It Appears Mickey Mouse May Have Picked An Intellectual Property Fight With The Wrong Mau5
from the oops dept
I actually don’t think that Disney’s trademark opposition to Deadmau5’s attempt to trademark his mouse-shaped helmet thing is that crazy. Disney hasn’t gone after Deadmau5/Joel Zimmerman all these years for using it. They’re just saying “hey, maybe he shouldn’t have a registered trademark on that.” And they may have a point. Yes, the designs are different, and no, there isn’t likely to be much confusion between Deadmau5 and Mickey, but why is Deadmau5 seeking to get a registered trademark on this in the first place?
That said, if notorious copyright maximalists Disney were going to pick an intellectual property fight with someone, it would probably make sense to make sure their own mouse house is in order, no? Apparently, it’s not, because Deadmau5 has discovered that… Disney (yes, I’ll repeat that: Disney) has uploaded some of his music on its website without permission. The music was on a “re-micks” (ha ha, get it?) page on Disney’s website that has since been taken down — but not before Deadmau5’s lawyers sent a takedown letter over it. The letter also, amusingly, makes a trademark claim, though frankly the trademark claim is quite weak. Deadmau5’s lawyer is basically claiming trademark infringement over the video as well. That almost certainly wouldn’t fly in court.
I tend to not be a fan of takedowns in general, but it’s pretty clear that this is basically just being done to call out Disney’s hypocrisy here. Not that I expect the message to get through. Still it’s surprising that such a copyright maximalist company would be posting videos like that…
Filed Under: copyright, deadmau5, joel zimmerman, licensing, mickey mouse, takedowns, trademark
Companies: disney
Comments on “It Appears Mickey Mouse May Have Picked An Intellectual Property Fight With The Wrong Mau5”
Laws...
…are for the little people.
Re: Laws...
now now, there is no need to drag the 7 dwarfs into this… they have enough problems.
Re: Laws...
It’s a small world after all.
What’s good for the goose …
The music was on a “re-micks” (ha ha, get it?) page on Disney’s website that has since been taken down — but not before Deadmau5’s lawyers sent a takedown letter over it.
Was it taken down? Looks up to me: http://video.disney.com/watch/ghosts-n-stuff-re-micks-4cc34ca4636bec7bd7bd38a3
If Disney doesn’t take it down soon, that leads me to believe that maybe they have a license.
Re: Re:
Maybe, or maybe they’re playing a game of ‘Legal chicken’, and hoping Deadmau5 isn’t willing to go through the hassle and massive costs of actually going after them over it.
Re: Re: Re : Legal Chicken.
I bet that if he advertised it, he could get a lot of people to kick in some bucks, especially if it meant taking “Everyone’s favorite copyright abuser” down a few pegs.
Re: Re: Re: Re : Legal Chicken.
I might spend $100 just to see Disney lose $50
Re: Re:
While this may very well be a case of the legal teams/Rightsholders (does deadmau5 own his own songs?) not knowing the left hand from the right, I find your logic extremely amusing…
Namely, that an alleged infringer deserves the benefit of the doubt because they’ve kept their video up, while the legal team sending takedowns is probably in the wrong for the same reason.
Re: Re: Re:
While this may very well be a case of the legal teams/Rightsholders (does deadmau5 own his own songs?) not knowing the left hand from the right, I find your logic extremely amusing…
Namely, that an alleged infringer deserves the benefit of the doubt because they’ve kept their video up, while the legal team sending takedowns is probably in the wrong for the same reason.
I didn’t really explain my reasoning, but I’m happy to do so now. Disney is a sophisticated rightholder, so I find it hard to believe that it would use the song without permission. And if it did discover such an infringement, I believe it would respond quickly–especially considering its opposition to Zimmerman’s registration and the publicity involved.
