Chair Designer Sues Disney Over Chair Used In Alice In Wonderland Movie

from the down-the-rabbit-hole dept

Wed, Aug 18th 2010 10:40am — Mike Masnick

Reader ScaredOfTheMan points us to the news that a chair designer is suing Disney for allegedly using one of "his" chairs in the movie Alice in Wonderland. He's demanding a $50,000 "decoration fee." We've pointed out the ridiculous lengths filmmakers must go to these days -- with lawyers scouring every part of a film to make sure no intellectual property is used without a license, but at some point you have to just ask what these people are thinking. Imagine if every chair in every movie required a "decoration fee." And if we're doing chairs, then tables must be included as well. And couches. And doors. Don't forget the windows. Wall paper on the walls? Did you pay the designer? Welcome to the logical conclusion of permission culture run amok.

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: alice in wonderland, chair, designer
Companies: disney

39 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

TtfnJohn (profile), 18 Aug 2010 @ 10:51am

Copyright protects culture, eh?
Welcome to the slow, long death of public culture marked by the longer, slower death of commercial/private culture as a result of the cult of "permission".

After all, everything is either patented or copyright or both these days, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nastybutler77 (profile), 18 Aug 2010 @ 10:56am

But of course it's the internet and file sharing that's destroying the big budget movies. Hmmm... Maybe if studios didn't have to licence music and art and architechture and locations and, coming soon, furniture, they wouldn't cost $200M to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2010 @ 11:01am

It would be nice to know what legal rights he alleges he holds because he would somehow have to assert such rights against what Disney has done. Copyright? Probably not since it is a utilitarian article. Design Patent? Probably not since most people have never even heard of such type of patent.

Any cite to the complaint?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hulser (profile), 18 Aug 2010 @ 11:21am
  
  Re:
  It would be nice to know what legal rights he alleges he holds because he would somehow have to assert such rights against what Disney has done.
  
  Agreed. Aren't the documents used to file a lawsuit very explicit about which law is actually being broken? Or do the lawyers just make up terms like "decoration fee" and hope that no one notices they didn't actually cite a law which was broken?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2010 @ 11:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes, under rules of pleading one does have to state the legal basis for claims.
    
    I know where the case was filed. I know the parties' names. I cannot get access to the LAC Superior Court documents because the site demands search fees, document download fees, and a host of other fees.
    
    Between fees such as this and PACER I am getting increasingly ticked off at my inability to access public documents without some agency (here the courts) holding me hostage for money. As much as I hate "fees" (a euphemism adopted by polititians so they can say "Hey, we held the line on taxes!"), I can see some tenuous rationale when human intervention is needed. But for God's sake...we are talking about online access without any need for human intervention.
    
    If techdirt wants to rant about something, put copyright, patents, etc. aside for a while and give this issue some much needed attention. We should not as taxpayers have to fork over more money for digital copies of public documents.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2010 @ 12:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Is RECAP still around or did they get shut down?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2010 @ 12:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        RECAP around, but you need to use Firefox as your browser. Moreover, it only "captures" images of documents that someone who has previouly downloaded from PACER chooses to upload to RECAP. What RECAP captures is, unfortunately, on miniscule portion of documents available through PACER.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Matthew, 18 Aug 2010 @ 12:19pm
      
      Re: "Fees"
      In some regard, fees make sense. You might say that you'd rather pay taxes and have free access to public documents. That's one valid opinion. Another, however, is that those services should be paid for only by those who choose to use them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2010 @ 12:29pm
        
        Re: Re: "Fees"
        I guess public libraries should start charging entrance fees.
        
        Perhaps I should be charged a fee before being admitted to talk with a politico.
        
        Same goes for public schools (over 50% of my property taxes).
        
        Some things are simply fundamental government services, and I have a difficult time exempting our courts from such services.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2010 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: "Fees"
        I agree, if the government wants to govern us we have a right to freely know exactly how they are governing us and that includes a right to freely know what court decisions they make because court decisions are an important aspect of how we are being governed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Matthew, 18 Aug 2010 @ 8:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: "Fees"
        I like to play Devil's Advocate, so let's talk about this.
        As an ideal model, I agree with what you're saying. Practically, however, I still feel like the idea needs to be mulled over. I assume that things aren't actually this bad but suppose that the funds didn't exist for there even to be a clerk at the courthouse to help you. Is it essential that they GIVE you the record or merely that it is available for you to access it? Would letting you into a room full of filing cabinets full of court decisions be sufficient? If you think that a clerk to help you locate the file in question is necessary, then consider the tradeoffs. What other services could/should a cash-strapped courthouse sacrifice to employ that clerk? As with most things government, many people demand more services than their tax dollars are sufficient to fund. Is this necessarily the case? I don't know. Anecdotal evidence, at least, suggests that lots of local and state governments really do have to make choices like this.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JC, 19 Aug 2010 @ 5:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Fees"
        Under US law, ignorance of the law is not a defense when you break the law. Therefore, under US law all citizens are "required" to know the law, by law.
        
        Are you also saying that we should be required to pay money to know the law?
        
        Imagine this hypothetical situation.
        
        You want to do something, but you are not sure if it is legal (say start a business). So you decide that you need to obtain some money in order to pay people to find out if your new business will be legal. In order to make your money you get a job, as you are driving to your first day at McDonalds you get pulled over by a cop. You do not have a insurance (after all, you didn't know you were required by law to have it - theres a fee for that). What now?
        
        The idea of a fee based culture because "government agencies don't have the money" is possibly one of the worst ideas I have ever heard.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Matthew, 19 Aug 2010 @ 12:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Fees"
        It IS a bad idea. What is the alternative, though? If there is no money to employ somebody to provide the service you demand, how do you propose that service be rendered?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Matthew, 18 Aug 2010 @ 8:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: "Fees"
        If a library couldn't afford to employ librarians without charging an entrance fee, then I might endorse an entrance fee.
        If politicians couldn't afford office supplies without charging constituents for their time, then I would endorse an audience fee.
        Public schools... actually they sort of already charge a fee. Why are students being asked to provide paper towels, hand soap, and sandwich bags? (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/business/economy/15supplies.html)
        The answer is simple: if the public demands a service but the tax dollars don't exist to fund that service, then the government agency has to get creative. A citizen may begrudgingly pay the fee but they'd be even more cross if the service didn't exist at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Berenerd (profile), 18 Aug 2010 @ 12:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "We should not as taxpayers have to fork over more money for digital copies of public documents."
      
      Have you tried to move your medical records lately? I had to move (damn layoffs) and it cost me 75$ to get a copy of my medical records for my new doctor because i wasn't gonna drive 500 miles every time I needed to see a PCP. What is WORSE is that was HARD COPY! If I wanted to just download them it was well over $150!!!! This is information about ME! Why do I have to pay for MY information???
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MrWilson, 18 Aug 2010 @ 12:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Civil lawsuits can be filed for any reason. The actual reason you use will determine the chances of it being successful, but I could sue you for looking at me in a funny way as long as I file the suit and pay the fees. It probably get thrown out just as quickly as I filed it though.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Adam Wasserman (profile), 18 Aug 2010 @ 11:42am
  
  Re:
  You were right the first time, copyright.
  
  Quote from his website: "CASINO CHAIRS ARE COPYRIGHT INVENTION"
  
  Honestly; I do not know whether to laugh or lose my mind.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ScaredOfTheMan, 18 Aug 2010 @ 11:10am

Doesn't make sense...
The part I don't get, is don't company's usually pay big money to have their products placed in movies and TV shows? This guy just got free exposure to millions of people not to mention being immortalized in this movie forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Vincent Clement, 18 Aug 2010 @ 11:43am
  
  Re: Doesn't make sense...
  No he got free exposure to millions of people when he filed his lawsuit. Before then, most people had no idea that that was his chair in the movie.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2010 @ 11:57am
    
    Re: Re: Doesn't make sense...
    So this is just really a publicity stunt then.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2010 @ 11:52am
  
  Re: Doesn't make sense...
  It's the same as payola vs license fees. Theyre not necessarily contradictory in the details, but they represent opposite ideas about which party profits from an exchange, and how much.
  
