[Bob Cole]

My mouse is wired, not Bluetooth. Still jumping to the corners, and I haven’t figured out why.

[Bob Cole]

[Todd Terry] “Michael Phelps (who I was disappointed to read that he ate five Big Macs at a sitting once), I”

It isn’t going to hurt him a bit. I heard a couple of dieticians discuss his diet on the radio. Turns out when you swim that many miles/day you need to consume 8000-12000 calories just to avoid losing muscle mass.

He’s a local hero here in Baltimore, and God knows we could use one. Like a lot of young (17 then) celebs he got into trouble in his brand new car one night — DUI — but he stepped up, took his punishment, and spoke to kids and the media about drinking and driving.

It’ll be interesting to see how he does on SNL – Sept. 13, I think.

Hmmm.. Big Mac…… fries…. thanks a lot.

[Bob Cole]

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]

[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.

[Bob Cole]

[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]

[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]

This is where it would be great to have a lawyer’s advice. The law may be black and white but the PRACTICE of law is filled with shades of gray. I wonder whether an experienced lawyer would say, “just do it.”

But since I’m not a lawyer and don’t want to hire one, I’ll jump through the hoops. Practically speaking, it would be amazing if DNC objected to usage of a heart-warming, positive moment from its convention. I have a feeling that someone at DNC, amazed, will say, “Why’d you bother us with this? Of course use it…” and just be annoyed that he/she has had to take up time with it.

Thanks for the interesting insights. Great to know to be cautious about everybody else, and to know about free use of stuff from C-Span/Federal coverage.

Bob C

[Bob Cole]

website I think. Very benign — about how the company is providing needed jobs.

I guess Stephen Colbert’s use of Fox News footage is “fair use.” I can’t imagine their getting permission to lampoon O’Reilly.

[Bob Cole]

I’d contact a true expert like Mr. Size (or someone he recommends) and get great advice. Perhaps he could work from a floor plan.

An amateur’s take on your situation:

1. Get good blinds for the windows. Later on, if you have a nice view, you might invest in ND or CTO+ND filters over the glass, but for now, with your budget, just get rid of the complicating factor of daylight.

2. Go fluorescent for your lighting. Cooler, cheaper in long run.

3. Overhead grids for SAFELY hanging lights would be a big plus, especially for fluoros with their limited throw.

4. Some central control of lighting (either by DMX or by simple on-off switches) would be good — especially a lightboard.

5. You haven’t mentioned audio. If you don’t do major soundproofing you’ll likely have many takes ruined by distracting (“unmotivated”) sounds.

6. Finally, if your budget is too limited to do three rooms well, do one room well and use simpler temporary solutions for the other two.

Paying a real expert would be your best investment. True, your budget is small, but you also have a lot less money to waste on the wrong plan.

Good luck!

bob c

[Bob Cole]

Right under my nose but I needed that advice. Thanks for giving it.

Bob