What Kind Of Mickey Mouse (And Donald Duck) Lawsuits Are These?

from the what's-going-on-now? dept

Donald Duck is apparently pretty busy on the trademark law front. On the same day, I heard about two separate legal incidents involving Donald Duck, which is just the sort of coincidence that can't be ignored. The first story, admittedly, is more bizarre than the second. It involves Mickey Mouse suing Donald Duck. Literally. It's got to be some sort of prank, but the lawsuit has actually been filed. The complaint is rather basic, with Mickey Mouse's lawyer Juan Abogado ("Abagado" apparently is the word for "lawyer" in Spanish.) stating simply:

COMES NOW Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, and states:
1. This is an action arising under the Trademark Protection Act, 15 USC 78.
2. The Plaintiff is the owner of the trademark no. 0134148349208, (Walt Disney World patent).
3. The Defendant is a duck.

Donald Duck, represented by his lawyer, Pluto the Dog, Esq., quickly shot back:

1. Admitted.
2. Denied.
3. Admitted.

A quick search fails to turn up the trademark in question, though, I'll admit to not putting much effort into it.

The other case involving the same Donald Duck is a bit more bizarre. Reader Kevin Brody lets us know that the University Oregon has a stylized version of Donald Duck as its mascot, on license from Disney. Some students and fans of the University football team put together a song about how much they love the team. Great, right? Well, except that in the video they made, the Donald Duck-alike mascot makes a few appearances, and the school's marketing director flipped out and ordered them to edit out the duck, supposedly because Disney either was, or could get, upset about the usage. As the author of the column notes, this is ridiculous. It's just a few guys having fun and does no damage to the trademark at all. It's unclear if Disney actually got involved here, and my guess is that this is more the university stepping up before Disney said anything to protect itself. Given Disney's aggressive enforcement of its copyrights and trademarks in the past, perhaps this isn't a huge surprise.

Still, with Donald Duck being summoned by court clerk "Goofy" to the Florida courtroom where Mickey is suing, you have to wonder if he'll be able to make it back in time for the the Oregon Ducks game...

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Entertainment Industry: Yes, Please Keep Negotiating Secret Copyright Treaty To Save Our Asses

from the yeah,-that's-convincing dept

Sherwin Siy (one of the few people who actually was allowed to glance briefly at parts of the proposed ACTA treaty, though under strict NDA) has written about yet another letter sent by the entertainment industry to the government in support of ACTA. This letter includes pretty much everyone who benefits from abusing copyright laws and is afraid of the internet:

Advertising Photographers of America
American Association of Independent Music (A2IM)
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA)
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP)
American Society of Media Photographers, Inc. (ASMP)
Association of American Publishers (AAP)
Broadcast Music, Inc (BMI)
Commercial Photographers International
Directors Guild of America (DGA)
Evidence Photographers International Council
Independent Film and Television Alliance (IFTA)
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE)
Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA)
National Music Publishers Association (NMPA)
NBC Universal
News Corporation
Picture Archive Council of America (PACA)
Professional Photographers of America (PPA)
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
Reed Elsevier Inc.
Society of Sport & Event Photographers
Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA)
Stock Artists Alliance
Student Photographic Society
The Advertising Photographers of America
The Walt Disney Company
Time Warner, Inc.
Universal Music Group
Viacom Inc.
Warner Music Group

Funny... isn't it, that all these companies and industry groups are supporting a deal that no one's seen yet? Oh wait... that's because many of them have seen it and actually have had a hand in creating it. But what's really damning is that no where in the letter do they explain why this is actually needed or how it will do anything valuable. Instead, it's a pure faith-based letter saying "if you pass this secret treaty, good things will happen." I don't know about you, but generally, I prefer there to be actual proof and evidence that restricting consumer rights around the world actually leads to some sort of real benefit.

Tellingly, they don't respond to any of the points we raised earlier. This is not a treaty to help people or the economy. It's a deal to try to sneak through a system for propping up an obsolete business model by companies who don't want to adapt.

43 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Disney's Keychest: Is Giving Back Your Fair Use Rights With More DRM Really A Step Forward?

from the redefining-fair-use dept

A bunch of folks have sent in different stories about Disney's new "Keychest" technology offering, which would (in theory) allow users to purchase content that would be stored online, and which they could then access from any "participating service."

