Court Tells Disney It Can't Ignore Rights Owner Of Winnie The Pooh
from the whoops dept
One of the great ironies of copyright law is the way Disney has often treated the subject. While the company is famous for being the main player in pushing to extend copyright law every time Mickey Mouse is about to fall into the public domain, it's also made its living taking content from others and reusing it. Many of Disney's most famous movies are all based on public domain works, which they appropriated and turned into derivative works. Even Mickey Mouse falls into the appropriated folder. As Larry Lessig helped publicize when fighting the last Disney-inspired copyright extension, Mickey Mouse's first video, Steamboat Willie, was actually a take-off on Buster Keaton's Steamboat Bill, from just a year earlier. So while Disney continues to push to keep its own characters away from other's uses, it appears that it's running into some problems when it comes to the rights of others. For about a decade and a half, Disney has been fighting with Stephen Slesinger Inc., who was given the rights to A.A. Milne's Winnie the Pooh character in 1930. There have been some disagreements along the way, but Disney negotiated some sort of license with Slesinger in 1961, and an updated agreement in 1983. However, Slesinger has been claiming that Disney has been underpaying royalties on the Pooh character, to the point that the company feels it's owed approximately $2 billion (yes, with a b). Disney went to court to have Slesinger's rights voided -- but it appears that the court isn't buying Disney's argument. Neither party comes out of this looking very good -- but, it sure is interesting to see how Disney, which claims to be such a big supporter of rights surrounding fictional characters, treats someone else's rights in that same space.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Alice in Wonderland trade mark
http://publicaddress.net/default,3887.sm#post3887
"Disney's application to IPONZ for a trade mark on Alice in Wonderland. The specification of goods and services for which trade mark protection is sought is very lengthy: from furniture to food, clothing to CDs."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No surprise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
maybe in your ass backwards view of things Slesinger isn't coming out looking good, but how can you view it as anything but someone wanting the money that's owed to him? just because disney (may) owe him $2 billion dollars doesn't mean he's anything but a person who wants the money owed to him. seriously, disney is the only one who is looking bad by this (with all the present information, now if it turns out that disney only really owes slesinger $2k then we can form judgment around his $2 billion claim).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slesinger Family
Good read on this issue. It seems the Slesinger family has been after Disney on a consistent basis about this issue. As soon as Disney's profits on Winnie the Pooh go up, the Slesinger's want more money. More money for a character they never invented (they bought the rights for $1000), so what rights do they have? So far, the courts have been on Disney's side.
but how can you view it as anything but someone wanting the money that's owed to him
Because the Slesinger's don't deserve it. The granddaughter of the creator, Claire Milne, has been trying for years to get back the rights. Think the Slesinger's are going to give them up? No, they feel a $1000 investment should get them billions. I think both Disney and he Slesinger's are being awfully greedy over a beloved children's icon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slesinger Family
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slesinger Family
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slesinger Family
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm also confused
Disney was required by agreement to pay a percentage of the earnings of the Pooh brand to Slesinger. Slesinger alleges to have found evidence that they were vastly underpaying, Disney was busted for destroying MILLIONS of pages of evidence, but the case was thrown out as the alleged evidence was found in Disneys trash which apparently makes it inadmissable (source wikipedia).
So Slesinger is owed money, Disney underpaid, and because they tried to get the money they are rightfully owned they come out looking bad? how so?
Does Patrick Robin come out looking bad from asking MPAA to stop using his blogging software or pay up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm also confused
Disney was busted for destroying MILLIONS of pages of evidence, but the case was thrown out as the alleged evidence was found in Disneys trash which apparently makes it inadmissible (source wikipedia).
Patti Selsinger claims that the deceased party involved in settlement back in 1983 promised the family that Disney would pay them video royalty, which Disney never did. And these supposed documents Disney destroyed didn't happen recently, but was part or a whole bunch of obsolete documents Disney disposed of years ago. Would you keep non-legal paperwork around from 1983? I sure wouldn't. Yes it's coming back to bite Disney in the behind, but I'm not convinced they were "destroying evidence".
