> t's possible that people could feel that a 3rd party product is endorsed by Disney.
No it isn't, that isn't how the world works. If you take public domain material and utilize it in your own way there is no semblance of reason to think the original creator of said material endorsed you. I don't know if you are talking about how we are now living in a world where basically nobody alive has experienced material entering public domain, but it isn't a nebulous area.
I'm talking about a world where the character is a trademark, a distinctive brand in and of itself and where the "creator" is no longer a living person, but a corporation that continues to create work with the characters. Steamboat Willy is a distinct piece of art. However, the characters in it have become brands unto themselves.
The world of trademark and copyright are colliding in a new way here if Steamboat Willy were to enter the public domain. Can you seperate the trademark "Mickey Mouse" from the work "Steamboat Willy"? Does the fact that some Mickey Mouse cartoons are in the public domain mean that Mickey Mouse the character is in the public domain? And how does that affect works still being created with Mickey in them?
But that's beside the point. The point I want to make is that Disney wants us to be confused. They want us to conflate two distinct intellectual property issues. Steamboat Willy should be public domain, period. The repercussions of that are interesting, but really a separate area of law. Mixing the two only serves to support Disney's argument. Creative works such as films and books should enter the public domain -- as is and open to redistribution and use in derivative works -- after 14+14.
EDIT: Just to provide a concrete example, there are Disney films made during the Second World War (Spirit of '43) that are in the public domain. The character in this particular case is Donald Duck. Off the top of my head I know of no particular case law so perhaps it's never been challenged, but though it is certainly possibly to distribute, screen and create derivitive works of that film for free (I've done it myself at a summer screening of old movies we used to host when I was in college), I really don't know of anyone who's has distributed new Donald Duck movies or stories and gotten away with it. It does make me curious if they could, however.
The relevant case here is a recent decision regarding the Sherlock Holmes books published before 1923. The characters represented in those works (i.e. without later developments in still-copyrighted books) are in the public domain, and can be freely used in new stories. There's no reason to think that the same wouldn't apply to Micky and Donald.
There are also plenty of examples where new (and valuable) IP is still being created from material that no one (not even heirs) disputes is in the public domain.
How many remakes of Shakespeare, Jane Austen, heck, stories from Greek mythology and the Bible have been made? Lots.
As many have noted (including someone upthread), Disney itself strip-mined the public domain for many of its big-budget pictures.
No it isn't, that isn't how the world works. If you take public domain material and utilize it in your own way there is no semblance of reason to think the original creator of said material endorsed you. I don't know if you are talking about how we are now living in a world where basically nobody alive has experienced material entering public domain, but it isn't a nebulous area.