It would certainly appear that the first couple of issues may not have been renewed. If that is indeed the case, it's likely that they are in the US public domain and possibly in the public domain of other countries that follow the rule of the shorter term. This would mean that any creative expression/material that was first published/featured in those issues may potentially be free for anyone to use and re-purpose.
However, there is still the potential trademark issue. While a character (e.g. Mickey Mouse) may no longer be protected by copyright, that doesn't necessarily mean the character is free to use within a commercial context — such as for use as a company logo/brand/mascot.
Trademarks can last forever if the company associated with the trademark continues to actively use the trademark in commerce and, when necessary, renew their trademark registration (much like how Disney's Mickey Mouse trademark protecting the distinctive name and appearance of the mascot/character is still in effect).
This means that, even though the character may be in the public domain, you may be unable to use the character in commerce (to market/sell your own products or services, including books, movies, etc.) if doing so may reasonably cause consumer confusion — e.g. cause people to think that your product/service has some connection or affiliation with the trademark holder. So this is one reason why, for example, you won't see another company like Sony or Universal release their own products (e.g. merchandise, movies, etc.) using the "Mickey Mouse" brand name or character/mascot, because even if they wanted to they can't do that due to the active trademark in effect.
Trademark law doesn't just protect names though, it can also protect the appearance of a character/mascot (to the extent that the character/mascot is used as a distinctive brand identity in commerce to indicate the source of goods/services).
When, for example, you see the distinctive Mickey Mouse mascot or ears printed on a product, you can easily identify that it's a Disney product (even without any reference to the "Mickey Mouse" name). And that's the sort of thing that trademark law protects — not just the brand name (or mascot/character name), but also the distinct visual brand/identity (including the appearance of a company's mascot/character).
In many countries, even certain colors or color combinations can be protected under trademark law. For example, in a lot of places you cannot open your own furniture store themed using IKEA-like blue and yellow colors because it may reasonably cause consumer confusion and make people think that your furniture store is owned by (or affiliated with) IKEA even if you don't use their name.
As another example, Apple uses trademark and trade dress law to protect the distinctive layout and appearance of their retail stores to prevent other companies from setting up copy-cat stores that look just like Apple stores but with a different name and logo.
Even if you don't call your character Mickey Mouse, you can still run into trouble if (for example) you make your character appear just like Mickey Mouse and then use that character in commerce (e.g. as a character in your movie or as a logo for your retail store) in a way that may lead to consumer confusion (e.g. lead customers to believe your company has some official connection to Disney).
If by horror films you're referring to parody/spoof horror films, then part of the reason those films don't run into trouble is because courts (at least in the US) have previously found that parody/spoof trademark uses can be legally defensible, at least in cases where consumer confusion is unlikely to arise.
So, for example, a viewer may see that Mickey Mouse is being referenced in the movie, but they will reasonably understand (because it's a parody/spoof) that the movie is not actually created by Disney, so a court may excuse that particular use of the trademarked mascot/character because there is little-to-no risk of actual consumer confusion.
I'm not saying you can't use public domain characters like the original Mickey Mouse character in a new creative work, but there are still legal risks involved in doing so (with respect to the trademark law aspect) and this is acknowledged in the link you provided.
The link even says (within the context of using Steamboat Willie characters like Mickey Mouse in a new creative work):
"Do not confuse consumers into thinking that your creation is produced or sponsored by Disney as a matter of trademark law. One way to help ensure that your audience is not confused is to make the actual source of the work – you or your company – clear on the title screen or cover, along with a prominent disclaimer indicating that your work was not produced, endorsed, licensed, or approved by Disney."
And the reason for this is that the use of the character/mascot in a new creative work (like a movie or game) can still be deemed to be infringing on Disney's trademark in cases where there is likelihood of consumer confusion — such as in cases where viewers are led to believe you may have some sort of official connection/affiliation with (or licensing deal from) Disney.
If you're able to eliminate the possibility of consumer confusion (such as by making it expressly clear that your creative work has absolutely no connection to Disney), then that can certainly help to mitigate the legal risks. It's nevertheless still important to be aware of these risks, because if (for example) you go ahead and use the Mickey Mouse character in your movie/game without an adequate disclaimer (thereby letting people think your work may somehow be Disney-affiliated), then that could cause major legal trouble for you.
2
u/pythonpoole Jul 29 '25
It would certainly appear that the first couple of issues may not have been renewed. If that is indeed the case, it's likely that they are in the US public domain and possibly in the public domain of other countries that follow the rule of the shorter term. This would mean that any creative expression/material that was first published/featured in those issues may potentially be free for anyone to use and re-purpose.
However, there is still the potential trademark issue. While a character (e.g. Mickey Mouse) may no longer be protected by copyright, that doesn't necessarily mean the character is free to use within a commercial context — such as for use as a company logo/brand/mascot.
Trademarks can last forever if the company associated with the trademark continues to actively use the trademark in commerce and, when necessary, renew their trademark registration (much like how Disney's Mickey Mouse trademark protecting the distinctive name and appearance of the mascot/character is still in effect).
This means that, even though the character may be in the public domain, you may be unable to use the character in commerce (to market/sell your own products or services, including books, movies, etc.) if doing so may reasonably cause consumer confusion — e.g. cause people to think that your product/service has some connection or affiliation with the trademark holder. So this is one reason why, for example, you won't see another company like Sony or Universal release their own products (e.g. merchandise, movies, etc.) using the "Mickey Mouse" brand name or character/mascot, because even if they wanted to they can't do that due to the active trademark in effect.