Great Movie Ride to Close?

[doctornick]

They walked away with the rights.

Aside from Bond which was MGM/UA and would need a separate licence.

Can you clarify? Who is "they"? Disney? Does Disney have the theme park rights to any MGM (and presumable UA, since the libraries were merged at the time IIRC) film? And, if so, is that in perpetuity and is it worldwide?

 

[AEfx]

I'm not sure about this, so if there is a copyright lawyer present just speak up, but, I think that copyrights have a shelf life. After a certain number of years it becomes public domain and no additional fees are required. Again, I could be wrong about that since, contrary to my own belief, I don't know everything.

Unfortunately, thanks in part to our dearly departed late congressman Sonny Bono, and the work of corporations such as Disney in particular, public domain was pretty much effectively irrelevant for the last two generations. In fact, the "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act" was nicknamed the "Mickey Mouse Protection" act because of Disney's massive support of it to preserve the character of Mickey who would have entered the public domain not long after.

What's interesting is that - all those term extensions are on the cusp of expiring, again. Unless they pull another Act and extend it even further (the public outcry would be much larger now than it was then, largely due to the Internet), we face a situation where after 2019 they will start expiring again, and given the age of Mickey Mouse he will be one of the first to go into public domain.

And in this case, there is no one to "sign a deal with" to lock them up - you can't "buy" the rights to something that legally belongs in the public domain. So we face a situation where Disney may no longer "own" Mickey in the not-too-distant future - they wouldn't be prevented from using him, but neither would anyone else be prevented as he would belong to public domain.

(It's funny, because as I said, public domain has effectively ceased to exist for the last 40 years, the concept of a corporation not having perpetual ownership in something is a foreign concept to most folks. It's a big reality that folks are going to be dealing with - over the next decade or two.)

There are a lot of complexities to it - technically, the earliest Mickey films will enter public domain, first - which means Disney would still have copyright protection for, say, Mickey's Christmas Carol, but their rights to the character itself are based upon those original shorts. So, it's sort of like how anyone can make an Oz film because WoO is in the public domain - but they cannot use story elements such as the Ruby Slippers without permission because those were a product of the 1939 film and copyrighted by the current owners of that.

What will happen to Mickey will likely be what just almost happened with Superman (although that wasn't about Public Domain quite yet - they basically were fighting for control between now and then) - where it would have come down to what issues of the comic introduced what concept (say, when did he first use X-ray vision, when did the Daily Planet get introduced, etc.) and what contract was considered legally binding at the time of each element's introduction.

It was one of the messiest cases in litigation history, but to boil it down we could have ended up with a situation where one party owns certain elements of the character, and another party owns others (for Mickey, that would be, say, you can use the concepts presented in Steamboat Willie as that would be public domain, but he couldn't have a dog named Pluto because Pluto didn't appear until a couple of years later, and would remain owned by Disney until his first appearance became Public domain). In any case, it leads to a point around the middle of this century that Disney doesn't own pretty much anything, LOL.

I am absolutely sure that Disney already has folks working on this, and has been for quite some time. My guess is that they will try to separate what we consider "Mickey Mouse" into multiple characters for copyright purposes, trying to say there is a "vintage" and "modern" Mickey - so anyone can then make a T-shirt of old-style black-eyes Mickey, but they would still retain ownership of the more modern white-eye Mickey. That's not how it's intended to work, they would have to prove quite a case - but as I said, I'm sure Disney's lawyers have already been working towards this and that's the only plausible route they go - the public just will not accept a further extension which would be really absurd at this point anyway.

 

[marni1971]

Can you clarify? Who is "they"? Disney? Does Disney have the theme park rights to any MGM (and presumable UA, since the libraries were merged at the time IIRC) film? And, if so, is that in perpetuity and is it worldwide?

The Walt Disney Company. The original worldwide deal expired in 2005. Since the MGM empire collapsed after the deal was made they also dealt with the buyer - Sony, who declined a renewal. Hence the name change.

I can't comment on the intricacies of still using the IPs in park though.

 

[arko]

Unfortunately, thanks in part to our dearly departed late congressman Sonny Bono, and the work of corporations such as Disney in particular, public domain was pretty much effectively irrelevant for the last two generations. In fact, the "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act" was nicknamed the "Mickey Mouse Protection" act because of Disney's massive support of it to preserve the character of Mickey who would have entered the public domain not long after.

