As an iconic trademarked character, Disney is the only company able to produce new entertainment or durable consumer products featuring Mickey Mouse.
By use of copyrights, Disney can also prevent the legitimate purchaser of a 1928 film reel from turning it into a digital video file.
The difference can be seen more clearly in the character of Peter Pan. The copyright on the original publications have expired in most of the world. But GOS Hospital and Disney can still claim trademark over some elements, inasmuch as they continue to be used in their business. You can write a new novel or play about Peter Pan, but woe to you if you make a new animated film, or use it to promote your children's hospital, or even try to use it to sell peanut butter.
Trademarks do not expire, as long as they are defended. But trademarks are more narrowly defined, and restricted to a particular purpose.
I'm not confusing the two, I'm discussing derivative works which clearly fall under the copyright regime. Trademarks have to do with fraud, i.e. im trying to pass myself off as disney to sell you something. It's completely different.
As an iconic trademarked character, Disney is the only company able to produce new entertainment or durable consumer products featuring Mickey Mouse.
By use of copyrights, Disney can also prevent the legitimate purchaser of a 1928 film reel from turning it into a digital video file.
The difference can be seen more clearly in the character of Peter Pan. The copyright on the original publications have expired in most of the world. But GOS Hospital and Disney can still claim trademark over some elements, inasmuch as they continue to be used in their business. You can write a new novel or play about Peter Pan, but woe to you if you make a new animated film, or use it to promote your children's hospital, or even try to use it to sell peanut butter.
Trademarks do not expire, as long as they are defended. But trademarks are more narrowly defined, and restricted to a particular purpose.