Suing Disney

disneygoof1

New Member
Original Poster
Has anyone heard about the man from Clearwater, Florida who is suing The Walt Disney Company for 50 million dollars? He says he owns an original matte painting of Mickey Mouse that Walt did, dated in the 30's. He has had the ink tested and everything to make sure it is authentic, but Disney won't accept it because Walt's name is not on it, that is why he is suing them. Sounds to me like he has too much money to begin with, getting it authenticated and everything. The news said Disney hasn't made a comment about it, but I don't think the guy will win anyway cause copyrights expire after 50 years. Good luck fella.
 

MiceysBestPal

New Member
but I don't think the guy will win anyway cause copyrights expire after 50 years.

That's not the law anymore.
They basically don't EVER expire.

'Gone with the Wind' and 'Wizard of Oz' (just to pick a couple of non-Disney classics) are well over 50 years old... and they are still copyrighted.

Likewise, Mickey himself, is well past 50, and he belongs to you-know-who, lock, stock, and barrel.

But, then again, none of the info in the OP makes much sense.

Walt didn't draw Mickey on mattes (or cels), Ub Iwerks was the film artist.
Walt was a story man/voice/producer by the time Mickey was created.

Walt was already established as a producer (not artist) with Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, but he lost that character to his distributors.
BTW, Oswald the Lucky Rabbit's (over 50 year old) copyright was just PURCHASED by the Disney Co. last year (so he's now back where he belongs.)


That's when Mickey Mouse came into being.

And SUING Disney... for WHAT?

If the guy has it, he can do whatever he wants with it.
What does it have to do with the Disney Company.

Sorry, this whole thing doesn't pass the "smell test."

:shrug:
 

Launchpad

Account Suspended
So let me get this straight...

Guy has original painting down by Walt.
Guy wants Disney Co. to buy said painting.
Disney Co. doesn't want it since it doesn't have Walt's signature on it.
Guy gets it authenticated to show them proof.
Disney STILL doesn't want it.
Guy is mad Disney blows him off and wants their money.

Makes no sense to me. I can see a lawsuit happening if Disney had a prearranged agreement where they told the man to pay for it to get authenticated and show them the results and if it was legit they would purchase it from him, then the results turned out legit and they still said no, but this doesn't seem to be the case.
 

Spring Breeze

New Member
Has anyone heard about the man from Clearwater, Florida who is suing The Walt Disney Company for 50 million dollars? He says he owns an original matte painting of Mickey Mouse that Walt did, dated in the 30's. He has had the ink tested and everything to make sure it is authentic, but Disney won't accept it because Walt's name is not on it, that is why he is suing them. Sounds to me like he has too much money to begin with, getting it authenticated and everything. The news said Disney hasn't made a comment about it, but I don't think the guy will win anyway cause copyrights expire after 50 years. Good luck fella.
that is so freakin dumb..what is he suing over? the fact that disney does not believe it is that of walt disney's art..that is dumb..who got his lawyer. thats the dumbest thing i've heard all day
 

Mecha Figment

New Member
just to clarify, mickey is a tricky item when it comes to copyright. Mickey has since become what is known as an american Icon. He has been around so long that Disney has a hard time controlling what kind of things he is on. anybody can make a shirt with a self drawn mickey and sell it as long as they dont say it is disney.
 

I-4Warrior

New Member
Overly litigious man from Clearwater: "Hello, Disney... I have a questionable painting that I am willing to sell to you."

Disney Rep: ".... okay... we're not interested. Thank you for your offer."

Overly litigious man from Clearwater: "But Walt Disney himself painted it (the following was mumbled under his breath)... though I can't prove it."

Disney Rep: "Again, sir, we're really not interested. Have a magical day."

Overly litigious man from Clearwater:"Oh yeah, well I'm gonna FORCE you to buy it!! I'm suing you!! I'm going to force someone to make a $50,000,000 purchase of something they have no use, want or desire for!!!"

Disney Rep: "Um.... I'll patch you through to our legal department... all I do is take priority seating for meals."
 

WDWbrightcubs

New Member
...

Actually, he is suing Disney because they won't say that his painting is "authentic". If they don't verify that it is authentic, then it's pretty much worthless. So he's not suing them, because they won't buy it, just because they won't say that its the "real-deal". Stupid...I agree.:brick:
 

MiceysBestPal

New Member
just to clarify, mickey is a tricky item when it comes to copyright. Mickey has since become what is known as an american Icon. He has been around so long that Disney has a hard time controlling what kind of things he is on. anybody can make a shirt with a self drawn mickey and sell it as long as they dont say it is disney.


Not true.

In fact, just the opposite is true.

Disney works constantly to protect its copyright on Mickey and everything else in its library.
The only way to do this is to sue those who violate it.
That's how you keep things like this OUT of the public domain.

That's why there was that very public suit a few years ago by Disney of a private daycare center that painted (unlicensed/unauthorized) Disney characters on its premises.

And the "copyright Disney" printed at the bottom of images is not to differentiate between "real" and "not real"... it is one of the legal requirements of a copyright holder... to indicate that a work IS under copyright and by whom.
 

brisem

Well-Known Member
Oswald actually was traded to Disney by NBC/Universal forNBC having the rights to sign Al Michaels for Sunday Night Football.
 

Carolla5501

New Member
People sue Disney all the time.

I once met a member of the external audit team for Disney. He told me about the suits they evaluate each year to determine if Disney needs to disclose a liability. Amoung my favorites

1. Sue Disney for hurricanes which impacted vacation. (Disney should have some method to control the weather)
2 Sue Disney because thier ear drum burst due to the change in depths on the hydrolators in the Living Seas (thrown out when Disney sent engineering schemes showing how far the hydrolators actually went)
3. Sue Disney because you get sick on vacation and lost a day of vacation. (not food posioning or anything)
4. They get served about once a year that they "stole" the idea for some park/resort/ride from someone. (Which is why they don't even accept unsolicited ideas)

They have a crack legal team and most of this just disappears.
 

Epcot82Guy

Well-Known Member
Just to explain copyright law a bit more. Lobbyists constantly ask to have the copyright term extended. Disney is notorious as one of the strongest in this category. There was a major case not too long ago filed against them basically claiming that these copyright term extensions were unconstitutional. Now, copyrights are not indefinite. In fact, any system that would perpetuate that type of proteciton is directly unconstitutional (that was the foundation of the law suit - that the lengthening was causing indefinite protection from a practical standpoint).

However, while copyright is not indefinite, trademark protection may be. Disney will always have the trademark argument to fall back on. However, trademark protection can be both (1) thinner protection and (2) much more difficult proof wise (i.e. more expensive). You basically have to show that the trademark has "secondary meaning" such that the public associates the mark with the brand alone. Disney clearly won't have too much trouble doing this, but copyright just requires showing the proper filing form.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom