jlsHouston
Well-Known Member
So....Disney created Mickey and all the gang. Are you saying they don't own those characters forever?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
PUSH the Talking Trashcan's last day?
- Thread starter Tori
- Start date
So....Disney created Mickey and all the gang. Are you saying they don't own those characters forever?
NowInc
Well-Known Member
They are the ones who actually helped push the Copyright Term Extension Act to prevent this
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
No. The government explains this easier than I can. http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/definitions.jsp
tahqa
Well-Known Member
No, it's not. The owner of PUSH had a trademark on "PUSH" -- a robotic trashcan. So they were basically the only ones that could have a robotic trashcan named "PUSH". However, I'm pretty sure that Disney owns the copyright on the coloring and logo for the actual shell of the trashcan. There was nothing stopping Disney from creating their own robotic trashcan, they just couldn't call it PUSH. However, the owner allowed the trademark to expire and there doesn't seem to have been any effort to revive it.
Abandonment
Trademark rights must be maintained through active, lawful use of the trademark in the regular course of business. If the trademark owner does not respond to the USPTO to maintain the trademark within the six-month grace period, the trademark may be considered abandoned; however, the office does not officially post the trademark as abandoned for at least two months following the expiration of the grace period. Extension requests are granted in six-month increments; five extensions may be filed.
Reviving the Trademark
The abandoned trademark may be reregistered if the previous owner reestablishes its use, pays the fee and files a new registration before another interested party tries to register the mark. If there is no incidence of a similar trademark, and the previous owner meets the use standard, any other person who attempts to register the trademark as his own will be denied. A petition to revive a trademark registration is allowable only if the applicant has unintentionally failed to respond to the USPTO request.
Some additional differences between a copyright and a trademark are as follows:
1. The purpose of a copyright is to protect works of authorship as fixed in a tangible form of expression. Thus, copyright covers: a) works of art (2 or 3 dimensional), b) photos, pictures, graphic designs, drawings and other forms of images; c) songs, music and sound recordings of all kinds; d) books, manuscripts, publications and other written works; and e) plays, movies, shows, and other performance arts.
2. The purpose of a trademark is to protect words, phrases and logos used in federally regulated commerce to identify the source of goods and/or services.
3. There may be occasions when both copyright and trademark protection are desired with respect to the same business endeavor. For example, a marketing campaign for a new product may introduce a new slogan for use with the product, which also appears in advertisements for the product. However, copyright and trademark protection will cover different things. The advertisement's text and graphics, as published in a particular vehicle, will be covered by copyright - but this will not protect the slogan as such. The slogan may be protected by trademark law, but this will not cover the rest of the advertisement. If you want both forms of protection, you will have to perform both types of registration.
4. If you are interested in protecting a title, slogan, or other short word phrase, generally you want a trademark. Copyright law does not protect a bare phrase, slogan, or trade name.
5. Whether an image should be protected by trademark or copyright law depends on whether its use is intended to identify the source of goods or services. If an image is used temporarily in an ad campaign, it generally is not the type of thing intended to be protected as a logo.
6. The registration processes of copyright and trademark are entirely different. For copyright, the filing fee is small, the time to obtain registration is relatively short, and examination by the Copyright Office is limited to ensuring that the registration application is properly completed and suitable copies are attached. For trademark, the filing fee is more substantial, the time to obtain registration is much longer, and examination by the Trademark Office includes a substantive review of potentially conflicting marks which are found to be confusingly similar. While copyright registration is primarily an administrative process, trademark registration is very much an adversarial process.
7. Copyright law provides for compulsory licensing and royalty payments - there is no analogous concept in trademark law. Plus, the tests and definition of infringement are considerably different under copyright law and trademark law.
jlsHouston
Well-Known Member
I see why an attorney that specializes in this stuff is necessary...So PUSH the character would be a copyright ?
