I've noticed the addition of the Steamboat Willie animation into the Disney logo, but I always thought it was just a fun reference and callback to the origins of the company, a way to honor their heritage. I never realized that it was a skeezy way to dodge copyright law. That kinda makes me feel bad.
Honestly, it seems kind of dumb to me. Like, seriously, _who cares_ if people can use a centuries old version of Mickey that most people aren't even familiar with? Like, they can't seriously be making a noticeable amount of money off of content that old, and the current version, which is _very_ different, will still be protected by copyright. So I really don't get why they even care that much.
@Mikayla Eckel Cifrese Because we're living in end stage capitalism. It's not just about winning; it's about crushing everyone else. Not only does Disney want to bleed the consumer base for every penny they can, they also want to make sure that no one else can earn a single thing. Yes, letting Steamboat Willie go would have a negligible impact on their year-end profits, but they didn't rise to the top of the industry by being nice.
@@sageviper2981 the person taking over is owning the company and such, matpat will still be in FULL control over making his videos and will have even more time in order to do so to make even better content (if the deal hasnt finished already)
@@sharktenko267 Don't think it matters really, the creators will just make a character with two big circle on each side of the head and call it Micky or Mickie.
I don’t know why, but I absolutely love it when the theorist channels start talking about copyright, trademarks, and the public domain and seeing the lengths companies are willing to go to keep their IPs in their control.
If you want to distinguish Mickey, just take the buttons off his pants, or put four buttons instead of two. Make the tips of his shoes flatter or pointier or whatever. They never change Mickey’s clothes so if you mix up the clothes it isn’t Disney’s Mickey anymore. Their Mickey only ever has the single outfit. Or just stick to fanfics and fan art and upload them to FanFiction or DeviantArt.
Making a sequel or remake does not extend the copyright to the original, it just creates a situation where the original is in the public domain, but the sequel/remake isn't so imitators can only use characters and elements from the original.
Eh, the mouse is trademarked, so Mickey will never really go into the public domain. The copyright on his steamboat willy design is entering the public domain but that is all. The character overall is trademarked and trademarks last forever so long as a company maintains them, and a horror movie would likely get challenged right off the bat since the *character* will always be Disney's.
Have u seen the Roblox horror game Rickey Rat? It’s basically that and it’s like really well made at points u forget ur playing a block game. Highly suggest trying it out
To be fair, I would totally watch a "teens trapped in an abandoned house with a guy in a mouse costume killing them off" slasher flick called "House-Of-The-Mouse" or something...
I’m not gonna lie, ‘Bambi: The Reckoning’ made me laugh so hard I had to pause the video in order to collect myself. I had heard there may be a Bambi horror movie, so that in and of itself didn’t shock me. For some reason, the title just caught me by surprise and absolutely sent me
@@juliajohnson4080how I mean yea his mom got killed if in the first 10 minutes and he threw that one guy off a cliff in a fight but if anything it’s more realistic
This reminds me of Hasbro's relationship with the word 'transform'. You'll notice in most of the recent toy packaging and instructions, they advertise that the figure "converts in X number of steps" because if they overuse the word 'transform' it will become generic and allow other companies to sell 'transformers' toys instead if 'transforming robot toys'
The Peter Pan horror... yeah that one already exists in literary form. The book is called Lost Boy. And while it may not appear as a horror (and I would agree that it can be discussed whether it's horror or not) but once you start to think about it as a backstory, it becomes a bit chilling.
So Mini will be the one to go on a killing spree after the decapitation of her beloved Mickey by a giant mouse trap! We'll call it: Mini The Mouse, Cheese and Whine 😭
I love how matpat & team have made these videos impossible for Disney to copyright claim unless they want to make it canon that their mascot is a deranged evil kidnapping serial killer.
usually all this legal jargon doesn't hold my attention but wow, i didn't realize copyright and trademark laws were so blooming specific. thanks for presenting it all in an interesting way, matpat. i have a feeling this video is going to be pretty handy for a lot of people over the next few years.
Legal loopholes also existed with the mean one, a horror adaptation of how the Grinch stole Christmas. The character was simply never referred to as "the Grinch, whoville was named "newville", Cindy loohoo was named "Cindy you know who" among many other examples. And that film was still made much before the Grinch came to public domain.
Weird. Grinch is pretty much the modern family friendly version of Krampus. So it wouldn't be much of a stretch to turn that into a horror movie. Someone just has to look into the creepier parts of Christmas lore. They can get all sorts of ideas. The Christmas Carol is really creepy since it is about ghosts.
People have always been doing horror things with beloved characters. Worst fear for companies is when it becomes legal and can go on the big screen: public domain
Thanks matpat you've really made me understand about copyrights, trademarks and the public domain. I'm beginning to see how things work just right after you explained them
Has that peculiarly malevolent aura to it. Just like the company who created him. Walter probably looks from the spirit realm with frustration ever since at least the 80s.
Omg i actually need to thank matpat for this. I thought i would be confused asf while he was talking about copyright and trademark laws, but its actually far from it. Seriously, Matt has a strange gift to explain things so well. Thank you for teaching me and keeping me entertained in the process. Peace.
A Peter Pan horror room actually makes sense because Peter Pan is arguably the villain there. Captain Hook may not be fully innocent, but Peter Pan isn't much better.
I wanted to print out a book of music for the clarinet, and so I looked up a list of public domain music, believing it would be all classical stuff. But I was surprised to see names like Cole Porter, Irving Berlin, Harold Arlen...I hadn't realized some of the great songs that are now in the public domain.
There is a whole set of songs people would love for you to adapt. Look up copy-left. Also for examples of songs look up Pete Seeger, Faith Petric, Joe Hill or basically anything in a book called IWW's Little Red Songbook.
I watched this flick today and I am dumbfounded and impressed it exists. Kudos to the filmmakers, and I hope there's a sequel with Tigger, because that guy would be a terrifying adversary!
I think some good works could come out of this. Imagine a Winnie the Pooh or Mickey Mouse movie where instead of a edgy horror bloodbath there are more adult and deep themes that Disney isn't brave enough to depict. Something like Del Toro's Pinocchio but with disney characters. The fact that they necessarily have to distance themselves from the modern depictions of these characters to avoid copyright could ironically become an advantage instead of a limitation.
Matt actually had such a good opportunity to use the the Fine bros “react” trademark attempt to help explain why you can’t trademark ideas like “theory” 😂
As someone who was nicknamed Winnie the Pooh as a small child (due to my name being somewhat similar), I cannot tell you how weird this is. Even weirder than it is for everyone else.
learned about this from someone talking about how harry potter would have gone into the public domain with some of those older laws, but it’s good to see matt spreading the info to a wider audience here. gah, i just wish people were allowed to be creative and not be afraid of the stupid mega corporations like disney and WB.
@@herowither12354 and you should also be allowed to be creative with works that are getting older. and not have to wait like 150+ years to work with the characters, just because corporations are greedy.
@@r_puff I do think it does get a little much, I think it should be like, 100 years after publication, no matter when the creator dies. But also, besides that, I don't believe there is a single character that's over 100 years old that you cannot use.