That said, the lawyer’s letter leaves a lot of wiggle room and is quite unclear. He mentions that Zimmerman granted rights in the Composition to EMI. And he only claims that Zimmerman’s rights in the Master have been violated. So presumably, whatever rights in the Composition Zimmerman granted to EMI are the only rights in the Composition that he thinks are being violated. Yet, he also says Zimmerman owns the “copyright and/or exclusive rights” in the Composition. From this I deduce that, while Zimmerman may own some exclusive rights in the Composition, he clearly doesn’t own the rights at issue here since there’s no claim that Disney is violating them.
As for the Master, he claims that Zimmerman’s rights are being violated, but then he also says that Zimmerman granted “certain rights thereto” to Virgin and Ultra that possibly are also being infringed. Which is it? Unless they’re joint owners, I don’t think this makes sense. He notes that “Zimmerman is unaware of any license(s) between Disney and EMI, Virgin, and/or Ultra” granting Disney the right to use the Composition or the Master. So he doesn’t even know if Disney has a license. Perhaps he should have checked on whether Disney had a license before sending the letter.
So basically it claims infringement, but then admits that maybe other parties who hold some unspecified rights might have granted a license. Combine this with the sophistication of Disney, both to gain the proper rights ahead of time and to timely respond to proper takedown notices, and I arrive at my conclusion “that maybe they have a license.” Make sense?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Disney is Disney! OBVIOUSLY they could do no wrong!”
Fantastic reasoning.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“Disney is Disney! OBVIOUSLY they could do no wrong!”
Fantastic reasoning.
That wasn’t my reasoning. Of course Disney can do wrong. Maybe they’re wrong here. I just think that Disney leaving it up after being put on notice shows that maybe the mistake is Zimmerman’s. After all, Zimmerman’s lawyer admits that Disney may have a license. Why Zimmerman wouldn’t ask the other parties that have the ability to license the work whether they did so is beyond me. I’m not sure where you get the notion that I think Disney is incapable of mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. Me, you, Disney, Zimmerman, everybody.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Your reasoning is pretty good. It’s actually a case where the claim of copyright by the dead rodent may in fact by actionable, if he does not in fact control ALL of the rights. It could be knowingly making a false claim.
Disney is capable of mistakes, but you have to think they have plenty of lawyers who vet everything that ends up in their productions, on their websites, and so on. Certainly they could have made an error, but it seems equally likely that the dead rodent just isn’t sure WHO has the rights to his work, and who they may have assigned them to after.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Well – I’m glad you guys have straightened that all out.
For a second there I thought there might be some sort of problem in intellectual property land.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Your post helps explain why IP laws are so confusing. When not even those making takedown requests are expected to know who holds the copy protection to what and who has permission to do what how can Youtube and a third party provider be expected to reasonably distinguish these things?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Your reasoning is pretty good – because it agrees with whatever – lol
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“After all, Zimmerman’s lawyer admits that Disney may have a license.”
and this is another problem with IP laws. There is almost no punishment for false takedown requests (and where punishment exists it’s hardly even enforced because it’s so low it’s not even worth pursuing) and so everyone has very little incentive to do their homework before making such requests. The laws makes it such that the best strategy is to shoot first and ask questions later.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, large sophisticated companies made up of thousands of individual employees don’t make mistakes.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Yes, large sophisticated companies made up of thousands of individual employees don’t make mistakes.
That’s a strange response. Of course Disney makes mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. The video could be infringing, and it could be a mistake on Disney’s part. I simply said that leaving up the video after being put on notice “leads me to believe that maybe they have a license.” If it were infringing, I believe it’s likely that Disney would take it down. And if Disney thinks it’s noninfringing, I believe it’s likely it would leave it up.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Okay, but that’s not what you said.
“Disney is a sophisticated rightholder, so I find it hard to believe that it would use the song without permission.”
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
People like yourself should not serve on juries.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
yeah, heaven forbid that he has an open mind and doesn’t rush to judgement… screw that, hang them all, right?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“I simply said that leaving up the video after being put on notice “leads me to believe that maybe they have a license.””
This is evidence of having an open mind?
Wow, that is perverse.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
People like yourself should not serve on juries.