I agree with the author that neither party is going to come out looking like saints. The Selsigner's are greedy as well as Disney.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm also confused
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0201a/pooh1.html
(link from wikipedia).
Apparently they werent "obsolete documents", but very important documents relating to the case that were deliberately destroyed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm also confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm also confused
"...In a first order on sanctions in June 2000, Hiroshige found Disney liable for "willful suppression of evidence."...."
This was in response to an earlier comment that Disney may not have intentionally destroyed the documents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So if you bought 10% of shares in Microsoft when they were first starting out for $1000 then when you tried to see them today for billions you shouldnt get the money because it is too much for the amount you invested?
What if after they bought the rights for $1000 and Winnie the Pooh never became popular and never made any money. Could they ask for the $1000 back?
They made a shrewd investment. Your argument sounds like sour grapes.
So should Disney keep the money that is legally owed to Slesinger ? why do they deserve it more? they didnt create it OR purchase the rights from the original creator.
Or should it go to the granddaughter even though the creator sold the rights way back when? The guy knowingly and willingly sold the rights. If my grandfather sold some oceanfront real estate 50 years ago for $1000 I cant now go to the current owner and say "Oh, I didnt realise it would be worth millions of dollars in the future, can I have the land back ?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
True, the grand-daughter might not be entitled by law, but it seems fishy to me that the Selinger's paid $1000 for all rights instead of an annual compensation. Maybe it was a good investment, or maybe they weaseled there way into the deal. Nobody knows.
Anyway, all I'm saying is the Slesinger's only claim is that Disney agreed to give them video rights, which Disney never did. They are also trying to say Disney destroyed any proof of promising compensation for video rights, which I don't believe they did. And the original guy who struck the deal on the Slesinger's side is deceased. If you take the whole issue of video rights out of the picture, the Slesinger's have been compensated what they were promised.
It's just they now see how much profit is in the videos and think they are entitled, when they aren't according to the 1983 agreement. They've lost this argument before back in the 90s, I doubt they will win it this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright for Winnie the Pooh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For example , did Jerry Siegel & Joe Schuster and their heirs get screwed or not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they paid $1000 in 1930 that was a hell of a lot of money when translated into today's terms (anywhere between $11000 to $50000 depending what method you use). Even if we took the low end, well would you pay $11 k for a "story character" before movie rights, merchandising and such really existed? Doubt it nor would many people. If anything Slesinger overpaid for Pooh in 1930 but got really lucky
As to Slesinger "looking bad", how so? He/they own the rights, rights they paid for, rights granted to them by law, laws Disney fought to have enacted and enforced and is now fighting to get what the law says he should have. How does this make one look bad? It's not like he is suing a child for putting up a fan site called ilovepooh.com or anything here, he is suing a commercial, for profit company for his legal portion of the profits they are making from items he owns the rights to, rights Disney fought for him to have
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slesinger Family
i'll address the latter first, which, in fact, you've nicely answered yourself in a parenthetical in the question itself. what rights do they have? the rights they bought for $1000. as far as wanting more money, well, when you're entitled to a percentage of earnings from company A based on product x, well, naturally the more money company A makes on product x the more money you DO have a right to.
"Because the Slesinger's don't deserve it. The granddaughter of the creator, Claire Milne, has been trying for years to get back the rights."
and...? as stated before, because her grandfather decided to SELL THE RIGHTS TO HIS OWN CREATION, this means that the person who bought the rights somehow doesn't deserve them? interesting logic.
"No, they feel a $1000 investment should get them billions."
well, that's the feeling of ANYONE who invests money... you know... maybe this will help with your confusion: http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=define%3Ainvestment&btnG=Google+Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course they should have video rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fortune Magazine Summary of Pooh
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/01/20/335653/index.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The old standard...
Copyright Violation: Your use of my copywritten material
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copywritten
I know it doesn't sound correct, but you say your material is copyrighted, not copywritten.
See here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Both look bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BOYCOTT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is Disney Channel hiding from everybody?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]