Bloggers and Podcasters need to be controlled

[Malin]

I agree with Lee, benefits and privileges should be taken away. It might encourage these bloggers and site owners to be bit more outspoken towards Disney and its continued decline.

 

[Lee]

I agree with Lee, benefits and privileges should be taken away. It might encourage these bloggers and site owners to be bit more outspoken towards Disney and its continued decline.

Yes. This.
The last thing we need is an unofficial propaganda arm of Disney PR to assist in shouting down or glossing over any of the legitimate issues that are plaguing the resort.

I think I'll wear a polo shirt with a mouse on it, grab a video camera and a mic and go interview guests at the MK.
Wonder how long before I get escorted out...

I don't want any 'press' controlled - good press or bad press.

Let the public decide what is crap or not.

I'm not looking to control the press, not at all.

I'm just looking to keep the line between "press" and "fan" visible. Podcasters and bloggers can say whatever they want. But it should be well known that they are not "press" nor are they real "media." They are simply fans that have figured out a way to get Disney to give them free stuff in exchange for positive reviews or commentary.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

While we've been talking about pixie dusted, leechy bloggers/podcasters, a seriously depressing thing has been happening. Amid Amidi, the co-editor in chief at Cartoon Brew, wrote a biography about Disney animator Ward Kimball called Full Steam Ahead. Kimball is best known for creating Jiminy Cricket, Mad Hatter, and Chesire Cat as well as directing the outer space segments on the Disneyland TV show and the Academy Award winning short Toot, Whistle, Plunk and Boom. Amidi has also written excellent books about Pixar and Cartoon Modern as well as his old magazine, Animation Blast (Fun Fact: Pete Docter contributed to it). Because so many of the images in the book are Disney IP since Kimball spent 40 odd years of his life at Disney, Amidi and his publisher Chronicle Books need permission from Disney to use these images after which they would then pay to use said images. However, this process has been used by Disney Publishing to get authors to purge unfavorable passages or remove non Disney owned images that could put the company in a undesirable light. Animation Historian Michael Barrier describes it as "The Approved Narrative". (http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Commentary/TwoGuysNamedJoe/TwoGuysNamedJoe.html)
To add some more context to this quagmire, Amidi submitted the book to Disney last January and it was supposed to be released this November and has now been pushed back to June 2013 AT THE EARLIEST!!
So while Disney has been holding up what sounds like a very excellent book (http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/a...hat-disney-doesnt-want-you-to-read-73722.html), they let folks like Lou Mongello, Jeff Lange, and others profit off of Disney IP because they create pro-disney propaganda. I'll say it again, AN AUTHOR AND PUBLISHER WHO WILL PAY DISNEY TO USE THEIR IP HAVE THEIR BOOK STONEWALLED WHILE SM WHORES PROFIT OFF OF THEIR IP AND DON'T PAY TO USE IT ARE NEVER SUED BY DISNEY LEGAL.

I'll also note that Amidi isn't the only victim of this double standard. The historian that I cited earlier has had similar issues with Disney and (http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Home Page/WhatsNewArchivesNov12.html#akimballcrisis)
both Jeff Heimbuch and Jim Korkis have avoided using Disney images in their books for similar reasons.

 

[Bairstow]

I don't see why Amidi is complaining.
If Amidi wanted to publish his book without using Disney's IP, he could. No one could stop him.
It probably wouldn't sell as well without Disney's pictures in it, but them's the breaks.
If Amidi has agreed to compromise the integrity of this biography in order to insert Disney IP into it so that he can sell more copies, why exactly am I supposed to feel sorry for him?

 

[the.dreamfinder]

I don't see why Amidi is complaining.
If Amidi wanted to publish his book without using Disney's IP, he could. No one could stop him.
It probably wouldn't sell as well without Disney's pictures in it, but them's the breaks.
If Amidi has agreed to compromise the integrity of this biography in order to insert Disney IP into it so that he can sell more copies, why exactly am I supposed to feel sorry for him?

Umm... because he he gets the long end of the stick from Disney when he goes through the proper channels while SM whores whose business relies almost entirely on stealing Disney's IP go scott free. It's also worth mentioning that Disney didn't use to do this as one of the links I posted pointed out.

 

[Bairstow]

What are "SM whores"?

 

[Tigger1988]

What are the bloggers stealing exactly? If Amid wants his book to be authorized by Disney he's going to have to follow their rules and have his book scrubbed clean, why is this surprising to anyone?

Not really seeing a correlation between the two. The bloggers do what Disney wants and get what they want in return. Amid wants Disney to just hand over rights and photos without giving into what they want (a white washed version of history).

 

[ChrisFL]

What are "SM whores"?

I believe in this case SM refers to Social Media

 

[asianway]

Umm... because he he gets the long end of the stick from Disney when he goes through the proper channels while SM whores whose business relies almost entirely on stealing Disney's IP go scott free. It's also worth mentioning that Disney didn't use to do this as one of the links I posted pointed out.

Where do these Wdw fan created photo books fall on this? Are they licensed?

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Where do these Wdw fan created photo books fall on this? Are they licensed?

Can you be more specific? The disney parks are copyrighted spaces and they have to right to sue folks who try to profit off of photos taken at the parks.

I doubt it, but they're also not a biography written by an respected author who counts Brad Bird, Pete Docter, Jon Musker as fans.

 

[asianway]

Can you be more specific? The disney parks are copyrighted spaces and they have to right to sue folks who try to profit off of photos taken at the parks.

I doubt it, but they're also not a biography written by an respected author who counts Brad Bird, Pete Docter, Jon Musker as fans.

Well hate to name names... But like if I took a whole mess of DHS pics, bundled them in an ebook, and charged 10 bucks a download-not kosher? Got it

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Well hate to name names... But like if I took a whole mess of DHS pics, bundled them in an ebook, and charged 10 bucks a download-not kosher? Got it

Yes.

 

[Lee]

Well hate to name names... But like if I took a whole mess of DHS pics, bundled them in an ebook, and charged 10 bucks a download-not kosher? Got it

Odd how some folks get away with such things, huh?

 

[asianway]

Odd how some folks get away with such things, huh?

If you can't beat em, join em. May as well get my 61 cents a week

 

[The Empress Lilly]

While we've been talking about pixie dusted, leechy bloggers/podcasters, a seriously depressing thing has been happening. Amid Amidi, the co-editor in chief at Cartoon Brew, wrote a biography about Disney animator Ward Kimball called Full Steam Ahead. Kimball is best known for creating Jiminy Cricket, Mad Hatter, and Chesire Cat as well as directing the outer space segments on the Disneyland TV show and the Academy Award winning short Toot, Whistle, Plunk and Boom. Amidi has also written excellent books about Pixar and Cartoon Modern as well as his old magazine, Animation Blast (Fun Fact: Pete Docter contributed to it). Because so many of the images in the book are Disney IP since Kimball spent 40 odd years of his life at Disney, Amidi and his publisher Chronicle Books need permission from Disney to use these images after which they would then pay to use said images. However, this process has been used by Disney Publishing to get authors to purge unfavorable passages or remove non Disney owned images that could put the company in a undesirable light. Animation Historian Michael Barrier describes it as "The Approved Narrative". (http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Commentary/TwoGuysNamedJoe/TwoGuysNamedJoe.html)
To add some more context to this quagmire, Amidi submitted the book to Disney last January and it was supposed to be released this November and has now been pushed back to June 2013 AT THE EARLIEST!!
So while Disney has been holding up what sounds like a very excellent book (http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/a...hat-disney-doesnt-want-you-to-read-73722.html), they let folks like Lou Mongello, Jeff Lange, and others profit off of Disney IP because they create pro-disney propaganda. I'll say it again, AN AUTHOR AND PUBLISHER WHO WILL PAY DISNEY TO USE THEIR IP HAVE THEIR BOOK STONEWALLED WHILE SM WHORES PROFIT OFF OF THEIR IP AND DON'T PAY TO USE IT ARE NEVER SUED BY DISNEY LEGAL.

I'll also note that Amidi isn't the only victim of this double standard. The historian that I cited earlier has had similar issues with Disney and (http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Home Page/WhatsNewArchivesNov12.html#akimballcrisis)
both Jeff Heimbuch and Jim Korkis have avoided using Disney images in their books for similar reasons.

I don't see the double standard. I see a single standard: does the person wishing to use copyrighted material provide me with positive press? Or, put differently, is the use of IP warranted by a return value, i.e. free advertissement.