I think I’d make a great juror. I’ve never done it, but I’d like to.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
yeah, i bet you’re an above average driver and have a great sense of humor, too, amirichtig ? ? ?
i’m not sure about your state, but most, you can VOLUNTEER to serve on jury duty, wickless, you don’t have to be called up…
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I’m sure that corporations, if brought to trial, would love to have you serve at said trial.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It’s a fair assessment.
In this case, however, my best guess would be that EMI can grant broadcast/public performance rights only, and Disney doesn’t have the right to create and distribute derivative works.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
It’s a fair assessment.
In this case, however, my best guess would be that EMI can grant broadcast/public performance rights only, and Disney doesn’t have the right to create and distribute derivative works.
I left out one thing. This “Re-Micks” video isn’t just a one-off, it’s part of a series of videos Disney put out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_a_Laugh!#Re-Micks
There’s 20 of them, each with a different song. These are included as bonus features on DVDs, and they play them on the Disney channel between shows as filler. I find it hard to believe that Disney wouldn’t obtain the proper licenses, but it’s certainly possible.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Disney is a sophisticated rightholder
[citation needed]
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
[citation needed]
[common sense needed]
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Says the guy who considers using a blunt instrument smashing each and every “infringing” use while at the same time actually stealing from the Public Domain “sophisticated”. Commone sense, my ass.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Please explain how this “common sense” to which you refer explains why Disney is a a sophisticated rights holder.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Disney is a sophisticated rightholder, so I find it hard to believe that it would use the song without permission.
Your entire post rests on the idea that a “sophisticated rightholder” would not infringe on copyright. Of course they would. They would infringe upon whatever copyright that they can, if the rights holder is someone who can not afford an expensive lawyer. If it isn’t, then they can infringe however they like, because the artist can’t afford to sue them.
As for the Master, he claims that Zimmerman’s rights are being violated, but then he also says that Zimmerman granted “certain rights thereto” to Virgin and Ultra that possibly are also being infringed. Which is it?
You’re being disingenuous. Let’s read the quote in context:
Clearly, Disney does not have any sort of licence. He only brings up the other parties to make it clear to the Court that Disney is infringing upon the rights of multiple rights holders.
The request from Disney is something that they do not believe Disney can provide, because they clearly do not believe Disney has any kind of license with any of those rights holders; it’s simply boilerplate language.
So basically it claims infringement, but then admits that maybe other parties who hold some unspecified rights might have granted a license.
No, it claims infringement of the plaintiffs’ rights, then accuses Disney of infringing upon the rights of other rights holders. It “admits” nothing.
Incidentally, it’s pretty telling that you take the side of Disney in a copyright fight against an actual artist – but you always take the side of the rights holders in any case where the rights holder isn’t an artist, but is a major media company instead. It demonstrates pretty clearly where your loyalties lie.
Re: Re:
Or maybe they don’t give a shit.
Re: Re: Re:
i believe the term in this case ‘don’t give a rat’s ass’…
Re: Hypocrisy, much?
Re: Re:
according to the counter next to the facebook “like” button on that page at least 29 THOUSAND people have viewed that Deadmau5 videoclip on Disney’s page.
let’s multiply that by the statutory infringement damages that the RIAAs/MPAA/other aasses usually ask for these days, USD 150k per unauthorized performance/distribution
29000 x 150000 = 4.350.000.000 USD … 4 billion and some in damages that Disney might end up paying to Mau5
Re: Re: Re:
P.S.
made a screenshot of it too:
http://i58.tinypic.com/15fiyyw.jpg
Re: Re: Re:
No, statutory damages are calculated per work, not per infringement. One song would top out at $150,000, whether the copyright was infringed once or a million times. But two songs would top out at $300,000.
Re: Re: Costs
Well, lets look at this the way the riaa/mpaa does then.
29 thousand people saw the video and heard the song..for FREE. Thats 29,000 people that didn’t buy the mp3! The Mp3 can be bought from deadmau5 on his site for $1.30, so I’m going to assume the entire 1.30 goes to him.
Disney……stole….. $37,700 dollars…right out of Deadmau5’s pocket…because CLEARLY everyone that saw the video DIDN’T BUY THE SONG…..BECAUSE THEY HEARD IT FOR FREE!!!!!!!!!
NOW…I’m being sarcastic, obviously.
I’m sure that there are people that were exposed to Deadmau5 because of the video, and I’m willing to bet that he managed to sell some more songs and albums, because people that were never exposed to the music before heard it….but if I were him, I’d try and go after them for the extra $37,700…..just because I could….and tell Disney that their OWN STUPID LOGIC THAT EVERY EXPOSURE TO THE MEDIA WITHOUT A CORRESPONDING PURCHASE IS “PIRACY” is the reason why.
Copyright Infringement
I think the real question to be asked here is why hasn’t the entire domain been taken down yet. I mean, that is the correct and measured response that we’ve been told.
Isn’t it?
Re: Copyright Infringement
Yes, you are correct – if you are a member of the circle jerk club. Otherwise, no – you don’t get shit.
“…but why is Deadmau5 seeking to get a registered trademark on this in the first place? “
Merchandising. Concert shirts, etc with his trademark on it. So he can go after others selling them without his permission. Its part of his brand he’s worked pretty hard to build and now wants to protect.
Frankly I am surprised he didn’t register it a lot sooner. He really should have.
Re: Re:
he has registered trademarks on it outside of the US.
No, no it really isn't
It’s not surprising at all actually, as has been shown several times, those that push for tougher and harsher punishments for copyright infringement, those that believe the law needs to be even stronger, always seem to think that those same laws don’t apply to them.
As the AC above notes, ‘laws are for the little people’, so it’s not surprising that a huge company like Disney might ignore or ‘forget’ to follow the same laws they push for expanding so much, they bought the laws, it’s only natural they’d feel free to ignore them.
When I infringe Disney’s IP I am a heartless monster literally stealing bread from their childrens’ mouths. When Disney infringes your IP they’re probably just doing you a favor, and you should count yourself lucky that they arent trying to charge you for it.
First off, the dead rodent dude needs to learn what DMCA is. All the rest of his lawyer’s letter is totally worthless and meaningless. In fact, I would even go as far as to say “attention whoring” is at the core of this.
I also wouldn’t be shocked to find out that Disney has either license to use the video already, or is playing it in the same manner that a video channel might play a music video. The dead rodent may find that he is stepping on his own tail, essentially claiming that the video wasn’t release for broadcast or online use (he should sue Google and Youtube too!)
Disney on the other hand should know better. When they started legal process against the guy, they should have sent out an all points bulletin to make sure none of his material was associated with Disney in any manner.
For the dead rodent, all I can say is that three stories in a week makes me think he is attention whoring, having found that the anti-copyright crew are easy to manipulate for wide spread press.
Re: Re:
Amusing that you of all people immediately side with the alleged infringer.
By the way, did you not read the letter that’s shown in this article? That is a DMCA notice.
Re: Re: Re:
And I don’t mean it contains a DMCA notice. The entire thing is a basic boilerplate for a letter in compliance of the DMCA under Title 17 USC §512(c)(3).
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Go back and re-read it. It’s a light DMCA notice with heavy doses of trademark infringement and other issues. A DMCA can be written in about 1 short paragraph, it doesn’t take two pages. The other claims are spurious and meaningless under the DMCA.
Moreover, the dead rodent seems to think that people who do broadcast or distribute his songs or music should specifically not mention his name.
All this of course assuming that Disney did not obtain the rights to use the music in some manner already. Would you say loser pays if the dead rodent is proven wrong?
If it’s a valid DMCA, then good on him for making a notice. But the current “play to the anti-copyright types” attention whoring is way too obvious.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Aren’t you just so cute calling him “dead rodent” instead of Deadmau5? Proud of that one are you?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I call him dead rodent because I don’t want to give an attention whore any more promotion than he is already getting.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I call him dead rodent because …
you have preconceived notions and want to parade them about town.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
That would be your issue. I see someone attention whoring, and I am not going to help him one iota.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
You do realize that by provoking others into calling you out by referring to Zimmerman by a childish monicker, you are in fact doing more to help him “attention whore”.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
How is that my issue?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Because Disney isn’t an attention whore?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The size of the letter is because a lawyer wrote it.
You’ll find that lawyers are experts at text padding.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The other claims are spurious and meaningless under the DMCA.
Moreover, the dead rodent seems to think that people who do broadcast or distribute his songs or music should specifically not mention his name.
Interesting, I’ve never seen you go out of your way like this to criticize bogus DMCA notices from big media companies. I wonder why that is?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Because it is a bought and paid for mouth piece ?
Re: Re:
I would even go as far as to say “attention whoring” is at the core of this
It takes one to know one. Go figure.
Re: Re: Re:
Wow, aren’t you a special little troll. What exactly would I be attention whoring for, exactly?
If you are going to troll, at least have a clue, not flaws!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And now you even fail at original insults. No surprise there.
Re: Re:
Copyright for me but not for ‘thee!
If my powerful masters are (ab)using copyright it’s ok, but if the smaller guy is doing it and my mighty bosses were caught pants down then I’m all angry!
Keep at it, it’s entertaining!
I have no idea who this guy is but I love that he called them on their bullshit. Actually the video could be possibly be derivative enough to be covered by fair use but we all know Disney doesn’t believe in fair use by anyone but them. Snow White was written in the early 1800’s and is public domain. Don’t you dare make a Snow White character that even remotely resembles theirs or you will be sued. This is only to show what blatant hypocrites they are. Otherwise I really don’t think he would have ever given two shits about this video with his music being used by Disney.
Re: Re:
Of course, if it turns out that Disney does have a license, will you call him out for his false DMCA style claims?
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t think they would have taken the video down if they did have a license. They have a legal department that would have sued him over it just because they can.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A cautious legal department may take it down pending review. They may feel it’s not worth the risk to leave it up, in case things don’t work out.
That’s what good lawyers would advise.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“A cautious legal department may take it down pending review. They may feel it’s not worth the risk to leave it up, in case things don’t work out.”
Which shows the problems with IP laws once again. It creates little disincentive to file false takedown requests and lots of incentive to take a shoot first ask questions later approach so that legitimate content could be taken down and those that posted it would have to go through a complicated process to get their content back up. If you support something like this it’s despicable.
Re: Re: Re:
Nope – after all, it’s “just an error.” That’s what you’ve said before when other copyright agents have been caught under DMCA. The law needs to be applied equally and fairly, or else it’s not a law; merely guidelines.
Re: Re: Re:
Of course, if it turns out that Disney does have a license, will you call him out for his false DMCA style claims?
He did send real takedown notices. I saw a copy of the video on YouTube that had the frowny-face-we’re-sorry thing, citing Deadmau5 as the sender. And there’s a few search results on Google that were also taken down.
Of course, if Disney does have a license, I expect a post from Mike blaming Deadmau5 for killing innovation and free speech. Oh wait, no I don’t.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or perhaps a post from Mike explaining how this shows that bogus takedowns keep going unpunished and stricter punishments need to be enacted to give those on the receiving end of such takedowns more incentive to pursue their rewards. Mike can explain how Deadmau5 is demonstrating and even (perhaps intentionally) flaunting the broken nature of our laws by filing bogus takedowns and going virtually unpunished.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes! – I too can predict the future by looking into my magic crystal ball. Let me tell you want is going to happen next.
Re: Re: Re:
“will you call him out for his false DMCA style claims?”
Just as soon as you call for stricter legal punishments for false takedown requests no matter who makes them.
The video was posted by a mouse, so there is no copyright infringement.
This all seems so petty
The trolls are out in force today… If you guys post any more, OOTB will return from the troll grave.
Re: Re:
just say his name three times and he’ll appear.
I’d be REALLY surprised if any of this actually goes anywhere. Seems pretty frivolous to me.