JimboJones123
Well-Known Member
Wiped away my friend.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Walt Disney loses Winnie the pooh copyright case!
- Thread starter missionspace
- Start date
Wiped away my friend.
Lauriebar
Well-Known Member
I would imagine that the ultimate goal of this lawsuit is not for the rights to be revoked.
Disney's use of the Pooh characters only helps to keep them in the minds of consumers everywhere. Making Disney discontinue their use of them is a lose/lose situation for everyone involved. Money is the one and only ultimate goal in this suit.
Disney's use of the Pooh characters only helps to keep them in the minds of consumers everywhere. Making Disney discontinue their use of them is a lose/lose situation for everyone involved. Money is the one and only ultimate goal in this suit.
Bravesfn1
New Member
Well, it looks like they are going to have to put Mr. Toad's Wild Ride back in at the Magic Kingdom and the Country Bears at Disneyland.
I just can't imagine WDC losing a character that has been with them since the parks have. (I am reminded of those early videos of Pooh with the honey pot on his head.)
Anyway, this seems like it will be worked out one way or another. WDC has waaaay to many investments on the character to lose him. It would probably cost more to get rid of all the merchandise, movies, attractions, etc. than it would to buy everything in the Hudred Acre Wood.
Anyway, this seems like it will be worked out one way or another. WDC has waaaay to many investments on the character to lose him. It would probably cost more to get rid of all the merchandise, movies, attractions, etc. than it would to buy everything in the Hudred Acre Wood.
TheDisneyGirl02
New Member
Well, it looks like they are going to have to put Mr. Toad's Wild Ride back in at the Magic Kingdom and the Country Bears at Disneyland.
That is great!!!!!! :ROFLOL: :ROFLOL: :ROFLOL:
At least they still have the picture of Mr. Toad at WDW in the road and the "Heads" at DL! LOL!!!! :ROFLOL:
Vernonpush
Well-Known Member
wedway71
Well-Known Member
I agree.I dont think the question is whether Disney will loose the rights to Pooh. Its all about what the family thinks Disney owes them in royalties.
If they loose they wont loose the rights they will just have to pay the 2 billion dollars to the family.
It would be a bad move for the family to revoke the rights of pooh.I dont know of any other company that has the synergy and marketing power that Disney has.
And if Disney lost the rights
THE POOH WOULD REALLY HIT THE FAN.
brisem
Well-Known Member
Judge: Winnie the Pooh stays with his owner
California court rule dismisses attempt by families of A.A. Milne and original illustrator to assign character to Disney.
February 16 2007: 5:06 PM EST
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) -- A federal judge in Los Angeles has rejected a Walt Disney Co.-backed attempt to strip rights to the "Winnie the Pooh" character from the estate of long-time Pooh licensee Stephen Slesinger, according to court documents made public Friday.
In a written order issued on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper granted the Slesingers' motion to dismiss the case, in which the granddaughters of Pooh author A.A. Milne and illustrator E.H. Shepard, sued to terminate the Slesingers' rights to the character and reassign them to Disney (Charts).
Disney was not a party to the case, but the company paid legal expenses for both women, according to Disney's attorney Daniel Petrocelli.
The Pooh media war
Petrocelli said the ruling "has no bearing whatsoever on Disney's rights to Pooh," nor on a 2004 California state court judgment dismissing the Slesingers' long-standing royalty claims against Disney.
Slesinger's widow and daughter have been battling Disney in California state court for more than a decade over what they claim are billions in unpaid royalties from Pooh, which generated more than $6 billion in retail sales in 2005.
That state court case is on appeal and a settlement does not appear likely.
"If there were a reasonable view of their royalty interest, we could settle it in a heartbeat," Petrocelli said.
The federal case also appears at a standstill as a result of Thursday's ruling.
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear the federal case and let stand decisions by two lower courts that Clare Milne could not void a 1983 agreement renewing the Slesingers' license.
Cooper's order on Thursday rejected similar claims by Shepard's granddaughter, Harriet Jessie Minette Hunt, who must now decide whether to appeal the case, Petrocelli said.
Stephen Slesinger, a New York television and film producer, obtained the exclusive merchandising and other rights to the Pooh works from A.A. Milne in 1930.
Slesinger and Milne's widow passed those rights to Disney in 1961 in exchange for royalties from the sale of Pooh products.
The Slesingers last month also filed a claim with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, seeking to cancel a number of trademarks they claim Disney illegally took out on Pooh.
