Disney Sues Party Store For Costumes Looking Like Disney Characters
from the let's-look-at-the-history dept
You all know the history of Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse, right? It all started with a train crash in 1900 killing one engineer named Cayce Jones. That crash inspired the fireman on that train ride to write a song commemorating Jones. That song became popular, passed along from railroad to railroad, and some others took it and turned it into a popular song about "Casey Jones." That was so popular, that some other songwriters basically remixed the song into one about a Steamboat captain: Steamboat Bill. That became so popular that Buster Keaton made a silent film called "Steamboat Bill Jr." And, finally, that inspired Walt Disney to take the idea of a mouse named Mickey (which some believe he got from a popular toy named Micky Mouse sold by an entirely different company) and created a parody video called "Steamboat Willie." That launched Mickey Mouse and Walt Disney into a world of fame and fortune -- all based on this creative passing on of songs, names, characters and content -- all of which Disney now believes should be illegal.Remember that when you read this story, sent in by ehrichweiss, about Disney suing a married couple who own a party supplies for a million dollars, because they happened to buy some costumes from a supplier in Peru that look like the Disney owned Winnie-the-Pooh characters Tigger and Eeyore. The couple claims they didn't realize the costumes were of the Pooh characters, thinking they were just a tiger and a donkey. As soon as they received the lawsuit, the couple immediately sent the costumes back to the supplier in Peru. Turns out this was a mistake, as Disney is demanding they hand over the costumes.
Apparently, all creative innovation needed to stop once Disney took over.
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
Filed Under: copyright, costumes, eeyeore, lawsuits, mickey mouse, tigger, trademark
Companies: disney
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Really............
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really............
And Free publicity off of items that were made illegally in the image of their characters is not going to generate them business its going to generate business of the couple that stole the idea without giving credit where its due. They knew that the link-ness of those two animals would be what younger kids wanted and they used that as their selling point...because they knew Parents would want them for their kids. Its just not fair to the business regardless of if the stories and ideas were taken from somewhere else. Its their animation and they deserve to say what can be done and what cant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The lion king too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The lion king too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Upcoming Lawsuit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Screw em all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(Suit dismissed for other reasons)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/business/media/26disney.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm...
The only real question is who should be sued. It looks like the infringement is on the part of the suppliers, not on the couple who sold the items. On the other hand, they shouldn't be getting cheap supplies from Peru without double-checking the merchandise *before* offering them for sale. So, there's some liability but the Peruvian suppliers are the party with more guilt - though obviously harder to sue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm...
Why not just ask them not to use the items first instead of firing up their huge-ass suing machine and taking no prisoners?
It's just insane and wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Almost everything is borrowed or stolen
But, now that they have copied everyone else to make themselves a household name around the world, and filthy rich to boot, they sure don't want anyone else doing it off of "their" stuff.
Sure, they may have old Walt's head in Cryo-Freeze, but I doubt the Devil will let him go even if they figure out a way to "bring him back".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Government
They System has become a Joke and its all "Bread and Circus" for the masses....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did I miss it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about Lion King -vs- Kimba the White Lion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Way to stay on top of the latest news stories
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Way to stay on top of the latest news stories...
No where in the Techdirt's home page, or banner does it say "talking about the latest news". Take your snark to a site that deserves it, like Digg or Slashdot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually...
There's nothing wrong w/them exerting their trademarks and copyrights here but they can certainly do it in a way to keep from looking like the bad guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually...
Yes, there is a way for them to not look like the 800lb gorilla, and that is to NOT SUE THE LITTLE PEOPLE.
Sue the Peruvians, not the little people in a store just because they are easier to get to.
Because of all of the transgressions of Disney, I will do my absolute hardest to ensure that when I have kids, they will never see a movie or own any product that is related to disney. The only way they are going to get that, is if it is a gift from a relative. And then I will scold the relative later. They deserve nothing for being one of the most hypocritical businesses ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disney's right this time
First of all, there is no doubt that those costumes are suppose to be Tigger and Eyeore. Second of all, the defendants own a party store in central Florida. You can only assume that they had every intention of passing them off as Tigger and Eyeore.
Disney has the right to protect there intellectual property. Diney's entire business is due to the popularity of their characters. To give a hypothetical, what if some "plushy" perv created a video of this "Tiger" and "Donkey" and posted it on youTube? Would they still not have the right to enforce their intellectual property rights? Besides, the defendants where looking to profit off the use of the costumes, this is not Disney going after someone for wearing a Halloween Costume.
Now, I do agree that if the defendants sent the costumes back, Disney's beef should now be with the company that sold the costumes. It is possible that the defendants did not see a picture of the costumes before ordering (not likely, but possible!) What they should have done however is send the costumes back when they saw how close the costumes were to Tigger and Eyeore.
Whether or not Disney is deliquent on royalties for things that the legally licensed does not pertain to this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disney's right this time
Why? Just because you say so again?
Maybe they don't own any judges there.
If Disney is delinquent then they aren't legally licensed. You better check your paycheck to make sure it doesn't bounce too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't Resist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love the guys quote in the article about only seeing it as a "blue donkey." Because I know of so many blue donkeys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Award Disney
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Source? I read the article linked to in the article and there was no mention of cease and desist letters. In fact, the article describes them as being surprised when they got the letter saying that Disney was suing them. "Surprise" is hardly the right word to describe someone who's received three cease and desist letters. I think anyone reading the MyFox Orlando article would have the same view of the story that TD did. You can blame MyFox Orlando for missing some of the relevent facts, but you can hardly blame TD for not searching Craigslist and MySpace or say that TD left out facts when the "facts" weren't in the article being commented on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:source
the 3 letters are mentioned in the interview with the woman being sued at the 50 second mark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:source
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:source
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The facts...
Disney asked that the couple take down all the images from their website and myspace page, which the couple didn't do, and provide the costumes for destruction, which the couple didn't do. So Disney took them to court.
Your facts on the origin of Mickey Mouse are also a bit off. The first Mickey Mouse film was Plane Crazy, but it was re-tooled to include sound after talkies became the big thing.
I don't disagree that Walt Disney and nearly every other animator was inspired by other stories, fairy tales, and whatnot. No one is preventing anyone from retelling those stories, which is why you see tons of Snow White knock-off videos, but you are prevented from obviously copying Disney's designs and trademarks.
Btw, I personally think Copyright protections have been extended too long for creative works. But Disney's core character group is probably protected via Trademark protections, so don't look for a public domain version of Mickey Mouse hitting the shelves soon.
My coverage on the issue is here:
http://thedisneyblog.com/2008/07/10/disney-files-1000000-lawsuit-against-family-party-busines s-for-use-of-pooh-characters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't forget Ub Iwerks..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ok, shoddy analysis. Even worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
quite frankly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disney is a joke
These mom and pop places actually promote the comapny as not every family can even come close to affording a Disney vacation. Disney sucks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mascot
-http://www.costumesolutions.com.au/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]