Is Foxy public domain? Can literally anyone use him or his girlfriend for anything if they wanted? His shorts are are in public domain, and if WB owns him they dont seem to be enforcing their trademarks at all. There's something funny to me that even if you cant use Mickey or Minnie, you can use an old ripoff of them, if they are. Does anybody know? also What are some other rubber hose characters that are in the public domain?
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
The only other time he showed up was in an episode or two of tiny toons but his design was altered to less resemble Mickey.
Wasn't that Bosko?
both showed up in different episodes
Who is that?
Foxy roxy/loxy/idk, the supposed protagonist of WB’s merry melodies shorts that only appeared in like 3 shorts, his appearance is a near identical look to Mickey and according to legend while Walt Disney didn’t threaten to sue he did reportedly tell them to “cut it out” so they created a new character that was a pig(not porky believe it or not) that only appeared in 2 shorts, one of which was the first of the censored eleven that was simultaneously a rip of steamboat willie and the skeleton dance.
Was he actually a rip off of Micky? The rubber hose design was very popular back then, so I will give them the benefit of doubt.
He basically looked like Mickey but with different ears
WB's Mickey Mouse at home.
Foxy first appeared in cartoons in 1931.
Its highly likely that Warner Bros forgot to properly renew the copyright on the original shorts, though legally it'd be wise to check.
As for the CHARACTER itself, which is its own separate copyright, while legally murky, the de facto situation with classic iconic characters is nearly all of them have SOME work in the public domain. Superman, Batman, Mickey Mouse, Bug Bunny, etc. But the idea that a character/ideas within a work were separate copyrightable elements didn't even exist back in 1930s/40s, and major studios would understandably argue they didn't get a chance to copyright the characters "properly" since the law hadn't been properly defined yet.
Given that a judge ruling that any character with public domain works renders them public domain would dramatically change the statue quo, and that this legal question will simply resolve itself with the passage of time as characters 'naturally' enter the public domain, you could expect the courts to side with the studios.
In which case, even though WB probably doesn't give a shit about Foxy, and his shorts are (probably) public domain, if the studio cared they would be able to go after someone for using Foxy in a work. At the very least they'd have an expensive lawsuit they could throw at someone they'd have a good chance of winning.
In 2027 Foxy will unambiguously naturally enter the public domain.
>Its highly likely that Warner Bros forgot to properly renew the copyright on the original shorts
Didn't they forget to renew the copyright of like, a HUNDRED shorts?
Well said! As for public domain shorts it’s funny that Mickey had a few that slipped the cracks such as the mad doctor and maybe Hawaiian vacation (I’m saying this because Disney’s YouTube channel has a 13 year old video of the short on there), was there any more? Also there’s also ONE woody woodpecker short in the public domain and that’s pantry panic (the final short to have had mel blanc voice him), either it’s because Walter lantz forgot to renew the copyright on that one OR it’s because a better reimagining of the short was made later in the late 40s that’s more true to his character.
If https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxy_(Merrie_Melodies) is to be believed, all three Foxy cartoons are PD. Better check to be sure though.
After those shorts ended, WB has only used the character once, in an episode of Tiny Toons, and the character was redesigned there to make him look way less of a Mickey ripoff and looking like an Animaniacs character. I'm not convinced they're actually interested in using the character at all since he hasn't shown up in anything else from WB since that Tiny Toons episode.
Anyway, the list of notable classic cartoon characters that are actually in public domain is short.
Gertie the Dinosaur - not really a mascot character but notable
Felix the Cat
Koko the Clown and Fitz the Dog
Julius the Cat from Alice Comedies
Oswald the Lucky Rabbit
Dinky Doodle
Farmer Al Falfa
Peg leg Pete (though only the "bear" design until next year.)
Olive Oyl
2024 - Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse
2025 - Bosko, Horace Horsecollar, Clarabelle Cow, Popeye
2026 - Betty Boop, Bimbo, Pluto, Flip the Frog
2027 - Foxy
2028 - Goofy, Bluto, Buddy
2029 - Donald Duck
The version of Betty Boop is likely the early dog version of her, not the other ones.
Same with the original Donald Duck that looked like a duck in a sailor's outfit.
>The version of Betty Boop is likely the early dog version of her, not the other ones.
Yeah, but they quickly realized she looked better as a human.
It'll take one year for a design of her to become recognizable.
>Flip the Frog
Get ready for a whole new era of frogposting.
Bimbo/Fitz is such a weird case, since they're technically the same character, but Bimbo's design kept evolving until it settled and he got a name change.
is there any caveats to these that could prevent someone or entity from fully using them
You have to use the design and story elements that are only present in the public domain work.
You can’t infringe the trademark, that how Tarzan has survived
what constitutes as infringing upon it?
>Also trademark means you can't make a work and present it like its not your own
So as long as there's a clear distinction that there's no association with the original trademark's owner, youd be good or is there more nuance there?
>So as long as there's a clear distinction that there's no association with the original trademark's owner, youd be good or is there more nuance there?
Well, a textural reading of trademark law that would be the case. And judges have affirmed in the past that trademark is not a substitute for copyright and should not be used to prevent other creators from using public domain characters freedly.
In practice however people simply use the legal system and mere threats of lawsuits to prevent other people from using characters without giving the copyright/trademark holder a cut. See, Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan.
But these vexatious lawsuits usually come from small estates that are easier to pay off than fight. Its not clear a large studio like Disney or Warner Bros would be able or willing to endure the negative publicity and potential large judgement against them if they started filing obviously wrong lawsuits against other creators.
Tarzan's a different thing, the problem there is about the film rights, which are a contract law issue and not a copyright or trademark issue as such; there's no Berne Convention limit on the extent of film rights, so if you've bought the film rights to something which is not in the public domain those rights don't automatically end when that thing enters public domain. In fact, there's a credible argument that the exclusive right enjoyed by the author under Article 9 and Article 14 to authorize the reproduction of their works extends beyond the limit of copyright, allowing for a perpetual contract that still adheres to Article 7(2)'s stipulation about the consent of the author, which can extend as part of a contract beyond the author's own lifetime, since there's no automatic expiry of a contract on the expiry of one party - particularly if that party had a holding company to own their IP rights.
Sherlock Holmes is public domain. People are fricking around with that all over the place. It has animes, it has numerous non-anime adaptations and takes, it has the RDJ movies from a decade ago, it has the Will Ferrell from a couple years back, it has Enola Holmes 1 and 2 now, it has all kinds of crazy shit. Nobody's seriously trying to claim those rights are reserved for them alone.
In 1942 Universal Sutdio acquired the film rights to Sherlock Holmes.
The idea that the public domain, which is written into the Constitution, could be overwritten by some jackass civil contract law is laughable.
There is always the caviat that you can only use elements of the character that have entered public domain (or are original to you). i.e you can't give Felix a magic yellow bag.
Also trademark means you can't make a work and present it like its not your own. i.e if Warner Bros made a Mickey Mouse cartoon and used the iconic Disney font in the title a judge would call that misleading. Though they'd just have to put "Warner Bros Presents" prominently on the advertisements/posters somewhere to get around that.
>i.e you can't give Felix a magic yellow bag.
Curious on if workarounds are possible for this kind of situation--in this case, let's say someone makes a work where Felix uses a magic bag, but the bag isn't colored yellow, and doesn't function 1:1 like the aforementioned yellow bag (giving it explicit limitations on what the bag's magic is able to do, for instance). Would they still get in trouble, or would that be enough for them to get away with the concept?
Those sort of things would be solved on a case-by-case basis, with the judge ultimately deciding if its broken copyright for a still protected idea.
What
said
You'd have to do a lot of research
Like for Felix you have to look at the 1920s cartoons and comics and see what's available to you and avoid anything that's not in PD (50s show, Twisted Tales)
And there may be trademark issues like
said but on the other hand other things like
get by
we're gonna feast well in the 2030s
doesn't dreamworks own felix the cat.
Dreamworks paid to have the ownership rights to the more iconic 1950s version of Felix the Cat.
Felix is still public domain, but only the 1920s design which isn't what most people think about when they imagine Felix.
Bet disney are gonna put the old designs of their IPs on a new mickey mouse short.
His shorts are PD, but he isn't.
35 days until Mickey Mouse is free
People seem to forget that anyone can file a trademark for a public domain character.
I can open Snow White Laundromat. Hercules' Gym. Felix the Cat Bagels. I could have exclusive trademark on all of that, and someone across town could file their own trademark for those character for their own products - just so long as they don't try to represent their goods as an imitation on mine, or coming from me.
For example, Cadbury has a trademark on a specific color of purple. That doesn't mean other people can't use that color purple ever again, it just means if you're selling chocolate you can't use that specific shade because the purple branding has been deemed so iconic to Cadbury it would be misleading to the public for other chocolatiers to use it.
I could also in theory sell the film fights to my mascot for Snow White Laundromat for some reason, that would not and could not prevent other studios from using Snow White in films/tv/NFTs/porn/bullshit/whatever
This shitty movie coming out and Disney being powerless to do anything about it proves that trademark and contract law will not block the public domain.
Are there any other notable examples recent of shit using ips/chars recently from the public domain? I wonder how much more we'll see in the future
Oh yes it will. Disney doesn't care because they have never been the creators of Winnie Pooh so they don't have a say. It's simply that people are COWARDS when it comes to challenging Disney which is also why Bambi has never had any other adaptations idiots are afraid of Disney despite they not being the creators of Bambi.
Disney only really rises up against you when you take the few original things they have created like the incoming first design of Mickey Mouse. That's where their infamous trademark trap will commence. Same bullshit that Tarzan and Zorro estates repeatedly do. Honestly I wish there was a court that dissolved these estates into ruin to shut them the hell up forever. Hate how they sue you even if you use copyright expired material like the first Zorro novel.
I'm pretty sure his first appearance cartoon is public domain
No i'm pretty sure scott cawthon still holds the rights to foxy