What's interesting is that - all those term extensions are on the cusp of expiring, again. Unless they pull another Act and extend it even further (the public outcry would be much larger now than it was then, largely due to the Internet), we face a situation where after 2019 they will start expiring again, and given the age of Mickey Mouse he will be one of the first to go into public domain.

And in this case, there is no one to "sign a deal with" to lock them up - you can't "buy" the rights to something that legally belongs in the public domain. So we face a situation where Disney may no longer "own" Mickey in the not-too-distant future - they wouldn't be prevented from using him, but neither would anyone else be prevented as he would belong to public domain.

(It's funny, because as I said, public domain has effectively ceased to exist for the last 40 years, the concept of a corporation not having perpetual ownership in something is a foreign concept to most folks. It's a big reality that folks are going to be dealing with - over the next decade or two.)

There are a lot of complexities to it - technically, the earliest Mickey films will enter public domain, first - which means Disney would still have copyright protection for, say, Mickey's Christmas Carol, but their rights to the character itself are based upon those original shorts. So, it's sort of like how anyone can make an Oz film because WoO is in the public domain - but they cannot use story elements such as the Ruby Slippers without permission because those were a product of the 1939 film and copyrighted by the current owners of that.

What will happen to Mickey will likely be what just almost happened with Superman (although that wasn't about Public Domain quite yet - they basically were fighting for control between now and then) - where it would have come down to what issues of the comic introduced what concept (say, when did he first use X-ray vision, when did the Daily Planet get introduced, etc.) and what contract was considered legally binding at the time of each element's introduction.

It was one of the messiest cases in litigation history, but to boil it down we could have ended up with a situation where one party owns certain elements of the character, and another party owns others (for Mickey, that would be, say, you can use the concepts presented in Steamboat Willie as that would be public domain, but he couldn't have a dog named Pluto because Pluto didn't appear until a couple of years later, and would remain owned by Disney until his first appearance became Public domain). In any case, it leads to a point around the middle of this century that Disney doesn't own pretty much anything, LOL.

I am absolutely sure that Disney already has folks working on this, and has been for quite some time. My guess is that they will try to separate what we consider "Mickey Mouse" into multiple characters for copyright purposes, trying to say there is a "vintage" and "modern" Mickey - so anyone can then make a T-shirt of old-style black-eyes Mickey, but they would still retain ownership of the more modern white-eye Mickey. That's not how it's intended to work, they would have to prove quite a case - but as I said, I'm sure Disney's lawyers have already been working towards this and that's the only plausible route they go - the public just will not accept a further extension which would be really absurd at this point anyway.

The character Mickey Mouse will never go into the public domain as it is trademarked. What will go into public domain eventually is individual cartoons with Mickey Mouse in it.

 

[Pixie VaVoom]

[But, when anybody asks me, what my favorite movie of all time is---It's The Quiet Man. Sexiest kiss ever---John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara in the rain.[/QUOTE]

...is it getting HOT in here???

 

[AEfx]

The character Mickey Mouse will never go into the public domain as it is trademarked. What will go into public domain eventually is individual cartoons with Mickey Mouse in it.

As I said, there are a lot of complexities to it. Trademark and Copyright are completely independent of each other but married in a strange way because of how media has developed. When these systems were created, a character in a book was a character in a book and not a cross-media product.

However, the basis of the protection of Mickey Mouse is based upon the creation of the character in Steamboat Willie - which will be in public domain - and there is precedent for having a trademark but not full control of a character based on the limited tests that have happened (limited because the copyright extensions keep this sort of thing from more thorough legal examinations since the age of mass media).

That's why I really think they are going to attempt to separate Mickey as a character - they got a lot of bad press over the last time, it would be exponentially larger today - and by doing so they actually would fully secure the Mickey they actually use now for another 50 years or so. Plus they'd come out looking like the good guys.

 

[wdwfan4ver]

Just to update on this, I heard from a reliable source (I know people say that a lot, but trust me when I say this is about as reliable as it gets) on GMR. They said, and I quote, "don't get too attached to GMR." They also advised me to "get your last rides in on it while you still can." They wouldn't provide me any more details than that as far as does this mean a complete tear down, a repurposing, retheming, etc. or any more details regarding time frame.

I will say, this is not surprising. Disney made the licensing deal with MGM originally because they didn't feel that they had the cinema library at the time to compete with Universal, but wanted to open a studios park none-the-less. Nearly all of the IPs in GMR are part of that original agreement, which is being phased out as Disney has the IPs themselves now and doesn't need the MGM ones.

My guess, and this is ONLY a guess, is that they use this space to expand the Pixar mini-land, which is located directly behind GMR. Again, that is only a guess.

I think your guess is off.

It is very unlikely that GMR space is going to be use for expanding the Pixar Mini-land. I am saying this because the Backlot Tour is now closed and there is talk of a Pixar Mini-land there. john Lasseter and other big names went to Backlot Tour and Sound Studios 1 at DHS on September 25th. Those two things point to Pixar expansion happening at where the Backlot Tour is, not the Great Movie Ride. John Lasseter and others didn't go to GMR. The fact that group of people didn't go to GMR means its not part of the planned Pixar expansion.

If there is even more space need for a Pixar Mini-land, there also is Lights, Motor, Action!. Insiders on this site mention last month and earlier this month that Lights, Motor, Action! doesn't have a lot of life left matter of fact. LMA going away isn't for Star Wars or Backlot Tour for that matter. Star War Expansion right now is pointed at Backlot Express, Echo Lake, and Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular.

 

[wdwfan4ver]

Just to update on this, I heard from a reliable source (I know people say that a lot, but trust me when I say this is about as reliable as it gets) on GMR. They said, and I quote, "don't get too attached to GMR." They also advised me to "get your last rides in on it while you still can." They wouldn't provide me any more details than that as far as does this mean a complete tear down, a repurposing, retheming, etc. or any more details regarding time frame.

While that is a lot of land. If there is a complete tear down, I think it would something that I hope it wouldn't happen. What I am talking is a Frozen land at DHS. I am saying Frozen Mini-land since there is rumors on this site that the Frozen Sing-A-long will be moved to American Idol Experience Building and that building is close enough to GMR to create a frozen themed land if GMR is used for a Frozen attraction or ride.

It is very possible for Frozen have a 2nd ride at WDW if Disney actually wants this. Toy Story has 2 rides, Lion King has 2 attractions, and Little Mermaid has 2 attractions. Beauty and the Beast is in 2 parks also. That means

 

[xstech25]

I dont know if there is any truth to this rumor whatsoever but I certainly hope there is - GMR is one of those rides people go on and look at each other with the "how the F is this thing still here?" face. The parks flagship attraction should not be so old and cheesy, it's definitely time for a re-do. With Maelstrom and Backlot Tour going, re-do's of Star Tours, Test Track, and Soarin', they are on the right track and hopefully are looking to do the same with things like GMR and Universe of Energy because both are embarrassing.

 

[Tegan pilots a chicken]

I dont know if there is any truth to this rumor whatsoever but I certainly hope there is - GMR is one of those rides people go on and look at each other with the "how the F is this thing still here?" face. The parks flagship attraction should not be so old and cheesy, it's definitely time for a re-do. With Maelstrom and Backlot Tour going, re-do's of Star Tours, Test Track, and Soarin', they are on the right track and hopefully are looking to do the same with things like GMR and Universe of Energy because both are embarrassing.

Can we even say with great certainty that GMR is DHS's flagship attraction at this point?

I believe it should be. But I don't know that it is. The park is sort of in the middle of an identity crisis.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Honestly, at this point, the closure/re-purposing of GMR wouldn't surprise me, considering the people in charge. Iger and his TDO stooges are likely planning to turn DHS into a showcase for all of their non-Disney-generated IPs (at least the ones that are profitable), so it could very well be that Pixar will be expanded there (yay) and also Star Wars (whatever). Marvel won't because of the much-mentioned contract agreement that gives Universal Florida the exclusive rights to the tights-wearing power fantasies, so that's a relief. But it could very well be that GMR, as fun as it is and as worthy of a refurb as it is, just doesn't fit anymore into whatever the heck DHS has become; anymore than the late Sid Cahuenga's did. If TDO was willing to make a nonsensical, cheapass, short-sighted move like slapping a Frozen overlay on Maelstrom in World Frickin' Showcase, then anything is possible, because those people have no taste and no respect for much of anything but the buck. Sad...

 

[ford91exploder]

Unfortunately, thanks in part to our dearly departed late congressman Sonny Bono, and the work of corporations such as Disney in particular, public domain was pretty much effectively irrelevant for the last two generations. In fact, the "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act" was nicknamed the "Mickey Mouse Protection" act because of Disney's massive support of it to preserve the character of Mickey who would have entered the public domain not long after.

