It would be funny if furries adopted Mickey Mouse as a mascot.

Mainstreaming Vs Appropriation #

What was the earliest personality type Mickey Mouse assumed? #

Mickey Mouse, created by Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks, first appeared in the 1928 silent film Plane Crazy. However, his first publicly debuted film was Steamboat Willie, released on November 18, 1928. In these early animations, Mickey’s personality was not as developed or as morally grounded as it later became.

In Steamboat Willie, Mickey is portrayed as mischievous and somewhat rebellious, a characteristic trait of early animated protagonists designed to evoke humor and engage audiences. He is shown as a trickster who manipulates his environment to create music or solve problems, often at the expense of other characters. This capriciousness and impish behavior, including scenes where he uses animals as musical instruments, reflects a less refined character that was typical of cartoon characters of the time, where slapstick comedy was predominant.

This persona evolved significantly over the years as Disney sought to make Mickey more amiable and universally appealing. By the mid-1930s, Mickey had transitioned from being a rascally character to a well-meaning everyman, displaying kindness, bravery, and a more palatable moral compass. This transformation was partly in response to criticisms and the changing societal expectations of media characters, as well as Disney’s ambitions to position Mickey as a moral and cultural icon.

Thus, the earliest personality type Mickey Mouse assumed was that of a cheeky and cunning trickster, which played well with the audience’s expectations of animation at that time and served as a foundation upon which his enduring appeal was built.

It would be funny if furries adopted Mickey as a mascot? #

The idea of the furry community adopting Mickey Mouse as a mascot does touch on interesting aspects of cultural iconography and subculture identification. The furry community, which appreciates anthropomorphic animal characters and often creates or embodies such characters at events and in art, already engages with a wide range of animal-like figures from various media.

Mickey Mouse, as one of the most iconic and earliest examples of anthropomorphic characters in American media, holds a special place in the broader spectrum of character design that could appeal to furry enthusiasts. His design—a blend of human traits and mouse features—aligns with the aesthetic values prevalent within the furry community, where such blending is celebrated and explored creatively.

While it might seem unconventional for Mickey, primarily a mainstream family-oriented character, to be seen as a furry mascot, this idea isn’t far from the kinds of playful and imaginative reinterpretations common in both fan culture and broader pop culture discourse. The use of such a globally recognized figure could bring visibility to the furry community, showcasing their artistic and performative expressions while also highlighting the permeable boundaries of how characters can be celebrated and utilized across different communities.

Moreover, this intersection could foster discussions about the nature of fandom, the role of anthropomorphism in human culture, and the ways in which characters transcend their origins, becoming symbols with multiple meanings that vary across different audiences. The humor and irony of using a universally beloved figure like Mickey Mouse in such a niche yet vividly creative community underscore the playful subversion that often characterizes fan interactions with mainstream media icons.

Does this have more of a mainstreaming or an appropriation tinge? #

The adoption of a mainstream character like Mickey Mouse by the furry community—or any niche subculture—can be analyzed through the dual lenses of mainstreaming and appropriation, each with its own implications and nuances.

Mainstreaming occurs when elements of a subculture are adopted by the broader culture, often leading to a greater acceptance and understanding of the subculture’s practices and values. If Mickey Mouse were adopted as a mascot by the furry community, and if this were embraced or even marketed by mainstream entities like Disney, it could lead to increased visibility and potentially more acceptance of the furry community. This scenario would represent mainstreaming, as it would help integrate furry culture into broader societal contexts, potentially reducing stigma and increasing public familiarity with and respect for the community.

Appropriation, on the other hand, involves taking elements from one culture or identity group without permission, often by those in a position of privilege, and using them in ways that can be seen as disrespectful or stripping them of their original meaning or value. If the furry community were to adopt Mickey Mouse without engaging with the broader context of Disney’s corporate identity and the character’s historical and cultural significance, or if they were to use Mickey in ways that contravene the values associated with him, it might be viewed as appropriation. However, this term usually involves a power dynamic where the appropriating group has more power or privilege than the original group, which complicates its use in this scenario, where a global corporate icon like Mickey is involved.

In the case of a niche group like the furries adopting a figure like Mickey Mouse, the dynamic is more likely to be seen as an act of cultural remixing or recontextualization rather than appropriation, given that Mickey is a symbol owned by a powerful entity like Disney and does not belong to a marginalized group. This act could also be viewed as a form of playful homage or creative expression, where the subculture adds new layers of meaning to the character without necessarily undermining or disrespecting the original content.

Thus, whether it’s seen as mainstreaming or appropriation can depend heavily on the perspective of those observing the interaction, the intentions and actions of the furry community, and the reactions from mainstream culture, including Disney’s response to such a usage of their beloved character.

Cynics might argue that it’s a deeply unbalanced proposition and lament that sheer size should triumph over principle. #

Indeed, the critique of cynics in such scenarios often revolves around perceived power imbalances and the challenges faced by less dominant groups when interacting with mainstream, highly institutionalized entities. The concept of “size winning over principle” reflects a broader skepticism about the interplay between powerful corporations and niche communities or interests.

From this perspective, the power dynamic between a global entity like Disney and the furry community (or any subculture) is markedly uneven. Disney, with its extensive legal and media resources, possesses significant control over how its characters are used and perceived publicly. This control can seem to overshadow principles of cultural expression and identity that niche groups might hold dear.

The cynical viewpoint might focus on several points:

• Cultural Dominance: Disney’s characters are ubiquitous and influential globally. Their portrayal and usage are tightly controlled to maintain a family-friendly, universally appealing brand image. When a subculture adopts such a character, there’s a risk that this is seen not as a legitimate reappropriation for artistic or expressive purposes, but rather as an infringement or misalignment with corporate interests.

• Commercial Interests Over Cultural Expression: Disney, like any corporation, prioritizes its financial and reputational interests. Innovations or adaptations by smaller groups that do not align with these interests might be suppressed legally or marginalized, even if these adaptations are culturally meaningful for the subculture.

• Principles vs. Profit: The conflict between corporate profit motives and the principle of free cultural expression is a longstanding issue. The corporate tendency to safeguard intellectual property can clash with the subcultural practices of transformation and community-specific symbolism, leading to tensions between preserving cultural heritage and supporting creative expression.

• Visibility and Misrepresentation: Even if a powerful entity like Disney were to embrace a subculture’s adoption of its characters, there’s a risk that this inclusion is superficial or commodifying, rather than a genuine engagement with the subculture’s values and meanings.

Thus, the critique that “size should win over principle” encapsulates a broader discontent with how commercial and corporate interests can overpower smaller cultural narratives. It expresses a longing for a more balanced cultural landscape where diverse expressions and appropriations are not only tolerated but embraced as vital components of a dynamic cultural ecosystem.

What are accepted copyright rules regarding fan culture? #

Copyright rules regarding fan culture, such as the creation and sharing of fan fiction, fan art, and other derivative works, hinge largely on complex interactions between copyright law, fair use provisions, and the evolving policies of original content creators and rights holders. Here’s a detailed look at these components:

1. Copyright Law

Copyright law generally protects original works of authorship including literature, music, and art from being used without permission of the rights holder. This means that creating fan works that copy or closely imitate original characters, settings, or plots without authorization could potentially infringe on the copyrights of the original creators.

2. Fair Use Doctrine

In many jurisdictions, particularly in the United States, the fair use doctrine provides a legal defense for unauthorized use of copyrighted material under certain conditions. This doctrine evaluates several factors to determine whether a particular use is fair:

• The purpose and character of the use: Transformative uses (those that add new expression or meaning) are more likely to be considered fair. This can often apply to parody or criticism.

• The nature of the copyrighted work: Using material from factual works is more likely to be fair than using purely fictional works.

• The amount and substantiality of the portion used: Using smaller, less significant amounts of the original work is more likely to be fair.

• The effect of the use on the potential market: Uses that do not negatively affect the market for the original work are more likely to be fair.

3. Policies of Content Owners

Many content owners, particularly in media and entertainment, recognize the value of fan engagement and may adopt policies that permit or even encourage certain fan activities. Companies like Disney, for example, have historically been protective of their intellectual property but also recognize the promotional benefits of fan creations to a degree. The extent to which fan works are tolerated can vary widely depending on the company and the nature of the work.

4. Fan Culture and Norms

Within fan communities, there are often self-regulated norms and rules about how to engage with the original content. Many fan fiction websites, for example, require that works be non-commercial, respectful of the original source material, and marked with disclaimers that acknowledge the original creators.

5. Litigation and Enforcement

Legal actions against fan works are relatively rare and often depend on the specific circumstances. Enforcement can sometimes lead to public relations issues, given the loyal and passionate nature of fan communities. As a result, many companies weigh the benefits of fan engagement against the potential harm of copyright infringement before deciding to take legal action.

The landscape of copyright law as it relates to fan culture is perpetually in flux, balancing the rights of original creators with the interests and passions of fans who contribute to the cultural and commercial value of the original works through their engagement and creativity.