Why would anybody provide his own copyrighted material for unwelcome press?

Disney is not a charity. Not a public body. To expect Disney to provide the same perks to unwelcome press as to welcoming ones, out of fairness, is like expecting Disney to devote equal attention and air time within its tv commercials to UNI and SEA, out of fairness to all Orlando theme parks.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I don't see the double standard. I see a single standard: does the person wishing to use copyrighted material provide me with positive press? Or, put differently, is the use of IP warranted by a return value, i.e. free advertissement.

Why would anybody provide his own copyrighted material for unwelcome press?

Disney is not a charity. Not a public body. To expect Disney to provide the same perks to unwelcome press as to welcoming ones, out of fairness, is like expecting Disney to devote equal attention and air time within its commercials to UNI and SEA, out of fairness to all Orlando theme parks.

Disney should be very concerned about the unlicensed, positive materials, especially those that try to blur their unofficial nature. The reason Disney gained a reputation for being so hard on people using their intellectual property (such as the infamous daycare incident) is because protecting your intellectual property is part of the law, especially from uses which could be misconstrued as official. Disney allowing, and condoning through omission, the use of their intellectual property could be used as evidence that Disney is not protecting its intellectual property and thus should forfeit its rights to said property.

 

[Gabe1]

I don't see the double standard. I see a single standard: does the person wishing to use copyrighted material provide me with positive press? Or, put differently, is the use of IP warranted by a return value, i.e. free advertissement.

Why would anybody provide his own copyrighted material for unwelcome press?

Disney is not a charity. Not a public body. To expect Disney to provide the same perks to unwelcome press as to welcoming ones, out of fairness, is like expecting Disney to devote equal attention and air time within its commercials to UNI and SEA, out of fairness to all Orlando theme parks.

Yep, that is why Disney allowed way back when for Birnbaum tour books to be sold on property and in TDS and not the UnOfficial Guide. Disney has no interest in a balanced view, they just want Pixie Dust. So the newer version of media, the social network is just a continuation of the stance Disney has always had.

Fortunately most of us use the brain God gave us, check more than one source for reviews and it is easier to research now than back in the day of Birnbaum and UnOffical Guide days.

 

[WDWFigment]

Where do these Wdw fan created photo books fall on this? Are they licensed?

Assuming the book is created by the photographer, and assuming no permission from the owner of the subject IP:

With regard to the architecture of the parks, this is a grey area of law. The landmark case of Rock & Roll v. Gentile really muddied the water there; since, different circuit courts have handed down wildly different decisions on this. For further reading on this subject, I recommend this: http://law.wustl.edu/journal/2/p517spence.pdf

Keep in mind that's specific to architecture. Characters are a totally different story.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

I don't see the double standard. I see a single standard: does the person wishing to use copyrighted material provide me with positive press? Or, put differently, is the use of IP warranted by a return value, i.e. free advertissement.

Why would anybody provide his own copyrighted material for unwelcome press?

Disney is not a charity. Not a public body. To expect Disney to provide the same perks to unwelcome press as to welcoming ones, out of fairness, is like expecting Disney to devote equal attention and air time within its commercials to UNI and SEA, out of fairness to all Orlando theme parks.

No one said this was charity, the author and publisher would pay Disney to license those images.

 

[WDWFigment]

Disney should be very concerned about the unlicensed, positive materials, especially those that try to blur their unofficial nature. The reason Disney gained a reputation for being so hard on people using their intellectual property (such as the infamous daycare incident) is because protecting your intellectual property is part of the law, especially from uses which could be misconstrued as official. Disney allowing, and condoning through omission, the use of their intellectual property could be used as evidence that Disney is not protecting its intellectual property and thus should forfeit its rights to said property.

Definitely true in theory, but in practice, Disney doesn't have any cognizable trademark "genericide" concerns like Xerox, Thermos, or Q-Tips have had.

I think the daycare incident marked a shift in the approach of Disney Legal on these matters. That, or some house-cleaning occurred after that debacle. With how public the Kimball author has made his 'issues' with Disney, and the negative press they've received over that, it wouldn't surprise me if he soon gets clearance. If the mainstream media picked up that story, it certainly would not paint Disney in a positive light.