

If i do art, i can sell the rights to use this work to someone, but i still own the work itself.

[Morkonan]

...Are UK laws enforced because I'm the one uploading the copyrighted content? Are German laws enforced because the site I'm uploading to is in Germany? Or is there another variable I haven't considered?

Legally, and traditionally, the Law of the nation in which the servers are located OR the laws where the entity that owns the material and where they are "incorporated" as a business are used to determine legal matters.

So, I would assume that somewhere on Egosoft's website is a declaration of governing laws for any EULA/TOS and that it would likely refer to the laws of Germany being the ones by which it enforces these conditions.

IOW, if it's UK Law, and not some treaty-bound agreement like EU stuffs, it is not in force - The Laws of Germany are the only ones that matter here. That would not change in the case of the UK and Brexit, for instance, because German Law is not changed because of that.

You, as a user of a private website, have no rights that are not guaranteed under German Law. Period. And, since this is a private website, I assume that German Law allows the owner to do basically whatever they want in terms of a EULA/TOS up-to-and-including banning you for misspelling Germany if that's what they wanted to do. (Or, just joy-hopping on the ban button until nobody was left, if that's what Egosoft wanted to do. And, I'm not sure they haven't actually wanted to do that several times over the years... )

When in doubt, consult the EULA/TOS or PM a mod to ask for direction.

(Note: The current EU thingie seeks to place some measure of responsibility on the "host" for displaying copyrighted work. But, I think that's pretty much BS and will eventually be severely limited to only certain types of infractions involving fraud and commercial activities. "Theft" on the other hand, would be one of those. But, that's not likely to occur here because Egosoft doesn't have the capacity to "host" very much other than, perhaps, a member's personal avatar/icon, which can't really be interpreted as anything other than Fair Use. While my own, for instance, is a character owned by whoever owns Bakshi's "Wizards," it was heavily modified and includes a background of "stars" for the sci-fi theme of the X forums. My original also includes a planet, etc, but you can't see that in the pic I have uploaded.)

[Alee Enn]

...Are UK laws enforced because I'm the one uploading the copyrighted content? Are German laws enforced because the site I'm uploading to is in Germany? Or is there another variable I haven't considered?

Legally, and traditionally, the Law of the nation in which the servers are located OR the laws where the entity that owns the material and where they are "incorporated" as a business are used to determine legal matters.

So, I would assume that somewhere on Egosoft's website is a declaration of governing laws for any EULA/TOS and that it would likely refer to the laws of Germany being the ones by which it enforces these conditions.

IOW, if it's UK Law, and not some treaty-bound agreement like EU stuffs, it is not in force - The Laws of Germany are the only ones that matter here. That would not change in the case of the UK and Brexit, for instance, because German Law is not changed because of that.

You, as a user of a private website, have no rights that are not guaranteed under German Law. Period. And, since this is a private website, I assume that German Law allows the owner to do basically whatever they want in terms of a EULA/TOS up-to-and-including banning you for misspelling Germany if that's what they wanted to do. (Or, just joy-hopping on the ban button until nobody was left, if that's what Egosoft wanted to do. And, I'm not sure they haven't actually wanted to do that several times over the years... )

When in doubt, consult the EULA/TOS or PM a mod to ask for direction.

(Note: The current EU thingie seeks to place some measure of responsibility on the "host" for displaying copyrighted work. But, I think that's pretty much BS and will eventually be severely limited to only certain types of infractions involving fraud and commercial activities. "Theft" on the other hand, would be one of those. But, that's not likely to occur here because Egosoft doesn't have the capacity to "host" very much other than, perhaps, a member's personal avatar/icon, which can't really be interpreted as anything other than Fair Use. While my own, for instance, is a character owned by whoever owns Bakshi's "Wizards," it was heavily modified and includes a background of "stars" for the sci-fi theme of the X forums. My original also includes a planet, etc, but you can't see that in the pic I have uploaded.)

With regards to avatars: I was using an ambigram of the word "alien". I didn't come up with it, I found it online and started using it. I did try contacting the person who designed it asking for permission to use it, and the first time he never replied, and the second time he replied and said I could use it for non-commercial use and he'd send me an agreement, but I never got it. So I decided to design my own logo, which I now use on this site and elsewhere, although in a few places I still use the ambigram.

I'd like to try to start compiling a list of what to and not to do to comply with the EUCD, but I don't think there's enough information yet.

[Morkonan]

...I'd like to try to start compiling a list of what to and not to do to comply with the EUCD, but I don't think there's enough information yet.

You're probably overthinking it a little bit. Unless you are intimately involved with the commercial side of copyright and trademark law, there's not really much you should be concerned with as far as I can tell from what I have read of the E.U. law.

They don't want you. They don't want some game company's website where a user might post a link to something or has a Mickey Mouse avatar. Even Disney, the most litigious company on teh Earf that jealously guards and stewards its entirely library of intellectual property doesn't want "you." The law is designed to go over content-thieves relabeling the work/articles produced by others so they can draw attention to their website for commercial advertising hits and running the gambit of fraud for a quick payback. They want to force hosts like Youtube to steward their websites to prevent someone from uploading "The Bridge on the River Kwai" in its entirety, in 12 minute segments, in order to make money off of the ads that are placed in it.

Even if someone wanted to come after you, you'd likely get a Cease and Desist letter and that would be it, since showing "damages" would be a bit problematic and pursuing anything further would cost real money.

If you are somehow making extensive use of third-party intellectual property, then you'll have to sharpen your pencil a bit. But, if not, don't worry about it. Teh Interwebz meme community has gone overboard ranting about this. Sure, I think that's fine and we need some people out there fighting for creative freedom and all that, but only up to the point where they start getting irrational about it.

IF the E.U. does, in fact, go overboard with this thing and starts to look at casual artistic expression artistically using third-party intellectual property that can be said to bring additional meaning and content to what has been created by the user, then my opinion would change and likely the opinion of many in the E.U.

[Chips]

Myself I just don't get copyright at all, fullstop. I just don't get how someone can do some work and still get paid for that work 50 years later after making several hundreds of millions (in any currency) from that work. It's not right or fair don't get me wrong I think everyone is entitled to make a fair share on their work but many, many years later to still think and demand that you still be paid for some work you did in an afternoon.

Well, consider this. You do some work, it's copyrighted and people pay to enjoy it or use it for whatever purpose (license).

Now imagine you do something brilliant - a song, a picture, but there's no such thing as copyright. Someone else comes along goes "oo, i like that - and now I shall use it" and they sell it to make HUGE amounts of money.

Copyright prevents people's work being exploited for profit by others. That's about the long and short of it. Big business cannot (although notably many have tried) just lift YOUR work and then make money out of it to their benefit, without compensating you.

I genuinely do not see what's so hard to understand on that point. It may be 20 years later, it still doesn't mean big business can just take what isn't theirs and make huge sums of money without compensating. Worse still, they may try to control it and use their power to overpower you.

I used to work for a company that had "Sky" in it's name (no, not THAT sky, a small start up which referring to colours of the sky). They got a legal letter from THAT Sky threatening court action to protect their interest. It was insane, i'm sure the company would have won if they stood their ground, but they caved and spent thousands rebranding.

You can say copyright protects big business and enables unfair practices - perhaps. But it is the same protections we all enjoy. If it weren't there... then I believe you'd find most content creators get zero reward for their work.
You may not like the length of time copyrights exist for, but it's long enough to protect someone within their lifetime.

There are cases where it should be challenged and perhaps overturned though - but those are usually "patents" (such as for drugs). If a drug (for example) cured all cancer forms, it should very rapidly be bought by the UN made freely licensed for member states to produce. The company finding it should be compensated richly, but they should not be able to hold humanity to ransom for profit.

[pjknibbs]

Copyright prevents people's work being exploited for profit by others. That's about the long and short of it. Big business cannot (although notably many have tried) just lift YOUR work and then make money out of it to their benefit, without compensating you.

I genuinely do not see what's so hard to understand on that point. It may be 20 years later, it still doesn't mean big business can just take what isn't theirs and make huge sums of money without compensating. Worse still, they may try to control it and use their power to overpower you.

I'm pretty sure he knows that. I think what he's complaining about is the *length* of copyright. In the US, at least, copyright seems to get extended every time there's a risk that Disney icons like Mickey Mouse will come out of copyright--it's going to be interesting to see what happens on the next such occasion in 2024.

[Chips]

I'm pretty sure he knows that. I think what he's complaining about is the *length* of copyright. In the US, at least, copyright seems to get extended every time there's a risk that Disney icons like Mickey Mouse will come out of copyright--it's going to be interesting to see what happens on the next such occasion in 2024.

Erm, not sure why that'd matter - but that's me responding to a specific? Copyright for the movies first made in the 1920's, whereas the trademark would stop you using the Mickey Mouse name or creating your own version isn't it? However, guessing it's less to do with Disney characters in this instance Need some examples, as otherwise far too generic

Copyrights are for artistic stuff, so I'd find arguments against it's length to be harder to justify than, for example, patents. But i guess in reference to the original post - more to do with quoting news on the forum? Dunno. The fault isn't with copyright, it's with a badly drawn up law at that point.

[Morkonan]

I'm pretty sure he knows that. I think what he's complaining about is the *length* of copyright. In the US, at least, copyright seems to get extended every time there's a risk that Disney icons like Mickey Mouse will come out of copyright--it's going to be interesting to see what happens on the next such occasion in 2024.

And, "Trademarks" don't have such restrictions, which is why "images" like Mickey Mouse are "Trademarked." BUT, there are some real problems with applying Trademark protections to something like Mickey Mouse. (Btw, that expiration is for the original work, not for the entire lexicon of Mickey Mouses or the Mickey Mouse IP as a whole.)

I don't think Disney is going to risk challenging Trademark law for an old depiction of Mickey Mouse. It "might," but what happens if it loses? Having the "threat" still existing may be worth more to them than winning a Trademark case for a Mickey Mouse that isn't the Mickey Mouse we know today. Dunno - Disney will crucify puppies to retain complete control over its IP. And, to be honest, I don't have an issue with that if use falls outside of "Fair Use."