I like the idea of the original winnie just walking in the public domain, only to stumble into this movie by accident after taking a shady path, and accidentally meet the slasher. "Oh bother, do you need help cleaning off that jam?"
it would be interesting to see a follow up episode of this talking about how companies can lose even their trademark because the wording itself becomes common use. I heard something along the lines of Kleenex does not want their name being used interchangeably with a tissue like, "can you pass me a Kleenex" and really you are just asking for any type of tissue paper. When a company's word is used for the generic meaning of that word those companies can lose the rights to that word itself. If we started using "mickey" to refer to every mouse we see I wonder if the same would be true.
Google, for the longest time, was trying that same argument actually. They lost it though, Google is now a word equivalent in meaning to "search" It's also why you got the "why don't you Bing it?" ads for a while, as they were trying to push their name more into the public eye, whilst not losing it, as they could trademark the term because of the ads.
Yep. This is a real problem with corporate language. I can't remember the name of it, but it is a real process and something that erodes trademarks. I don't think they necessarily lose the trademark though. It just makes it harder to defend certain uses of it. This is sort of how Donkey Kong exists. Kong is just a term in Japan for a gorilla (that and Universal claimed the character was in public domain so they could use him).
This is way off topic, but I'd love to see a theory on Osmosis Jones, and what kind of real world virus that Thrax could be representing. I think the movie is kind of hinting at Thrax being scarlet fever, given that Frank's symptoms start with a sore throat, the other germs are calling him, "muerte rojo" or Red Death, and he seems to be humming Peggy Lee's "Fever" in one scene. The problem with that theory being that he's referred to as a virus, and scarlet fever is a bacteria. So what virus looks like the common cold, and attacks DNA like Thrax does in the movie? Help! The internet needs Dr. Matpat, M.D.
I’ve never seen the movie but based on the name alone I would have guessed anthrax, BUT that wouldn’t work because it’s a bacterial infection, and you said it was a virus. interesting I have to watch this movie
8:29 I don't think Disney could claim copyright over a public domain character wearing a specific coloured shirt. Same way Holmes's author couldn't sue someone for a warm, caring version of Sherlock.
Well they SHOULDN'T, absolutely, but you know they're going to, they tried to sue a kindergarten for playing a Disney movie, they'll do anything to gain money.
Doesn't surprise me that Peter Pan is one of the ones next up to become a horror movie, depending on how you look at the original work it practically is close to being one already and probably would require surprisingly little adjustment to become full-on horror. Peter Pan just as an individual is just creepy.
Rhys Frake Waterfield will not use the Disney's Version, he would use the Paramount's version, 1911 or 1904 (The Paramount's version had enter in public domain in 2020, that version was published in Dec 29th 1924, before of new year 1925)
Reminded me of Phantom of the Opera, where everyone is writing their own Phantom story, but taking place after the story is said is done or changing part of the ending for our own amusement. Including a different version of Phantom of the Opera or beginning origin story.
Both copyrights and trademarks have big aspects that Matpat neglected here. For copyright, there's the aspect of "mise-en-scene" (which is similar but not quite the same as the theatre meaning). Basically, only aspects of a work that are sufficiently "expressive" and "original" can be copyrighted, so if something is too mundane or expected, it's not included. This could mean that Superman's other abilities count as long as they're the ones that superheroes tend to have (like flight). There's also the part where new versions of Superman would still get to own new elements that are themselves original (like if you decided that Superman now gets to revive the dead or something). For trademarks, there's both the issue of trademark erosion (when a trademark becomes the generic form for something and thus unable to be a trademark) and whether the use is relevant to the actual purpose of the trademark to begin with. I suspect the steamboat willy frames won't actually infringe unless used in thumbnails, since they don't actually work to identify a source if they're in the middle of an animation.
He literally did cover that. He literally went out of his way to cover the first point. With the copyright, he explicitly calls out that you can't use the from Winnie the Pooh, but you can have a generic kid, talking bear, pig and donkey having adventures in a forest. With trademark, that's irrelevant, as the Superman logo and crest are both already trademarked, and would be renewed with everything else, and that's for things like when names of a specific product get accepted as general lexicon. For instance, the hoover vacuum is the basis for the phrase "hoovering" to become synonymous with vacuuming. The company can't go after you for using them interchangeably, but they can come after you if you try to make a vacuum named the "hoover vacuum".
@@deadersurvival4716 Generic kid, talking bear, etc. aren't the parts I was talking about. Those the ideas before being fleshed out. Mise-en-scene as I understand it is more that the parts that are too common within the fleshed out version. That's why I gave the example of superheroes having flight extremely often, as that would make a good case for a public domain version of Superman being able to get flight as well. It's not that flight is generic, it's that it's ubiquitous within the genre. As for the trademark thing, trademark erosion isn't stopped by already having something trademarked, nor is the actual usage of the trademark irrelevant. Consider this: would DC really be able to stop an artist from showing an S on superman's shirt in the middle of a comic book if the reader has to buy the book to see it?
I suspect that the expression of those frames in that fashion as it forms a logo is where the trademark will stop. The frames themselves are all fair game, as would be any film that uses them. You just won't be able to reproduce Disney Animation's logo.
@@biggerdoofus Incorrect, because if they're common with the "fleshed out version" then you haven't really fleshed anything out. You're just taking advantage of basic expectations. If something is still generic in it's topic (a superhero with flight or high tech machinery), then giving something in that topic the generic abilities is still just generic. Giving a superhero flight or high tech doesn't make it fleshed out, because, as you said, they're practically standard. And if it's standard and generic, you can't copyright it. Correct, trademark erosion isn't stopped by having something already trademarked, but protecting something that you already have trademarked is excessively easier than trying to get a trademark. And yes, the actual usage is VERY relevant. On top of that, your actual question is also a "yes", and there's MANY evidences and examples that they not only can, but will, as that's happened with MANY knockoffs of Superman that already exist. There's a reason that all the knockoffs that exist don't use that symbol, and in a lot of cases, outright do whatever they can to rename the character, to put a different letter, and different design there.
That last point was huge recently because Google didn't want people to use 'google' to mean 'look something up', if it fully became meaning synonymous to that, it would not be possible for Google to keep their trademark on, well, google.
I actually was wondering if you were going to tackle this Theory because I was looking into it myself when I was going back explaining to someone about how Disney constantly changed copyright law to protect their ownership of Mickey Mouse. Happy to see you address it!!!
This explains so much how Brightburn became a “Superman” villain origin story and they still were able to make it without problems. It wasn’t the best movie but at least I know how they were able to make it. Thank you Film Theory! Learning a new thing every week!
Mattpat just casually criticizes it but if its solid criticism fused with fun, its way better. Try the Marvel-Parody 'Some More News' does and maybe after that his more-serious video about Media-Mergers and Disney.
I have theory that James Gunn proposed Warner to make Ultraman movie (I mean, evil Superman from DC's Earth 2). They refused, so they make few changes and make it anyway. Then they hired him.
I went over these copyright issues during my education training, and thankfully the general upshot for teachers is that educators have wide latitude to use copyrighted material with proper credit.
i think video game developers need to keep an eye out on these domains opening up. being able to make collabs without the years of communicating towards how the collaboration works out could be really good for some games.
