Company Original Mickey © by Ub Iwerks?

[Tom Morrow]

Original Mickey © by Ub Iwerks?

Disney May Lose Rights To Mickey Mouse The Business Sheet Uncertainty about the original owners of Walt Disney's Steamboat Willie copyright suggests that the iconic version of Mickey Mouse may not belong to Disney after all. Disney's famous litigators had better get busy on this one. by Hilary Lewis complete article

Sent from Ezra

[Wedbliss]

This was also in the LA Times. It seems that because the name Walt Disney was not next to the copyright that, per the law of that time, the copyright comes into question. As you can see on the title card Ub Iwerks and Powers Cinephone are between Walt's name and the copyright.

Makes me sort of wish I was a Disney lawyer.

[Space Mountain]

duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuumb

-SPACE

[Alex_Toto_Disneyland]

Complete Stupidness.... Walt Disney Created Mickey because Oswald Left! And Mickey is Disney.. The End! lol
-Alex

[Executioner]

Wow.. Just wow. What people will not do to try and destroy someone else's stuff. I personally think that former grumpy employee needs some lessons in manners. Would he like it if someone was trying to take away his Iconic figure or what have you? No... Maybe he needs his house taken away, or his car, or his money. What valuables can be taken? I don't see how this whole thing could be in question. It's just stupid really.
So saying this is true and let's say Disney doesn't own the right's to mickey anymore..... What then? Does Disney have to change everything or do they have to pay huge royalties out just because of all the Mickey stuff in and around it's parks, stores, restaurants and hotels? Wiould any company or person be able to sell Mickey merchandise or......dare I say it........ Make their own Disneyland with Mickey in it?

[Ezra]

This would only cover the original style Mickey, because the copyrights are clear on all the re-designs that happened later. Only the rights to the vintage big-eyed, pointy-nosed, rubber-armed, long-tailed Mickey is in question.

We can eliminate Powers Cinephone (obviously, does it even exist now? Who would make a claim?), so that leaves Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks. So if Disney owns the modern mickey, but Iwerks' estate owned the version of Mickey that he designed and drew himself, I'd be okay with that. I'd love to know what Leslie Iwerks thinks about this?

This would be similar to Disney's copyright to Winnie-the-Pooh. Disney does not have the right to E. H. Shepard's book illustrations, only the cartoon images that Disney re-designed for it's films. That doesn't seem to be a problem for Disney, since the difference is easy to spot. This situation would be very similar.

[ryguy222]

Good god! People are so darned greedy these days!
He needs to be glad he still has his house, and all his stuff. In the past month 15 families in my neighborhood had a foreclosure! And its gonna continue to happen to other people.
I hope Disney wins this one.

[Kileli]

I heard this story a few years ago, and nothing has happened since, so I doubt anything will happen now.

[Executioner]

Originally Posted by Ezra

We can eliminate Powers Cinephone (obviously, does it even exist now? Who would make a claim?), so that leaves Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks. So if Disney owns the modern mickey, but Iwerks' estate owned the version of Mickey that he designed and drew himself, I'd be okay with that. I'd love to know what Leslie Iwerks thinks about this?

This would be similar to Disney's copyright to Winnie-the-Pooh. Disney does not have the right to E. H. Shepard's book illustrations, only the cartoon images that Disney re-designed for it's films. That doesn't seem to be a problem for Disney, since the difference is easy to spot. This situation would be very similar.

But some company or person has to own what was left of that company and or it's assets, films, audio banks or what have you. I see where you are going with all this though and it would be interesting to know Leslie's thoughts on this matter.

[Wedbliss]

Originally Posted by Kileli

I heard this story a few years ago, and nothing has happened since, so I doubt anything will happen now.

I don't think so either. Can you imagine anyone having the guts to tackle the Disney lawyers on this one? It could take years and years in court not to mention umpteen gazillion dollars. For what? The original design of Mickey Mouse? It doesn't seem like this design would be worth that much. It's not like someone could acquire the complete rights to Mickey, only the original design.

I also wonder how Leslie Iwerks feels about this. Heck, I wonder how Mickey feels about this!

