Up (2009 Pixar film) discussion

[Kyle]

Do you have a source for that? I know about the lawsuit, but those things take a while to go through, I didnt think it could affect it in time.

As of right now, Amazon.com doesn't carry it anymore and bestbuy.com doesn't have a listing for it, meaning it most likely won't appear in stores. The only retailer that I can find that is still selling it is disneystore.com. Perhaps the loophole was that Disney can only sell it if they sell it directly?

I asked Lee Unkrich and he said he doesnt know. I figured he of all people would know... but at the very least I think its still up in the air, not canceled outright.

[miklc]

I found it avalible in the UK on HMV's online store. Here's the link

http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDet ... orSynopsis

I will tell you one thing though it's not cheap!!! Underneath it says and I quote "Lamp not made by Luxo AS of Norway". What is actually included in the collection as the site seems to miss this off, is it Blu-Rays of all the PIXAR films to date minus Toy Story and Toy Story 2, as they are yet to be re-released on the format? Oh just released that UP musn't be one of the titles included within the collection as the item is in stock and avalible for ordering and UP is still in theatres over here! I went to see it for the second time yesturday but this time in 3D I loved it! Can't wait till it gets a home video release here

[karlsen]

I for one think that it is incredible that Disney of all companyes would do a mistake like this and make a copy of another registered trademark without asking?

OK, I am from Norway and so does the company that now have sued Disney (I had even never heard of them before), but I realy think this is strange since Disney is one of the worst companies in the world with protecting their own stuff.

[pap64]

I for one think that it is incredible that Disney of all companyes would do a mistake like this and make a copy of another registered trademark without asking?

OK, I am from Norway and so does the company that now have sued Disney (I had even never heard of them before), but I realy think this is strange since Disney is one of the worst companies in the world with protecting their own stuff.

Remember that Pixar was its own independent company before becoming partners with Disney.

Luxo Jr. was an independent short film made by Lasseter. It is likely that at the time he didn't think it could create a legal issue, especially since the maker is so obscure no one would speak up against the usage of the lamp.

But what surprises me the most is that they waited all these years to do something about it. Luxo Jr. has been used as the company logo for more than twenty years. How did the company ignore that? Do they show the Pixar films on Norway? Or did they think it was a cute tribute? Their claims for suing against the Pixar lamp is that they are making profit off the usage of the character with the deluxe Up set.

Shouldn't this be applied to the usage of the character in films as well? I mean, every Pixar film opens with Luxo Jr., and people paid to see that. Also, Luxo is in the parks, and I assume they got some money out of it as well.

Someone feel free to correct me, but shouldn't this include the films as part of the lawsuit?

Also, Luxo Jr. is a generic lamp. Does anyone know if this company owns the rights to the design of the lamp? I ask because if the lamp design is exclusive to THEM then they have the right to sue anyone that uses. But if they didn't care who used that design then why bother?

I'm not saying that the Luxo company is being evil or are being greedy. I just find it suspicious that they allowed Pixar to use the design for over 20 years, and they decided to act upon it when they decided to sell a replica of the character.

Pixar has used this character as a representation of their image. Once again, if they were under violation of copyright law, then this company should have sued much earlier because Pixar is using Luxo's original design.

I admit I may be wrong here since I admit I may be missing vital pieces to the whole story. Someone feel free to correct me on this.

[ajmrowland]

You bring up some very good points. I doubt the lawsuit will last long.

In fact, Disney may win based off of technicalities of the design: a normal-sized Luxo lamp vs. the Jr. one that might actually be owned by Disney/Pixar.

[Kyle]

I for one think that it is incredible that Disney of all companyes would do a mistake like this and make a copy of another registered trademark without asking?

OK, I am from Norway and so does the company that now have sued Disney (I had even never heard of them before), but I realy think this is strange since Disney is one of the worst companies in the world with protecting their own stuff.

Remember that Pixar was its own independent company before becoming partners with Disney.

Luxo Jr. was an independent short film made by Lasseter. It is likely that at the time he didn't think it could create a legal issue, especially since the maker is so obscure no one would speak up against the usage of the lamp.

But what surprises me the most is that they waited all these years to do something about it. Luxo Jr. has been used as the company logo for more than twenty years. How did the company ignore that? Do they show the Pixar films on Norway? Or did they think it was a cute tribute? Their claims for suing against the Pixar lamp is that they are making profit off the usage of the character with the deluxe Up set.

Shouldn't this be applied to the usage of the character in films as well? I mean, every Pixar film opens with Luxo Jr., and people paid to see that. Also, Luxo is in the parks, and I assume they got some money out of it as well.

Someone feel free to correct me, but shouldn't this include the films as part of the lawsuit?

Also, Luxo Jr. is a generic lamp. Does anyone know if this company owns the rights to the design of the lamp? I ask because if the lamp design is exclusive to THEM then they have the right to sue anyone that uses. But if they didn't care who used that design then why bother?

I'm not saying that the Luxo company is being evil or are being greedy. I just find it suspicious that they allowed Pixar to use the design for over 20 years, and they decided to act upon it when they decided to sell a replica of the character.

Pixar has used this character as a representation of their image. Once again, if they were under violation of copyright law, then this company should have sued much earlier because Pixar is using Luxo's original design.

I admit I may be wrong here since I admit I may be missing vital pieces to the whole story. Someone feel free to correct me on this.

Lasseter had verbal agreement with them to be allowed to use their name and similar style. but this only applied when it was in animated form. he was a mascot of sorts but wasnt being sold as a tangable product. and when you have someone else making a functioning lamp with their name on it, it could make them look bad. especially if the lamp was plastic like it appeared in images. Luxo prides itself in making the highest quality lamps, and this one looked like fragile toy in comparison. Disney would be competing directly with the company that was once flattered by having their product star in a short.

Pixar never used him until recently to market their studio. Sure, he was in the studio's title card, but no one goes to see their movies for the title card.

But I do think they would be in the clear if they would just change the name (though that will never happen). As far as I know no lamp exists that looks like this. Ive looked long and hard, I think I would have found it if it existed. people tell me all the time they saw one at their grandfathers house and whatnot, but Ive yet to see any proof of it. and the fiew times they do try to offer proof, the lamp still looks nothing like Luxo Jr. the head shape is different, or it has a goose neck, or it has a clamp for a stand, these are important things that make these lamps look the way they do. so as far as I know Luxo jr is a Pixar creation, the only infrigement is in the name itself, and the fact that its a lamp.

[magicalwands]

so as far as I know Luxo jr is a Pixar creation, the only infrigement is in the name itself, and the fact that its a lamp.

On the Pixar Shorts DVD, Lasseter stated, "I looked at the Luxo lamp on my desk and wondered what a baby Luxo would look like." So, Lasseter created design. All this thinking about who owns what and who made what is making my head dizzy!

[Kyle]

Okay, looks like they have reached a settlement.
http://www.thresq.com/2009/11/pixar-lux ... ement.html

I guess it wont be coming out afterall? I know it was over priced but Im kinda bummed about this.

Im hoping this at least opens the door for some kind of partnership that lets them sell a better one (that meets luxo's high standards) later down the line. or just have Luxo release one themselves. They wouldnt even need Disney's permission really.

[karlsen]

I for one think that it is incredible that Disney of all companyes would do a mistake like this and make a copy of another registered trademark without asking?

OK, I am from Norway and so does the company that now have sued Disney (I had even never heard of them before), but I realy think this is strange since Disney is one of the worst companies in the world with protecting their own stuff.

Remember that Pixar was its own independent company before becoming partners with Disney.

Luxo Jr. was an independent short film made by Lasseter. It is likely that at the time he didn't think it could create a legal issue, especially since the maker is so obscure no one would speak up against the usage of the lamp.

But what surprises me the most is that they waited all these years to do something about it. Luxo Jr. has been used as the company logo for more than twenty years. How did the company ignore that? Do they show the Pixar films on Norway? Or did they think it was a cute tribute? Their claims for suing against the Pixar lamp is that they are making profit off the usage of the character with the deluxe Up set.

Shouldn't this be applied to the usage of the character in films as well? I mean, every Pixar film opens with Luxo Jr., and people paid to see that. Also, Luxo is in the parks, and I assume they got some money out of it as well.

Someone feel free to correct me, but shouldn't this include the films as part of the lawsuit?

Also, Luxo Jr. is a generic lamp. Does anyone know if this company owns the rights to the design of the lamp? I ask because if the lamp design is exclusive to THEM then they have the right to sue anyone that uses. But if they didn't care who used that design then why bother?

I'm not saying that the Luxo company is being evil or are being greedy. I just find it suspicious that they allowed Pixar to use the design for over 20 years, and they decided to act upon it when they decided to sell a replica of the character.

Pixar has used this character as a representation of their image. Once again, if they were under violation of copyright law, then this company should have sued much earlier because Pixar is using Luxo's original design.

I admit I may be wrong here since I admit I may be missing vital pieces to the whole story. Someone feel free to correct me on this.

The problem here is not the usage of the lamp as an animated object, but as a real functional lamp that appeared after Disney took over.

The company stated that they decided not to do anything about this when they saw the first use of it - but now it was damaging their company and they had to do something.

Kyle has some good points about this being a cheap copy, and imagine what it does to the company when a parent is buying a lamp after the Luxor Jr braking after a short time. "No, I don't want that one - the last one was bad"

I still think that it is incredible that Disney thought they could make a copy of a copyrighted product just because they in the past have made a cartoon character of it. Disney themselves are suing everybody that even thinks of doing the same to them. My only guess is that it is cultural ignorance and the thought that Norway is so obscure that nobody will notice and we are much bigger and can do what we want. Remember that Pixar only copied the product as a cartoon character - Disney made a real and working lamp not just identical to a real Luxor lamp but with the same name as the company that they copied.

.... and for those trying to compare the lamps, here is the original: http://www.design-technology.org/luxo.jpg

It is not hard to see that it is the same lamp. Luxor still sells the classic Luxor L-1. The Luxor has won numerous design awards and is in the permanent collection at the Museum of Modern Art, New York.

I wonder what Disney had done if I made a Mickey Jr toy without asking?

[Kyle]

.... and for those trying to compare the lamps, here is the original: http://www.design-technology.org/luxo.jpg

It is not hard to see that it is the same lamp. Luxor still sells the classic Luxor L-1. The Luxor has won numerous design awards and is in the permanent collection at the Museum of Modern Art, New York.

This is something we dissagree on.
This

does not look like this to me.


Not to mention its not even the father lamp that's being targeted. the father lamp has only appeared in the short and the Toy Story trilogy.
the fuss is over Jr. and I challange anyone to find one like that.

Their similar, sure, so are most other lamps of that time period. there's more variety these days, they've gotten more stylized and hip, but back then this was your generic lamp.
heres another lamp that looks just as close as the luxo to me.


and another.

do these infringe on the luxo design? I think not.

[2099net]

No, the problem is the name. If you name a character "Luxo" and a company called "Luxo" makes lamps - highly regarded lamps at that - the average person is bound to think the lamp is a Luxo made lamp. Even if the lamp looked nothing like the Luxo lamp.

Look, if Pixar had named a can of soda "Coca-Cola Jr" and then started giving out cans of soda under an implied "Coca-Cola Jr" name, you wouldn't expect Coca-Cola not to sue/demand royalties/launch other legal action. One reason is Coca-Cola (or whoever) have to be seen to protect their trademark. Although it is possible for two or more trademarks to exist if the market is sufficiently different - but even though Pixar makes movies and Luxo makes lamps there's sufficient cross-over with the Luxo character - especially when Disney themselves then start bundling out non-Luxo branded or approved lamps with Blu-rays.

I can't believe people are defending Disney when as Karlsen pointed out, Disney are notoriously litigious about their own copyrights and trademarks. Quite simply, there is no excuse what-so-ever.

[karlsen]

.... and for those trying to compare the lamps, here is the original: http://www.design-technology.org/luxo.jpg

It is not hard to see that it is the same lamp. Luxor still sells the classic Luxor L-1. The Luxor has won numerous design awards and is in the permanent collection at the Museum of Modern Art, New York.

This is something we dissagree on.

I was just proving that they looked the same, not that other lamps looks like this as well - and I think they have the same look.

But as others have stated, this would probably not have been a problem had it not had the name Luxor Jr

[Kyle]

I was just proving that they looked the same, not that other lamps looks like this as well - and I think they have the same look.

Thats just it though, I don't think they look the same. It looks no more like it than the other lamps I posted.

[karlsen]

I was just proving that they looked the same, not that other lamps looks like this as well - and I think they have the same look.

Thats just it though, I don't think they look the same. It looks no more like it than the other lamps I posted.

But I think the other lamps look the same as well But I don't know if other companies have had the license to make them as well or if the look ain't copy protected.

[Kyle]

Heh, okay, you think they all look the same, I dont, moving on then.
I emailed the disneystore aking weather or not its been canceled, and my response from them was pretty uesless.

They said "upon reviewing your concern, the item is still up for pre order."

Umm, yeah, I'm aware of that. that doesn't mean anything though. How hard is it to confirm or deny if this thing is still releasing? Its supposed to be out next week...

[blackcauldron85]

Animated Films Could Impact Oscars
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Wir ... 476&page=1
(via animated-news.com)

Animated Shorts - Keeping UP with Pixar Directors (Part 1)
http://www.newsarama.com/film/091104-up.html
(via animated-news.com)

Animated Shorts: Pixar's UP To Festivals, DVD (Part 2)
http://www.newsarama.com/film/091109-Pixar-UP-DVD.html
(via animated-news.com)

Celebrity Hotline: Jordan Nagai (interview with the actor who played Russell)
http://tommy2.net/content/?p=10987

[ajmrowland]

The lamps do have common qualities.

I just watched the movie. The scene with the book came off to me a bit stronger than the opening, but that's probably because I didn't think about it as much.

[Kyle]

Looks like the Lamp is still releasing, its still on the Disney store's site. pretty sure they would have removed it by now if it wasnt. theres also more info on the specs, such as being plastic, and the light itself is Led.

[blackcauldron85]

Up Director Pete Docter on His Next Project and Why Pixar Movies End With Chase Scenes
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/20 ... z0WQab9Jij
(via laughingplace.com)

[ajmrowland]

I don't see how some of those scenes are chase scenes. One's a net escape, one's a race, one's a giant robot and a supervillain, one's cooking, and one's racing against time, and one's an air battle.