With Keychest, when a consumer buys a movie from a participating store, his accounts with other participating services--such as a mobile-phone provider or a video-on-demand cable service--would be updated to show the title as available for viewing. The movies wouldn't be downloaded; rather, they would reside with each particular delivery company, such as the Internet service provider, cable company or phone company.

The idea, supposedly is:

to address two of the biggest hurdles blocking widespread consumer adoption of movie downloads: the difficulty of playing a movie back on devices other than a PC or laptop, and limited storage space on those computers' hard drives.

Now, while you must admit that allowing people to access the same content after a single purchase on multiple devices is definitely a step up from the "old" way of doing things, it does kind of ignore some important points: such as the fact that, for the most part, you could already do this on your own. As we know, it's legal to rip your CD's and then store that content on an iPod or on your computer and listen to the music how you want to do so. And, even though this is perfectly legitimate fair use of content for movies as well, Hollywood has used the worst provision in the DMCA -- the anti-circumvention provision -- to block people from doing what is accepted fair use with movie and television content.

So all Keychest really seems to be doing is giving you back your fair use rights on content -- but also wrapping it in additional DRM, such that it only works on "participating services." Oh, and it could include other limitations as well:

And Keychest would allow movie studios to dictate how many devices, connected to which distribution networks, a given title can be played on.

So, kudos to Disney for recognizing that people hate having to buy the same content over and over again and hate being limited on what devices they can view content on... but, creating a new, more permissive DRM solution, just to give back some of an individual's fair use rights, isn't really a huge win.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Disney Appreciation Student Group Told They Can't Get Together To Watch Disney Movies

from the hurray-for-IP-law dept

Via Copycense, we learn that the students who formed the Disney Movie Appreciation Club at Washington University in St. Louis recently had to shut down the club due to threats of IP infringement, because the students were gathering together to watch the legally obtained movies, without getting a proper license for showing it to a larger group of people (rather than just a few people). The link above decries how separated IP laws have become from their intended purpose when a group of true fans of Disney movies can't even get together to watch them, without having to get some special license:

It makes no more sense to prohibit the viewing of a movie by multiple people than it does to prohibit the viewing of a portrait by multiple people. The people watching these films are not evil, conniving scammers out to claim Disney's films as their own. They are simply fans of Disney movies who want to take a break from studying and relax with a few friends.... Ultimately, however, I am not on a crusade against all forms of copyright. I just want to watch my movies in peace.

And, another generation of students is learning how copyright is so often abused, not to create incentives for content creation, but as a tool of control.

44 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Disney Sued For Selling The Pixar Lamp... And The Lawsuit Makes Sense

from the ok,-here-we-go... dept

We usually focus on trademark lawsuits that make no sense at all... but effective trademark law exists to prevent confusion among consumers (i.e., it's really more of a consumer protection law, rather than an "intellectual property" law) and thus there are plenty of reasonable trademark infringement lawsuits out there. This appears to be one of them. Lamp maker Luxo is apparently suing Disney for selling real versions of Pixar's iconic computer animated lamp. Pixar, of course, has long used the lamp as a part of its logo:

At first, I thought perhaps Luxo was suing Disney because of the similarities to Luxo's lamps. But the issue is that Disney is now selling a real version of the Pixar lamp... and bizarrely decided to market it as "The Luxo Jr." Yes, everyone admits that John Lasseter designed the lamp to look like the Luxo lamp, but why call it that when selling it? It's amazing that of all the trademark lawyers at Disney, none of them suspected there might be a complaint from the real Luxo, if Disney were to sell a lamp using the Luxo name. This is a situation where not only a moron in a hurry, but your everyday lamp buyer, might reasonably assume that the Disney Luxo Jr. lamp is actually made by Luxo.

So, two questions: who at Disney allowed this to go forward? And why didn't Disney and Luxo just do the most obvious thing and have Luxo make the lamps for Disney?

