That's correct, mostly. He doesn't need the hat since the other two cartoons that are public now depict him with different (or no) headwear. All three are black & white tho. This is from his wikipedia article:
On January 1, 2024, the copyrights of the first three animated Mickey Mouse cartoons and their portrayal of Mickey Mouse expired, and they entered the public domain. They are the silent cartoons Plane Crazy and The Gallopin' Gaucho, and the sound cartoon Steamboat Willie. Newer versions of Mickey Mouse will remain copyright protected.
Although Mickey Mouse lapsed into the public domain in 2024, the character, like all major Disney characters, remains trademarked, which lasts in perpetuity as long as it continues to be used commercially by its owner. So, whether or not a particular Disney cartoon goes into the public domain, the characters themselves may not be used as trademarks without authorization.
You're thinking of the public domain as if Walt Disney had given us a licence to use a particular depiction of Mickey Mouse.
It's not the case. It's hard to imagine after 100 years, but the character is now as free as Jesus, or Winnie the Pooh, or the three piglets. You can incorporate mickey into your story however you want, depict him however you like.
Is that the case? The way it was explained to me is that Mickey Mouse the character is still under trademark, but the short film Steamboat Willie is what falls under public domain now. I was told as an example that one couldn't use Mickey Mouse as a logo, but could make derivative works of Steamboat Willie.
You can take Mickey from Steamboat Willie, make him wink, give him tie-dye shorts and pink skin, and use him as the logo Mickey Dishwasher Soap—you can't use him as is for a trademark because it's too generic.
You can't use his ears for an animation studio or a TV channel because it's easy to confuse with Disney's trademarks.
Trademarks are limited by category (which is why Apple Computer got into a lawsuit with Apple Records only after Apple Computer launched iTunes, before it was perfectly fair) and enforced on similarity. Also a trademark has to be distinct but doesn't have to be original, you can use a bitten apple as a trademark but you can't copyright that shape.
Edit: another difference between trademarks and copyright is that you never lose the copyright, but you must keep enforcing a trademark. If you let your brand become the generic term for a product, if you let others use your mark without suing them, then you lose the rights over the name.
I think he does actually. Micky Mouse himself isn't public domain, just his appearance in Steamboat Willie.
That's correct, mostly. He doesn't need the hat since the other two cartoons that are public now depict him with different (or no) headwear. All three are black & white tho. This is from his wikipedia article:
You're thinking of the public domain as if Walt Disney had given us a licence to use a particular depiction of Mickey Mouse.
It's not the case. It's hard to imagine after 100 years, but the character is now as free as Jesus, or Winnie the Pooh, or the three piglets. You can incorporate mickey into your story however you want, depict him however you like.
axont is correct, actually. See my reply to them.
Is that the case? The way it was explained to me is that Mickey Mouse the character is still under trademark, but the short film Steamboat Willie is what falls under public domain now. I was told as an example that one couldn't use Mickey Mouse as a logo, but could make derivative works of Steamboat Willie.
You can take Mickey from Steamboat Willie, make him wink, give him tie-dye shorts and pink skin, and use him as the logo Mickey Dishwasher Soap—you can't use him as is for a trademark because it's too generic.
You can't use his ears for an animation studio or a TV channel because it's easy to confuse with Disney's trademarks.
Trademarks are limited by category (which is why Apple Computer got into a lawsuit with Apple Records only after Apple Computer launched iTunes, before it was perfectly fair) and enforced on similarity. Also a trademark has to be distinct but doesn't have to be original, you can use a bitten apple as a trademark but you can't copyright that shape.
Edit: another difference between trademarks and copyright is that you never lose the copyright, but you must keep enforcing a trademark. If you let your brand become the generic term for a product, if you let others use your mark without suing them, then you lose the rights over the name.