A Spirited 15 Rounds ...

asianway

asianway

Well-Known Member
Pixieish said:
It may be honest, but it's also pretty awful. Especially when they try to hide behind the "Disney image" when one of their most profitable directors comes under cyber attack. I realize Eisner isn't at the helm any longer, but there are TONS of people out there who would cringe to hear that statement was made by someone who was a high-ranking executive at Disney and wouldn't care who is in charge.
Click to expand...
Cyber attack. Oh.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
the.dreamfinder said:
Or just a focused team of individuals of diverse backgrounds with shared values and ideals taking a long term perspective.

It says a lot about Apple’s respect for what they do that they have chosen not to buy a media company.

And it also says a lot about Bob that he’d spend $70 billion when he could expand adult oriented film/show production and buy out their partners in Hulu.
Click to expand...
The Fox acquisition is just made more nonsensical because Iger essentially shut down Disney’s other production labels.
 
Phil12

Phil12

Well-Known Member
the.dreamfinder said:
And it’s antithetical to how Disney should be run.

I’d encourage folks to talk time off from MAGIC and read books like Bob Thomas’ “ Walt Disney: An American Original” to get a real sense for how Walt and Roy ran things.
They were incredibly cunning businessmen, and Walt was one as much as he was an artist, but there is a profound belief of continuous improvement and long term thinking at the core of their operation that let them do things no other peer company could.
Click to expand...
Bob Thomas’ “ Walt Disney: An American Original” will not give you a real sense of anything, unless you're a cult member. The book was financed by the Disney family and Bob Thomas was hand picked to write the book so that Walt is portrayed as a saint. It doesn't deal with the real legitimate issues and unscrupulous practices for which Walt was known. It's a good book if you desire to worship at the altar of Walter.
 
AEfx

AEfx

Well-Known Member
geekza said:
Considering that they release some form of merchandise on an almost-daily basis with Mickey on it, I don't think they ever need to worry about the trademark registration expiring.
Click to expand...

It is the depiction of Mickey we are talking about. Mickey has been drawn very differently over the years as he developed and changed. That's why there are something like 200 trademarks associated just with Mickey and how he has been depicted over the years. The "vintage" looking Mickey is the one at risk, hence why they are using him so often now.

The problem is this: according to the spirit of copyright law, Mickey (at least as he appears in Steamboat Willie) should be going into the public domain in a few years. The public domain is meant to be in the interest of the public - that the creator of art was given sufficient time to exclusively profit from it, and then it belongs to the public for the greater artistic good.

When these laws were written, it was never intended for something like Mickey to be covered by both copyright and trademarks. It just wasn't a concept. It is essentially going to create a situation where a character is technically public domain but isn't available because of a loophole provided by trademark. This will likely be challenged in some form, which is why Disney is pushing this image of Mickey above all others these days.
 
geekza

geekza

Well-Known Member
AEfx said:
It is the depiction of Mickey we are talking about. Mickey has been drawn very differently over the years as he developed and changed. That's why there are something like 200 trademarks associated just with Mickey and how he has been depicted over the years. The "vintage" looking Mickey is the one at risk, hence why they are using him so often now.

The problem is this: according to the spirit of copyright law, Mickey (at least as he appears in Steamboat Willie) should be going into the public domain in a few years. The public domain is meant to be in the interest of the public - that the creator of art was given sufficient time to exclusively profit from it, and then it belongs to the public for the greater artistic good.

When these laws were written, it was never intended for something like Mickey to be covered by both copyright and trademarks. It just wasn't a concept. It is essentially going to create a situation where a character is technically public domain but isn't available because of a loophole provided by trademark. This will likely be challenged in some form, which is why Disney is pushing this image of Mickey above all others these days.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm very aware about Disney's attempts (and success) at subverting copyright. What you've said is mostly right. As it stands right now, Steamboat Willie goes into the public domain in 2024. At that point, anyone can legally distribute copies of the short. With that said, Mickey Mouse, the character, is still trademarked, so you won't be able to go out and create your own Mickey Mouse products, cartoons, etc. There's a really good article about why that is the case here. The design changes aren't really important and the use of a more-classic Mickey has nothing to do with protecting the trademark. The fact that Mickey Mouse, the character, is so inextricably linked to Disney almost guarantees them protection against the character's use in non-Disney works. They could drastically-redesign Mickey Mouse and, as long as the Disney company says, "This is Mickey Mouse," then that's that. Now, they'd be foolish to change Mickey's design in such a way that someone looking at it wouldn't be able to tell it was Mickey without being told, so they won't do that.

