Great Movie Ride to Close?

[AEfx]

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?

Yes, and that's what makes it complex and relatively untested (most copyright precedent is over infringement and levels of such vs. things like this). These systems were not designed to be used this way to begin with, no one ever saw a situation in which a character in a book or movie would also be a trademark (or even have need to be trademarked).

That's why the Superman case, even though it finally was decided in Warners/DC favor due to the upholding of a modern (2001?) agreement, actually opened some of this stuff wide open in terms of precedent of "what does a character consist of?" Had a higher court not ruled that another agreement was valid, it legally would have basically ended up splitting Superman into two halves (for example, one party would have owned the name, another owned the S-logo, etc., depending on when/where/who each element originated from) - that part wasn't overturned, nor really challenged, it was the fact that a different agreement was later found in an appeal to be found to make the entire thing moot.

Basically, you can't trademark a character - you can trademark elements of it (and a cursory search shows 100 associated trademark notices that contain "Mickey Mouse", so it is sure that Disney has him trademarked up the wazoo). A lot of those trademarks however go back to the 1928 date as the origination of the character, and the item that will be the basis for that will be in public domain (starting with Steamboat Willie).

Some argue that somehow because they also have a trademark that sews it all up, but like I said - it's gotten much more complex than that. The question of "what constitutes a character" has now become a legal question with some recent precedent. While technically trademarks are renewable forever, it wasn't intended for something like a character to ever become virtually trademarked as it has (all of his various elements), which is actually a constitutional issue in terms of public domain rights. In short, if that happens, it's basically using a trademark to circumvent the constitution, which some folks would have a big problem with.

 

[AEfx]

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

That would only give them an additional 4 years, though. It doesn't reset.

The argument for extending the lifetime of copyright was that life expectancy had grown decently longer than when the system was designed. They really can't say that again this time. So they would have to say it's now 125 years...or even higher, which is pretty ludicrous at that point to even bother expiring at all.

It's such a foreign concept because the idea of "public domain" seems so antiquated today simply because virtually nothing has entered the public domain in so long due to constant rewriting of the laws bowing to corporate interests. But the original intent is very clear that no one is to own anything like a character, particularly a corporation (most of this stuff was designed to protect individual creators), perpetually. The entire point of the laws is that you couldn't, and giving you a limited period to do so. Using a trademark to circumvent that basically goes against the constitution, and the original intent of both systems.

In any case, it will be interesting how it all plays out.

 

[Goofywilliam]

I remembering hearing at some point in time that GMR is indeed being replaced with a new attraction. I also remember reading that its going to be a worthy replacement and its going to be a new spectacular e-ticket. Take this as a grain of salt if you must but I do remembering hearing this somewhere.

 

[Tegan pilots a chicken]

Yes, and that's what makes it complex and relatively untested (most copyright precedent is over infringement and levels of such vs. things like this). These systems were not designed to be used this way to begin with, no one ever saw a situation in which a character in a book or movie would also be a trademark (or even have need to be trademarked).

That's why the Superman case, even though it finally was decided in Warners/DC favor due to the upholding of a modern (2001?) agreement, actually opened some of this stuff wide open in terms of precedent of "what does a character consist of?" Had a higher court not ruled that another agreement was valid, it legally would have basically ended up splitting Superman into two halves (for example, one party would have owned the name, another owned the S-logo, etc., depending on when/where/who each element originated from) - that part wasn't overturned, nor really challenged, it was the fact that a different agreement was later found in an appeal to be found to make the entire thing moot.

Basically, you can't trademark a character - you can trademark elements of it (and a cursory search shows 100 associated trademark notices that contain "Mickey Mouse", so it is sure that Disney has him trademarked up the wazoo). A lot of those trademarks however go back to the 1928 date as the origination of the character, and the item that will be the basis for that will be in public domain (starting with Steamboat Willie).