What's interesting is that - all those term extensions are on the cusp of expiring, again. Unless they pull another Act and extend it even further (the public outcry would be much larger now than it was then, largely due to the Internet), we face a situation where after 2019 they will start expiring again, and given the age of Mickey Mouse he will be one of the first to go into public domain.

And in this case, there is no one to "sign a deal with" to lock them up - you can't "buy" the rights to something that legally belongs in the public domain. So we face a situation where Disney may no longer "own" Mickey in the not-too-distant future - they wouldn't be prevented from using him, but neither would anyone else be prevented as he would belong to public domain.

(It's funny, because as I said, public domain has effectively ceased to exist for the last 40 years, the concept of a corporation not having perpetual ownership in something is a foreign concept to most folks. It's a big reality that folks are going to be dealing with - over the next decade or two.)

There are a lot of complexities to it - technically, the earliest Mickey films will enter public domain, first - which means Disney would still have copyright protection for, say, Mickey's Christmas Carol, but their rights to the character itself are based upon those original shorts. So, it's sort of like how anyone can make an Oz film because WoO is in the public domain - but they cannot use story elements such as the Ruby Slippers without permission because those were a product of the 1939 film and copyrighted by the current owners of that.

What will happen to Mickey will likely be what just almost happened with Superman (although that wasn't about Public Domain quite yet - they basically were fighting for control between now and then) - where it would have come down to what issues of the comic introduced what concept (say, when did he first use X-ray vision, when did the Daily Planet get introduced, etc.) and what contract was considered legally binding at the time of each element's introduction.

It was one of the messiest cases in litigation history, but to boil it down we could have ended up with a situation where one party owns certain elements of the character, and another party owns others (for Mickey, that would be, say, you can use the concepts presented in Steamboat Willie as that would be public domain, but he couldn't have a dog named Pluto because Pluto didn't appear until a couple of years later, and would remain owned by Disney until his first appearance became Public domain). In any case, it leads to a point around the middle of this century that Disney doesn't own pretty much anything, LOL.

I am absolutely sure that Disney already has folks working on this, and has been for quite some time. My guess is that they will try to separate what we consider "Mickey Mouse" into multiple characters for copyright purposes, trying to say there is a "vintage" and "modern" Mickey - so anyone can then make a T-shirt of old-style black-eyes Mickey, but they would still retain ownership of the more modern white-eye Mickey. That's not how it's intended to work, they would have to prove quite a case - but as I said, I'm sure Disney's lawyers have already been working towards this and that's the only plausible route they go - the public just will not accept a further extension which would be really absurd at this point anyway.

Disney will simply buy enough legislators to pass this - public be damned and it wlll be for 99 years this time.

 

[Tegan pilots a chicken]

Disney will simply buy enough legislators to pass this - public be damned and it wlll be for 99 years this time.

Good

 

[MarkTwain]

Disney will simply buy enough legislators to pass this - public be damned and it wlll be for 99 years this time.

Unfortunately, thanks in part to our dearly departed late congressman Sonny Bono, and the work of corporations such as Disney in particular, public domain was pretty much effectively irrelevant for the last two generations. In fact, the "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act" was nicknamed the "Mickey Mouse Protection" act because of Disney's massive support of it to preserve the character of Mickey who would have entered the public domain not long after.

What's interesting is that - all those term extensions are on the cusp of expiring, again. Unless they pull another Act and extend it even further (the public outcry would be much larger now than it was then, largely due to the Internet), we face a situation where after 2019 they will start expiring again, and given the age of Mickey Mouse he will be one of the first to go into public domain.

And in this case, there is no one to "sign a deal with" to lock them up - you can't "buy" the rights to something that legally belongs in the public domain. So we face a situation where Disney may no longer "own" Mickey in the not-too-distant future - they wouldn't be prevented from using him, but neither would anyone else be prevented as he would belong to public domain.

(It's funny, because as I said, public domain has effectively ceased to exist for the last 40 years, the concept of a corporation not having perpetual ownership in something is a foreign concept to most folks. It's a big reality that folks are going to be dealing with - over the next decade or two.)

There are a lot of complexities to it - technically, the earliest Mickey films will enter public domain, first - which means Disney would still have copyright protection for, say, Mickey's Christmas Carol, but their rights to the character itself are based upon those original shorts. So, it's sort of like how anyone can make an Oz film because WoO is in the public domain - but they cannot use story elements such as the Ruby Slippers without permission because those were a product of the 1939 film and copyrighted by the current owners of that.