The movie intro in that creepy drawing form was so amazing. Made you feel bad for them and it kinda made me feel like it would have worked as a short film 🤷🏾♂️
I swear I heard matpat's voice change @11:20 . Is anyone else noticing this? For two theories now I heard a change. it's slight, but it's there. I don't think it's bad or anything like that, just something I noticed. So be aware if Mat talks more about AI voice scripts, I think he's already using them and testing the waters. I see you, Matt.
Ya, I noticed it two. You're not crazy 😅 But I just thought that many he had gotten sick when he was recording these scripts and it wasn't extreme enough to warrant someone else do them.
The difference between voices sounds like his voice got more snuffled, I think he might have recorded two halves of the video at different times, and got sick somewhere between those two halves
An really funny thing about the whole IP law debacle and Disney, is that, in the Chip and Dale movie, the "original Sonic design" character appears in It....but without Sega's permission, as they didn't ask to put Sonic in, just using the legal hoophole of parody
As soon as a bunch of the more modern depictions of characters are out, I can’t wait for the creepypasta horror movies to be made. It may be somewhat cheesy, but Abandoned by Disney would be an entertaining horror movie.
Like the NBA, I welcome the Chinese censors into my home and into our hearts. I too love money more than freedom and democracy. Xi doesn't look just like Winnie the Pooh at all. Long live the Great Communist Party of China! May this autumn's sorghum harvest be bountiful!
I've been binge watching every theory channel ever since I stopped 3 months ago due to exams. I'm watching in the toilet and anywhere possible you can imagine. I'm loving this
16:37 That animation is most likely NOT the original animation from Steamboat Willie, because it should be followed by Mickey pulling the strings for the boat whistles right after he has finished whistling. That was not included in the new logo, so it must've been new animation, but in the style of the original.🤔
you gotta love copyright laws: can't protect artists from getting their art being fed to AI, but boy howdy can they protect corporations from getting their characters used in creative ways
I mean, this is why Herlock Sholmes exists. Sherlock, as we know him, cannot be used because of these ideas, but then someone got a really good idea to make a knock-off Sherlock who was much more like later depictions of Sherlock. Thus, Herlock Sholmes became the main-stay name for "Sherlock, but not really" characters.
My favorite is Homelock Sheers and Wat Johnson from The contemporary at the time, Arsen Lupin series. absolute mockery built from a copyright claim from arthur conan doyle himself when the author included sherlock in the first book. the books are in the public domain if you want to see the iconic gentleman burglar Lupin!
13:45 I know this is a half serious joke but this is exactly my dream! But I have for quite a while built up a plan of stuff inspired by the book instead.
@@BlueDauntless Fun Fact: the reason why Disney will not have a Tarzan remake is because Disney no longer owns the rights to Edgar Rice Burrough books series that the film is based on. It's now public domain.
One of the worst thing I've seen from these kind of laws is that the AFL (Australian Football Legue) (I'm Aussie) wants to start an official AFL team for Tasmania, but they can't call themselves the 'Tassie/Tasmanian Devils, an Aussie animal, and their state animal, because Warner Brothers owns the trademark to the name 'Tasmanian Devil', and they're currently in the middle of a lengthy legal battle for the rights for the name.
I hope MatPat covers the Welcome Home Puppet Show at some point, while it's got that "kids thing turned evil" aspect, it's been in production for years and it's quality, especially the use of REAL puppets, is incredible
Me, too! The art is incredibly high-quality and small independent artists deserve recognition. Welcome Home looks incredibly realistic and I can't wait to learn more about the world and lore behind it!
As a fan of the art of movies; i can apreciate the relative novelty of the concept and hope they improve their writing and skill over time. some of the greatest movie makers had EARLY great ideas that were badly done. give 'em some rope.
Not gonna lie, I would love to see if an Indie studio was able to make a fascinating reimagining of Batman, based purely on his golden age incarnation. That is the hero we probably don’t deserve or need but when I would definitely like to see. (Also I’m pretty sure they would have to call it something like “The Gothic Adventures of the Mysterious Bat-Man” or something like that if they want to sneak around trademark.$
Trademarks are actually even weirder than what was gone into in this video. You can actually outright use names of characters. Batman, Superman, ect. as they are names. You can't trademark a name, but the iconarary around it. The issue being, they could still threaten the lawsuit around that, and it's not easy to fight the big guys, but it's not illegal to use their names.
12:46 Fun fact the hyphen in Spider-Man's name was inserted because Stan Lee felt that he could get into legal troubles with DC without it because both Superman and Spider-Man's names started with S and ended with man.
@@GOODYGOODGOOD789 Also, Stan Lee wanted to avoid confusion between the two characters, even though there is this comic book series literally called, and, this is the actual title, “New Super-Man.”..
As an animation student, it's great to see this taught in a simpler way, really helps you understand everything in a fun and funny way Thanks for helping me remember stuff for my finals
@@deadersurvival4716 Imo i think its kind of just hate watching like with Velma, or just the hype that was built up. I doubt the 2nd one will have any success.
@@lilsquiddle1964 So, you admit the first one had success, acknowledging that, counter to your original point, it did, in fact, work. I never said anything about it being good, why people watched it, or whether a second would succeed; because all of those are irrelevant to the core point YOU made. The first one OBJECTIVELY worked, as (even MatPat calls attention to) it made literally multiple millions of dollars with an overhead of under 100k. They made back a double digit multiple of what they put in. A bad movie can be replaced. Getting low ratings isn't a bother, especially when you can release two different movies with 10x the budget, off of the profits of the first. They don't even have to make them a sequel, they now have two almost free movies with 10x the budget they had for this one, and if they keep the same budget, that's twenty different chances to "get it right", which is STILL going to be lowballing it, because those movies are going to make enough for a handful of attempts in themselves.
I hope no one's take-away here is that copyright is bad. It's the only protection any creator has that large companies won't just take your work and milk all the money they can out of it.
Copyright as a _concept_ isn't bad, true. What's bad is huge companies lobbying the government to make copyrights last an unreasonably long time. Like, seriously, there's absolutely no good reason a copyright should extend 70 years after the death of the original author.
@@certifiednobody They try to weaponize it, sure. Without it, it's entirely up to who can sell their version better though. And small creators have no chance against corporations in that regard, on every single front.
@@certifiednobody"a monopoly on ideas" So, you can't have your own ideas? It is a physical impossibility to create a new Superhero, or fantasy world, or children's character, simply because Disney and other companies are defending specific ones?
I know Jakeneutron has already covered it all, but I want to see more people talk about Oswald The Lucky Rabbit. Jake currently made a whole new look, with the name Public Ozwald. It isn't a "theory-must" but if anyone on the theory team is reading this, definitely look into it. It's an interesting thing going on right now-
The whole trademark thing reminds me of Jirard The Completionist and his battles with it. Specifically the 'defend it or lose it' bit as he talked about how sometimes it really sucks going after otherwise minor things that break trademark because if he didn't he could lose his claim to it.
hey, Quick idea for a film theory. You guys should do a video on the owl house. The last episode comes out in two weeks and it would be nice for the show to get some recognition from you guys since it's ending way too soon. No pressure if you have seen this but it would still be nice.
