Lawyer Fernanda Vieira explains how copyright works in this case.
The year began (even, happy new year, dear readers) bringing with it some controversies, such as the case of the first version of the character Mickey being officially in the public domain. Property of Disney So far, there are many questions that people have asked about this change and its impacts.
Disney lovers that we are (and here, I am a lawyer on my own behalf too), we spoke with lawyer Fernanda Vieira, partner at Daniel Advogados and specialist on the subject, to clarify the consequences of this case for consumers, artists and, of course, for the Disney itself.
What is public domain?
This is a term used in the legal sphere to refer to all types of intellectual work, such as books, music, scientific creations and characters, which are no longer protected by copyright law.
This is public heritage, just like a park bench where anyone can sit, anyone can use this content to create on top of it. The logic is that, after years of exclusivity, this becomes something owned by society and can be used freely, explains Fernanda.
The public domain covers several circumstances that vary according to the legislation of each country, but commonly occur after the death of the original author. If he leaves successors, the law determines a specific period so that this material cannot be reproduced without authorization. In Brazil, this period is 70 years, but in the United States, the country where Mickey was created, it is only 95 years! This period starts from the first day of the year following the death of the author of the work.
On the other hand, if the original owner has no successors or is an unknown person (a non-public person), the material enters the public domain from the date of his death.
Where does Mickey fit into this story?
When the news became public, many internet users were unsure about which version or versions of Mickey the legislation would cover. This is due to the fact that, over 95 years, the Disney mouse has undergone several redesigns and updates.
The version that entered the public domain was the first, from 1929. For current Disney fans, who may not remember which version this is, it is the one that usually appears in the openings of the company’s animated films. This version features the adorable Mickey drawn by Walt Disney himself, dancing and whistling in the short film Steamboat Willie.
Check out the short below:
After all, is public domain something good or bad?
Another common question among those who browse social media daily is this. Soon after Mickey’s entry into this category, a film and a game were announced, both horror films, based on the Disney mascot. While, for some, this is disrespectful to the character’s image and should be limited, for others, it is important that people have creative freedom to explore this product in any way they want.
Brazilian legislation is very concerned with the moral rights and personality of the author who, even after death, has his memory preserved. Here (in Brazil) there is the right to integrity, which prohibits the use of works in the public domain to harm the honor and reputation of the author. In this sense, the United States is freer, as there is no concern for the honor of the original author, and it is an open space for creation, comments Fernanda.
From a creative point of view, using material to generate new content does not represent a problem, on the contrary. It is important to allow art to renew itself based on ethical concepts. The creation of new material, regardless of its origin, does not alter the morals established in the original work which, in this case, was immortalized 95 years ago.
To prove this point, the cover art of this article, designed to capture readers’ attention and add to the written content by representing the passage of time from Mickey’s first draft to what we know today, could only be created from the moment that This version of the character entered the public domain. Therefore, the existence of legislation that supports and respects the author is important and necessary, but opening doors so that other minds can add to what was done does not harm, but contributes to strengthening the image of the original work.
The Daniel Advogados partner shares a similar vision. According to her, as a lawyer, I believe I could have more arguments against these possible Mickey horror projects. However, even so, it would be a difficult case, because it involves placing more obstacles to block free creation on top of a work that has been protected for a long time.
*Supervised by Jssica Bitencourt
Follow Adnews on Instagrame LinkedIn. #WhereTransformationHappens
