Is this a Disney copyright violation?

[MousDad]

As for the other question, as to whether or not using copyrighted characters is a violation, it depends. Technically, for it to be a violation, there must be monetary damages against the copyright owner. The violator must be receiving income that would otherwise go to the copyright holder. In the case of the cinema, unless they are advertising it as the "Disney Room" they aren't technically violating the law. Disney would have to prove that the cinema is making money from the use of the characters on the wall. However, if this is one of several rooms, and this is the only one that has a Disney motif (the oddly painted Shrek notwithstanding), Disney would have a stronger claim. From what I understand of the daycare center situation, the presentation of the characters could reasonably have been understood to be affiliated with the Disney Company, and their presence may have positively impacted business (in which case they were profiting off the images).

The highlighted statement is not entirely true. One of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner is the right to reproduce the material. Monetary gain has no bearing. (You see this explained commonly in the copyright notice that precedes motion pictures.)

You may be confusing this slightly with the "fair use doctrine," which has evolved over the years based on court decisions. In order for the "no profit" argument to fall under fair use, though, it has to be a non-profit organization. I don't think the theater applies.

 

[sarabi]

Talk to the people who had Disney characters painted on the walls of their daycare center in Floriday...They will tell you that it is a violation.

Seriously? Can't you buy those stencils (made by Disney) and paint wherever with them, or is there actually a sheet included that says "only for use in a personal single family home not to be photographed?" And I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just really confused cuz I swear I've seen those stencils made by Disney. Why can't a theater or daycare paint with them?

 

[fosse76]

The highlighted statement is not entirely true. One of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner is the right to reproduce the material. Monetary gain has no bearing. (You see this explained commonly in the copyright notice that precedes motion pictures.)

You may be confusing this slightly with the "fair use doctrine," which has evolved over the years based on court decisions. In order for the "no profit" argument to fall under fair use, though, it has to be a non-profit organization. I don't think the theater applies.

Considering we are talking about fair use, I fail to see your point. There is no caselaw that I know of that applies the "no profit" exception only to not-for-profit organizations. Since Fair Use is generally the most common defense for infringement, monetary loss is one of the four elements of proof that are required for a copyright holder to prove his case for infringement. So while on its face clearly the daycare centers and the movie theater are infringing Disney's copyright, under Fair Use they may or may not have that right.

In the case of the movie theater, it is unlikely that Disney is losing any money, because with or without those characters painted on the wall it is likely that the theater would make the same amount of money. This is not going to have a substantial affect on the market for movie theater party rooms. The daycare center, on the otherhand, could potentially have a substantial impact on the market. It could be argued that people chose those centers specifically because of the characters on the wall, and that because there was more than one (owned by the same company) that they may somehow be affilliated with Disney.

So essentially, though you are correct that infringement doesn't necessarily have anything to do with monetary loss, realistically, if the infringer claims "fair use," than monetary loss is a requirement.

 

[DisneyGal126]

I'm glad I found this thread, I was searching about Disney copyright. I'm a first year elementary school teacher and I've been busy setting up my bulletin boards. I'll be teaching insects for science all year and I collected all this clipart of Disney's A Bug's Life and I was going to blow them up w/ the overhead, redraw and paint them and use them on my board. Is that illegal? I don't want to do anything to get myself into trouble since it's my first year, but I have seen other teachers reproduce characters like Charlie Brown and Garfield so I'm not really sure.

Thanks!

 

[sbkline]

Names or titles of any kind are not copyrightable and cannot be protected under U.S. Copyright Law. They can be trademarked with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Pictoral artwork is protected by copyright, and I would assume TWDC is very protective of their ownership of this material.

I don't think that's true. The first example that comes to my mind is the Star Wars Universe, created by George Lucas. George Lucas has rights to the characters. In order for any other author to write a Star Wars novel, he/she must receive permission from Lucas to use his characters. Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

 

[iheartdisney91]

Ya, you're right...I'm getting my stories crossed. Now that I think of it, it's Brier Rose that is the original name for Sleeping Beauty in Grimm's Fairy Tales.

I have a book of the complete Grimm's Fairy Tales that I bought almost 20 years ago. It's the complete stories, and not the "Readers Digest" versions you find in the kiddy books. And the original versions of those stories were much more gruesome than the Disney interpretations. The original Grimm's Cinderella, for example, has the wicked stepsisters cutting off their heels and big toes in order to fit the glass slipper on, and the prince noticing that these girls can't be the owners because of all the blood in the shoe.

yeah! we learned about that in Global. its sorta the gross ness of the Little Mermaid getting her tongue cut out so she couldnt speak, instead of just singing her voice over to the witch... but they are different authors. just thought i would share.

 

[KingStefan]

...Sleeping Beauty is a name thought of long before Disney got their haands on it, however Princess Aurora is their specific claim to the character...

In the original story, which was recorded by Charles Perrault earlier than the Grimm Brothers, Aurora was the name of the princess's daughter that she had with the prince after he came to awaken her.

Although I don't know much about the orginal story, I know in the century old ballet Sleeping Beauty, Princess Aurora is the name they use in the ballet, as well as alot of the same musical score!!!

This is also true. It was Tchaikovsky that shifted the name of Aurora to the princess. So Disney does not even have a specific claim to the name Aurora.

...To reverse the original question a little, I wonder if the Grimm Brothers had any heirs alive when Disney adapted these Grimm's Fairy Tales, such that Walt Disney had to get permission, or if the stories were in the public domain by that time.

The Grimms did not write Sleeping Beauty, they merely recorded it, as is true for the rest of their stories. And they were not the first in any case. So the Grimms had no rights in the first place.

...The brothers Grimm were not the creators of the classic stories, they were the first to publish them. Cinderella has a few "classic" variations. The prementioned "Toes and Heals" of the Gimm publication. An earlier version had Fur Slippers not Glass Slippers...

Charles Perrault also recorded Cinderella earlier than the Grimms. That version is in french. Some scholars think that Cinderella's slippers were originally made of fur, which makes a lot more sense. Fur in french is "vair", which is pronounced the same as the word for glass: "verre". Because it was a folk tale that was passed on by oral tradition, it could have easily changed somewhere along the line.

Cinderella has its roots in many varying folk tales going back as far as ancient Egypt (the story of "Rhodopis").

Sleeping Beauty also has roots that go way back.

A bit off topic: It is easy to see why Disney "cleaned up" the story to make it more palatable, and only used the first half for the same reason (and for length). In the original version (recorded by Giambattista Basile), the prince (actually a king - with a wife) has s_x with the princess, and she bears two children without waking up. Then one of the children sucked on her finger and drew out the piece of flax that put her to sleep and it was then she awoke.

In the second half (in Perrault's version), the princess has two children "L'aurora" and "Le Jour" (the dawn and the day - a girl and a boy). Their marrriage was kept secret from the prince's family until his father died, because his mother was decended from Ogres and the prince was afriad of what she would do. Then when his father died, and he became king, he brought the princess and his children home, and then when he had to go away to war, his mother tried to eat the girl and the boy. Whoa! There's more, but in the end prince/king comes home, the ogress mother dies and everyone else lives happily ever after.

In Basile's version it was the slighted wife and not the ogress mother who tries to eat his kids - jeesh! I'm usually critical of Disney not staying true to the story, but I kinda understand in this case!:lol:

 

[KingStefan]

...I have a book of the complete Grimm's Fairy Tales that I bought almost 20 years ago. It's the complete stories, and not the "Readers Digest" versions you find in the kiddy books. And the original versions of those stories were much more gruesome than the Disney interpretations. The original Grimm's Cinderella, for example, has the wicked stepsisters cutting off their heels and big toes in order to fit the glass slipper on, and the prince noticing that these girls can't be the owners because of all the blood in the shoe.

