Disney sues business over use of Pooh characters

[blackcauldron85]

Video:
http://www.wftv.com/video/16824445/

Article:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business ... 2323.story

I think that the people should have stopped using the costumes after Disney sent the first letter. Maybe Disney wouldn't have sued them if they had complied with Disney's requests the first time. I understand that the couple uses public assistance to get by, I do, but if Disney tells you to do something, in regards to its property (in this case, its characters), do it the first time. I hope that this couple has learned its lesson and doesn't use Disney costumes in their business again.

When I read that they may have to pay Disney's legal fees, I was shocked. If Disney had sent only one letter, then I'd have felt horrible, but it took 3 letters and legal action for the people to stop using the costumes, so I don't feel as bad for them. They put themselves in this situation. I guess I believe the lady when she says that she didn't know that Disney doesn't allow their characters to be used for non-Disney events, but once they got the first letter from Disney, they should have stopped.

Remember when Disney made the preschool get rid of the Disney mural on the wall and Universal stepped in, painting a Universal character mural? I can't imagine Universal allowing these people to use some of their characters in this situation. People can't get too mad at Disney about this- the law is the law.

It's not like the Pooh characters are the only thing that this company does- they make cakes and have clowns and all. I don't know if people will take pity on them and have them do their kids' birthday parties, or if people will avoid the business now. Hopefully the people will still be able to support the family. Just without using Disney characters.

Surely these aren't the only people out there who use Disney characters for childrens' birthday events...if Disney gets after these people about it, then they should do their research and get after other people about it. I don't mean to be mean, but it's only fair.

[Siren]

I have no doubt she didn't know that was gonna be a problem, but when they got the first letter, they should have complied and took down all the pictures. About sending the costumes to Disney, I don't agree with that. Disney should go after the supplier of the costumes. But it took three letters before they listened? Stupid, really stupid. I don't blame Disney here. The family was making a profit on something they didn't own. And Disney is trying to protect itself. Let's say for instance, they unknowingly hire a child molester, and he uses that job and costume to get close to children and hurt them...even though Disney had no direct involvement, it would be all over the news that someone in a Disney costume molested a child. It would still hurt Disney. Disney did the right thing. I hope they drop the lawsuit though. But I think the business owners acted irresponsibly. Did she cry when she got the first letter? Or the second? Come on.

[Disney Duster]

But remember...this woman keeps saying they "needed the money." They don't look well off at all. I have a feeling she kept the costumes thinking it wasn't really a big problem, and she felt her family needed money, and thus those costumes, badly.

[Siren]

And now she is gonna REALLY need money, because she acted irresponsibly. It wasn't like Disney was not in their right and within the law and just bullying them. They gave them three warnings, that is three more than I would expect Disney to give.

[JDCB1986]

They don't look well off at all.

Who are you to judge that ? I may be the only one here that feels this way... But I think Disney is a bit out of hand on this one. I understand it is a business and money is the only thing that matters to them. But possibly destroying an entire families life for a million dollar gain (which is pennies for Disney) is absolutely ridiculous.

The lady sent the costumes back to the person who sold them on eBay, she took the pictures down. She learned her lesson (if that's what you can even call it.) I agree that she should have done it with the first letter... Rather than waiting for 2 more and a lawsuit... Very stupid on her part (not a million dollars stupid though.) If Disney pursues this and destroys that families life, they will loose a lot of respect from a lot of people. And that's something money can't buy back.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

I agree that she should have done it with the first letter... Rather than waiting for 2 more and a lawsuit... Very stupid on her part (not a million dollars stupid though.) If Disney pursues this and destroys that families life, they will loose a lot of respect from a lot of people. And that's something money can't buy back.

That's the thing though, she waited for the third letter. Disney only pursued because she had to be stupid and waited for 2 more and a lawsuit, if she had responded on the first one it might not have gone this far.

[AwallaceUNC]

They don't look well off at all.

I may be the only one here that feels this way... But I think Disney is a bit out of hand on this one. I understand it is a business and money is the only thing that matters to them. But possibly destroying an entire families life for a million dollar gain (which is pennies for Disney) is absolutely ridiculous.

The law essentially requires Disney to defend their copyrights. There are legal doctrines that could potentially result in Disney losing their copyrights if they don't defend them. I don't think anyone here would be happy to see Pooh or Mickey Mouse become someone else's property while Disney loses the rights to the characters they created (or in Pooh's case, adapted).

-Aaron

[yukitora]

^I didn't know that, it's very interesting.