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Copyright Length And The Life Of Mickey Mouse

from the exploring-the-details dept

Last week, we reported on Rep. Zoe Lofgren's statement that copyright law has become equal to the life of Mickey Mouse. Tom Bell has a couple of recent posts exploring issues related to Mickey Mouse and copyright, that seem worth exploring, given Rep. Lofgren's recognition of this fact. While he notes (as we have) that there's ample evidence to suggest that the earliest Mickey Mouse cartoons really are in the public domain, he first explores how the length of copyright has followed the age of Mickey Mouse:

James Boyle then weighs in to point out that even that chart exaggerates the true length of copyright over that period of time, as for much of the timeframe shown in the chart content creators (1) had to register to get the copyright and (2) had to regularly renew the copyright to keep it. When you look at the real length of time that works were covered by copyright, it was significantly less than the maximum, because only a small percentage of people even bothered to register copyrights in the first place, and of those that did, only a tiny fraction renewed them. Compare that to today when you get a copyright the second you create something new, and it lasts until 70 years past your death. We've gone from the true median length of copyright being zero to well over 100 years in an incredibly short period of time.

And for what purpose?

Bell notes that Disney honestly wouldn't lose that much even if there were no copyright on the early Mickey Mouse films. Yes, people would be able to do some new things with the Mickey Mouse found in Steamboat Willie (though, not the more modern Mickey Mouse), but Disney would still hold the trademark on the Mouse and could probably stop plenty of uses.

But, really, the bigger point was made by Boyle, via Twitter, where he noted that we are "the first generation to deny our own culture to ourselves and to drive the point home, he notes that no work created during your lifetime will, without conscious action by its creator, become available for you to build upon. For people who don't recognize the importance of the public domain and the nature of creativity, perhaps this seems like no big deal. But if you look back through history, you realize what an incredibly big deal it is -- and how immensely stifling this is on our culture. And then you realize this is all done under a law whose sole purpose is to "promote the progress" and you begin to wonder how this happened. It goes back beyond Mickey Mouse, certainly, but Mickey and Disney have been huge drivers of this attempt to stifle new culture, all in the name of limiting competition for itself. What a shame.

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Great Moments In Marketing: Disney Pulls Movie Trailer Off YouTube For Copyright Claims

from the it's-a-COMMERCIAL dept

Ah, the stories that just make you shake your head in wonder. The purpose of a movie trailer is that it's a commercial. It's a pure advertisement with the math being simple: the more people you get to see it, the more likely you are to get people interested in shelling out cash to see the actual film. As such, you would think that anyone would be thrilled if people are actively promoting that advertisement for you. Not at the Walt Disney company, apparently. After a trailer of the hotly-anticipated Tim Burton adaptation of Alice in Wonderland hit YouTube, Disney sent a takedown notice to pull it offline. Because heaven forbid people actually want to see the advertisement they put out.

47 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Should There Be A Penalty For Falsely Claiming Copyright Over Public Domain Material?

from the happy-birthday... dept

Slashdot and The Register point us to a new paper by Jason Mazzone about "copyfraud" -- or the ability of someone to claim copyright on something that is in the public domain. The issue, Mazzone points out, is that there's no penalty for falsely claiming copyright on something, so there's plenty of incentive to claim something is still covered even if it's not. Remember the story of "Happy Birthday"? While the common wisdom is that the copyright is owned by Time Warner, there's a lot of evidence that this is not the case at all, and the song is in the public domain. Oh, and that could be true of Mickey Mouse as well. But, of course, neither Disney nor Time Warner risks any punishment in claiming that they still hold the copyright to each of those... so who's going to challenge it?

64 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Store Payment Info In Your Online Store? Watch Out For Patent Infringement Lawsuits

from the pay-now dept

Bill Squier alerts us to the news that a bunch of companies have been sued for daring to store consumer payment information and allow either stored value payments or one-click payments on their site. The article linked here focuses on Apple as a defendant, and notes 14 other companies were sued as well, but in researching this, I found that Joe Mullin actually wrote about another batch of companies (20 of them) that were sued back in April. The earlier lawsuit included Google, Wal-Mart, Bank of America, Capital One, JP Morgan Chase, Mastercard, Visa, Vivendi, Disney and Western Union among others. The more recent lawsuit has (as mentioned) Apple, Best Buy, Amazon, American Express, Barnes & Noble, Citigroup and eBay among others. So... basically any online e-commerce site, credit card company or big bank.

As for the patents in question, they're all a variation on a "method and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens." The specific patents are 7,376,621, 7,249,099, 7,328,189 and 7,177,838. Reading through the claims, this seems like an incredibly typical online system for storing payment info and seeing if the person can actually pay. Since the patent system defenders among our readers get quite upset whenever I say something seems "obvious" to me, let's flip this around. Can anyone explain how these concepts were not obvious at the time of filing?

Not surprisingly, the cases have been filed in Marshall, Texas... and as Joe Mullin figured out, the guy who is running "Actus" is a lawyer known for representing some infamous patent hoarding companies. He also discovered that the lawyer representing Actus in these lawsuits appears to share an office (or at least the same address) with the son (who is also a patent attorney) of the judge handling the case. At some point, do people start questioning whether or not there's a conflict of interest there?

35 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Multiple People Demanding Credit For Hannah Montana

from the there-are-only-so-many-stories-in-the-world dept

You hear it all the time with almost any successful movie/tv show/book: other people claim that they had the idea first, pitched it and had it rejected (or, the creator "copied" the idea they had produced elsewhere). And now they want money and credit (but mainly money). Of course, this ignores the fact that multiple people tend to have similar story ideas all the time -- and in these sorts of things it's rarely the idea that matters, but the execution. Yet, two different and totally unrelated guys are now suing, claiming that they deserve money for coming up with the concept behind the hit TV show Hannah Montana. First, there's Buddy Sheffield, who apparently pitched a show called Rock and Roland to ABC/Disney in 2001 about "a seemingly average middle school student who actually moonlights as a pop star."

Ok, but then there's Richard Fronduto -- who claims that all the way back in 1990 he wrote a pilot script for a show called The Secret Life of Sindi about, yes, a seemingly average middle school student who actually moonlights as a pop star.

Of course, back in the 80s, I used to day dream about my secret life as as child pop-star, as well (you should have seen my air guitar routine) -- as did probably tons of other kids. Let's face it: this idea is not particularly original in the grand scheme of things. Kids always dream about leading glamorous secret lives, and being a rock star is probably a pretty common part of that. But actually then taking that idea and turning it into the massive hit that it is today is not about the idea, but about the execution. It's unfortunate that we live in an age where we so celebrate the idea, but downplay the importance of execution. It highlights exactly the wrong situation and leads to silly scenarios like this one.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Copyright Expiration On Popeye May Be A Test For Mickey Mouse

from the i-yam-what-i-yam dept

A bunch of folks have submitted the news that the cartoon character of Popeye is about to go into the public domain in the UK, and it should be quite interesting to see what happens next, as it will be something of a preview of the eventual Mickey Mouse fight that will be coming. To be honest, I'm surprised that were didn't hear attempts to extend basic copyright protection in the UK to prevent this from happening in the first place, as has happened in the past every time Mickey Mouse is about to fall into the public domain. I guess Disney just has more lobbying clout.

However, what will be most interesting is to see what happens next. Disney was able to continually extend copyright to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain for years -- in part because copyright wasn't an issue that the general public cared about or that really impacted them in a noticeable way. Obviously, over the past decade, that's changed quite a bit. Disney must know that it will have an awfully difficult time extending copyright yet again (though, the company will almost certainly try). In the meantime, though, what happens with Popeye in the UK may be a rough guide as to what will happen should Mickey Mouse hit the public domain.

And... the reality is that not very much different might happen.

That's because even though the copyright on the character has fallen into the public domain, the trademark remains -- and the current holder of the Popeye trademark in the UK, King Features (owned by Hearst), is expected to "protect its brand aggressively." That means people will still be quite limited in how they can use Popeye. If King Features is able to successfully use trademark law to keep Popeye under control, perhaps Disney won't go quite so crazy trying to extend the copyright on Mickey Mouse again... Either way, this little "experiment" will be worth watching.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Patent Lawsuit So Bogus That The Judge Ordered Sanctions And Attorney's Fees Paid

from the about-time dept

There are an awful lot of bogus patent lawsuits out there, but even when the lawsuits are tossed out it's very, very rare for a judge to order the plaintiffs to pay the legal fees of the defendants. However, in Illinois it just happened. Joe Mullin has the story of a patent that was quite clearly limited to an infrared camera linked to a GPS system. The patent examiner required the inventor to include the word "infrared" before declaring the patent acceptable and non-obvious. Yet, that didn't stop the patent holder from suing LG, Pantech and Disney for the Disney mobile phone service that let parents track where their kids were. The product was a huge commercial failure, but those are three big companies worth suing for infringement.

However, the judge noted, sternly, that the patent holder and the law firm that was handling the case (which had also worked on the patent) clearly decided to ignore what the patent actually said about it being for infrared cameras. This practice is more common than it should be. Even when claims are written to be narrowly focused, there's always some wiggle room, and many patent holders bring lawsuits on technologies that are pretty far from what's in the claims -- usually hoping that the accused will settle rather than take the issue to court. In this case, though, the judge pointed out that it was clearly a frivolous lawsuit, and ordered the defendants get reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. If this happened more often, maybe we'd see fewer ridiculous patent lawsuits.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Movie Studios Sue Australian ISP For Not Waving Magic Wand And Defeating Piracy

from the blame-someone-else dept

A few years ago, after realizing that blaming consumers wasn't a particularly effective strategy in covering up for the entertainment industry's own inability to adapt to a changing market, industry insiders chose a new strategy: blame ISPs. That sent them down a path of trying to force ISPs to do a variety of things, such as installing filters, policing their networks for copyright-infringing material and, of course, kicking users off their networks. In the mind of entertainment industry execs, a failure to do any of these things should be a crime. Note how the industry totally shifts responsibility here. Rather than admitting that they should change with the market, it's always someone else who needs to change to protect the entertainment industry's obsolete business model.

While the industry has been able to get some politicians and ISPs to agree (amazingly, often against their own best interests), it's now gone a step further. A bunch of the biggest movie studios (Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Disney Enterprises, and the Seven Network) have teamed up to sue Australia's largest ISP, iiNet, for failing to stop copyright infringement. iiNet, you may recall, is the same ISP that has been mocking the Australian government for requiring filters. So, naturally, it's response to this lawsuit is rather direct. While the studios complain that iiNet isn't doing anything, iiNet responds that this is not true at all. They pass each complaint on to the police, because if there's a crime, then the police should deal with it:

They send us a list of IP addresses and say 'this IP address was involved in a breach on this date'. We look at that say 'well what do you want us to do with this? We can't release the person's details to you on the basis of an allegation and we can't go and kick the customer off on the basis of an allegation from someone else'. So we say 'you are alleging the person has broken the law; we're passing it to the police. Let them deal with it'.

We are not traffic cops. We can't stand in the middle of it and stop the individual items that might be against the law. These guys are asking us to be judge, jury and executioner.

Even better, iiNet's CEO Michael Malone gets to the heart of the matter:

I think they genuinely believe that ISPs have a secret magic wand that we are hiding and if we bring it out we can make piracy disappear just by waving it. And it doesn't exist.

Indeed, but that might mean that the entertainment industry has to actually take responsibility for their own business model failings, and they can't do that. So they have to blame others.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Disney Giving Away Free iPhone Game To Promote Movie

from the that's-how-it's-done dept

Reader Terry Westley points us to yet another example of how companies are recognizing that content is advertising. Disney has apparently released a free iPhone game that's fun on its own, but which also serves to help promote an upcoming movie release. While some will dismiss this as just being a cheap way of advertising, you have to wonder what happens when movie makers start making these sorts of games really, really good. Then what happens to game developers who think they can get away with charging for their mobile phone games? Suddenly it becomes a lot harder to support that model if there are other businesses that are using a model where, the more games that are given away for free, the more it helps the rest of their business.