I know this is completely random to say, but I'm so glad that when mat pay mentioned how different countries have different systems for copyrighting that one of the 3 countries he featured on screen was Australia An oddly nice thing to see since I don't really see many people featuring the country where I live It's nice to see Australia being recognised for once ^^
5:47 Oh MatPat, you forget about a certain "34th rule" of the internet, that poor gaggle of living stuffed animals has already entered a form of public domain.
Sure there's a lot of restrictions but I can't wait for people to go crazy on this stuff. They always surprise me how far they're willing to go and I love it.
Concepts can't be copyrighted, as you said. So superman's abilities aren't under copyright. He can fly as soon as soon as his name and likeness are freed up.
Great theory on this one. In the case of Mickey, sure his copyright will up soon, but I feel like the only value Mickey has is the value Disney has given him over the generations. By all accounts, he's Disney's OC & even if someone wanted to use him in some form, he's so synonymous with Disney that it wouldn't matter. I'd argue that time would be better spent trying to recreate Mickey's success rather than find a way to use him when he does become available.
Matpat literally taught me more about public domain, copyright and trademarks, than any of my schools could.
You never took a business class?
@@MaxRamos8 whaaat? unimaginable
Same lol I’ve actually learnt so much from his channels and well nothing from school 😭
@@acutedog9189 how so did you not even finish high school?
Thats your first problem
I've noticed the addition of the Steamboat Willie animation into the Disney logo, but I always thought it was just a fun reference and callback to the origins of the company, a way to honor their heritage. I never realized that it was a skeezy way to dodge copyright law. That kinda makes me feel bad.
It's rather smart if you think about it, nobody would recognise it unless they'd seen the original steamboat willie animation
Honestly, it seems kind of dumb to me. Like, seriously, _who cares_ if people can use a centuries old version of Mickey that most people aren't even familiar with? Like, they can't seriously be making a noticeable amount of money off of content that old, and the current version, which is _very_ different, will still be protected by copyright. So I really don't get why they even care that much.
@Mikayla Eckel Cifrese Because we're living in end stage capitalism. It's not just about winning; it's about crushing everyone else. Not only does Disney want to bleed the consumer base for every penny they can, they also want to make sure that no one else can earn a single thing. Yes, letting Steamboat Willie go would have a negligible impact on their year-end profits, but they didn't rise to the top of the industry by being nice.
@@Celestia282 end stage? elaborate
@@kingofsomething3250 The final form of capitalism, where everything is controlled by capital
I love how mat manages to stay consistent with all his channels
i wish every bot a shitty saturday
I hope that whoever is supposed to take over keeps the quality of these videos up
These bots are crazy 💀
@@sageviper2981 the person taking over is owning the company and such, matpat will still be in FULL control over making his videos and will have even more time in order to do so to make even better content (if the deal hasnt finished already)
@Jack Wrath We need to watch this
Gotta give it to Disney - Trademarking literal frames of animation was genius
I'm curious if that will hold in court
@@sharktenko267 Don't think it matters really, the creators will just make a character with two big circle on each side of the head and call it Micky or Mickie.
@@taskdon769 micky the mousey ;-;
@@thuta9548 nicky the rat
@@Zero-ve4ltRickey the Rodent
Ok, we NEED a stop motion animated adaptation of the original Winnie the pooh
That would actually be beautiful
They did Moomins a while ago and it was amazing, check it out if you like them :)
Now all of a sudden, Winnie the Pooh becoming public domain doesn’t seem so bad.
There's a soviet animated Winnie the Pooh... It's a refreshing take on the old bear, feels just like a storybook.
I wanna do it now that sounds so cool
I don’t know why, but I absolutely love it when the theorist channels start talking about copyright, trademarks, and the public domain and seeing the lengths companies are willing to go to keep their IPs in their control.
Making learning about boring laws fun is something I appreciate in someone.
Well now mickey is public 💀
Watching in January 2024
@@AZGamezYTsame
@@sasukeuchiha9071 u came from the danno video?
@@AZGamezYTI did
If you want to distinguish Mickey, just take the buttons off his pants, or put four buttons instead of two. Make the tips of his shoes flatter or pointier or whatever. They never change Mickey’s clothes so if you mix up the clothes it isn’t Disney’s Mickey anymore. Their Mickey only ever has the single outfit. Or just stick to fanfics and fan art and upload them to FanFiction or DeviantArt.
Replace the buttons with a belt :D
@@ErrorNamenotfound-mx7bv"Replace it with many belts" - Tetsuya Nomura
They never change Mickey's clothes? There was literally an era from where Mickey wore all kinds of clothes for nearly 50 years.
Oh right! Like Late Milton Mouse over at Van Beuren
This might actually explain why they're doing all these live action remakes. A means to maintain rights to their versions of these characters.
Making a sequel or remake does not extend the copyright to the original, it just creates a situation where the original is in the public domain, but the sequel/remake isn't so imitators can only use characters and elements from the original.
Most of the movies they are remaking have still quite a lot of time before they enter the public domain
They actually did that with Winnie the Pooh with Christopher Robin.
this is literally exactly why
wow that actually makes a lot of sense 🙎
A horror movie with Mickey Mouse would be quite unique
Eh, the mouse is trademarked, so Mickey will never really go into the public domain. The copyright on his steamboat willy design is entering the public domain but that is all. The character overall is trademarked and trademarks last forever so long as a company maintains them, and a horror movie would likely get challenged right off the bat since the *character* will always be Disney's.
Oh maybe we can get abandoned by Disney.
Nope remember the trade mark.
Have u seen the Roblox horror game Rickey Rat? It’s basically that and it’s like really well made at points u forget ur playing a block game. Highly suggest trying it out
Willy’s Steamboat Slaughterhouse
Someone is 100% going to make a horror movie based on all of the Disney characters 😂
id watch it
To be fair, I would totally watch a "teens trapped in an abandoned house with a guy in a mouse costume killing them off" slasher flick called "House-Of-The-Mouse" or something...
They did it’s South Park
@@117MasterSpartan mf what
Abandoned by Disney movie
I’m not gonna lie, ‘Bambi: The Reckoning’ made me laugh so hard I had to pause the video in order to collect myself. I had heard there may be a Bambi horror movie, so that in and of itself didn’t shock me. For some reason, the title just caught me by surprise and absolutely sent me
Tbh the original Bambi is pretty dark to begin with, so I wasn’t shocked
@@juliajohnson4080 yeh
Literally the snl sketch
Bambi finally gets revenge
@@juliajohnson4080how I mean yea his mom got killed if in the first 10 minutes and he threw that one guy off a cliff in a fight but if anything it’s more realistic
This reminds me of Hasbro's relationship with the word 'transform'. You'll notice in most of the recent toy packaging and instructions, they advertise that the figure "converts in X number of steps" because if they overuse the word 'transform' it will become generic and allow other companies to sell 'transformers' toys instead if 'transforming robot toys'
The Peter Pan horror... yeah that one already exists in literary form. The book is called Lost Boy. And while it may not appear as a horror (and I would agree that it can be discussed whether it's horror or not) but once you start to think about it as a backstory, it becomes a bit chilling.
