-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
The latest lawsuit
- Thread starter wishiwere@wdw
- Start date
ACE
New Member
Originally posted by thedisneyfan
Yeah, YOU'VE really done that here!
Read all the post before you spout off. I never said Disney had done anything wrong. I said I don't trust corporate and the family should have a chance to present their case. If they can prove that Disney used this man's idea, then Disney should pay.
The 1956 copyright is real. There may be something to this IF the family can prove Disney (the company, not the man) saw these plans. Notice I said "IF".
How would you feel if this was your family? Just something to think about.
:wave: ACE
disneyisbest
New Member
Ok, If I am not mistaken Walt Disney's idea for Epcot(which he actually came up with about forty years ago)is not what Epcot is today. Walt Disney originally planned for Epcot to be a real working community with real people living within it. Not necessarily an attraction. But as you can see it turned out to be a theme park. Now whether or not the plans that the Disney company came up with for the present Epcot were stolen? Not likely. In this country anything you do not put a copyright on can be used and not be considered stolen. Disney already has their copyright on Epcot. I don't see this family getting anything out of this. However, they must have something they believe they can get away with or they would not make such an accusation. My personal beliefs are that this is someone who is "trying to make the most of his losing streak" as it says in the Eagles song.
disneyisbest
New Member
My bad, I guess I shoulda looked before I leaped on the copyright part.
thedisneyfan
Member
Maybe you should reread your own posts before you accuse somebody of just spouting off and try to falsly claim that you haven't pre-judged Disney and are so open minded about the case! You can't hide your pre-judgement by throwing in a couple of ifs while spouting off how evil and bad Disney is! Your obvious hatred and contempt for Disney comes through quite clear and loud. Don't try now to hide that fact now!
First, I would disown myself from this family because they have to be the most stupid people in the world!
Secondly, if this guy were so incredibly brilliant to come up with the idea for what became Epcot, had it copyrighted, saw it stolen by a major corporation, and then sat back and did nothing until after he was dead, then again I would have to question the alleged brilliance and intelligence of this family, and so I would say adios morons! :hammer:
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
I should like to mention at this time that registering a copyright is not the same thing as registering a patent. The creator of any original work in the United States is afforded copyright protection weather they register it or not. The whole point of registering is to establish a legal date for proof of creation. Just like a trademark that isn’t registered (will usually be seen with a small “TM” rather than the “®”) you don’t have to do squat with the government in advance to be covered but registering makes the copyright easier to prove and enforce.
That being said, based on copyright alone, this case would not pass mustard. Why? Well, what has Disney done with these drawings exactly? Have they printed them on t-shirts for sale? How about collectable pins? Have they displayed them anywhere in the parks? Oh, that’s right. Disney says they don’t have them and that they never saw them. I guess they couldn’t have done something like that with them then, could they?
Ok, perhaps they stole the likeness of the images shown in the conceptual drawings. I’ve seen conceptual drawings of Epcot in many designs. One actually had all of World Showcase indoors. It was obvious for a good number of years before this lawsuit, that Epcot underwent massive changes over the course of going from concept to design and not just in the living community to theme park sense. In all the pictures I have seen, I haven’t seen one that appears to be directly derivative of the drawings that have been made public in this case up to this point. Sure, some have similar elements but all are from different angles and aside from the likeness of the balls and the lakes, the drawings aren’t all that much alike. There is a resemblance to the Epcot we have today much as there is a resemblance to a human face in the mountains of Mars. That doesn’t mean that those mountains are meant to be a face. If you’ve been following the news at all or followed the link from a previous post you have seen the picture found in a church that’s hundreds of years old and bares a striking resemblance to Mickey Mouse. Does that mean that Walt must have seen this drawing and taken the likeness from there? Sounds silly doesn’t it? Why? Because a dead member of that church didn’t claim to have shown it to him?
Well then, you actually have the structure of the ball that was built – Spaceship Earth. People have sued and successfully won when an original piece was taken from one medium and used in another without the permission of the original artist. There was a rather famous case a while back where a photographer had taken a picture of two people holding a line of puppies. Apparently, this picture had appeared in magazines, on cards and post cards and clearly had the copyright information displayed in white print at the bottom. An artist got hold of one of these post cards, tore off the bottom with the copyright information and sent the card off to Italy to have it made into a sculpture that he intended to sell here in the states for a large amount of money. A total of four of these sculptures were made. What particularly did him in was the fact that he tore off the copyright information which meant that he clearly intended to violate the original photographers copyrights and on the back side of the card he had clearly written that he wanted the sculpture to look exactly (with the word exactly underlined) like the photograph. These two key points were essentially the smoking gun.