You're not kidding! You left out the part that it was two birds that tipped the prince off to check out their feet, and in retaliation of having been tricked, the birds (I can't remember whether the prince ordered this or not) pecked out the step-sisters' eyes and they had to go be blind beggar-women for the rest of their lives.

The Grimms tended to record the more disturbing details. I doubt that every folk-telling of these stories had every one of those details in every telling. But collected all together it makes the stories seem all horrible!

 

[Mr_Tom_Morrow]

ive always wondered if disney compensates someone if they do refer them to a legitiamte copyright violations...ive seen a couple and wouldnt mind a ticket or 2 my findings

 

[mkt]

ive always wondered if disney compensates someone if they do refer them to a legitiamte copyright violations...ive seen a couple and wouldnt mind a ticket or 2 my findings

nope.

 

[MousDad]

I don't think that's true. The first example that comes to my mind is the Star Wars Universe, created by George Lucas. George Lucas has rights to the characters. In order for any other author to write a Star Wars novel, he/she must receive permission from Lucas to use his characters. Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

Names/titles/characters, as such, cannot be copyrighted. Any textual description of them can (for example, a screenplay or novel). But in that case, the copyright covers only the text, not the actual characters, names, titles.

I am sure Lucas has many, many trademarks. I know for a fact that he has no copyright protection for his names, titles and characters.

 

[MousDad]

Considering we are talking about fair use, I fail to see your point. There is no caselaw that I know of that applies the "no profit" exception only to not-for-profit organizations. Since Fair Use is generally the most common defense for infringement, monetary loss is one of the four elements of proof that are required for a copyright holder to prove his case for infringement. So while on its face clearly the daycare centers and the movie theater are infringing Disney's copyright, under Fair Use they may or may not have that right.

Sorry about that. I used bad terminology when I said not-for-profit organizations. I should have said "not for profit educational purposes." The Copyright Office lists as one consideration whether something is "fair use" to be "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes."

So my point was, while monetary gain has no bearing on infringement per se, it does on determining whether something was fair use.

 

[MousDad]

I'm glad I found this thread, I was searching about Disney copyright. I'm a first year elementary school teacher and I've been busy setting up my bulletin boards. I'll be teaching insects for science all year and I collected all this clipart of Disney's A Bug's Life and I was going to blow them up w/ the overhead, redraw and paint them and use them on my board. Is that illegal? I don't want to do anything to get myself into trouble since it's my first year, but I have seen other teachers reproduce characters like Charlie Brown and Garfield so I'm not really sure.

Thanks!

From the U.S. Copyright Office website:

[The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”]

But they follow that by saying:

[The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. ]

 

[dnalorg]

After reading this thread, I'm starting to worry about a design of a t-shirt that I have made. We are going as a huge group and wanted a group shirt with all the family names on the back to have for in the park and to use as a remembrance after the trip. The shirt I put together has images from the Peter Pan cartoon along with a quotation from one of the songs that they sing. After reading this I'm wonder if I should even have them printed and if I'm asking for trouble if I do and we wear them around the parks. Is this a definate "no-no"?

 

[KingStefan]

After reading this thread, I'm starting to worry about a design of a t-shirt that I have made. We are going as a huge group and wanted a group shirt with all the family names on the back to have for in the park and to use as a remembrance after the trip. The shirt I put together has images from the Peter Pan cartoon along with a quotation from one of the songs that they sing. After reading this I'm wonder if I should even have them printed and if I'm asking for trouble if I do and we wear them around the parks. Is this a definate "no-no"?

I am not a lawyer (althought there are some lawyers and law students on here who can maybe answer more definitively), but I don't think you have a problem unless you try to sell the shirts as a regular business to the general public, or you use the shirts in a way associated with a business, like for example if they were shirts everyone in your tour guide company wore.

If you made them for your own use and the use of your friends and family only, I think that that's OK.

Can anyone be more definitive?

 

[kdjf4]

copyright violation?