Thanks for the read. The whole copywriting fiasco makes more sense to me now; it's not just making money of others property, but also possibly endangering originals reputation. Quality control - I like that term.

this is such a useless post

[JDCB1986]

yeah, you're right... so let's not drop the case...let's destroy this families life for good...let's get this family into a million dollar debt... then after 25 years (or more) of them working non-stop and still living in poverty we will have our million dollars ! And Pooh's reputation.

they made a mistake... a very stupid one... they were given chances... that i agree on. but again... the mistake wasn't big enough to completely destroy their lives over. they've got a child... so Disney pursues this... and wins... this family loose their house, everything they have of value, gets their wages garnished, can't afford to support their child... can't afford to send their child to college... think about it... Disney has scared them bad enough... they don't need to push this any further.

*This post has been reformatted by a moderator*

[shr_fan]

I may be the only one here that feels this way... But I think Disney is a bit out of hand on this one. I understand it is a business and money is the only thing that matters to them. But possibly destroying an entire families life for a million dollar gain (which is pennies for Disney) is absolutely ridiculous.

The law essentially requires Disney to defend their copyrights. There are legal doctrines that could potentially result in Disney losing their copyrights if they don't defend them. I don't think anyone here would be happy to see Pooh or Mickey Mouse become someone else's property while Disney loses the rights to the characters they created (or in Pooh's case, adapted).

-Aaron

Exactly. They've done similar things before for the same reason. They've sued daycares for having Mickey Mouse on there walls before. I do think its little harsh to sue for so much money from this family though.

[2099net]

The law essentially requires Disney to defend their copyrights. There are legal doctrines that could potentially result in Disney losing their copyrights if they don't defend them. I don't think anyone here would be happy to see Pooh or Mickey Mouse become someone else's property while Disney loses the rights to the characters they created (or in Pooh's case, adapted).

-Aaron

Exactly. They've done similar things before for the same reason. They've sued daycares for having Mickey Mouse on there walls before. I do think its little harsh to sue for so much money from this family though.

Marvel (and other companies) I think actually work around the requirement to protect their trademarks (I think its trademarks Aaron, not copyright, as copyright is automatically awarded, but trademarks have to be applied, paid for and renewed regularly), by creating special licences for no money but with a signed contract. It shows the courts the licencee although not having to pay any money is useing the likenesses with the owners permission. I'm sure in the case of daycare centres and hospitals, Disney could do something like this.

[Siren]

I think Disney should drop the charges. I already said that. But Disney doesn't HAVE to drop the charges. If Disney wants to come out smelling like roses to families everywhere....especially low income that they already screw with their rise in park tickets every other month, they should drop the charges.

Again I say....this family got THREE official letters telling them to stop using the costumes. Even when they did, they still kept up a copyrighted image of Winnie the Pooh...Disney may have still saw that as advertising. Disney can go into every Myspace account and rip all of the Disney images people use right now. Disney could come here and tear down this site. But they aren't really losing money there, since they don't charge people to download their images. But this was a business using unlicensed home-made costumes (not badly made I must say!) and then using their official images on their advertisements too. All for THEIR profit. They got three warnings and ignored them till they got the court papers and NOW its BOO HOO!. How much you wanna bet with the first letter, they tossed it aside and said "whatever"?

With that said...if this family was business and law savvy, they could have applied to get a license to use the characters. With Disney, its unlikely. But other movie companies DO license out their characters. You have to pay a pretty penny for the paperwork and the costume, and there is paperwork all the time for quality control. Reporting where and why their costumes were used. Its expensive and time consuming. But its possible for business to carry licensed characters. A local party shop has Dora, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Spiderman and Elmo...they have licenses to use all of them from their owners. If you pay, your kids can have Spiderman at their party!
This family went about it easy street. Just because they aren't law savvy or rich doesn't mean they are exempt from the law. They don't get an automatic get out of jail free card. Again, I feel Disney SHOULD drop the charges, but people need to get off their own high horses here...Disney is within their rights to do it. And frankly, this family asked for it after they ignored the FIRST letter.

[AwallaceUNC]

Marvel (and other companies) I think actually work around the requirement to protect their trademarks (I think its trademarks Aaron, not copyright, as copyright is automatically awarded, but trademarks have to be applied, paid for and renewed regularly), by creating special licences for no money but with a signed contract. It shows the courts the licencee although not having to pay any money is useing the likenesses with the owners permission. I'm sure in the case of daycare centres and hospitals, Disney could do something like this.