Some argue that somehow because they also have a trademark that sews it all up, but like I said - it's gotten much more complex than that. The question of "what constitutes a character" has now become a legal question with some recent precedent. While technically trademarks are renewable forever, it wasn't intended for something like a character to ever become virtually trademarked as it has (all of his various elements), which is actually a constitutional issue in terms of public domain rights. In short, if that happens, it's basically using a trademark to circumvent the constitution, which some folks would have a big problem with.

Personally, I don't want Disney's IP becoming public domain. No more than I would want that to be the case for my Detroit Lions or my iPhone. I'm no capitalist, but I am a staunch supporter of IP rights. As a musician, I want my band's songs and logos and such to belong to us forever.

 

[mahnamahna101]

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

Grossed $50 million (not adjusted for inflation) and hasn't gotten a cult following like NBC or TRON. Plus, the whole point of changing scenes out from GMR is to make it relevant with kids/families. It might be classic, but would it get people to come to Orlando? Or would Jack Skellington? Wyatt Earp isn't really that marketable, and would honestly fit better in Frontierland to begin with.

Tombstone is R-rated, also. Plus, a big-budget renovation of GMR isn't going to rethemed to a solid 1993 western when Disney could finally give Nightmare Before Christmas, TRON and Roger Rabbit some true WDW representation. Not to mention feature one of the recent Disney musicals, the Muppets, Star Wars and Marvel potentially (GotG?)

I'd rather they build a new dark ride for Frontierland than keep the western scene in GMR.

 

[Matt_Black]

Grossed $50 million (not adjusted for inflation) and hasn't gotten a cult following like NBC or TRON.

Why do you keep going on about NBC? They're owned by Universal.

Wyatt Earp isn't really that marketable

That's why you throw in Val Kilmer's Doc Holiday, as he's everyone's favorite.

Tombstone is R-rated, also.

An R-Rated film featured in a Disney ride? You're right, that's insane!

 

[ford91exploder]

That would only give them an additional 4 years, though. It doesn't reset.

The argument for extending the lifetime of copyright was that life expectancy had grown decently longer than when the system was designed. They really can't say that again this time. So they would have to say it's now 125 years...or even higher, which is pretty ludicrous at that point to even bother expiring at all.

It's such a foreign concept because the idea of "public domain" seems so antiquated today simply because virtually nothing has entered the public domain in so long due to constant rewriting of the laws bowing to corporate interests. But the original intent is very clear that no one is to own anything like a character, particularly a corporation (most of this stuff was designed to protect individual creators), perpetually. The entire point of the laws is that you couldn't, and giving you a limited period to do so. Using a trademark to circumvent that basically goes against the constitution, and the original intent of both systems.

In any case, it will be interesting how it all plays out.

Should have been more precise - they will want a 99 year EXTENSION indefinitely renewable if it costs them a few billion who cares it ensures Disney IP will never enter the public domain. After all this is no longer the United States of America, It is a Fascist dictatorship actually known as the Corporate States of America governed by the bought and paid for representatives of said corporations.

*
Fascism defined where the State and Corporations work as an integrated whole, Usually backed up with a brutal police force.

 

[Matt_Black]

And now I'm waiting for the inevitable post from Mom.

 

[ford91exploder]

Unfortunately copyright is inherently political and 'Makes me very angry' to quote Marvin the Martian, Let's stop talking about it because it's really OT here.

 

[Slowjack]

Personally, I don't want Disney's IP becoming public domain. No more than I would want that to be the case for my Detroit Lions or my iPhone. I'm no capitalist, but I am a staunch supporter of IP rights. As a musician, I want my band's songs and logos and such to belong to us forever.

I know what you mean, but it's tricky. Copyright was originally envisioned as a way to protect the work of a creator -- a person, in this case Walt Disney. Now many copyrights are in the hands of companies, which (depending on how they are managed!) can have an indefinite lifespan, and it was never the intention for copyright to exist in perpetuity.

(Also, it's okay to be a capitalist. As your appreciation of private IP rights shows, most people are capitalist when the chips are down. You can tell your friends you believe in something like "individual economic sovereignty" if you want to throw them off.)

