Pooh Case Victory....but not for Disney!!!

[Plutoboy]

Slesinger Family Wins 'Pooh' Copyright Case
Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment Against Disney
Slesinger Pursuing Damages Against Disney Including Terminating US and Canadian Television, Media and Merchandising Rights to Winnie the Pooh ​

Federal District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper, of the United States District Court, Central District, issued a major decision in the federal copyright case, granting Stephen Slesinger, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, effectively ending the Walt Disney Company's efforts to take back the Winnie the Pooh copyright.
Barry Slotnick, Slesinger's attorney from the law firm of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, said, "The Court once again has once ruled that Disney's claims against Slesinger are improper. Now that Disney's misguided claims have been dismissed, we can focus on pursuing Slesinger's claims against Disney for damages, trademark and copyright infringement, breach of contract, and fraudulently underpaying royalties, and seeking in excess of $2 billion in compensatory and general damages. We applaud the granting of our motion for summary judgment."
"In 2003, the U.S. district court in Los Angeles held there was no basis whatsoever for the first of two termination notices secured by Disney under the Copyright Act from the granddaughters of author A.A. Milne and one of the illustrators of his Winnie the Pooh stories. Now, the other shoe has dropped. The Court held there is no basis for the other termination notice instigated by Disney. The fact that the Court has now held that there is no need even for a trial concerning either termination notice shows that Disney had no business starting this lawsuit in the first place. The bottom line is that Disney's attempt to evade its royalty obligations to Slesinger has failed," said Roger Zissu, of the law firm of Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.
"It was Disney's attempt to take back the rights granted to my father over 70 years ago that led this case into federal court. Perhaps Disney might have spent their time merchandising Winnie the Pooh worldwide instead of attempting this scheme to take back what the court has thankfully ruled has been the Slesinger's all along: the rights to Winnie the Pooh," said Pati Slesinger.
In addition to the state case, Stephen Slesinger, Inc., has petitioned the United States Trademark and Patents Office seeking cancellation of a number of trademarks taken out by Disney on Winnie the Pooh based on the allegation that Disney had no legal right to do.
-- Posted February 16, 2007

 

[JLW11Hi]

Zing.

Sounds like a successful decision to me. Pooh has become just like Mickey and the princesses to Disney: nothing more than a huge marketing campaign. The fact that they've been short-changing the rightful owners of the characters is pretty disturbing.

 

[JLW11Hi]

Whoa, wait a minute. I just read details about the case. At first I thought the case was between Disney and the families of Pooh's originators. Apparently the case was actually between the granddaughters of A.A. Milne and the illustrator of the orginal books and the Slesingers, who had a film company that aquired the rights to Pooh back in the 1930s!

I should have read it more closely. Well now I'm not sure what to think. It appears that the granddaughters of the creators still own the characters...but they have to stick with the agreement that was made all those years ago. What a debacle.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

This decision is just a reaffirmation of the status quo. It means that Disney's attempt to remove any rights from the Shlesingers was rebuffed. It has no affect on the Shlesingers' attempts to take away Disney's rights to the characters or seek damages.

 

[kdavis]

It's proper to include attribution for a reposted article (i.e., what's the source of this?).

Maybe there's a story out there I missed, but major news outfits I find reporting on this (AP, Boston Herald, L.A. Times, Orlando Sentinel) present the most recent legal decision as more of a procedural decision and not any sort of real "vicotry" for either side. Basically, the Milne family wanted to sue the Slesinger's on copyright grounds so that, ultimately, Disney would havbe rights to the characters free and clear. That suit was dismissed by the court so now the original suit by Slesinger against Disney can proceed.

Is it great news for Disney? No - now they have to fight a lawsuit, but there's certainly no judgement against them at this point.

Again, though, I may have missed another news story (which the rest of the media sem to have missed too) so it would be nice to have a source for the story printed at the top of this thread.

 

[The Mom]

Does anyone know if this whole broohaha is over Disney using the "classic" Winnie-The- Pooh and an attempt to copyright it, vs the "Disney" created Winnie - The- Pooh?

That would make more sense, as I read an (Bloomberg) article in the FL Times Union that mentions the illustrator's (Shepard) grandchildren have joined with Milne's grandchildren in supporting Disney's claim.

 

[clarksfan95]

I don't think that the lawsuit is about copyright issues, but from what I've read previously...it's about unpaid royalties to the other parties involved. They pushed Pooh so hard several years back that as we all know, Pooh eclipsed Mickey Mouse and generated many millions of dollars.

Now, they want paid. Disney has attempted to cover up financial records of Winnie the Pooh and have shredded and destroyed documents which covered income from Pooh.

It's a pretty big mess. I think they should've just stuck with Mickey.

 

[RSoxNo1]

What needs to happen that would necessitate the removal of Winnie the Pooh from Disney parks completely, is that even possible?

 

[Darth Plank]

I hope Mr. Toad doesn't come back and Kingdom Hearts replaces it!
:-( X(