Link
@@Byte_64 its a book you cant get a link
I mean the original Peter pan is already horror enough (kidnaps children, kills lost boys who grow up, etc.)
@@thegoldenfox951 it's like those Facebook things where kids are looking at a newspaper like "why won't the buttons work"
@@lopezroilans.8384 they did the peter pan story well in the tv show once upon a time
Not Only the Original Mickey will be in the Public Domain, people forget about the original Minnie and Pete will also too.
So Mini will be the one to go on a killing spree after the decapitation of her beloved Mickey by a giant mouse trap! We'll call it:
Mini The Mouse, Cheese and Whine 😭
@@scourgeofman4980 your thinking too small 50 shades of mini soon come
@@Pacbandit13
Nah, Nah, 50 Shades of Pete with Pete and Minnie in the starring roles.
Who's Pete?
@@LooneyLunatic21 That's Mickey's arch nemesis he's the captain of the ship in Steamboat Willie
disney’s worst fear is the kung fu panda franchise, it’s going to put disney out of business
I cannot agree more, Disney is going to get crushed by Dreamwork's Kung Fu Panda!
@DontReadMyProfilePicture.6k
Agreed
@@tessaliasopapilla totally
Is there another movie coming out I thought the story was over
I love how matpat & team have made these videos impossible for Disney to copyright claim unless they want to make it canon that their mascot is a deranged evil kidnapping serial killer.
@RewindOGTeeHee what do you mean by that?
They should copy right strike it I wanna see it become canon
Why do people say it’ll become canon? It won’t.
usually all this legal jargon doesn't hold my attention but wow, i didn't realize copyright and trademark laws were so blooming specific. thanks for presenting it all in an interesting way, matpat. i have a feeling this video is going to be pretty handy for a lot of people over the next few years.
Legal loopholes also existed with the mean one, a horror adaptation of how the Grinch stole Christmas. The character was simply never referred to as "the Grinch, whoville was named "newville", Cindy loohoo was named "Cindy you know who" among many other examples. And that film was still made much before the Grinch came to public domain.
Weird. Grinch is pretty much the modern family friendly version of Krampus. So it wouldn't be much of a stretch to turn that into a horror movie. Someone just has to look into the creepier parts of Christmas lore. They can get all sorts of ideas. The Christmas Carol is really creepy since it is about ghosts.
Cindy You know whos that Made me laugh out loud
I also personally think that Hilda, ren and stimpy, Amphibia and who framed Roger rabbit could work as horror films.
People have always been doing horror things with beloved characters. Worst fear for companies is when it becomes legal and can go on the big screen: public domain
Thanks matpat you've really made me understand about copyrights, trademarks and the public domain. I'm beginning to see how things work just right after you explained them
Watching a simple theory?
Well jokes on you, you just learned how the copyright and trademarks work!
To be fair, Reimagining characters without their iconogrophy sounds like a great way to get to the core of a character in creative ways.
And you CAN'T trademark or copyright a personality... I hope
@@mikethegoo i'm sorry, sir, but you cannot act like that anymore. your personality is now owned by the disney company
@@earthwormlen36 Goddammit!
@@mikethegoofirst time getting copyrighted huh?
Been a while since we’ve heard the Mickey Mouse voice over here. Still just as good as always :)
Beap Boop I am Bot
i am a bot also
Has that peculiarly malevolent aura to it. Just like the company who created him. Walter probably looks from the spirit realm with frustration ever since at least the 80s.
Omg i actually need to thank matpat for this. I thought i would be confused asf while he was talking about copyright and trademark laws, but its actually far from it. Seriously, Matt has a strange gift to explain things so well. Thank you for teaching me and keeping me entertained in the process. Peace.
A Peter Pan horror room actually makes sense because Peter Pan is arguably the villain there. Captain Hook may not be fully innocent, but Peter Pan isn't much better.
I wanted to print out a book of music for the clarinet, and so I looked up a list of public domain music, believing it would be all classical stuff. But I was surprised to see names like Cole Porter, Irving Berlin, Harold Arlen...I hadn't realized some of the great songs that are now in the public domain.
There is a whole set of songs people would love for you to adapt. Look up copy-left. Also for examples of songs look up Pete Seeger, Faith Petric, Joe Hill or basically anything in a book called IWW's Little Red Songbook.
Ironically I kept telling my friends "someone should turn Disknee movies into horror movies" can't believe someone actually did that LMAO
This theory was legit scarier than the actual movie
I watched this flick today and I am dumbfounded and impressed it exists. Kudos to the filmmakers, and I hope there's a sequel with Tigger, because that guy would be a terrifying adversary!
Absolutely. I mean, the dude can not only bounce, but he can bounce high.
@@ajward9112 I'd also love to see Owl swooping down like a ninja out of nowhere.
No
@@kawaiiamethist Oh yes - Owls are already naturally scary birds. That could be next level horrific
Ok now I'm officially convinced he can turn anything into a theory.
Ikr
dude there are links everywhere
He’s turned clothes into theory’s I bet he can turn doors into theory’s as well
And maybe he can turn chairs into theorys
@JackWrath3.. Imagine someone not knowing how to breath oxygen...😂🤣!! Get a better trap next Time!!!
I think some good works could come out of this. Imagine a Winnie the Pooh or Mickey Mouse movie where instead of a edgy horror bloodbath there are more adult and deep themes that Disney isn't brave enough to depict. Something like Del Toro's Pinocchio but with disney characters.
The fact that they necessarily have to distance themselves from the modern depictions of these characters to avoid copyright could ironically become an advantage instead of a limitation.
Grimm's tales, e.g.
I don't think so!
Yeah but film makers are lazy and often prefer a quick buck especially if they can use shock factor to get views.
Matt actually had such a good opportunity to use the the Fine bros “react” trademark attempt to help explain why you can’t trademark ideas like “theory” 😂
Trademark* you said the wrong term.
@@mr_indie_fan correction taken 🫡
1:47 " Yes you sitting at home without your pants on" had me laughing so hard. 😂
As someone who was nicknamed Winnie the Pooh as a small child (due to my name being somewhat similar), I cannot tell you how weird this is. Even weirder than it is for everyone else.
😢
How does that give you a status to say how weird this is, its not even weird? You just hear the name and what?
learned about this from someone talking about how harry potter would have gone into the public domain with some of those older laws, but it’s good to see matt spreading the info to a wider audience here. gah, i just wish people were allowed to be creative and not be afraid of the stupid mega corporations like disney and WB.
You are allowed to be creative. By making new characters.
@@herowither12354 and you should also be allowed to be creative with works that are getting older. and not have to wait like 150+ years to work with the characters, just because corporations are greedy.
@@r_puff I do think it does get a little much, I think it should be like, 100 years after publication, no matter when the creator dies. But also, besides that, I don't believe there is a single character that's over 100 years old that you cannot use.
@@herowither12354 if jk Rowling dies sometime after 2038, there will be
@@herowither12354 100 years is a really long time
I like the idea of the original winnie just walking in the public domain, only to stumble into this movie by accident after taking a shady path, and accidentally meet the slasher. "Oh bother, do you need help cleaning off that jam?"
Is your profile picture... traumacore?
You know Proxima, honestly? It'd be neat if the monster just responded by politely appreciating it and sending the original on his way.
@@inacatt Nah, They're literally just blind. I don't really have trauma.
Okay that was a lie, but still :)
I love the Kingdom Hearts references in this video. Great job MattPat, never thought you could do that! Combined two of my favorite worlds 🥹🥹
it would be interesting to see a follow up episode of this talking about how companies can lose even their trademark because the wording itself becomes common use. I heard something along the lines of Kleenex does not want their name being used interchangeably with a tissue like, "can you pass me a Kleenex" and really you are just asking for any type of tissue paper. When a company's word is used for the generic meaning of that word those companies can lose the rights to that word itself. If we started using "mickey" to refer to every mouse we see I wonder if the same would be true.
Google, for the longest time, was trying that same argument actually. They lost it though, Google is now a word equivalent in meaning to "search" It's also why you got the "why don't you Bing it?" ads for a while, as they were trying to push their name more into the public eye, whilst not losing it, as they could trademark the term because of the ads.
Yep. This is a real problem with corporate language. I can't remember the name of it, but it is a real process and something that erodes trademarks. I don't think they necessarily lose the trademark though. It just makes it harder to defend certain uses of it. This is sort of how Donkey Kong exists. Kong is just a term in Japan for a gorilla (that and Universal claimed the character was in public domain so they could use him).
This is way off topic, but I'd love to see a theory on Osmosis Jones, and what kind of real world virus that Thrax could be representing. I think the movie is kind of hinting at Thrax being scarlet fever, given that Frank's symptoms start with a sore throat, the other germs are calling him, "muerte rojo" or Red Death, and he seems to be humming Peggy Lee's "Fever" in one scene. The problem with that theory being that he's referred to as a virus, and scarlet fever is a bacteria. So what virus looks like the common cold, and attacks DNA like Thrax does in the movie? Help! The internet needs Dr. Matpat, M.D.
Pretty sure they did more than imply, I learned about scarlet fever from that movie.
I’ve never seen the movie but based on the name alone I would have guessed anthrax, BUT that wouldn’t work because it’s a bacterial infection, and you said it was a virus. interesting I have to watch this movie
8:29 I don't think Disney could claim copyright over a public domain character wearing a specific coloured shirt.
Same way Holmes's author couldn't sue someone for a warm, caring version of Sherlock.
Well they SHOULDN'T, absolutely, but you know they're going to, they tried to sue a kindergarten for playing a Disney movie, they'll do anything to gain money.
Disney *can* sue.
Disney might win.
It *will* hurt.
The process is the punishment.
They sued a family wanting to use a spiderman gravestone for their kid because it would "ruin his image".
They can, because is essential part of their version of specific character
Innocent child, Disney is a powerful corporation, they would 100% do this
11:10 matpat turned into kermit while explain ING copyright lmao
Doesn't surprise me that Peter Pan is one of the ones next up to become a horror movie, depending on how you look at the original work it practically is close to being one already and probably would require surprisingly little adjustment to become full-on horror. Peter Pan just as an individual is just creepy.
Yeah now that if it's done right (which I doubt) can be an actual ok/good movie!
That TV show when they did with the fantasy characters, they made Peter Pan as a joker like antagonist. It was brilliant
Rhys Frake Waterfield will not use the Disney's Version, he would use the Paramount's version, 1911 or 1904 (The Paramount's version had enter in public domain in 2020, that version was published in Dec 29th 1924, before of new year 1925)
Reminded me of Phantom of the Opera, where everyone is writing their own Phantom story, but taking place after the story is said is done or changing part of the ending for our own amusement. Including a different version of Phantom of the Opera or beginning origin story.
Both copyrights and trademarks have big aspects that Matpat neglected here. For copyright, there's the aspect of "mise-en-scene" (which is similar but not quite the same as the theatre meaning). Basically, only aspects of a work that are sufficiently "expressive" and "original" can be copyrighted, so if something is too mundane or expected, it's not included. This could mean that Superman's other abilities count as long as they're the ones that superheroes tend to have (like flight). There's also the part where new versions of Superman would still get to own new elements that are themselves original (like if you decided that Superman now gets to revive the dead or something). For trademarks, there's both the issue of trademark erosion (when a trademark becomes the generic form for something and thus unable to be a trademark) and whether the use is relevant to the actual purpose of the trademark to begin with. I suspect the steamboat willy frames won't actually infringe unless used in thumbnails, since they don't actually work to identify a source if they're in the middle of an animation.
He literally did cover that.
He literally went out of his way to cover the first point. With the copyright, he explicitly calls out that you can't use the from Winnie the Pooh, but you can have a generic kid, talking bear, pig and donkey having adventures in a forest.
With trademark, that's irrelevant, as the Superman logo and crest are both already trademarked, and would be renewed with everything else, and that's for things like when names of a specific product get accepted as general lexicon. For instance, the hoover vacuum is the basis for the phrase "hoovering" to become synonymous with vacuuming. The company can't go after you for using them interchangeably, but they can come after you if you try to make a vacuum named the "hoover vacuum".
@@deadersurvival4716 Generic kid, talking bear, etc. aren't the parts I was talking about. Those the ideas before being fleshed out. Mise-en-scene as I understand it is more that the parts that are too common within the fleshed out version. That's why I gave the example of superheroes having flight extremely often, as that would make a good case for a public domain version of Superman being able to get flight as well. It's not that flight is generic, it's that it's ubiquitous within the genre.
As for the trademark thing, trademark erosion isn't stopped by already having something trademarked, nor is the actual usage of the trademark irrelevant. Consider this: would DC really be able to stop an artist from showing an S on superman's shirt in the middle of a comic book if the reader has to buy the book to see it?
I suspect that the expression of those frames in that fashion as it forms a logo is where the trademark will stop. The frames themselves are all fair game, as would be any film that uses them. You just won't be able to reproduce Disney Animation's logo.
@@biggerdoofus Incorrect, because if they're common with the "fleshed out version" then you haven't really fleshed anything out. You're just taking advantage of basic expectations.
If something is still generic in it's topic (a superhero with flight or high tech machinery), then giving something in that topic the generic abilities is still just generic. Giving a superhero flight or high tech doesn't make it fleshed out, because, as you said, they're practically standard. And if it's standard and generic, you can't copyright it.
Correct, trademark erosion isn't stopped by having something already trademarked, but protecting something that you already have trademarked is excessively easier than trying to get a trademark. And yes, the actual usage is VERY relevant. On top of that, your actual question is also a "yes", and there's MANY evidences and examples that they not only can, but will, as that's happened with MANY knockoffs of Superman that already exist. There's a reason that all the knockoffs that exist don't use that symbol, and in a lot of cases, outright do whatever they can to rename the character, to put a different letter, and different design there.
That last point was huge recently because Google didn't want people to use 'google' to mean 'look something up', if it fully became meaning synonymous to that, it would not be possible for Google to keep their trademark on, well, google.
