Pioneer Hall
Well-Known Member
They might try to fight this
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney may be forced to pull ALL of its Winnie the Pooh items
- Thread starter Grim Grinner
- Start date
General Grizz
New Member
They will fight it...but I wonder the extent of what they did...
Pioneer Hall
Well-Known Member
It hasn't been exactly said...and probably won't be told to the public in full. I just hope the stock doesn't take a huge hit because of this.
Sansaarai
Account Suspended
Yep I knew This would eventually be posted on this thread. Its always about attractions and "my" DisneyWorld. How would "we" benefit from this phantom Pooh money?
More attractions. NOPE. Disney profits. YEP.
My second guess would have been a post about Eisners yearly bonus.
Pioneer Hall
Well-Known Member
Well if they lose 10 million dollars they will definately not worry about attractions. Maybe though if they had the extra money instead of having to pay off the Pooh thing then they would listen to us and build.
Pioneer Hall
Well-Known Member
Exactly...Pooh is the biggest seller in Disney. Look at the Disney Store catalog and find me a page that doesn't have Pooh's picture on it. If your lucky you'll find two. And in my Disney Store they remoldeled it so there is a lot of Pooh in a section of the store. And where the Gallery used to be is now called Pooh Corner. 2/3 of our Store is Pooh. IT'S DRIVING ME NUTS!!!!!!!!
Hmm....I was jsut saying to my husband last night that WDW is COVERED in Pooh! Perhaps as part of the settlement, we could get the Villian's dinner back and send Pooh back to whereever he came from.
I actually used to be a really big Pooh fan about ten years ago and back then, Pooh stuff was rare. Now it's everywhere and you can't get away from it. When you see more Pooh stuff, than Mickey stuff you know its gotten out of hand. Hopefully, they'll be forced to cut back on the Pooh stuff, and think of something new.
Steph
I actually used to be a really big Pooh fan about ten years ago and back then, Pooh stuff was rare. Now it's everywhere and you can't get away from it. When you see more Pooh stuff, than Mickey stuff you know its gotten out of hand. Hopefully, they'll be forced to cut back on the Pooh stuff, and think of something new.
Steph
zonguy
New Member
Consider this... What if Disney is pushing Pooh. By making sure that Pooh is everywhere, and that almost every store has a pile of Pooh in it, people by nature would be attracted to Pooh.
By increasing the level of Pooh visability, Disney may have a case for defending its right to keep Pooh. I think they have been puposely been putting more Pooh in the parks and stores, to artifically increase the popularity of Pooh.
It just does not make sense that a company based on a mouse, would stoop to promoting Pooh, unless it had an alternate motive.
Any comments?
(Of course I may just be silly...)
By increasing the level of Pooh visability, Disney may have a case for defending its right to keep Pooh. I think they have been puposely been putting more Pooh in the parks and stores, to artifically increase the popularity of Pooh.
It just does not make sense that a company based on a mouse, would stoop to promoting Pooh, unless it had an alternate motive.
Any comments?
(Of course I may just be silly...)
Pioneer Hall
Well-Known Member
I don't think that Disney really had an alterior motice with Pooh. They saw him getting popular and put him in the stores. It's just a regular business move.
Interesting points everyone... Of course, Disney could then claim a right that Pooh would not be worth what it was, unless it had Disney's marketing behind it. Disney could claim that t evolved the product far beyond the scope of the original license, and perhaps can countersue for the money owed it by marketing...
This could be Disney's motive behind hyping the beloved Pooh bear above the usual financial reasons.
Whatever the situation, I think that this will force Disney to tone down its Pooh fixation for awhile. Remember, Walt was always talking about how important it is to own your own characters (After being screwed out of his original cartoon characters). Eisner and Co. should whip out the WD playbook and learn from it... It's ok to make a single movie off of a license, but never elevate it about your own assets...
This could be Disney's motive behind hyping the beloved Pooh bear above the usual financial reasons.
Whatever the situation, I think that this will force Disney to tone down its Pooh fixation for awhile. Remember, Walt was always talking about how important it is to own your own characters (After being screwed out of his original cartoon characters). Eisner and Co. should whip out the WD playbook and learn from it... It's ok to make a single movie off of a license, but never elevate it about your own assets...
I think Now is absolutely right. Disney has been paying royalties whenever Pooh appears on clothing, toys, books, movies, etc. What is at issue is whether Disney owes royalties for using Pooh on/in items that didn't exist when the contract was written, specifically videos, computer games, and DVD. The "family" contends that they should be covered under "movies/films", Disney disputes this...that since CD-rom/ /videos/DVDs were not specifically mentioned in the contract, royalties are not owed. At least this is how I interpreted the news story...I could be wrong!
Pioneer Hall
Well-Known Member
This is what is seems to be. If it wasn't mentioned in the contract then Disney shouldn't have to pay. But, they did destroy documents that could have altered the case and for that they could be in trouble.
I think it's an interesting case. Even if the "lost' documents aren't found, should royalties be paid if a DVD or VHS is made of an existing movie which is covered by the original contract? Any copyright lawyers out there? Obviously, there is a difference of legal opinion on this, or they wouldn't be battling in the courtroom!
Pioneer Hall
Well-Known Member
They seem to be good at the contract negotiating
ok heres my input on this whole deal
first of all this whole trial deal is not about disney loosing the rights to pooh it is about the family being owed back royalties. the family states that disney made more money then wwhat disney let them to believe and disney being busted for destroying papers. thats what the whole legal battle is about the media with their great wisdom started the rumors about disney loosing pooh.
if there is a contract in place disney will have to pay what is truly owed by legal contract but thta same contract that works against disney works for disney by stating they have legal rights to pooh for a disclosed number of years.
lets just say for a minute that there was no contract in place noone and i mean NOONE has the marketing synergy that disney
has.if this family is totally stupid they would try to have another company try to even come close to disneys marketing power.
also think about this very important point.
the rights to pooh characters are from the family but the disney company took the basic book characters and gave them personalities that has made them what they are today.if disney looses the rights which they wont the pooh characters will have to be changed as well which without disneys touch to pooh arent doo-doo
first of all this whole trial deal is not about disney loosing the rights to pooh it is about the family being owed back royalties. the family states that disney made more money then wwhat disney let them to believe and disney being busted for destroying papers. thats what the whole legal battle is about the media with their great wisdom started the rumors about disney loosing pooh.
if there is a contract in place disney will have to pay what is truly owed by legal contract but thta same contract that works against disney works for disney by stating they have legal rights to pooh for a disclosed number of years.
lets just say for a minute that there was no contract in place noone and i mean NOONE has the marketing synergy that disney
has.if this family is totally stupid they would try to have another company try to even come close to disneys marketing power.
also think about this very important point.
the rights to pooh characters are from the family but the disney company took the basic book characters and gave them personalities that has made them what they are today.if disney looses the rights which they wont the pooh characters will have to be changed as well which without disneys touch to pooh arent doo-doo
thedisneyfan
Member
Let's get one thing straight---Disney does NOT owe ANY royalties from current sales or uses of Pooh. They bought all of the rights to Pooh back in March of last year.
www.money.cnn.com/2001/03/05/deals/disney/index.htm
What they do possibly owe is back royalties (and penalties and interest) for all the sales and uses from the previous contracts if it can be proven that they did lie and cover up and destroy the documents showing bigger sales figures than what was represented to the family. However, from a legal standpoint if this can be proven right, it does affect the actual contract in which Disney purchased the rights to Pooh. In contract law this would be a misrepresentation and concealment of the actual valuation of the rights which the family would have and did base its sale price upon the sales figures from the past that were represented to them by Disney by Disney and the contract could be voidable. What this realistically means: IF it can be proven that the sales figures and royalty calculations were underrepresented and/or falsified and/or that Disney intentionally destroyed the documents representing these, then Disney will have to shell out 10's or 100's of millions more to the family in a settlement above the original $350 million in the rights purchasing contract (in addition to the back royalties for all previous years before this purchase in March 2001). :brick: :brick: :brick: :brick:
www.money.cnn.com/2001/03/05/deals/disney/index.htm
What they do possibly owe is back royalties (and penalties and interest) for all the sales and uses from the previous contracts if it can be proven that they did lie and cover up and destroy the documents showing bigger sales figures than what was represented to the family. However, from a legal standpoint if this can be proven right, it does affect the actual contract in which Disney purchased the rights to Pooh. In contract law this would be a misrepresentation and concealment of the actual valuation of the rights which the family would have and did base its sale price upon the sales figures from the past that were represented to them by Disney by Disney and the contract could be voidable. What this realistically means: IF it can be proven that the sales figures and royalty calculations were underrepresented and/or falsified and/or that Disney intentionally destroyed the documents representing these, then Disney will have to shell out 10's or 100's of millions more to the family in a settlement above the original $350 million in the rights purchasing contract (in addition to the back royalties for all previous years before this purchase in March 2001).
:brick: :brick: :brick: :brick: