> It would be a real coincidence of the Disney-fueled Mickey Mouse copyright extensions got it exactly right.
There have only been two copyright term extensions in the US that have affected Mickey Mouse, and only one of them could even remotely be called "Disney-fueled".
The Copyright Act of 1976 changed the term from two 28-year term to one 75 year term. The Copyright Extension Act of 1988 added 20 years to that.
The second one is that one that might be called "Disney-fueled".
The 1976 Act was probably supported by Disney but that didn't matter. It had widespread support and very little opposition. This was because it was widely believed that the 1909 Act was very outdated and needed a major overhaul, and that as part of that overhaul the US should align itself better with how copyright worked in most of the rest of the world. The term changes were part of this effort to align with the rest of the world and pave the way for the US to join the Berne Convention.
There have only been two copyright term extensions in the US that have affected Mickey Mouse, and only one of them could even remotely be called "Disney-fueled".
The Copyright Act of 1976 changed the term from two 28-year term to one 75 year term. The Copyright Extension Act of 1988 added 20 years to that.
The second one is that one that might be called "Disney-fueled".
The 1976 Act was probably supported by Disney but that didn't matter. It had widespread support and very little opposition. This was because it was widely believed that the 1909 Act was very outdated and needed a major overhaul, and that as part of that overhaul the US should align itself better with how copyright worked in most of the rest of the world. The term changes were part of this effort to align with the rest of the world and pave the way for the US to join the Berne Convention.