NowInc
Well-Known Member
More specifically...a talking trash can named push.
jlsHouston
Well-Known Member
Well If I am interpreting this info, the name PUSH could be a copyright and the robot would be a trademark or patent ?
tahqa
Well-Known Member
No, it has to be a trademark. Disney almost certainly has a copyright on the look and logos on the trashcan shell. And I'm not sure that a patent would be involved as the parts in the device are almost certainly off-the-shelf parts.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Push (the name) could be a trademark...
Push's performance/act can be protected under copyright...
The copyright protections are far more advance and complex than the trademark stuff. And trademarks only protect the image/name stuff... so it's reach is far less. That's why I said awhile back the trademark stuff is of less interest/consequence. I'm sure to the creator it's a big deal out of personal interest... but not the linchpin of being able to do business.
For instance, if Push were trademarked... they could have done the palm tree character without any issue regardless of the trademark for Push. Or how about.. a talking water fountain?
Trademark only protects the name/image.. It's what keeps other people from putting the Nike swoosh on their shoe... but doesn't stop anyone from making the same exact shoe.
NowInc
Well-Known Member
I just used an example of a Magician. How many magicians perform the same tricks (most with the same name for said trick)? Its perfectly legal as long as the person performing it doesn't call themselves "Houdini".
flynnibus
Premium Member
That is why I used the blanket statement of 'its complicated'
Performance stuff has a lot that is in and out of coverage due to the base of copyright being in the root of creations that exist as written or on paper.. yet extends to things like performances, display, etc. There are reason lawyers are never short of work
jlsHouston
Well-Known Member
Well I can't believe I never knew/saw PUSH while he was around. And the other thing I can't believe is considering his longevity at WDW...a working animatronic (SPELLING?) making visits into an area and interacting with guests...why was there only PUSH? Why not some other characters like the palm tree you mention?
NowInc
Well-Known Member
Push was hardly an animatronic. Impressive use of RC technology as well as a clever hidden "operator" who could project a computer version of his voice as he stood nearby made the unit very interactive.
xdan0920
Think for yourselfer
They are the ones who actually helped push the Copyright Term Extension Act to prevent this
Which is sort of funny, considering so much of the Disney Empire was built on stories and characters from the public domain.
flynnibus
Premium Member
They did do other variants. There are other Disney based varients too.. Mr Potato Head, etc.. the thing about push is he was out in the guest space and 'unexpected'. The mix of low profile/unexpected, interactive, and humor is what makes the act.
NowInc
Well-Known Member
Matt_Black
Well-Known Member
No. Easiest way to explain is to use comics as an example. Marvel Comics has the trademark for the name "Captain Marvel". So, they (and official license holders) are the only ones who can title a comic, television series, movie, or something Captain Marvel.
Now, both Marvel and DC have copyrighted characters named Captain Marvel. DC can call their Captain Marvel "Captain Marvel" all they like within the comic or cartoon or whatever. What they cannot do is use that name on the title for any reason. Which is why most things starring DC's Captain Marvel are actually called "Shazam".
flynnibus
Premium Member
Another angle about why Disney couldn't just do another PUSH without the vendor is simple contract law. The deal prior could have had non-compete type clauses in it, efforts to prevent Disney from duplicating the act (which is smart when you are the little fish..).
Disney could have been trying to challenge ownership of the trademark if the act only ever performed as part of Disney, etc as well.
Lots and lots and lots of variations possible depending on the arrangement made between the parties.
Disney could have been trying to challenge ownership of the trademark if the act only ever performed as part of Disney, etc as well.
Lots and lots and lots of variations possible depending on the arrangement made between the parties.
GrumpyFan
Well-Known Member
New wrinkle in this. I read on another web-site, which I believe is actually banned here, that the Trademark filing for PUSH with the U.S. Patent office, may have expired sometime in 2008, and the owner may have neglected to file a "Continued Use" declaration, rendering the trademark "Cancelled".
Here's the apparent link to the trademark for PUSH.
Here's the apparent link to the trademark for PUSH.
Last edited: