DVDizzy Forum

This might have been reported elswhere by someone , but if not, I just thought that I'd let you know. An article in my local paper revealed the following: (rough traslation)

"A prelimenary verdict says that all commercial rights to Winnie The Pooh even in the future will belong to the family-owned company Stephen Slesinger Inc.

If the verdict will stand, it will be a huge loss for Disney, whom for two decades have faught for the rights to the honey-loving bear.

Stephen Slesinger was A.A. Milnes agent and obtained the rights to Winnie The Pooh in 1929." (TT Spektra)

Last I heard when checking late last week was that a verdict would be made in the next 2 weeks.

Bad news for big "Pooh" fan Loomis I would imagine!

What exactly is a "prelimenary verdict"? One that can change? If so, why bother to release it?

I have no idea. It sound a little strange to me as well.

well i dont think that's true since disney payed this one lady for the rights to winnie the pooh.

2099net wrote:Bad news for big "Pooh" fan Loomis I would imagine!

It is indeed, 2099! As much as I love the original Milne books and illustrations, the Dinseyfied Pooh and Sterling Holloway/Jim Cummings voice always makes me smile.

As far as I understand the conflict (Loomis switches into his legal student mode - on his day off too! ): I've been following this for a while...

The woman that Disney now has the agreement with is Clare Milne.

AA Milne originally licensed the Pooh characters to his literary agent, Stephen Slesinger, in the 1930s. Slesinger in turn licensed the characters to Disney in 1961. In 1983 a new commercial agreement was drawn up between Disney and the heirs of both AA Milne and Slesinger, who was the successor to the family that had an exclusive licencing agreement with Disney.

Now the judge has ruled that Clare Milne is no longer capable of assigning the rights to anyone (she suffers from cerebral palsy), as per US law. She WOULD have reassigned the rights to Disney if she had been allowed, who would have given millions of dollars to a charitable trust in her name.

Now, I'm not too sure on the workings of the American legal system (it is slightly different to ours, which is more like the UK law), but essentially this has given more footing to the legal claim of the Slesingers (which would have been frustrated had Clare Milne won), who are also claiming millions of dollars in unpaid royalties (I think Disney was claiming that video/DVD does not consititute merchandise from memory...).

So basically, the Slesingers are now claiming about $700m in damages. Disney also stands to lose the rights, which counts for about $3-6 billion (!) of their $25 bn annual profits.

Dark days indeed!

From Toonzone.net

ToonZone wrote:Both the Walt Disney Company and Clare Milne were denied an appeal by the United States Court of Appeals in their case to recapture the copyright rights to "Winnie the Pooh" from the Slesinger family. The rights were originally granted in an agreement in the 1930s. Clare Milne initiated complex copyright-law maneuvers in November of 2002 to try to regain the rights to "Winnie the Pooh". A Federal District court ruled in favor of the Slesingers in May of 2003, leading to Milne's appeal, which Disney joined.

Well, this is an intresting development.
I wonder if we will be getting as many Winnie the Pooh DVDs now?

From what I remember, part of the case dealt with money not received over merchandise, and Disney were claiming that DVD/VHS sales were not part of that.

For the full story go here:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stori ... 538&EDATE=

The most profitable of all the characters Disney markets, Pooh is
estimated to be worth between $3 billion and $6 billion in annual revenue.
Disney's total annual revenues are $25 billion. The Slesinger family has
asked for a judgment that would include compensatory damages of at least $700 million, unspecified punitive damages, and the right to terminate all future rights of Disney to exploit Winnie-the-Pooh characters.

Not looking good for us Disney Pooh-o-philes.

Loomis wrote:

The most profitable of all the characters Disney markets, Pooh is
estimated to be worth between $3 billion and $6 billion in annual revenue.
Disney's total annual revenues are $25 billion. The Slesinger family has
asked for a judgment that would include compensatory damages of at least $700 million, unspecified punitive damages, and the right to terminate all future rights of Disney to exploit Winnie-the-Pooh characters.

Not looking good for us Disney Pooh-o-philes.

If Pooh generates over 3 billion in annual revenue and Disney has been raking in that revenue for a few decades, then $700 million is not really a whole lot of money to pay out.

Nothing against A. A. Milne and the classic Pooh, but it is because of what Disney has done with Pooh that has caused Pooh to be so profitable rather than the classic Pooh character that was originally obtained by the Slesinger family.

If the Slesinger family were granted the right to terminate all future rights of Disney to utilize the Winnie-the-Pooh characters, I do not think that the Slesinger family or anyone else would be able to market the now familiar Disney's versions of those characters. Although the Slesingers may own the rights to the characters, Disney still should maintain ownership of their interpretations of those characters whether they are ever allowed to use them again or not. At least that is the way that I see it.

That sure does ruin my day hering this news that Disney did not win the court case on Winnie The Pooh.

I´m not sorry for this news
I hope (and remember that I´m NO Winnie the Pooh fan, except for the original theatrical shorts and the ONE feature lenght film) that this leads to that we WILL NOT see many films with this teddy bear in the future.
It has already been too much of them.

I honestly wouldn't care if there weren't a lot more Pooh merchandise/films in the future, if that ended up happening. I like "Many Adventures", but the amount of DTV movies for Pooh are some of the most overkill milking of a franchise I've ever seen.

