Disney has lobbied congress to encourage the passing of copyright acts such as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act to protect their copyrighted works for longer periods. Long-term: Disney did this because they are still making a great deal of money off of their older incarnations of characters such as Mickey Mouse.

"They are one of the Largest Lobbyist for Copyright Law in America (they contributed to the campaigns for 18 out of the 25 congressmen who sponsored the Sonny Bono bills in the Senate and the House), and as such have receive a lot of criticism for their actions." (David) 

"Furthermore, should Disney pursue additional lobbying, its efforts will be met with significant opposition from both the current CTEA opponents and Congress." (Kamboj)

"The maximum term for already-published works was lengthened from 56 years to 75 years. That meant that any work that was still under copyright in 1978, when the new system took effect, was eligible for an additional 19 years of protection. Without the term extension, works published between 1922 and 1941 would have fallen into the public domain between 1978 and 1997. Instead, those works remained under copyright, providing a windfall to the owners of iconic copyrighted works such as the original Mickey Mouse cartoon, "Steamboat Willie," and George Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue." When the 1990s arrived, the holders of those older copyrights began agitating for another extension. Copyrighted works from the 1920s were scheduled to begin falling into the public domain again in 1998, and copyright interests wanted Congress to stop that from happening." (Lee)

The article "Disney's Copyright History" from the University of Delaware views these events in a neutral light and gives a factual and analytical perspective on its importance and effects in the future of copyright.

The article "Disney’s Influence on the Enactment of the Copyright Term Extension Act (“CTEA”), as well as the CTEA’s Retrospective and Prospective Impact." from Harvard shows a more negative perspective that speaks on the perspective from Disney’s opposition and says that Disney would face backlash should they pursue further copyright extension. This shows the effects that Disney is having on other copyrighted material.

An article from the Washington Post titled "15 years ago, Congress kept Mickey Mouse out of the public domain. Will they do it again?" has a more negative view on Disney's influence on copyright as they feel that copyright just keeps getting longer and longer leading to a stagnant state in art’s progression.

"I would like to see a 50 year flat limit on copyright. That would, I believe, serve the interests of fostering creative work but give the public access to the works in a reasonable time." (Hill)

Disney’s impacts are historically significant because they can’t extend only the copyright protection on their works so all works created around the same time have had their protection extended alongside Disney's works. This is significant because it shows that as long as a big corporation wants something done it will likely happen regardless of the ripples it will generate.