I am very scared for Donald Duck’s copyright time to run out but... I WAS thinking about making a parody news program starring him, so... yeah.
I actually was wondering if you were going to tackle this Theory because I was looking into it myself when I was going back explaining to someone about how Disney constantly changed copyright law to protect their ownership of Mickey Mouse. Happy to see you address it!!!
1:48 I’m in the bathroom right now and that joke made me more scared than the movie did
DUDE SAME
Me too man I'm terrified
I'm literally commando in my bed right now💀
me too man
Bro I started looking for cameras 😂😂😭😭 1:50
12:01 There is no way Disney can copyright Darth Vader breathing. It is literally just SCUBA gear noises.
9:35 Surprised MatPat didn’t mention Brightburn considering it’s basically a horror style retelling of a childhood Superman.
This explains so much how Brightburn became a “Superman” villain origin story and they still were able to make it without problems. It wasn’t the best movie but at least I know how they were able to make it. Thank you Film Theory! Learning a new thing every week!
Mattpat just casually criticizes it but if its solid criticism fused with fun, its way better. Try the Marvel-Parody 'Some More News' does and maybe after that his more-serious video about Media-Mergers and Disney.
Literally did not reference anything about superman in that movie. It was slightly similar and had nothing to do with public domain genius
I have theory that James Gunn proposed Warner to make Ultraman movie (I mean, evil Superman from DC's Earth 2). They refused, so they make few changes and make it anyway. Then they hired him.
Winnie the pooh getting a horror movie is wild
Im friends with Craig who plays winnie the pooh 😂 he's not even an actor, he's an engineer and martial arts instructor
It made 4.1 million (it took 100k to make) so it's pretty good
@@TylerTMG not a great film tho
And that’s why it exists!!!! It’s like Sharknado. Totally stupid, but people still want to watch it
@@phoenx8435 but it did pay fo itself
Boy oh boy, ain't this aged so well.
I went over these copyright issues during my education training, and thankfully the general upshot for teachers is that educators have wide latitude to use copyrighted material with proper credit.
i think video game developers need to keep an eye out on these domains opening up.
being able to make collabs without the years of communicating towards how the collaboration works out could be really good for some games.
The movie intro in that creepy drawing form was so amazing. Made you feel bad for them and it kinda made me feel like it would have worked as a short film 🤷🏾♂️
Definitely would've been better as a short film.
@@rahbeeuh Yes I agree
The thumbnail terrified me
I'm glad it wasn't nighttime
Matpat is the only person who can convince me I’m a crayon and I’d believe it wholeheartedly.
I swear I heard matpat's voice change @11:20 . Is anyone else noticing this? For two theories now I heard a change. it's slight, but it's there. I don't think it's bad or anything like that, just something I noticed. So be aware if Mat talks more about AI voice scripts, I think he's already using them and testing the waters. I see you, Matt.
Ya, I noticed it two. You're not crazy 😅
But I just thought that many he had gotten sick when he was recording these scripts and it wasn't extreme enough to warrant someone else do them.
The difference between voices sounds like his voice got more snuffled, I think he might have recorded two halves of the video at different times, and got sick somewhere between those two halves
I thought I was going crazy as I didn't see anyone else say anything until I found this comment. Glad it's not in my head
An really funny thing about the whole IP law debacle and Disney, is that, in the Chip and Dale movie, the "original Sonic design" character appears in It....but without Sega's permission, as they didn't ask to put Sonic in, just using the legal hoophole of parody
As soon as a bunch of the more modern depictions of characters are out, I can’t wait for the creepypasta horror movies to be made. It may be somewhat cheesy, but Abandoned by Disney would be an entertaining horror movie.
No
6:00
We can assure Game Freak, Nintendo, and Sega are gonna be riding THAT for a LONG TIME
I appreciate the companies bravery to make a horror movie all about Xi Jinpin-I mean Winnie the Pooh.
-1000 social credit score
@@davirpgamer1868 oh bother.
Like the NBA, I welcome the Chinese censors into my home and into our hearts.
I too love money more than freedom and democracy. Xi doesn't look just like Winnie the Pooh at all.
Long live the Great Communist Party of China! May this autumn's sorghum harvest be bountiful!
You may "disappear" tomorrow.
If Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain, someone could legally publish johnlock fanfic
Depends it would have to be based off the original Conan Doyle
2:48 South Park clip that I liked how you used
I've been binge watching every theory channel ever since I stopped 3 months ago due to exams. I'm watching in the toilet and anywhere possible you can imagine. I'm loving this
12:51 Superman? Nah, this is my original character, Superiorman.
Superior Man is a real version of Superman. Well, kinda.
I'm watching this in the morning with a hangover as he says "yes, you sitting at home without your pants on" and for no reason that line killed me
16:37 That animation is most likely NOT the original animation from Steamboat Willie, because it should be followed by Mickey pulling the strings for the boat whistles right after he has finished whistling. That was not included in the new logo, so it must've been new animation, but in the style of the original.🤔
16:25 who here agrees that we literally use Disney to described Mickey and vice versa
you gotta love copyright laws: can't protect artists from getting their art being fed to AI, but boy howdy can they protect corporations from getting their characters used in creative ways
0:24 Who knew Mickey Mouse could pill off a Patrick Warburton impression?
I don't like how I'm just casually using the restroom, and MatPat is like, "You yes you with your pants off." Are you spying on me, sir?!?
I know he was joking about “Copyright Theory” but fr this is stuff I need to know as a creator, please make more of this!
I mean, this is why Herlock Sholmes exists. Sherlock, as we know him, cannot be used because of these ideas, but then someone got a really good idea to make a knock-off Sherlock who was much more like later depictions of Sherlock. Thus, Herlock Sholmes became the main-stay name for "Sherlock, but not really" characters.
My favorite is Homelock Sheers and Wat Johnson from The contemporary at the time, Arsen Lupin series. absolute mockery built from a copyright claim from arthur conan doyle himself when the author included sherlock in the first book. the books are in the public domain if you want to see the iconic gentleman burglar Lupin!
13:45 I know this is a half serious joke but this is exactly my dream! But I have for quite a while built up a plan of stuff inspired by the book instead.
I think Disney's biggest fear is losing 💰💰💰
@Jack Wrath thank you for this, I couldn't breathe for 7 years until you gave me this video. You saved my life.
And DeSantis is making sure that happens 🤣
@@Labyrinth6000 Nope. Just changed the names. Disney is fine
@@BlueDauntless Fun Fact: the reason why Disney will not have a Tarzan remake is because Disney no longer owns the rights to Edgar Rice Burrough books series that the film is based on. It's now public domain.
One of the worst thing I've seen from these kind of laws is that the AFL (Australian Football Legue) (I'm Aussie) wants to start an official AFL team for Tasmania, but they can't call themselves the 'Tassie/Tasmanian Devils, an Aussie animal, and their state animal, because Warner Brothers owns the trademark to the name 'Tasmanian Devil', and they're currently in the middle of a lengthy legal battle for the rights for the name.
