Why did Donald need to be added in at all? Surely Gladstone is well-known enough to carry a a cover by himself. It's not as if there haven't been WDC&S covers featuring non-main characters before. I remember a recent IDW variant with Oswald.
As well as what Ramapith said, Oswald is more well known in the public eye than Gladstone.
Because of Epic Mickey, obviously. Quick! Call Warren Spector! He must immediately release Epic Gladstone to make Gladstone popular enough to sustain this IDW cover!
Ten years ago, I'd have said you were crazy if you made that statement—but now I agree, at least as far as the USA!
(I've even worked on the Oswald projects, and it's still a shock to me...)
Oswald has a fairly large presence in the US. Partially thanks to Epic Mickey but he has a decent fan following outside of that with lots of merchandise available and he can found as a meet and greet character at Disneyland. Even years after Epic Mickey 2 had bombed, he is still a popular character.
Ten years ago, I'd have said you were crazy if you made that statement—but now I agree, at least as far as the USA!
(I've even worked on the Oswald projects, and it's still a shock to me...)
Oswald has a fairly large presence in the US. Partially thanks to Epic Mickey but he has a decent fan following outside of that with lots of merchandise available and he can found as a meet and greet character at Disneyland. Even years after Epic Mickey 2 had bombed, he is still a popular character.
Is there no recognition of Oswald Rabbit from his Walter Lantz 1940s cartoon shorts and 1940s and 1950s Walter Lantz Dell comic books?
Not really, no. Both the merchandise and the game appearances focus on his rubberhose design, which is arguably more iconic than Lantz' later Oswald design (there's a reason, after all, why he faded away unlike the much more striking and memorable Woody Woodpecker).
Disney is required to. They've only got the rights to "their" design of Oswald and whatever characters appeared with him in the Disney cartoons (so Fanny, Ortensia, Toby Bear and Homer are OK—but Dopey Dick, Dumb Cluck, and Floyd and Lloyd are out).
Disney is required to. They've only got the rights to "their" design of Oswald and whatever characters appeared with him in the Disney cartoons (so Fanny, Ortensia, Toby Bear and Homer are OK—but Dopey Dick, Dumb Cluck, and Floyd and Lloyd are out).
Why, actually? Why didn't Disney buy the whole Oswald franchise? You'd think Universal would ask for such a deal, since they can hardly use the parts they have left when Disney has the copyright for Oswald himself.
Disney is required to. They've only got the rights to "their" design of Oswald and whatever characters appeared with him in the Disney cartoons (so Fanny, Ortensia, Toby Bear and Homer are OK—but Dopey Dick, Dumb Cluck, and Floyd and Lloyd are out).
Why, actually? Why didn't Disney buy the whole Oswald franchise? You'd think Universal would ask for such a deal, since they can hardly use the parts they have left when Disney has the copyright for Oswald himself.
As per the terms of the deal, Universal still owns its later Lantz designs of Oswald (and has used them occasionally over the last ten years, on some DVD releases and ancillary Woody Woodpecker merch). So Uni can use its later Oswald together with the other parts they have left.
By the way—be careful not to confuse the terms copyright and trademark. Disney has a trademark on its Oswald. Universal has a trademark on later versions of Oswald. The copyrights, by contrast, are the registrations for individual films, comics, and new works of art featuring the character.
(It's an important distinction because copyrights have expired on a handful of early Oswald films, and some use this to argue that the character should itself somehow be in the public domain, when they are overlooking trademark law entirely.)
The trademark IS the character. If the trademark is still live, the character is trademarked and can't be public domain. (To make it more explicit: a random person can reprint public domain items showing a trademarked character, but they can't make and sell brand-new items with the character.)
A correction to what you said: trademarks actually can and do expire if the owner never uses the property. That said, there has been some low-level usage of the Lantz characters by Universal in one market or another since forever, so I don't think their trademarks are at risk.
Are they, though? Wouldn't it mean the character is in the public domain, but not the trademark, since trademarks NEVER expire?
Under US law, trademarks are considered abandoned, if not used: 'The term of a federal trademark registration is ten years, with ten-year renewal terms. However, between the fifth and sixth year after the date of initial trademark registration, you must file an "affidavit of use" and pay an additional fee to keep the registration alive. You must also file an affidavit and pay a fee within a year before the end of every ten-year period.' from about dot com
I remember the owners of "The Shadow" releasing something new (movie, whatever) regularly to keep rights active.
The trademark IS the character. If the trademark is still live, the character is trademarked and can't be public domain. (To make it more explicit: a random person can reprint public domain items showing a trademarked character, but they can't make and sell brand-new items with the character.)
Are we sure about that?
I am not an expert on matters of copyright and trademark, but I remember that in 2013 a guy named Cabell filed a lawsuit agains Zorro Productions, Inc., claiming (if I understood it corrrctly) that their trademark on Zorro is fraudolent because the first few works with the character are in the public domain. As a result of the lawsuit, in 2015 the trademark was declared invalid because (again, if I understood it correctly) what is distinctive in the public mind are the character's stories, and not the character's name, or something like that
Of course, the situation of Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck may be different since, from the point of view of a modern American audience, they are (sadly) more like icons and pictures on a t-shirt rather than actual characters in actual stories.
But as I said I am not expert on these things, so everything I reported should be taken with a grain of salt.
Last Edit: Feb 28, 2017 16:35:12 GMT by drakeborough