I know a company that is selling items with the Disney name attached. Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, etc. There is no copyright symbol after the name. This has to be a violation, correct?

From today's South Florida Business Journal:


It’s no Mickey Mouse lawsuit.
Disney Enterprises and other plaintiffs are seeking millions of dollars in damages from a Miami couple that runs Tio Fiesta Decorations & Events.
The suit is one of several filed recently by Disney to protect copyrighted trademarks, music and images.
The suit claims Tio Fiesta made money by using trademarks for costumes at children’s parties, including Ariel (from “The Little Mermaid”), Winnie the Pooh, Buzz Lightyear and Chicken Little.
It also alleges that Tio Fiesta illegally used trademarks on decorations.
The suit, filed in federal court in Miami, seeks at least $100,000 for every trademark violation, and up to $1 million for each if Tio Fiesta’s actions are found to be willful. An exhibit shows 29 alleged trademark infringements.
The suit also alleges copyright infringement for lesser damages.
Tio Fiesta owners Ramon and Elizabeth Morales could not be reached immediately for comment.
The company’s Web site on Thursday still carried recognizable Disney character images and themes, stating: “Tio Fiesta also offers a great variety in look-a-like characters of your choice, from princesses and superheroes to cartoon characters.”
The suit was filed on behalf of Disney Enterprises by attorney Michael Holihan of Maitland. Other listed plaintiffs include DC Comics, Hanna-Barbera Productions and Sanrio.
Holihan referred questions to Disney’s media relations office, which could not be reached immediately for comment.

 

[romiti]

On a related note, I was wondering if any of you have been to a Pirate's Cove Mini Golf. Last Monday, I played a round there with my mom, and noticed some strange Disney (I thought) intellectual property being used as part of the atmosphere. Specifically, I heard one of the pirates say "Dead men tell no tales," and I heard a rendition of "Yo Ho." Does anybody know if these are property of Disney or if they're originally from elsewhere? If they're Disney, I'd have a hard time believing that a relatively large chain like Pirate's Cove has been using them without being noticed for so long.

 

[sbkline]

On a related note, I was wondering if any of you have been to a Pirate's Cove Mini Golf. Last Monday, I played a round there with my mom, and noticed some strange Disney (I thought) intellectual property being used as part of the atmosphere. Specifically, I heard one of the pirates say "Dead men tell no tales," and I heard a rendition of "Yo Ho." Does anybody know if these are property of Disney or if they're originally from elsewhere? If they're Disney, I'd have a hard time believing that a relatively large chain like Pirate's Cove has been using them without being noticed for so long.

Those are probably just generic pirate sayings that have been floating around in popular culture for years.

I've never played at Pirates Cove, but we make a point to play at Pirates Island in Kissimmee on every trip we make to the area.

 

[Phonedave]

After reading this thread, I'm starting to worry about a design of a t-shirt that I have made. We are going as a huge group and wanted a group shirt with all the family names on the back to have for in the park and to use as a remembrance after the trip. The shirt I put together has images from the Peter Pan cartoon along with a quotation from one of the songs that they sing. After reading this I'm wonder if I should even have them printed and if I'm asking for trouble if I do and we wear them around the parks. Is this a definate "no-no"?

I don't know for sure, but I can tell you the following.

When I was in college, a lot of fraternities used to make up shirts for their parties. It was popular to put some sort of cartoon character on them, and then change it to show them drinking beer. Calvin & Hobbes were are very common choice. Some of the screen printers in the area would refuse to do the shirts if there was a copyrighted character on them. Others would look the other way. Of course these shirts WERE being sold, to help defray the cost of having the event.

-dave

 

[sublimesting]

I had a copyright violation question, too. At a local cinema, they have a room which guests can rent to host parties, and I noticed they had several Disney characters painted on the walls, (also a couple of Dreamworks characters). Are they violating any copyrights with these painted images? If so, should someone be notified or is it no big deal?

Here's a pic of the room:

that IS a copyright violation and Disney has sued and won for precisely this reason.