-
use of Democratic Convention broadcast
-
[Steve Wargo] “Who is actually going to file a lawsuit over something so trivial?”
Not to disagree with Walter — as I said in my post, I do intend to make sure we get written permission. But I also agree with Steve. Which is why a lawyer’s perspective would be valuable — he/she may well say “Don’t bother them – they’ll be puzzled that you’re even asking,” based on his/her experience. Based on history, not legal “fact.”
Walter’s comment about Disney is also based on history. I’ve commented before in this forum, I believe, about an incident where I merely ASKED permission to use a totally benign and fair-use-eligible (as evidence of world-wide influence of American culture) photo of a Chinese man wearing a Disney sweatshirt, and Disney reacted like I had committed homicide or worse in the town square in front of cute little children and nuns. It was the most offensive letter I’ve ever received, and over NOTHING. Disney (which of course based its early fortune on stealing old German folk tales) is not just a brave defender of its intellectual property — it is a huge corporate bully that has feathered the nest of so many Congressmen that they manage to get the copyright law extended whenever one of their properties is about to go into public domain.
I have a question about Disney. I saw a little boy being led by the hand by his 20-ish Dad yesterday — boy was wearing a “Mickey Mouse” (copyright, Disney Corp., not used by permission) teeshirt, and I wondered, WHY? What creative output involving Mickey Mouse has captured his imagination? Has Mickey been funny, or charming, or even INTERESTING, in the last fifty years? I don’t get it. Is it brainwashing? I can understand MY being brainwashed — I’m old enough to remember Walt intro’ing the Wonderful World of Disney, and I thought Walt was the coolest old guy ever. But this generation buying Mickey shirts for the kids? Must be a theme-park purchase.
Bob C
-
[Bob Cole] “Walter’s comment about Disney is also based on history.”
Actually that comment is based on an actual event that happened in Connecticut during the 2 years I lived up there. Disney served legal notice on the daycare center and it became one of those “community outrage” stories that played on the news for about three weeks until the daycare painted over the characters. One of the people interviewed multiple times was a lawyer representing Disney and he said they do not enjoy pursuing these types of cases, but by law they are required to and they pursue them vigorously.
Can’t say as I blame them. I wouldn’t want to lose control of any of those characters.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Biscardi Creative Media
HD and SD Production for Broadcast and Independent Productions.STOP STARING AND START GRADING WITH APPLE COLOR Apple Color Training DVD available now!
Read my Blog!
-
[walter biscardi] “by law they are required to”
By corporate practice they’re required to, yes.
But “by law?” Nah. They could have (a) pretended not to know about it; (b) given a license.
Disney goes after high-profile cases that make them look bad for the same reason the IRS goes after rock stars: obtain compliance by creating fear.
But Disney’s protectiveness is, imho, excessive and counterproductive. I’ll betcha a ton of people who saw those CT daycare broadcasts decided to cancel their trips to Disneyworld. There are other theme parks.
Imagine the good pr that would have come from Disney going the other direction on the daycare incident, and saying “We’re going to donate X rolls of wallpaper to any daycare provider in the country that wants to brighten its walls.”
-
[Bob Cole] “By corporate practice they’re required to, yes.
But “by law?” Nah. They could have (a) pretended not to know about it; (b) given a license. “
No, by law they are required to. Part of maintaining a copyright and trademark on a product is the defend it against any known attempts to use them without permission. Once Disney was notified of these characters in the Daycare, they had to act.
The license fees would have to be the same fee structure as any other commercial enterprise. Disney did give the daycare the option to purchase a license, but of course it was too high for them to pay.
“Pretending not to know” is what schoolchildren do, not lawyers and professionals in business.
So yes, “by law.”
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Biscardi Creative Media
HD and SD Production for Broadcast and Independent Productions.STOP STARING AND START GRADING WITH APPLE COLOR Apple Color Training DVD available now!
Read my Blog!
-
[walter biscardi] “”Pretending not to know” is what schoolchildren do, not lawyers and professionals in business.”
Oooo burned!
Since neither of us is a lawyer this is kind of an unenlightening discussion, but do you have any evidence for your blanket statement? I have seen plenty of instances where businessmen (and policemen/lawyers/judges) exercised discretion about issues that were too trivial to litigate, enforce, or otherwise get hassled about. Which was the point of my question — trying to get more info about the gray areas where rights enforcements are more trouble than they’re worth. The law is clear enough; the practice is not.
The reason that Disney is famous about its rights enforcement policy is that they are exceptionally vigilant about enforcement. Not every business fits that mold. Hasbro, to take one recent example, took quite awhile to deal with Scrabulous — and Hasbro is still in business.
-
Hi Bob,
The issue here isn’t likely copyright — it’s probably the characters as trademarks of Disney. As I understand it, trademarks must be defended, or else they could be considered abandoned and the company would lose the trademark protection. This is not true of copyright, which can be selectively enforced.
See https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm#6
But — I practice graphics, not law.
Best,
Walter Soyka
Keen Live, Inc.
Digital Media Design & Technology -
I’ve got to side with Walter on this one. A trademark is useless if you end up in court with a proven track record of allowing use without permission. Look at the Calvin peeing stickers that were on all those trucks back int he ’90s.
I’m no Disney fan, but I’ve seen some pretty horrible renditions (knock offs) of Disney characters painted by amateur artists in small town daycares and restaurants.
Disney’s licensing depends on strict quality control. Their business is all about image control. A Mickey with big teeth sticking out or eyes drawn too large (or worse, one drawn in the act of doing something “unethical”) tarnishes – or at least cheapens – the image of not only the character, but the larger company which it iconicly represents.
If the daycare really wants Disney images on their wall, (ugh!) Disney makes it pretty easy to buy decals that are officially licensed. As long as they aren’t using those images to advertise or promote their own enterprise, Disney would be happy.
-
So I suppose that company in greater central CT that charges money to have the Little Mermaid wooden cutout on the front lawn wishing Uncle Bob a Happy 79th Birthday is a violation. It more than likely is.
I don’t know about you, but in the more rural parts of CT, I still see a lot of trucks with the peeing Calvin decal.
Then there is the urban legend of the dad who sent a videotape of his little girl doing her ballet recital to the music from Beauty and the Beast, and getting sued by Disney.
Your average non-media worker does not even think about copyright or intellectual property.
-
I’m very grateful for the many responses to my original post about use of a clip… and I love the digressions too.
But does anybody have an insight into why Mickey Mouse is still selling teeshirts? to me that’s even more of a mystery than intellectual property law.
I wonder whether there is a link between the fact that Disney is the company most famous for defending its trademarks/copyrights/whatever, and that their most famous icon is so … dumb??? lame??? oh, I know how to describe it — so… “Mickey-Mouse!”
Bob C
-
[Bob Cole] “But does anybody have an insight into why Mickey Mouse is still selling teeshirts?”
It’s one of those things that is inexplicably ingrained into children somehow… they have been fed the marketing Kool-Aid to such a degree that kids still love Mickey, even though most of them have never seen a Mickey Mouse cartoon.
Other examples abound…
Other than Michael Phelps (who I was disappointed to read that he ate five Big Macs at a sitting once), I don’t know any adults who would touch McDonald’s food with a ten-foot pole. Yet children love the place… for them, it’s the place to be.
Ok, their french fries are good.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up