California court rule dismisses attempt by families of A.A. Milne and original illustrator to assign character to Disney.
February 16 2007: 5:06 PM EST
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) -- A federal judge in Los Angeles has rejected a Walt Disney Co.-backed attempt to strip rights to the "Winnie the Pooh" character from the estate of long-time Pooh licensee Stephen Slesinger, according to court documents made public Friday.
In a written order issued on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper granted the Slesingers' motion to dismiss the case, in which the granddaughters of Pooh author A.A. Milne and illustrator E.H. Shepard, sued to terminate the Slesingers' rights to the character and reassign them to Disney (Charts).
Disney was not a party to the case, but the company paid legal expenses for both women, according to Disney's attorney Daniel Petrocelli.
The Pooh media war
Petrocelli said the ruling "has no bearing whatsoever on Disney's rights to Pooh," nor on a 2004 California state court judgment dismissing the Slesingers' long-standing royalty claims against Disney.
Slesinger's widow and daughter have been battling Disney in California state court for more than a decade over what they claim are billions in unpaid royalties from Pooh, which generated more than $6 billion in retail sales in 2005.
That state court case is on appeal and a settlement does not appear likely.
"If there were a reasonable view of their royalty interest, we could settle it in a heartbeat," Petrocelli said.
The federal case also appears at a standstill as a result of Thursday's ruling.
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear the federal case and let stand decisions by two lower courts that Clare Milne could not void a 1983 agreement renewing the Slesingers' license.
Cooper's order on Thursday rejected similar claims by Shepard's granddaughter, Harriet Jessie Minette Hunt, who must now decide whether to appeal the case, Petrocelli said.
Stephen Slesinger, a New York television and film producer, obtained the exclusive merchandising and other rights to the Pooh works from A.A. Milne in 1930.
Slesinger and Milne's widow passed those rights to Disney in 1961 in exchange for royalties from the sale of Pooh products.
The Slesingers last month also filed a claim with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, seeking to cancel a number of trademarks they claim Disney illegally took out on Pooh.
mharrington
Well-Known Member
I wish I knew. I'm not really a fan of Pooh per se, but I can't imagine what would happen to Pooh after all these years.
mharrington
Well-Known Member
Well, I think this would probably be money Disney is willing to spend, seeing as how they love to spend so foolishly.
CaptainMichael
Well-Known Member
Is Winnie the Pooh really worth $2 billion to the WDC??? How much was Pixar?
They could refurb many attractions and build a new park with $2 billion.
They could refurb many attractions and build a new park with $2 billion.
Darth Plank
New Member
Oh boy.
Darth Plank
New Member
:fork:Well, it looks like they are going to have to put Mr. Toad's Wild Ride back in at the Magic Kingdom and the Country Bears at Disneyland.
Darth Plank
New Member
Actully Mr Toad needs to be in Zurg's cell in Buzz Lightyear's Space Ranger Spin, stuffed, mounted, hung in the Country Bear Theater and the rest of him gets burried next to the Haunted Mansion.
Iakona
Member
"Slesinger's widow and daughter have been battling Disney in California state court for more than a decade over what they claim are billions in unpaid royalties from Pooh, which generated more than $6 billion in retail sales in 2005."
Is it me or does $6 billion in revenue derived from Pooh seem extremely high?
WDC net income was around $9.7 billion for 2006 (a 7.6% increase) which would mean about $8.7 billion in 2005 and Pooh accounted for $6 billion of that? Not buying it, either a misprint, bad reporting or I am missing something.
Is it me or does $6 billion in revenue derived from Pooh seem extremely high?
WDC net income was around $9.7 billion for 2006 (a 7.6% increase) which would mean about $8.7 billion in 2005 and Pooh accounted for $6 billion of that? Not buying it, either a misprint, bad reporting or I am missing something.
Connor002
Active Member
Could be.
Pooh is one of their most profitable characters.
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
I'd be willing to believe that Pooh has generated $6 billion all time for Disney, and the Shlesingers are asking for a third of that. That would make more sense than asking for $2 billion over a character that made 3 times that much in one year and has been making money for the company for decades.
Darth Plank
New Member
You have a point but Mr. Toad won't come back because Pooh is a classic attraction (that can't get shut down) and Mr. Toad isn't.
Iakona
Member
I agree. probably a tyo or bad editing/reporting.