Let us all rejoice! Mickey, Donald, and Minnie are safe! But they are not free. Thanks to a decision of the United States Supreme Court last week upholding the Sonny Bono Extension Act of 1998, Walt Disney Enterprises can retain exclusive ownership to the entire Mickey Mouse family for another two decades. And, therein, as they say, is a tale.

When the founding fathers came to write the U.S. Constitution they recognized that the economic development of the new nation was inextricably tied to its citizens’ ability to harness their creativity in the name of invention and creative production. Such an insight was not only absolutely prophetic, it also came naturally to men like Thomas Jefferson and benjamin Franklin. Thus, the Constitution provides for the creation of laws to protect what we now refer to as intellectual property, which now find their expression in patent and copyright laws.

Beginning in 1790, Congress began to pass statutes designed to ensure that holders of copyrights, those who had created such things as books, drawings, and maps could profit from their creations by granting to them full and exclusive ownership of their creations, including the sole right to reproduce their creations, for a “limited period” as the Constitution permitted.

By creating an exclusive right but only for a limited period Congress felt that they had balanced the creators’ need to profit by their creations against the public’s need to benefit from these inventions. Once the limited period was over, they intended that anyone could reproduce a work. The original copyright statute provided for an exclusive period of 14 years with the possibility of renewal for an additional 14 years. When one considers that the average life span in the late 18th century was less than 50 years, such a term, in effect, meant that most copyright holders would enjoy the fruits of their labors during their lives.

Over the succeeding decades, Congress continued to legislate about copyrights and passed a number of statutes including two major laws in 1909 and 1976. Throughout this 200 years of copyright legislation, one of the topics constantly debated was the issue of how long the term of exclusive ownership ought to be. By 1998 the “limited term” had come to be life plus 50 years for an individual and 75 years for a corporation.

In 1998, as the copyrights on Mickey Mouse and other significant Disney creations, as well as on a number of popular songs owned by others, were about to lapse, Congress passed an extension, in honor of Sonny Bono (formerly of “Sonny & Cher”) of 20 years. Corporate America sighed in relief.

Such an extension, of course, meant that artists, musicians, and others still could not, in general, utilize these copyrighted works without permission, which usually meant payment of a fee. Lawrence Lessig, a brilliant law professor and intellectual property law pundit who has taught at Harvard and Stanford, led the charge to overturn the 1998 Act as unconstitutional on the grounds that the period enacted was no longer, in fact, “limited.” It was that litigation which ended unsuccessfully last week in the Supreme Court.

The court’s decision, while upholding the 1998 Act was less than enthusiastic about the law itself. While saying that Congress had the right to do what it had done, the court also made it fairly clear that it felt that the law was unwise from a policy perspective. Thus, Mickey remains safe in the hands of corporate America for another two decades at least. But while Lessig and others who believe that copyright terms have become far too long and no longer serve any positive purpose have been defeated, there is still hope.

Traditionally, copyright law has been the preserve of a small cadre of specialist lawyers and a few large companies whose economic well-being depends upon it. Copyright legislation has rarely in recent years favored either the general public or the majority of individual artists and musicians. Instead, it has been the large media companies whose lobbyists have directed the development of the law.

With the Supreme Court’s decision last week and the realization that Congress’ right to legislate in this area has few limits, more people have come to see the need to become politically active on this issue. Perhaps, in 2018, when Mickey and his friends are again close to freedom, Congress will hear other voices chanting: “Free Mickey, Free Mickey.”