Copyright protects creative works and they are protected at the moment of their creation. All Disney can really own are the specific designs. One cannot own the general idea of family entertainnent with a younger skew.
Well, I get that, sort of. But I wonder what specific elements they have covered. For instance, do they have a copyright on the design of a park with a castle in the center? Or is that too broad, and they only have a copyright on the design of the castle itself? Or do they not have copyright on any of it? Do they have a copyright on Main Street USA or just a trademark on the name?
King, the game developer who made Candy Crush, got the word "candy" trademarked two years ago. They abandoned the trademark in the US shortly after they got it approved (though they may still have it in Europe) but still, it's worrying that the got it approved in the first place. Copyrights, trademarks, patents, and all of that are good to a certain extent.
I'm sure you don't have all of the answers and I don't expect anyone on here to. I just wonder.
So what they've been doing the last 6 years isn't creative? Huh? What? Did they not single-handedly turn the theme park industry on its head? Are we- for good or bad- not getting carsland, Star Wars land, and toy story land as a direct result of universals creativity?
Have you seen the outside of Kong, for heavens sake? I've seen nothing like that from Disney. Avatar will blow Kong's doors off regarding themeing- I'm sure of it- but that, too, is a direct result of universals creativity and raising the bar- not Disney.
The moral of my story is Universal has been the leader in creativity- easily- since 2010. Not even a contest. And given the option of Disney making a 5th park or Universal making a 3rd- I'd stake my claim on universal bringing something bigger and better to the table.
Oh no no no, certainly Universal has been doing a great job. The Hary Potter Lands are excellent. They are very very well done. Beyond well done. Amazing. Kong also looks great. That's not at all what I meant. Sorry if you misunderstood, perhaps I should've been more clear.
Lets start back in 1999. Universal Orlando was opening their second park, Islands of Adventure. While Universal Studios was about the movies, Islands of Adventure would be about books and literature. Oooh! That made the two parks somewhat different and unique. That made Islands of Adventure... wait for it... creative!
But then, in 2010, Hogsmeade opened in Islands of Adventure. One of the most highly themed parts of a theme park, it was beyond excellent. But it was in the wrong park, because, lets face it, it's based off of the movies, not the books. Now Kong is being built, which is also based on a movie (or movies). So we now have
Universal Studios and
Universal Studios: Do Islands make me cooler?
Basically, Universal suddenly knows how to do nothing but make excellent rides based off of movies. That is the shell that they need to step out of when coming up with the third park. The recent lands and rides are spectacular. I wouldn't call the big picture creative, I would say it's the opposite. And it'll cost them down the road.
Magic Kingdom is a great park. But did Disney build MK, MK #2, MK #3, and MK #4? No. That would've been terribly uncreative. Similarly, it will be terribly uncreative if Universal's third park is
Universal Studios: Hey, we got more land! Two parks with the same theme is okay. Three is redundant, and will not lead to great success.