 

[Tegan pilots a chicken]

I know what you mean, but it's tricky. Copyright was originally envisioned as a way to protect the work of a creator -- a person, in this case Walt Disney. Now many copyrights are in the hands of companies, which (depending on how they are managed!) can have an indefinite lifespan, and it was never the intention for copyright to exist in perpetuity.

(Also, it's okay to be a capitalist. As your appreciation of private IP rights shows, most people are capitalist when the chips are down. You can tell your friends you believe in something like "individual economic sovereignty" if you want to throw them off.)

I like that term. Thanks!

 

[Tegan pilots a chicken]

Why do you keep going on about NBC? They're owned by Universal.

I kept wondering the same thing. Either they have ABC and NBC confused or "NBC" is an acronym for something else that I can't figure out. But "cult following" was mentioned which leads me to believe this might be something else.

 

[Mike S]

I kept wondering the same thing. Either they have ABC and NBC confused or "NBC" is an acronym for something else that I can't figure out. But "cult following" was mentioned which leads me to believe this might be something else.

Nightmare Before Christmas is my guess.

 

[Oriolesmagic]

CONFIRMED: Opening in 2016 "The Great Nicolas Cage Movie Ride"

Ride through your favorite scenes featuring one of Hollywood's most esteemed actors, Nicolas Cage!

...

But really, can we just not completely change the Great Movie Ride? Take out Horror/Tarzan and Footlight Parade. Everything else should stay.

 

[Tegan pilots a chicken]

Nightmare Before Christmas is my guess.

Sounds like a winner to me!

 

[mahnamahna101]

Why do you keep going on about NBC? They're owned by Universal.



That's why you throw in Val Kilmer's Doc Holiday, as he's everyone's favorite.



An R-Rated film featured in a Disney ride? You're right, that's insane!

I meant Nightmare Before Christmas... and Alien's only on there because Disney had no sci-fi filmography back in 1989.

Tombstone just isn't that well-known by kids/teens. All of the others I mentioned have some relevance with the demo GMR fails to attract.

Putting Tombstone in a ride just doesn't seem likely at all. I'd expect Marvel in GMR before Tombstone.

 

[CDavid]

Alien's only on there because Disney had no sci-fi filmography back in 1989.

Hmm, I'm thinking Alien may still have been the better choice, though.

 

[omurice]

I would be thrilled if there was a refurb or update planned in GMR, but this is just not likely to happen. Every scene in there is outside IP except for Mary Poppins, Fantasia and now Indy. Long dark rides full of AAs are going extinct (RIP Horizons, WoM, JII '83, long live SSE, Pirates and HM). It amazes me every visit this attraction holds on though I do enjoy it and the human element in there. Events is one key reason GMR is still open, and this park needs a little capacity while the eastern half and back of the park are being torn up under construction.
I think they're saving some attractions for later so as to maintain capacity at this park in the short term, but long-term GMR, Muppets, LMA, at least two dining locations, Echo Lake, and Streets of America as we know it today are all on the chopping block, someday soon unless the current plans get a heavy revision. And I will miss most everything in that list.

I plan to ride and enjoy GMR and Muppets at least once per trip, and stroll around Echo Lake and SoA as much as possible until they throw the construction walls up.

"Disney Construction Adventure", east coast edition. A little sad, but excited for the future too.

 

[AEfx]

But really, can we just not completely change the Great Movie Ride? Take out Horror/Tarzan and Footlight Parade. Everything else should stay.

That's precisely what I've always felt.

I'd replace Footlight with an audio-animatronic Cecil B. Demille pointing a camera at you (hey, photo opportunity if I ever saw one).

And the Horror/Tarzan parts are really the only lackluster parts of the attraction and could be easily replaced - that's a nice chunk of space there (at least 3 different scenes could be put in that area, if not more).

One could even change up the two track-split segments and have even more space.

Other than that, some of the scenes need some TLC and/or new animatronics (Aliens for one), but most of the other scenes are just fine.

 

[Tegan pilots a chicken]

If they do close GMR, that will mean DHS will be left with zero opening day attractions.