Why do I bring this up? With Disney there is no smoking gun. The man who made un-sworn testimony that he presented his idea to someone within the Disney Company is dead. As a result, his statements are more or less null and void. He can’t be held to them and conveniently enough, the only people who claim to have heard them could benefit in some way from only one outcome in this case. How could something like that be used in a court of law? So what are they left with? Are they going to put his friends and family on the stand so that they can swear under oath that he told them this? How far do they expect that to get with that? Guys, I want to tell you all right now that I invented the micro processor. I had a feeling that it was going to change the world one day and I was right. There. Now you can state in a court of law that I told you (typed you) that. Does that make it fact? No but are you lying by saying it is what I told you?
Ok, we also have the drawings which he also claimed were shown to Disney – which he claims Disney retained copies of. Clearly we all know what those pictures look like, right? I mean, that is the heart of the lawsuit and the heat in this debate, right? Well have we ever seen Disney display these pictures? Somebody, go thumb through you book in Imagineering. Any of these pictures published in there? Anyone got a magazine article about the construction of Epcot that shows these specific drawings anywhere in them? If Disney says that they don’t have them and it can’t be proven otherwise how can it be said that they ever did have them? Because there are similarities between the real park and the one in this guy’s head? There are as many differences as there are similarities. Yes, they both feature a giant ball at the entrance and a circular track inside that shows off the countries but in this guys version, they are small models not life sized buildings and the track is a conventional train – not a monorail put there to fit in with the front half of the park that this guy never even claimed to have thought of. That’s right, in this guys drawings, there was no Future World. The ball was at the entrance and then there was his version of World Showcase directly behind it. A whole half of the park that Disney supposedly stole from him never even occurred to him. But America is directly opposite the entrance just like in the man’s drawings, right? Yes, but the makeup and placement of the other countries is different and does it strike anybody as incredibly odd that America, the host country should be in the center? BTW, how many people here realize that Walt actually came up for an idea of small miniature buildings along a bank of water in an attraction concept for Disneyland complete with miniature mechanical people? Are we to assume that he stole the idea from Walt earlier down the line? Sounds ludicrous, doesn’t it?
Are there similarities? Of course. Does it cause you to pause and take a second look? Certainly but has anyone here ever heard the similarities between Lincoln and Kennedy? Has anyone shown any of you how you can see the World Trade Center bombing depicted in U.S. currency? Strange things happen all the time that don’t necessarily have explanations. Left to our own devices without knowing or understanding things, we could very well think to this day that lightening is God taking out his wrath on the unholy.
Do I think that Disney creates all of their own concepts? We already know that isn’t the case. Nearly all of the animated movies created in Walt’s lifetime were based off of someone else’s stories. I’ve read the articles about movies such as Lion King and Atlantis and I will definitely say that in both cases it seems obvious that something happened. I don’t think it is beyond doubt that one of the creating artists might have been exposed to this other animation and might have integrated it into a Disney story unconsciously or not. Do I think that Disney as an evil company hatched a plot to rip off other artists? Of course not. Besides the moral issues with this kind of thing, doing something like that would be down right stupid. We are talking about a multibillion dollar company with a whole lot to loose. Why would they risk it all by stealing someone else’s creation? Because they have lawyers and they know they can win? I’m sure that Disney executives love throwing money at problems like this and dealing with the blows that legal cases can have on their public image. I’m sure that kind of thing does a lot to promote ticket sales for their movies and for bookings at their resorts. I mean, if they were going to intentionally go out and steal everything for a movie, wouldn’t they pick something a little more obscure?.. and if they were going to steal some guys idea for a park, might they not have done away with something like the big ball?
For as much as some on here would like to point their finger and say that I think Disney can do no wrong, I’d like to point it right back and say look at the situation and don’t get swallowed up in the heart of a touching story. Sure, the family of a dead man trying to make his dream come true is a much more sympathetic group than a multibillion dollar corporation with a string of lawyers. It’s also easy to lump a company like Disney up there with others such as Enron, Worldcom and Microsoft to name a few but you need to realize that just because they are the big company and the people they are against aren’t, that doesn’t automatically make them wrong.
For as much as you say that I or anyone else is following Disney with blinders on, I could say that you clearly have it in for Disney for some reason or another. I mean, the critics on here don’t know anymore about this case than I do and yet they are sitting here passing judgment on the company after reading stories about the man and the family that are entirely sympathetic to the family.
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
As for the statement about crediting authors and photographers, I have another book nearby titled “Marking the Millennium, the Celebration of a Lifetime at the Walt Disney World Resort”. It’s a book from Epcot that shows a little behind the scenes of the Millennium Celebration and goes into details of how it was all put together. There are no authors credited on the dust jacket. There isn’t anything on the outside of the book itself under the dust jacket either but… on one of the pages on the inside it does say “text by Pam Brandon” It doesn’t list her as the author of the book but it does credit here with the written copy. Again, no listing for the photographers or artists who’s work appears in it. I actually have a good number of similar books that I’ve purchased in WDW like this and have met a few dozen on staff artists within Disney who are responsible for creating theme park merchandise as well as the everyday art you see on tickets, signs and the like – they are virtually never credited on the piece for it’s creation when it is done as work for hire. Got a Mickey back scratcher? Flip that sucker over and look for the artist who designed it – you won’t find one. How about a snow globe? You don’t think it created itself, do you? Still, no credit given. This is what most commonly happens when Disney pays someone by the hour to do something like this. It is what happens with me when I create original work for my employer.
That being said, I also have a lot of coffee table books that do feature the names of authors. As a whole I sort of tend to think that Disney considers an author to be the same thing I do “The writer of a book, article, or other text. An originator or creator.” (from a dictionary) and I’m guessing (could be totally incorrect with this) some kind of contractual arrangement was made in regards to the publishing of such books. As such it seems to me that your book idea was stolen more from your two “friends” than it was from Disney. I mean, the books do list them as the authors, right? You said so yourself on this, right? Have they disavowed credit for the books that bare their names since publishing? If not, which sounds more likely?: They were impressed by your idea and went back to a boss somewhere and said that their friend had this great concept for a book and that he was interested in seeing if Disney wanted to pursue it with him only to be told by their boss that it was a great idea but that this “friend” would not get the credit – that instead, they would be forced to put their own names on the book and take full credit for it or loose their jobs… OR… they went back and pitched the idea to someone else forgetting to mention that there was a third party that came up with the idea and wanted to know if Disney was interested in pursing it?
Either or, this would again come down to what you would consider stealing. I used to get Boys Life magazines that had a section just like you described in the back featuring pictures from various things found in every day life. This was in the 80’s at some point. In the pre-show for Honey I Shrunk the Audience, they do something similar with pictures on a screen promoting Kodak. In that sense, the concept isn’t exactly original and even if they did take your idea back to someone at Disney who forced them into taking full credit for it, it is unlikely that they did anything illegal by pursuing this venture without you.
Again I ask, how do you feel about these two “friends” these days?
If these books were published by Disney (should say © Disney Enterprises) on the inside, I’m sure they made tens of thousands of dollars on them which is a lot of money for someone like you and me but barely even a blip on the radar for a company the size of Disney. Would the company really put themselves at such legal risk by knowingly doing something unlawful for the sake of money that won’t even phase investors looking over the annual report?
In this sense, if your friends did steal it and did get it published as part of their employment with Disney than Disney did steal the idea BUT… It’s like another recent discussion I had with someone else about Disney and park cast members. If you ask a cast member something and they give you false information, as a representative of Disney, you could claim that Disney gave you false information. That doesn’t mean that there is a company wide conspiracy to dupe the masses though. It is possible (and highly probable) that the cast member made it up because they didn’t know, thought they were giving you accurate information that they believed to be true but that was not received through official channels or they simply got it mixed up in their head…
Somehow, when you say Disney stole it, it sounds more sinister though, doesn’t it?
Originally posted by MrPromey
If these books were published by Disney (should say © Disney Enterprises) on the inside, I’m sure they made tens of thousands of dollars on them which is a lot of money for someone like you and me but barely even a blip on the radar for a company the size of Disney. Would the company really put themselves at such legal risk by knowingly doing something unlawful for the sake of money that won’t even phase investors looking over the annual report?
In this sense, if your friends did steal it and did get it published as part of their employment with Disney than Disney did steal the idea BUT… It’s like another recent discussion I had with someone else about Disney and park cast members. If you ask a cast member something and they give you false information, as a representative of Disney, you could claim that Disney gave you false information. That doesn’t mean that there is a company wide conspiracy to dupe the masses though. It’s possible (and highly probably) that the cast member made it up because they didn’t know, thought they were giving you accurate information that they believed to be true but that was not received through official channels or they simply got it mixed up in their head…
Somehow, when you say Disney stole it, it sounds more sinister though, doesn’t it?
I think you make excellent points! And I must concede that the "sinister" parties involved here are really the Wolfs (I just now realized how appropriate that name is in this scenario). I suppose I'll never know what really happened behind the scenes, but without boring you with all the details, I think they were intrigued by my idea and simply presented it as their own. For that reason, my answer is no, I do not consider them my friends any longer.
I think your point about cast members giving out incorrect information is a good example. However I ultimately do hold the company responsible for the conduct of it's employees. When I worked for Disney, it was drilled into our heads that ethics drove all business decisions. Perhaps my views and expectations were a little more naive back then, but I took that to heart. The Wolfs held solid positions in the company, claimed to have Disney in their blood (Shani came really close to being Disneyland ambassador at one point) and simply were people who should have known better. The experience, as well as a few others (i.e. I once suggested a merchandising idea for the Disney Stores which was shot down by a direct report of Cynthia Harriss but then became an "official" merchandising practice about a month later) definitely tarnished my idealistic view of the company and it's business ethics. It hasn't changed the fact that I still love Disney (and call me childish, but I still like to believe Walt himself was above this practice). However it has made it easier for me to believe there are many decision makers in the company who are absolutely capable of stealing ideas and passing them off as their own.
ACE
New Member
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by acellis_99
Disney is not all sweetness and light. Disney is a ruthless corporation. All they care about is the bottom line. IMHO.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My quote from above doesn't mean I hate Disney. I think Bill Gates is a ruthless businessman, but I also think he's a genius. Ask around the boards, I never get into discussions about "hating Eisner" or "how bad Disney is being run", etc... But I will say this, If you don't believe "it's all about the bottom line" then you don't know much about big business.
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by acellis_99
How would you feel if this was your family? Just something to think about.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just like you assume to know me, you assume to know this man and his family. You don't know what he's done or tried to do or what was happening in his life.
You have obviously misunderstood my remarks about Disney and this case. If I have insulted you in any way then I apologize. I just feel that some folks loyalty to "Walt" and his dream have blinded them to the way business is done in the real world. Walt no longer runs Disney. It's run by a bunch of stock holders who's "dream" is to make money. We all know that the bottom line wasn't what Walt's dream was about.
:wave: ACE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by acellis_99
Disney is not all sweetness and light. Disney is a ruthless corporation. All they care about is the bottom line. IMHO.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by thedisneyfan
Maybe you should reread your own posts before you accuse somebody of just spouting off and try to falsly claim that you haven't pre-judged Disney and are so open minded about the case! You can't hide your pre-judgement by throwing in a couple of ifs while spouting off how evil and bad Disney is! Your obvious hatred and contempt for Disney comes through quite clear and loud. Don't try now to hide that fact now!
My quote from above doesn't mean I hate Disney. I think Bill Gates is a ruthless businessman, but I also think he's a genius. Ask around the boards, I never get into discussions about "hating Eisner" or "how bad Disney is being run", etc... But I will say this, If you don't believe "it's all about the bottom line" then you don't know much about big business.
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by acellis_99
How would you feel if this was your family? Just something to think about.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just like you assume to know me, you assume to know this man and his family. You don't know what he's done or tried to do or what was happening in his life.
You have obviously misunderstood my remarks about Disney and this case. If I have insulted you in any way then I apologize. I just feel that some folks loyalty to "Walt" and his dream have blinded them to the way business is done in the real world. Walt no longer runs Disney. It's run by a bunch of stock holders who's "dream" is to make money. We all know that the bottom line wasn't what Walt's dream was about.
:wave: ACE
wed050499
Member
Hey all,
I'm made it through several of the discussion, not all of it though and just wanted to bring up this point. Alright, this guy worked for the pentagon correct? At the height of the Cold War right? When defense spending held the highest percentage of the US budget (except only to be surpassed in the Reagan years) right? And there is an argument that this guy didn't have or have access to the kind of money to put together a lawsuit until he was dead? Sorry if I'm out of line, but this seems a bit fishy to me.
Just my thought,
Brian
I'm made it through several of the discussion, not all of it though and just wanted to bring up this point. Alright, this guy worked for the pentagon correct? At the height of the Cold War right? When defense spending held the highest percentage of the US budget (except only to be surpassed in the Reagan years) right? And there is an argument that this guy didn't have or have access to the kind of money to put together a lawsuit until he was dead? Sorry if I'm out of line, but this seems a bit fishy to me.
Just my thought,
Brian
ACE
New Member
Defense spending and this guy's salary are two different things. Just ask any of the current or former military members on this board. It's not like he could just take what he needed from the defense budget.
"Excuse me Mr President and members of congress, Can I have about four million dollars to build a theme park. I'm sure we can do without some of those tanks and planes.":lol:
Not gonna happen.
:wave: ACE
wed050499
Member
Hey,
I am not a person who posts something and doesn't have at least some knowledge of the subject. First off, I am a senior history major with a specialty in both entertainment and Cold War History. Second, my dad was in the military during this time, so I don't come from not talking with someone who was in at the time I'm mentioning.
I also wasn't implying that this person was going to ask the government for money for this. Moreover, I was looking at the average retirement fund of a person who worked in the US military along with the fact that if he knew enough people through his ties within his career (and military usually are a pretty close knit group) he would have had access to the money. However, in all reality, to sue Disney, especially in the early 80's was a fairly easy thing to do seeing as that's when Disney was on a downfall from Steinberg and people all over were suing them trying to get the last bit of money out of the company before it was sold off. That's the first time when the question of the Magic Kingdom (yes someone sued over this in 1982) and Epcot (first case was announced in April of 1983).
I don't try to take anything personally on this board and I haven't in this case. I'm just stating that I did not raise those questions blindly.
Thanks everyone,
Brian
figmentmom
Well-Known Member
I personally feel that the timing of this lawsuit is suspicious. I also feel that anyone who has ever visited a World's Fair has seen a glimmer of an idea that resembles EPCOT in many ways. AND - I also think that it's easier in our lawsuit-happy country to sue someone else for stealing a germ of an idea than it is to actually design, create and bring to fruition an original idea. Now THAT takes hard work, and dedication, and practical knowledge.
I also think that there are LOTS and LOTS of attorneys in this country who would have been absolutely delighted to take this case to court twenty years ago on a contingency basis!
I also think that there are LOTS and LOTS of attorneys in this country who would have been absolutely delighted to take this case to court twenty years ago on a contingency basis!
ACE
New Member
Where do you get your military average retirement fund info. Retirees do not make that much money. We get 1/2 of our base pay. This doesn't include any of the special pays for different things.
Example: While I was active duty I made around $36,000 a year before taxes. This included special pay for housing, food, etc..My retirement pay is around $12,000 a year. That's a big difference.
I don't take this stuff personal and I would hope no one else does. We are just giving our opinions and having a healthy debate. There is no right or wrong when it comes to opinions.
I don't like frivolous lawsuits anymore than the next person. They just make the cost of stuff go up and I pay enough to go to WDW now.:lol:
:wave: ACE
Here is another link to a different article:
http://www.sptimes.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/APState.woa/wa/story?id=FL_Epcot_s_Origins
Everybody has made some very valid and thoughtful (if not intelectual) points but please try to keep calm! I didn't mean for this to get ugly. The bottom line is they waited to long. Regardless if they are right or wrong, the time has past. If there were a "true" smoking gun, any lawyer (even in the 80's) would have jumped on this in a heart beat. Now days, who knows. They will probably change the laws around the situation. Just look what happened to New Jersey this past election 
.
http://www.sptimes.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/APState.woa/wa/story?id=FL_Epcot_s_Origins
Everybody has made some very valid and thoughtful (if not intelectual) points but please try to keep calm! I didn't mean for this to get ugly.
The bottom line is they waited to long. Regardless if they are right or wrong, the time has past. If there were a "true" smoking gun, any lawyer (even in the 80's) would have jumped on this in a heart beat. Now days, who knows. They will probably change the laws around the situation. Just look what happened to New Jersey this past election .