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Investors Recognizing How ProIP Is Bad For The Entertainment Industry

from the it's-not-a-bad-thing dept

Kevin Stapp writes in to point out an interesting article over at the Motley Fool, where the author, Anders Bylund, points out why the new ProIP law is bad for the big entertainment companies from the perspective of an investor in those companies. Basically, he recognizes what some of us have been saying for years. If you rely on stronger copyright as a crutch to protect an old business model, you're much slower to adopt newer business models that can greatly increase the size of your market. In other words, by denying the growth potential of infinite goods, you shrink the potential size of your market, and that's bad for the company and bad for investors:

As much as I love my Walt Disney investment and the great entertainment the company has created over the years, it's also part of a boneheaded industry that can't deal with the digital revolution.... Disney, Warner Music, and their colleagues could handle rampant piracy in a much more delicate manner and turn today's massive problem into free distribution and dirt cheap marketing. Yes, there are ways to make money when others copy your dearly beloved content for free. The PRO-IP Act is a step in exactly the wrong direction, though.

Exactly. And this reinforces the point that it's a mistake to keep trying to find the right "balance" between content producers and content consumers. There's no need for a balance if the content producers adopt business models that both expand their market (by properly defining the market) and leave consumers free to share and promote the content in a way that actually helps the bottom line of the content producer. It's quite rare to see short-term investor-types recognize such strategies, so it's quite interesting to see a discussion like this on a mainstream site like the Motley Fool. Hopefully others will start recognizing this reality soon as well.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Disney Used Anonymous Online Quotes In Ads

from the as-good-as-made-up dept

You've all seen movie advertisements that include snippets of glowing quotes from critics. "Marvelous!" "Best Movie of the Year!" etc. There's been some controversy about these quotes in the past. There was an investigation into studios taking movie critic quotes completely out of context, and even a lawsuit against Sony Pictures for making up a critic and his quotes for movie ads. It appears that Disney has now been caught trying out a new tactic: using quotes from anonymous internet commenters on IMDB. These "commenters" could be, for example, Disney employees, but go under usernames like "Theedge-4" and "Mjavfc1." Apparently, that's good enough for Disney to quote them in their ads. While there's something to be said for tapping into a wider group of folks than just the big name "professional" movie critics and reviewers, this one seems pretty questionable and open to abuse -- especially given the industry's documented history of made up reviews.

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Disney Joins NBC And Viacom In Demanding UK ISPs Kick File Sharers Off The Internet

from the sorry,-bob dept

While Disney is quite often painted as the leader of the pack when it comes to ridiculous and draconian copyright-related proposals, much of that can be attributed to former CEO Michael Eisner, who helped push for the Bono Copyright Extension Act to "protect" Mickey Mouse. Eisner, famously, loves to talk about the history of intellectual property law -- though, he's almost entirely wrong, attributing much of copyright law to Abraham Lincoln, who had nothing to do with it. After Eisner left, Robert Iger took over, and for a while, it seemed as if he might actually understand that he needed to learn how to embrace new technologies and not treat users as criminals.

Apparently Iger doesn't fully believe that, though. Joining with previous statements made by the folks in charge of NBC Universal and Viacom, Iger was recently in London saying that ISPs should ban users who are caught downloading unauthorized material. While UK ISPs have agreed to send out industry warning letters, so far they've resisted banning users from the internet. Iger, however, thinks that's not enough:

"We are simply asking for people who are downloading illegal files to get a warning initially then to get their service cut off."

He then falsely suggests that ISPs are effectively relying on their content to be effective. This is the lie that Big Content likes to tell itself. That it's really Hollywood content that gets people online, rather than communication tools or other content. But to Iger, the internet's main purpose is apparently to distribute Disney's content:

"Most distribution businesses succeed because they have a distribution process in place. They also have product. We contribute to that mightily. It is a joint partnership."

No, actually, it's not a partnership. Disney's using the internet as a platform because that's what customers demand. If Disney doesn't like it, it's free not to bother -- but everyone knows that wouldn't make much sense. And, then, of course, Iger (the same guy who said the entertainment industry should recognize that file sharing was just customers showing content companies what they wanted) falsely equates copyright infringement to "stealing." So much for Disney taking the high road.

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Turns Out Disney Might Not Own The Copyright On Early Mickey Mouse Cartoons

from the oops dept

Remember the recent story we had where some researchers noted that, despite the conventional wisdom (and claims from Time Warner), it appeared that Time Warner probably did not own the copyright on Happy Birthday? Of course, the company still collects millions for it, because people assume they do, but the historical evidence suggests that this is really incorrect. Now it turns out that the same thing may be true for Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse. This is rather noteworthy considering both the history of Mickey Mouse, as well as how much effort Disney has always put towards copyright extension just as the supposed copyright on Mickey Mouse was about to expire.