TL/DR The early films will become freely-distributable one by one as the years go by. Just don't go trying to create your own Mickey Mouse stuff because, outside of protected parody, he is Disney's until the end of time. Is that in keeping with the spirit of the public domain? Nope, but in the words of one of Disney's latest trademark acquisitions, "(They) will make it legal."
 
AEfx

AEfx

Well-Known Member
the.dreamfinder said:
It says a lot about Apple’s respect for what they do that they have chosen not to buy a media company.
Click to expand...

I have to give that a great big Sulu, "Oh, my!"

Apple hasn't bought a Media company because they get 30% off of the top for ALL the media, being the middle man with iTunes. Apple has such a tight grip over its walled garden precisely for this purpose.

Why take a risk by creating media when you can just siphon off a significant portion of the profits from the people who take all the risks?
 
geekza

geekza

Well-Known Member
AEfx said:
I have to give that a great big Sulu, "Oh, my!"

Apple hasn't bought a Media company because they get 30% off of the top for ALL the media, being the middle man with iTunes. Apple has such a tight grip over its walled garden precisely for this purpose.

Why take a risk by creating media when you can just siphon off a significant portion of the profits from the people who take all the risks?
Click to expand...
They're entering the media creation business, but you're right about them making a ton off of the cut they take from media sales.
 
AEfx

AEfx

Well-Known Member
geekza said:
TL/DR The early films will become freely-distributable one by one as the years go by. Just don't go trying to create your own Mickey Mouse stuff because, outside of protected parody, he is Disney's until the end of time. Is that in keeping with the spirit of the public domain? Nope, but in the words of one of Disney's latest trademark acquisitions, "(They) will make it legal."
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what Disney is counting on happening - but as it is not in the spirit of copyright law, I fully expect it to be challenged in one way or another (even if it ends up being in a lawsuit Disney initiates).

That article is interesting and has some great information, but it is also a few years old. Since that article was written, another aspect of copyright law, work-for-hire and the returning of rights, has been in multiple cases (Superman/Superboy, or what is going on now with Friday the 13th, for examples), and has led the overall interpretation of copyright law and how it associates with characters within the fiction has been further defined.

The courts are starting to have to answer the complex question of "what makes a character?" and some really intriguing things have come of it. Basically, it is the elements that appear in a story. So, if Superman had been split, for example - you would have a situation where multiple parties would own different aspects of the character - one entity could own the name, one could own the character as he appeared in the first x-number of issues (so if he didn't use a power until later, they would not have the rights to that power), so on and so on. In this case, the "public" is one of those entities, and by copyright law should own the film and the depiction of the character within (as he appears).

I have no doubt that Disney is counting on exactly what you say - and working very hard to make sure that is how it goes down - but I also believe you will find that is the reason that the "classic Mickey" has become so ubiquitous across the company. It definitely isn't a clear-cut in-the-bag thing, however.
 
FigmentJedi

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
Loopzoop444 said:
They quickly began to love how profitable people with a love of all things Disney are when Beauty and The Beast remake was one of the highest-grossing films of all time.

"We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective." -Micheal Eisner

I never forget that quote, because it it the most honest statement I've ever seen from a Hollywood person.
Click to expand...
There's actually more to the quote.

"... But to make money, it is often important to make history, to make art, or to make some significant statement. Our only objective may be to make money, but in order to make money, we must always make entertaining movies. And if we make entertaining movies, at times we will make history, art, a statement, or all three. We may even win awards."
 
smile

smile

Well-Known Member
Mr. E said:
"We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective. But to make money, it is often important to make history, to make art, or to make some significant statement. Our only objective may be to make money, but in order to make money, we must always make entertaining movies. And if we make entertaining movies, at times we will make history, art, a statement, or all three. We may even win awards."
Click to expand...

disney difference?
pshh... disney difference in THE BANK ACCOUNT!!



latest
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom