Mickey Mouse (Not So Fast - Do Your Research)

I had a feeling that the question would come up. Here is the latest as of January 1, 2024 on Mickey Mouse.


That’s the Steamboat Willie version. It doesn’t matter anyway, people will still go on ignoring copyrights and stealing IP here. But thanks for pointing out that all this info is available for those who are serious about not infringing on any copyrights.

P.S. I just saw on the Facer “What’s Hot” page, an animated Mickey Mouse face for sale/premium. Not gonna name and shame but c’mon!


Thanks Linlay, much appreciated :+1:
Micky Gif 01


I saw that, too.

1 Like

yep just look around the site. That half of what u see is copyright stuff… So need to be telling this to the big wigs since u already a partner. Again just take some time and look around and u will see real quick . Nobody is going to care about steam boat willie. Old and lame… there too busy stealing copyright stuff from all other ips . Just look around… So yah maybe go talk to the top dogs…

1 Like
1 Like

There one prime example. LOL and he the new one not steamboat willie so yeah. Need more examples i have a million and can show u all day. Just ask me and i will show u plenty more.


Not every company has the same approach to the stuff they have copyrighted.

Some companies will prosecute you some do not care (much).
I have some experience in that field, most companies will allow using their name as long as you are not making fakes.

For example, if you use Mickey with Facer it’s in fact free advertise for Disney,
but if you make a watch with Mickey and claim it’s a product made by Disney - it’s a fake.

One time we wanted to make t-shirts with Honda, Yamaha, Aprilia names and I’ve contacted their representatives to ask for permission - all of them said yes, sure, no problem, why not, feel free to do it.
But Harley Davidson said firm NO, we do not allow it.

1 Like

Yes, it is usually best to contact the owner of the copyright first and save your documentation.


We know there are examples. Does Disney know?


well i see a lot lot slip by not just mickey. I just showed that one cause it one on the subject. i seen so many star wars and marvel lately its amazing. I will never try cause man the day i do a mickey or marvel ill get popped lol. So never in a million years… I promise that mickey got him a lot syncs and follows. Im sure Disney does know but maybe like he said free advertisement for them . I make watches in another place that i dont care to mention here nor that i need too but i can tell u there is none of that there. lol No star wars or barbie stealing copyright going on there so im very surprised it goes under the radar here

As far as I know Facer does not own the copyrights to all those that you mentioned. The owner of the trademarks/copyrights would need to contact Facer with a written request that they be removed. I believe that is how the legal community would see it. Having said that, when a design showed up with a trademark for a large international business/brand that I am involved with I inquired to see how they felt before I used a photo of one of their products. The reply was that it wasn’t a big deal so it was ok. Similar to Disney, should the watch face creator try to imply that the brand manufactured the watch face, that would not be allowed.

Hi there,
The term “product” here needs to be defined in terms of copyright. Although I agree with your logic that using Mickey on Facer would theoretically be free advertisement for Disney, when companies claim that any watch face violates their trademark, most often their copy rights do not include “digitally downloadable” products, as in legal terms, a product mostly refers to a physically produced item in real world, not in the virtual universe. Unfortunately, when authorities receive copyright complaints they immediately seek if the copyrighted item is actually used, rather than the scope of the copyright. This issue is of utmost importance as having a copyright does not automatically mean you own the copy-rights in every form of production and on every possible platform. Copyrights, by default, define the industry, the form of production and the actual product. This is gaining more importance as I see that big brands started applying for copyrighting the digital production of their work. I just wanted to highlight that a copyright is applicable when you have secured that item defining the nature of different “products”. In short, you may own the copyrights to an item, unless it includes “digitally downloadable products”, you cannot claim that a digitally downloadable product violates your copyright.

1 Like

@NDW what is the source of your information?

US Patent and Trademark Office:

“By being specific about the goods or services your trademark represents in your registration, you clearly identify the scope of use. You can legally prevent others from using the same or a similar trademark for related goods or services without your permission.”

The quote here obviously makes it clear that any trademark needs to specify the scope of use, which ultimately means owning a trademark doesn’t give you the rights to every use unless it is specifically identified.

Thanks for the link.

Back to watch faces, DMCA was passed in 1998. I would think that most popular brands, such as the ones that people paste into creator, would have that covered by now.

In order not to confuse those reading this, my original post above was to clarify Disney’s copyright on images (not trademark). They are two different things.

1 Like


Every topic has a will of it’s own, every discussion finds new paths.

A good topic never dies…

1 Like