How Mickey Mouse and Prince Are Similar

A mural outside a Florida daycare center used to have lifesize pictures of Mickey Mouse, Goofy, Donald Duck, and Minnie Mouse. But then the Disney Company objected. Because the images are owned by Disney, the Daycare Center could not use them without permission. Out story ends happily though because Universal Studios offered to replace them with Scooby Doo, the Flintstones, and Yogi Bear.

Where are we going? To the boundaries of intellectual property rights.

The Warhol Decision

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court limited what artist Andy Warhol ( 1928-1987) could have created. The story starts with his painting of Prince. Based on an image from photographer Lynn Goldsmith, the painting was a Warhol-style reproduction. Here, deciding the boundaries of  ownership, ithe Court said “fair use” did not extend to the Warhol work. Trying to encoursge creativity, the legal doctrine “fair use” says that a work protected by a copyright can still be reproduced.

Now though the Court said, “No.” The case will return to a lower court to determine damages.

Our Bottom Line: Intellectual Property

Like Mickey Mouse on a mural or Prince in a painting, we can ask who should use what we have created. Fair use lets us build from the past. It can encourage future creativity. But, on the other hand, when Walt Disney failed to protect his ownership of Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, his company failed. After that, starting over with Mickey Mouse, Disney made sure that he controlled his characters.

Think for a moment about Apple’s logo, the shape of a glass Coca-Cola bottle and McDonald’s Golden Arches. All protected by trademarks, they are a firm’s intellectual property. Similarly copyrights assure authors that they control the books they write and patents convey ownership to inventors.

Sometimes though intellectual property rights can be tricky. The courts said it was okay for the 2nd Avenue Deli to serve an Instant Heart Attack sandwich even though the Heart Attack Grill of Las Vegas claimed the Heart Attack trademark for its burgers. And while Louboutin could trademark its red soles, it could not claim the exclusive right to produce a red shoe.

Below you can see that a Tommy Hilfiger Tommy Yacht Jacket could not get intellectual property protection:

So, while market economies depend on secure property rights, there are limits to what we can own and how long. Always we have had to balance inspiring innovation through individual intellectual property ownership and the public’s right to share a good idea. Always we have tradeoffs.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court tipped the balance to the original owner.

My sources and more: The Washington Post summary of the Supreme Court’s decision ideally complemented all that that Mine  tells us in Chapter 3. So too does this past ice skating music econlife.

Please note that our graphic was from a Johanna Blakley TED talk.