In article . com,
wrote:


Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article .com,
Charlie Self wrote:


wrote:

BTW, I bet you never asked a baker to make you a cake with an image of
picture of MIckey Mouse in the icing. It seems there is some damn
Mickey Mouse protection in Copyright law (thanks to the late Sonny
Bono).

It's a trademark, not a copyright, in the case of the mouse and
friends, I think.

*NO*. "The Mouse" was a big issue driving the last couple of extensions
of the duration of _copyright_. Early Disney works -- e.g. "Steamboat Willy"
were about to run out of eligibility for copyright protection. Meaning that
_anybody_ could duplicate and sell those works. Would *not* be a trademark
infringement issue, as long as they represented what they were selling _as_
Disney's works.

ITYM "as long as they did NOT represent what ..."

No, I meant _exactly_ what I said. Referencing the 'creative work'.

It is no different than a used car dealer selling "Ford" automobiles.

Using the trademarked name, to refer to the trademark owner's item is *not*
infringement (or 'dilution') of the trademark.

Producing a 'new' work, using the trademarked character _would_ be violation
of trademark.

Reproducing the _trademark_owner's_ work is *not* _trademark_ infringement,
Unless you are representing that is something other than the trademark owner's
work.


IMHO, cartoon characters SHOULD be protected under trademark,
rather than copyright. SOME cartoon characters, when used to
represent a commercial entity, like caricatures representing
sports teams ARE treated as trademarks.

Trademark *alone* is not sufficient protection.
*NEITHER* is copyright, alone.

You need trademark to prevent people from creating their own works using the
character.

You need copyright to prevent people from copying _your_ works.

There's a bunch of case-law on this -- a lot from the newspaper cartoon-strip
field.