If Passed, Law Would Impact All Licensors, Limiting Copyrights to 56 Years
Last week, nearly two dozen lawmakers on the Republican Study Commission (RSC) sent a letter to Disney CEO Bob Chapek, declaring their opposition to renewing the company’s copyright on Mickey Mouse, which is set to expire in 2024.
RSC Chair Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana spearheaded the letter, which cites Disney’s ties to China and the company’s “political and sexual agenda” as their reason for opposing a copyright extension. They argue that Disney “has capitulated to far-left activists through hypocritical, woke corporate actions,” and specifically cited the company’s opposition to the Florida parental rights bill.
“Disney has said it wants this law repealed even though it has broad support among Florida residents, especially parents,” the RSC members wrote. “A senior Disney employee was recently caught on camera saying she wants ‘many, many, many LGBTQIA characters in our stories.’ And according to a Disney employee, Disney’s Diversity Equity and Inclusion department, ‘expanded by an astonishing 633 percent in 2019–21, at the same time that nearly every other department was contracting by 25–75 percent.
“This suggests Disney is purposefully influencing small children with its political and sexual agenda.”
“The age of Republican handouts to Big Business is over,” said Hawley. “Thanks to special copyright protections from Congress, woke corporations like Disney have earned billions while increasingly pandering to woke activists. It’s time to take away Disney’s special privileges and open up a new era of creativity and innovation.”
Currently, companies can extend copyrights for up to 120 years.
According to Hawley’s office, Congress has used an old law, also known as the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act,” in order to extend copyrights to corporations for up to 120 years.
Disney has not yet commented on the proposed legislation, but some constitutional lawyers are already arguing that GOP politicians have violated the company’s First Amendment right to freedom of expression, by targeting Disney for its stated opposition to a state law.
Adam Winkler, a constitutional law specialist at the UCLA’s School of Law, says retaliating against someone for exercising their First Amendment rights is a violation of that person’s civil rights, and that would include corporations like Disney.
“It is a violation of the First Amendment for the government to punish a corporation because of the company’s expressed viewpoints on political issues,” said Winkler, commenting about Florida’s decision to strip Disney World of its self-governing status. “I think that we will see legal challenges to this, and I think there will be constitutional challenges to it.”
The Licensing Letter has asked Disney for comment, but no response has yet been received.
https://www.thelicensingletter.com/licensing-law-ip-theft-and-fraud-rampant-in-nft-markets/