What will happen to Mickey will likely be what just almost happened with Superman (although that wasn't about Public Domain quite yet - they basically were fighting for control between now and then) - where it would have come down to what issues of the comic introduced what concept (say, when did he first use X-ray vision, when did the Daily Planet get introduced, etc.) and what contract was considered legally binding at the time of each element's introduction.

It was one of the messiest cases in litigation history, but to boil it down we could have ended up with a situation where one party owns certain elements of the character, and another party owns others (for Mickey, that would be, say, you can use the concepts presented in Steamboat Willie as that would be public domain, but he couldn't have a dog named Pluto because Pluto didn't appear until a couple of years later, and would remain owned by Disney until his first appearance became Public domain). In any case, it leads to a point around the middle of this century that Disney doesn't own pretty much anything, LOL.

I am absolutely sure that Disney already has folks working on this, and has been for quite some time. My guess is that they will try to separate what we consider "Mickey Mouse" into multiple characters for copyright purposes, trying to say there is a "vintage" and "modern" Mickey - so anyone can then make a T-shirt of old-style black-eyes Mickey, but they would still retain ownership of the more modern white-eye Mickey. That's not how it's intended to work, they would have to prove quite a case - but as I said, I'm sure Disney's lawyers have already been working towards this and that's the only plausible route they go - the public just will not accept a further extension which would be really absurd at this point anyway.

Since Disney has a trademark on Mickey as well as a copyright, and trademarks don't expire (I believe), does that provide any added protection for his likeness?

 

[Tegan pilots a chicken]

Since Disney has a trademark on Mickey as well as a copyright, and trademarks don't expire (I believe), does that provide any added protection for his likeness?

It has to. You don't see people putting Ford logos on non-Ford cars. You don't see Coca-Cola labels on non-Coke products. Intellectual property rights have become incredibly more important in the last century and I expect that will continue to be the trend as we move forward.

 

[mahnamahna101]

Yeah. At the very least, if you were going to do it all in company (a foolish notion, in my opinion), at least branch out with films from Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures.

I could see it happening since Disney has the Muppets, NBC, Pixar, Star Wars and potentially Marvel if they ever work out a deal with Universal to work with. Although I'd like Singin' in the Rain, Casablanca and The Wizard of Oz to all stay.

1. Musicals (Fantasia, Mary Poppins, B&TB)
2. Gangster/Noir (Roger Rabbit)
3. Horror (Nightmare Before Christmas) - replacement for Western since Disney's western filmography isn't classic
4. Sci-Fi (Star Wars) - Alien replacement. Could also be GotG or TRON
5. Action/Adventure (Raiders of the Lost Ark, Avengers?) - Tarzan replacement included
6. Comedy (Muppets) - Casablanca/Fantasia replacement
7. Finale - Wizard of Oz room and current finale used for colorful celebration of film history (combines AAs, projections, screens, and sets)

 

[Matt_Black]

Tombstone was Disney via Hollywood Pictures, and don't you tell me that's not a classic.

 

[dreynolds1982]

I think your guess is off.

That makes sense, I was just speculating based on the rides proximity to the current PL. I know it is going away, but I have no clue what could/should/would/will go there, or if it will be a repurposing/retheming, or a complete tear-down. I would think a complete tear-down, but who knows.

 

[doctornick]

Since Disney has a trademark on Mickey as well as a copyright, and trademarks don't expire (I believe), does that provide any added protection for his likeness?

I would think so. My thinking is that anyone could make a version of Steamboat Willy but couldn't explicitly use Mickey Mouse as the star (the character would have be changed in some way and not called Mickey)

 

[doctornick]

I could see it happening since Disney has the Muppets, NBC, Pixar, Star Wars and potentially Marvel if they ever work out a deal with Universal to work with. Although I'd like Singin' in the Rain, Casablanca and The Wizard of Oz to all stay.

1. Musicals (Fantasia, Mary Poppins, B&TB)
2. Gangster/Noir (Roger Rabbit)
3. Horror (Nightmare Before Christmas) - replacement for Western since Disney's western filmography isn't classic
4. Sci-Fi (Star Wars) - Alien replacement. Could also be GotG or TRON
5. Action/Adventure (Raiders of the Lost Ark, Avengers?) - Tarzan replacement included
6. Comedy (Muppets) - Casablanca/Fantasia replacement
7. Finale - Wizard of Oz room and current finale used for colorful celebration of film history (combines AAs, projections, screens, and sets)

I basically agree with everything you said here. Also, I'd point out that they could use GOTG if they wanted to use a Marvel film.