latimes.com— Film credits from the 1920s reveal imprecision in copyright claims that some experts say could invalidate Disney's long-held copyright.
Aug 25, 2008View in Crawl 4
@XeRoX2k2I agree with you but let me play devil's advocate for just one moment here.When you've got a fickle viewing public and everybody's afraid to take chances on anything new, isn't it a better business model for the company to make money off copyright violation lawsuits that require no creativity and outlay except perhaps a few court filings that can be done by underlings?Not that I agree with any of that, but I'm thinking that's how the studio sees it.
Diggnabbit - I understand the argument you are trying to make, but kuwan is absolutely correct on this one. While Disney would be unable to enforce any copyrights on the Steamboat Willie movie, it still has a full arsenal of trademark protections on the look and feel of Mickey Mouse himself.And I think you're mistaken on the strength of trade identity protection. For a mark like Mickey, who boasts a near 100% recognition rate, that makes it a famous mark. That means another party cannot use a similar image in any market for any product for so long as DIsney continue to use it. Whereas copyright suits can only be litigated in federal court, trademark suits can be pursued under both federal and state laws, with many state protections going above and beyond the federal law. Moreover, in trademark infringement suits, monetary relief in addition to injunctive relief is also be available, including: (1) disgorging defendant's profits, (2) recovering damages sustained by the plaintiff, and (3) recovering the costs of the action. Damages can even be tripled upon showing of intentional behavior or bad faith.So trademark protections are no slouch and certainly nothing to mess with.
Get your nose checked. Just because I don't agree, it doesn't make me a troll. I have a comment history ... maybe you should give it a look before you judge me next time.Second, I'm a photojournalist. Copyright belongs to the photographer in almost every case, and since my mom took it, she can show it to whomever she wants, regardless of the mouse or the fact it was taken on private property. Her photo is protected, as is her right to share it (or not), and I know for a fact -- as it is a part of what I do -- that Disney can do nothing about it.That said, "beforeapriori," I see what you mean about the topic. If Disney gets away with something like this, other companies could have the opportunity to use a similar tactic on something more important. I guess I just didn't see it as all that important of a battle, but then this wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.
Closed AccountAug 26, 2008
@XeRoX2k2I agree with you but let me play devil's advocate for just one moment here.When you've got a fickle viewing public and everybody's afraid to take chances on anything new, isn't it a better business model for the company to make money off copyright violation lawsuits that require no creativity and outlay except perhaps a few court filings that can be done by underlings?Not that I agree with any of that, but I'm thinking that's how the studio sees it.
Closed AccountAug 26, 2008
spreeder.com cut some time off of that
nijiroAug 26, 2008
As David Bowie said, "Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow."
Closed AccountAug 26, 2008
What's your explanation for why Jews hate the man so much?
locojonesAug 26, 2008
Diggnabbit - I understand the argument you are trying to make, but kuwan is absolutely correct on this one. While Disney would be unable to enforce any copyrights on the Steamboat Willie movie, it still has a full arsenal of trademark protections on the look and feel of Mickey Mouse himself.And I think you're mistaken on the strength of trade identity protection. For a mark like Mickey, who boasts a near 100% recognition rate, that makes it a famous mark. That means another party cannot use a similar image in any market for any product for so long as DIsney continue to use it. Whereas copyright suits can only be litigated in federal court, trademark suits can be pursued under both federal and state laws, with many state protections going above and beyond the federal law. Moreover, in trademark infringement suits, monetary relief in addition to injunctive relief is also be available, including: (1) disgorging defendant's profits, (2) recovering damages sustained by the plaintiff, and (3) recovering the costs of the action. Damages can even be tripled upon showing of intentional behavior or bad faith.So trademark protections are no slouch and certainly nothing to mess with.
cyx7Aug 26, 2008
The Yard. Her milkshake brings all the boys.
idietiredAug 27, 2008
Get your nose checked. Just because I don't agree, it doesn't make me a troll. I have a comment history ... maybe you should give it a look before you judge me next time.Second, I'm a photojournalist. Copyright belongs to the photographer in almost every case, and since my mom took it, she can show it to whomever she wants, regardless of the mouse or the fact it was taken on private property. Her photo is protected, as is her right to share it (or not), and I know for a fact -- as it is a part of what I do -- that Disney can do nothing about it.That said, "beforeapriori," I see what you mean about the topic. If Disney gets away with something like this, other companies could have the opportunity to use a similar tactic on something more important. I guess I just didn't see it as all that important of a battle, but then this wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.
synthoidAug 28, 2008
In Soviet Russia, it did Simpsons!