I'm by no means an expert in this yet, but it's my understanding that both trademark and copyright (as well as other forms of intellectual property title) would be at stake (at least in theory). You're absolutely right, though, that granting permission in some sort of agreement can probably overcome the problem (though a completely free agreement would give rise to other contractual problems). I don't see why Disney would want to do that, however, outside of public relations. They certainly shouldn't be expected to do that. They own the properties and they are theirs for exclusive use; it shouldn't matter if those infringing are operating a daycare or a rival theme park.

-Aaron

[AwallaceUNC]

....especially low income that they already screw with their rise in park tickets every other month, they should drop the charges.

Siren, I agree with much of your post, but I have to take issue with this. First, I feel that given the amount of recreation that a single day inside a Disney theme park provides, admission remains considerably underpriced. A movie ticket can cost $10 for 2 hours of entertainment. Disney parks provide anywhere from 10 to 16 hours of entertainment each day, and naturally one expects such elaborate and unique entertainment to cost more per hour than a trip to the movies. Consider also that a higher price threshold keeps crowds at a manageable size -- even with the current prices, maximum capacity isn't uncommon during peak seasons.

But even if the prices were "too high" or not worth it, no one is entitled to a Disney vacation. We're talking about a private entertainment enterprise, not an equal opportunity public park. I don't think it's fair to say that low-income families are getting "screwed" with ticket prices, no matter how high or how frequent the price jumps are.

-Aaron

[Siren]

Walt Disney made the parks to be affordable for everyone. So yes, I do feel Disney screwed low income, as well as Walt himself. I understand they have a park to run and the park costs money. Especially with the gas prices so high, I am sure that costs them a LOT. But even when they give discounts, its a sad excuse for it. They make it difficult for low income families to visit their parks. Do they have a legal obligation to make it easy for them? No. But an obligation to keep Walt's vision alive...they have a moral obligation to that. But considering how they routinely rape Walt's good name with the crap they put out there so often, it will never happen.

[AwallaceUNC]

Since when does "Walt's vision" include easy accessibility to his parks for low-income families? When Walt was alive, Disneyland had only a few attractions open, most of them relatively minor in scale, and the park operated on a pay-per-ride basis. If Disney used that same system today, in keeping with inflation, a Disney trip would be wildly expensive. The reality is that a Disney theme park today is a very different beast from the Disneyland of the 1950s and 1960s.

If Disney lowered their prices so that it would be "easy" for all low-income families to visit, then staff would have to be fired, all but the most popular attractions would close, and the parks would be overrun with people, closing every day due to high capacity.

As for discounts, maybe you're looking in the wrong places? I see substantial discounts available on a regular basis, particularly for Disney resort rooms.

It should also be noted that Disney offers free transportation to, from, and within their resort, and that the ticket pricing scheme was restructured a few years back so that additional days in a Disney park cost only a few dollars per day... hardly an unreasonable fee after the already low $75 entry "hurdle".

-Aaron

[toonaspie]

They don't look well off at all.

Who are you to judge that ?

I may be the only one here that feels this way... But I think Disney is a bit out of hand on this one. I understand it is a business and money is the only thing that matters to them. But possibly destroying an entire families life for a million dollar gain (which is pennies for Disney) is absolutely ridiculous.


The lady sent the costumes back to the person who sold them on eBay, she took the pictures down. She learned her lesson (if that's what you can even call it.)

I agree that she should have done it with the first letter... Rather than waiting for 2 more and a lawsuit... Very stupid on her part (not a million dollars stupid though.) If Disney pursues this and destroys that families life, they will loose a lot of respect from a lot of people. And that's something money can't buy back.

I doubt that the family will have to pay $1 Million. I think it was just a means by the company to show the serious behind the situation. They will most likely settle on a lower amount in probably the hundred thousands, because Disney knows that they are merely dealing with a poor couple of entrepeneurs. Now if the business they were dealing with was bigger and more prominent then yes, Disney can sue them by the billions.

The sad truth most likely is that the couple did not take the threat of a lawsuit seriously (and were uneducated in the seriousness of copyright infrigement) which is why the first couple of warning letters got thrown away, and that instead of sending the costumes to Disney like the company instructed them to, the couple sent the costumes back to the Ebay seller for a refund claiming that they needed the money.

Personally, if a large company like Disney was threatening me with a law suit and instructed me to send them something I paid $500 for to prevent a lawsuit, I would have done exactly what they said. $500 is no loss compared to $1,000,000. It's too bad the family didnt think about that.

I'm not sure exactly how much responsibility should be placed on the Peruvian costuming company that sold the costumes. If the costumes they sell are intended to be Halloween costumes, then it doesnt help the couple as they were using such costumes outside of Halloween and for profit. Then again it's most likely a cheap black market costuming company and that Disney can easily sue them for.