I hope MatPat covers the Welcome Home Puppet Show at some point, while it's got that "kids thing turned evil" aspect, it's been in production for years and it's quality, especially the use of REAL puppets, is incredible
Me, too! The art is incredibly high-quality and small independent artists deserve recognition. Welcome Home looks incredibly realistic and I can't wait to learn more about the world and lore behind it!
@@inacatt SAME! I really hope Clown meets their Ko-Fi goal!
As a fan of the art of movies; i can apreciate the relative novelty of the concept and hope they improve their writing and skill over time.
some of the greatest movie makers had EARLY great ideas that were badly done.
give 'em some rope.
Not gonna lie, I would love to see if an Indie studio was able to make a fascinating reimagining of Batman, based purely on his golden age incarnation.
That is the hero we probably don’t deserve or need but when I would definitely like to see.
(Also I’m pretty sure they would have to call it something like “The Gothic Adventures of the Mysterious Bat-Man” or something like that if they want to sneak around trademark.$
Trademarks are actually even weirder than what was gone into in this video. You can actually outright use names of characters. Batman, Superman, ect. as they are names. You can't trademark a name, but the iconarary around it. The issue being, they could still threaten the lawsuit around that, and it's not easy to fight the big guys, but it's not illegal to use their names.
12:46 Fun fact the hyphen in Spider-Man's name was inserted because Stan Lee felt that he could get into legal troubles with DC without it because both Superman and Spider-Man's names started with S and ended with man.
Cool fun fact!
@@Captain-Snake572 Thanks.
@@GOODYGOODGOOD789 Also, Stan Lee wanted to avoid confusion between the two characters, even though there is this comic book series literally called, and, this is the actual title, “New Super-Man.”..
As an animation student, it's great to see this taught in a simpler way, really helps you understand everything in a fun and funny way
Thanks for helping me remember stuff for my finals
It's hilarious how they were SO sure it was gonna work they already got to work on the 2nd one
...You realize that it DID work, right?
@@deadersurvival4716 The rotten tomatoes score: *Ahem*
@@lilsquiddle1964 The multiple millions of dollars they made without spending anything:
@@deadersurvival4716 Imo i think its kind of just hate watching like with Velma, or just the hype that was built up. I doubt the 2nd one will have any success.
@@lilsquiddle1964 So, you admit the first one had success, acknowledging that, counter to your original point, it did, in fact, work.
I never said anything about it being good, why people watched it, or whether a second would succeed; because all of those are irrelevant to the core point YOU made.
The first one OBJECTIVELY worked, as (even MatPat calls attention to) it made literally multiple millions of dollars with an overhead of under 100k. They made back a double digit multiple of what they put in. A bad movie can be replaced. Getting low ratings isn't a bother, especially when you can release two different movies with 10x the budget, off of the profits of the first. They don't even have to make them a sequel, they now have two almost free movies with 10x the budget they had for this one, and if they keep the same budget, that's twenty different chances to "get it right", which is STILL going to be lowballing it, because those movies are going to make enough for a handful of attempts in themselves.
I hope no one's take-away here is that copyright is bad. It's the only protection any creator has that large companies won't just take your work and milk all the money they can out of it.
Copyright as a _concept_ isn't bad, true. What's bad is huge companies lobbying the government to make copyrights last an unreasonably long time. Like, seriously, there's absolutely no good reason a copyright should extend 70 years after the death of the original author.
Sure, but it seems that more often than not, large companies abuse copyright to maintain a monopoly on ideas
@@certifiednobody They try to weaponize it, sure. Without it, it's entirely up to who can sell their version better though. And small creators have no chance against corporations in that regard, on every single front.
@@certifiednobody"a monopoly on ideas"
So, you can't have your own ideas? It is a physical impossibility to create a new Superhero, or fantasy world, or children's character, simply because Disney and other companies are defending specific ones?
@@herowither12354 cool it with the equivocation fallacies. I’m saying they have a monopoly on some ideas, not all ideas.
Here in 2024 and just watched the Film Theorists video about the preview for Mickey's Mouse Trap last night.
Me too!
"Yes, you sitting at home without any pants on." He just knows his audience too well
I'm standing making hamburger helper
2:21 ngl my favorite part of the video was all these characters just dancing away 😂😂
I know Jakeneutron has already covered it all, but I want to see more people talk about Oswald The Lucky Rabbit. Jake currently made a whole new look, with the name Public Ozwald. It isn't a "theory-must" but if anyone on the theory team is reading this, definitely look into it. It's an interesting thing going on right now-
Everyone sitting at home with our pants off: He knows us well.
I never expected a winnie the pooh theory
Same
He already did one
The whole trademark thing reminds me of Jirard The Completionist and his battles with it. Specifically the 'defend it or lose it' bit as he talked about how sometimes it really sucks going after otherwise minor things that break trademark because if he didn't he could lose his claim to it.
13:53 oh lord, please give me the joy of having a girl with pooh hosiery
Matpat? How did you know that I wasn't wearing any pants?
hey, Quick idea for a film theory. You guys should do a video on the owl house. The last episode comes out in two weeks and it would be nice for the show to get some recognition from you guys since it's ending way too soon. No pressure if you have seen this but it would still be nice.
YES!!!
I know this is completely random to say, but I'm so glad that when mat pay mentioned how different countries have different systems for copyrighting that one of the 3 countries he featured on screen was Australia
An oddly nice thing to see since I don't really see many people featuring the country where I live
It's nice to see Australia being recognised for once ^^
Yeh people forget about us a lot
@@Walleyedwosaik facts tho
@@Walleyedwosaik Australia is not as important as Poland
Probably cause it doesn't exist
@@daksans6764 has poland gone into space yet?
2:02 i feel like "pooh fast Pooh furious"? would work better lol and "the pooh of water"? 😂😂 they seem like 2 that could be in the same universe
Matt Pat :..."yes you sitting at home without your pants on".
Me (sitting at home with no pants on): 😨 *whispers* He knows!
Not sure if this was a theory vid so much as a legal lesson vid but I enjoyed it none the less. Great work as always! 👍
Havent been many legit "theories" on the channels. Mostly informational. Still entertaining
5:47
Oh MatPat, you forget about a certain "34th rule" of the internet, that poor gaggle of living stuffed animals has already entered a form of public domain.
@@yourshoulderdevil5229 😰 I’m scarred Fr
Soon you will see Winnie the Pooh doing naughties thanks to zed furr on “horn pub”.
Sure there's a lot of restrictions but I can't wait for people to go crazy on this stuff. They always surprise me how far they're willing to go and I love it.
Concepts can't be copyrighted, as you said. So superman's abilities aren't under copyright. He can fly as soon as soon as his name and likeness are freed up.
Great theory on this one. In the case of Mickey, sure his copyright will up soon, but I feel like the only value Mickey has is the value Disney has given him over the generations. By all accounts, he's Disney's OC & even if someone wanted to use him in some form, he's so synonymous with Disney that it wouldn't matter. I'd argue that time would be better spent trying to recreate Mickey's success rather than find a way to use him when he does become available.
That's true, but this sin't about money or success, it's about creation, and Disney's toys are growing closer and closer to being EVERYONE's toys.