[rgoofy]

Seems like about half the problems in this country would not exist but for excessive litigation and the agenda driven lawyers and judges who insist in undermining American institutions. Disney is certainly an American institution, so that must irk them too. If this goes to court, I hope Dumbo swoops in on them with the whole Disney crew on his back bombing the the Lawyers with rotten eggs.

[Jezebel]

the thing is that it was made by Walt. but I believe it is Iwerks who reworked it. so it is Walt as far as I'm concerned who owns the rights to the mouse. take that right away, than you just destroyed the foundation of one of the biggest companies in the world.

[Jacob Morris]

Originally Posted by Alex_Toto_Disneyland

Complete Stupidness.... Walt Disney Created Mickey because Oswald Left! And Mickey is Disney.. The End! lol
-Alex

Actually Ub Iwerks was the man who created Mickey Mouse, not Walt. There is even a book out WRITTEN BY DISNEY that states that. The Book is called The Man Behind the Mouse. Ub was a really good friend of Walts and his employee. The two of them made the cartoons, actually mainly Ub. Walt when the studio get really busy looked at the finished product frame by frame and approved them or made changes himself to them before they went out. Walt only truly animated towards the beginning. The book again is called The Man Behind the Mouse and it is a DISNEY EDITIONS BOOK PUBLISHED BY HYPERION BOOKS, DISNEY'S OWN PUBLISHING COMPANY.

You also have to remember that it all comes down to the contract that was negotiated and signed between the two men. And we haven't seen that. This is all about the placement of a copyright symbol in the title frame? laughable.

Here's how it works. If I own a company (Unicorn Productions, let's say), and you work for me at that company, you are developing ideas for MY company. In the real world, what happens most of the time is that a company will hire brilliant people to come up with ideas, suggestions and concepts to create products that will SELL. Then the company who copyrights the ideas, suggestions and comments owns them.

I once worked at a company and we made ball valves for the semiconductor industry. In one case, I made a configuration of existing parts to accommodate a customer's specific needs. It came out to be a pretty darned handy item. The company that I worked for patented and copyrighted the part and its documentation. So, do I own the ball valve that I created? Nope. And I didn't feel that I deserved to, either. And the actual engineers at my work who created/invented intricate parts and assemblies didn't expect ownership. What was created there, on company time, paid by company money, belonged to the company.

If I had created it, and then had the guts to go out on my own, perform my own R&D, spend my own money on parts, advertising, marketing, sales and distribution... then I would have deserved it. But I was getting all of the parts at my work, I was being paid to be there working, and I was making a specific part that was needed by a customer of the company that I was working for. If it weren't for the company I was employed at, I never would have known about the need for that specific part, and never would have been inspired to make it in the first place.

Perhaps Iwerks did receive compensation for his work. Most likely what we call a "paycheck"... and I am sure that royalties were negotiated before any of the cartoons were made.

[DaddyB]

It's not about Iwerks owning Mickey... it would be that because Iwerks never renewed the copyright, that version of mickey would pass into public domain... allowing ANYONE to plaster the "original" Mickey on anything... from huge merchandising companies in China and Korea to little granny-owned daycares in Florida painting them on their fences and walls.

IT IS NOT ABOUT ONE PERSON OR FAMILY TRYING TO GRAB MONEY

In fact, there is no lawsuit at all.

PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE. It's not about who created Mickey (and it WAS, by all truthful accounts, UB, by the way. Only Disney LEGEND spinners say that it was Walt, on a train on the way home from new york of somewhere). Mickey was in fact a VERY close (I'd personally call it a rip-off of) relation to Oswald the Lucky Rabbit.

There is a GREAT documentary by Leslie Iwerks about her father, which is titled the same as HER book "The Hand Behind The Mouse" (not "The MAN Behind The Mouse"). It is FASCINATING to watch, with some incredible photographs, stills and even EXTREMELY early animation from Walt & Co. - It plays on the Ovation Channel occasionally.

BUT AGAIN, it's not about some ONE getting rich, it's about whether the first Mickey is in the public domain FOR ALL. And the whole thing is kind of an academic legal argument that NO ONE is willing to bring to court because of Disney's incredibly deep pockets.

PLEASE READ THE ARTICLES

thanks!