Now, to be clear, Disney can continue to hold the trademark on Mickey Mouse for as long as it continues to use the mark in commerce, but the copyright should go into the public domain eventually -- meaning others can make use of the early works, as long as it's clear that they're not doing so as Disney. So what if all of these copyright extensions were for naught, and the copyright had already expired?

There seems to be rather compelling evidence that this is the case, and many legal scholars agree. Basically, Disney was a bit disorganized early on and appears to have screwed up the original copyright claims on some early Mickey Mouse shorts, which based on the law at the time would nullify the copyright altogether. Now, this would only count for those early clips, which had a slightly different version of Mickey.

Not surprisingly, Disney isn't particularly open to this argument. Not only does it dismiss the concept out of hand as "frivolous," it has also legally threatened a legal scholar who first published an analysis saying that the copyright was invalid. In a letter to the researcher, Disney warned him that publishing his research could be seen as "slander of title" suggesting that he was inviting a lawsuit. He still published and Disney did not sue, but it shows the level of hardball the company is willing to play.

Of course, the story can be different when Disney is on the other side of the coin. When it was discovered that someone else (other than Disney) probably held the copyright for Bambi, Disney went ballistic, throwing out arcane legal concept after arcane legal concept to come up with anything that would get the copyright out of the hands of this other potential owner. Disney basically threw every potential legal argument against the wall -- including claiming both that Bambi was in the public domain and that Disney owned the copyright to it.

Unfortunately, none of this is likely to amount to much. It's unlikely anyone will actually challenge Disney on the copyright of early Mickey Mouse (or that anyone will challenge Happy Birthday's copyright either). However, once again, we find that the supposed "ownership" of certain things isn't quite as clear cut as some would like you to believe.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

ABC/Disney Memo Shows That Ripping Off Other TV Programs Is Ok... For ABC/Disney

from the next-ride-at-disneyland:-the-double-standard dept

Of course, we all know that in the long history of Disney, the company has made much of its money by taking the content of others and repurposing it in cute animated stories. Yet, when it comes to anyone else doing things with Disney's stories or characters, its lawyers are rather vicious in response. In fact, it's Disney's heavy handed lobbying that has helped extend copyright to ever longer terms, just to avoid Mickey Mouse from entering the public domain. Thus, it probably shouldn't come as a surprise, that Disney continues with this double standard in other parts of its business. Reader Comboman sent in the news that a leaked memo from Disney subsidiary ABC suggests that producers look for TV ideas from foreign shows, where the idea can be used without having to pay a license:

"As I'm sure you're all aware, foreign formats have increased in popularity as the basis for US television development and production. What is often overlooked, or not fully appreciated, are the complexities associated with negotiating format deals, coupled with the fact that often-times what is appealing in the format may be nothing more than a general underlying premise, which, in and of itself, may be no reason to license the underlying property."

In other words, let's see what we can copy. And, yet, if anyone were to do that with a Disney/ABC property, you can bet that the lawyers would be all over it before you could get very far. But, of course, don't be surprised. It's simply the way Disney/ABC does business: abusing intellectual property laws is perfectly fine when done for its own purposes -- but is the destroyer of everything good when done to Disney/ABC.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

How Would You Build Tomorrowland?

from the or-would-you-build-it-at-all dept

The Washington Post is running long look at the relaunch of Disney's "Tomorrowland," that doesn't sound all that impressed. Actually, the article gets into the details of the original Tomorrowland and even dips into the way people viewed the future (optimistically/pessimistically) over the intervening years. However, the end result is that the concept of "Tomorrowland" is a rather difficult one to build. As the reporter notes, it has to be something that is far enough out that it actually doesn't need to be revamped all that often. But, at the same time, it still needs to be realistic in a way that people aspire to create themselves. All in all, it sounds like the latest Tomorrowland fails. But, it does raise a good question: if you were building Tomorrowland, what would you do?

44 Comments | Leave a Comment..