I completely agree with the comments that Disney cutting down on Pooh merchandise would not be a bad thing. There has been such overkill that the original Pooh, whether Disney or not, has been lost in the entire mess.

I don't think you can have too much Pooh.

"Where would be without friendship?
What would life be like without imagination?
What would the world be like without Winnie the Pooh?"

I don't even want to know. The Hundred-Acre Wood (like NeverLand, and Wonderland before it) represents a part of childhood innocence that exists for very few people. Nowadays, many children have lost this special quality. Winnie the Pooh is the spirit and essense of Childhood, whether it be with stuffed toys, animated features, or "crappy" DTV's.

Does this mean they'll bring "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride" back to Disneyworld?

Yeah, there may be an overdose of Winnie the Pooh merchandise out there, but the original animated classic “The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh” still is overlooked. That one is one of Disney’s greatest classics - it is a great gem from the weak period of the 70’s (alongside “The Rescuers”). Unfortunately, for the new generation, Pooh is known by its countless direct-to-video films and television series, not by the original shorts/feature that started it all.
Considering the amount of money that the Pooh character has brought to Disney, “The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh” should be considered a ‘Platinum film’.

ohmahaaha Wrote:

Does this mean they'll bring "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride" back to Disneyworld?

That would be awsome! It's not that I don't like the Pooh ride, and it is way better in Disney World than it is in Disneyland, but I grew up on Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. It never had huge lines like the pooh ride does, but it was always nice to have a Fantasyland ride that didn't have a line. I was so angry when they took it out, because the 20,00 Leagues lagoon is right across the street just sitting there. I will never understand why Disney didn't drain it and put Pooh in there. Although, rumor has it that they are draining it soon to put some of the Little Mermaid rides that Disney Seas in Japan has. I hope theres room for Alice in Wonderland and Pinocchio in that space, too. When I was in Disneyland, those were two of my favorite rides.

burn the 100 acree wood down!

Rebel wrote:
If Pooh generates over 3 billion in annual revenue and Disney has been raking in that revenue for a few decades, then $700 million is not really a whole lot of money to pay out.

No, when you look it at that way you are correct.

BUT the article also states "unspecified punitive damages, and the right to terminate all future rights of Disney to exploit Winnie-the-Pooh characters".

I'm not sure how much the punitive damages could be, but the potential for Disney to exploit the characters in the future being negated could be HUGE loss to Disney. That MAY mean that is $3-6 billion less a year in subsequent years that Disney will be able to earn.

Further, just to add to what Joe Carioca said...

Joe Carioca wrote:Yeah, there may be an overdose of Winnie the Pooh merchandise out there, but the original animated classic “The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh” still is overlooked. That one is one of Disney’s greatest classics - it is a great gem from the weak period of the 70’s (alongside “The Rescuers”). Unfortunately, for the new generation, Pooh is known by its countless direct-to-video films and television series, not by the original shorts/feature that started it all.
Considering the amount of money that the Pooh character has brought to Disney, “The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh” should be considered a ‘Platinum film’.

I agree completely. While Disney may have gone overboard with the merchandise, it is a HUGE earner for them. They have every right to exploit the hell out of it. And the DTVs are a great example of that. (Actually, while Winnie the Pooh could be a great example of the "DTV crap" that some people feel is being thrust upon the market, they have been largely ignored, I feel, because of their simple innocence. Meanwhile, Jungle Book 2 and Cinderella 2: Dreams come True feels the wrath...).

The original shorts made a HUGE impact. The US market were largely unfamiliar with the character until Disney marketed them. The amount of merchandise and DTVs;TV series; plush toys; keyrings; playsets; lampshades etc that are on the market now are a testament to the enduring legacy of Pooh. I think Walt would have been proud that the stuffy little bear he marketed to the US has become such a worldwide phenomenon. While the chances for a future Platinum set may be diminished now (if they lose future rights to the character, although repackaging an existing product may not count under the decision), Many Adventures is certainly deserving of the Platinum (or equivalent) treatment (unless that means 3D games with Zazu ).

At any rate, I for one continue to support the Disney Pooh, and I think it is a sad day when Disney will no longer be able to exploit it. I just hope that whoever does hold the future rights to Pooh is able to give it the same tender charm Disney has...

has the wood finish burning?

Prince Adam wrote:I don't think you can have too much Pooh.

"Where would be without friendship?
What would life be like without imagination?
What would the world be like without Winnie the Pooh?"

I don't even want to know. The Hundred-Acre Wood (like NeverLand, and Wonderland before it) represents a part of childhood innocence that exists for very few people. Nowadays, many children have lost this special quality. Winnie the Pooh is the spirit and essense of Childhood, whether it be with stuffed toys, animated features, or "crappy" DTV's.

I agree with you completely Prince Adam

I also think that you can never have enough of Winnie The Pooh,

Ok as the following article indicates, the issue is a little more complex than we have been led to believe:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/ ... 43/1/.html

Basically, what has happened is that the court has refused appeal to AA Milne's granddaughter (who was siding with Disney) from an an earlier decision barring her from staking claim to the characters (presumably she lacked the mental capability).

Now the trial with the Slesinger family can go ahead.

The judge has set a February 24 hearing date for claims that the Slesinger side to the dispute stole documents from trash bins on Disney movie studio lots.

The plot thickens (like Pooh...).