  Anyway, is that free exposure and immortalization worth $50,000? Maybe not. Maybe he might get sued if he tries to use photos of his chair in the movie to sell his chairs. When you jump down the rabbit hole into fantasy lawyer land, anything goes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Danny, 18 Aug 2010 @ 11:14am

Well...
I think this is just a marketing ploy. He wants to advertise that fact that he sells chairs just like the ones used in the movie but rather than advertise like most companies do he has figured out how to use the Streisand Effect to his advantage.

I'd wager he'll drop the suit after a few weeks, just long enough to get him and his company's name swirling around for a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Stuart, 18 Aug 2010 @ 11:46am
  
  Re: Well...
  I think that I would not cry if this guy were shot after witnessing everyone closely related to his genetic make-up ground into dog food before his eyes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Alvarado (profile), 18 Aug 2010 @ 11:19am

Lame
It's not like Disney is now manufacturing and selling these chairs. They are not competing with him! I deal with this issue in video games too--can't use names and likenesses of real world weapons in a shooter game. It's stupid.

The chair doesn't even look like his chairs:
http://www.alibaba.com/product-free/107927161/CASINO_CHAIR/showimage.html

The guy is just a bottom-feeder looking to get a payoff to go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike42 (profile), 18 Aug 2010 @ 11:45am
  
  Re: Lame
  I agree. Just because you have chairs for "every suit in the deck" doesn't mean you get the exclusive right to make chairs in that style!
  He has a snowball's chance in hell if he goes to court. And if Disney has any sense(???) They'll crucify this guy as an example to others.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - xs (profile), 18 Aug 2010 @ 12:07pm
    
    Re: Re: Lame
    Impossible. Disney will likely settle so they can preserve the legal option to screw other people the same way.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Phil, 18 Aug 2010 @ 5:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Lame
      This is the absolute truth. Sadly this attitude pervades big media today.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andres, 18 Aug 2010 @ 11:41am

Well...
How ridiculous the suing might be, Disney had it coming... We have, on the one hand an industry that wants the right on how the end user uses the product. Now, on the other hand we have a designer who asks for the same rights.

This is a perfect example how copyright confines with ownership...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2010 @ 11:44am

And that is why every movie is now a new LLC company, if the film gets sued and loose a lot of money, no assets from the studio will be seized.

This is how they deal with the situation they create a proxy company that will bear all the problems and can be discarded if it fails for any reason.

Isn't IP great?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2010 @ 12:25pm

Wow...instead of enjoying the free publicity, this jerk is going to sue and risk losing future customers who are put off by such behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irv, 18 Aug 2010 @ 12:42pm

Disney?
I can't think of anyone who deserves this more than Disney.

Payback's a bitch, ain't it Walt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- interval (profile), 18 Aug 2010 @ 2:16pm
  
  Re: Disney?
  I get the sentiment, but here's a question: If you buy something, say, a chair, from some one, isn't it your right to use that chair now as you see fit, up to an including as a movie prop? I mean, do you really need to license the chair's image, outline, profile, what ever, as a separate fee? If that's the case then any studio would need to pay such fees for every little item that might appear in a film, and clearly, that's not possible. Seems to me that once I buy the damn chair, its mine, and that's that. I think for once Disney's on the right side of this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JC, 19 Aug 2010 @ 6:00am
    
    Re: Re: Disney?
    I think the original point was people have been "buying" movies for years and having more and more of their rights to those movies taken away ... by Disney (probably the most aggressive defender and expander of copyright).
    
    Unlike 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife - this is irony.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
rbilotta (profile), 18 Aug 2010 @ 12:52pm

What a delusional guy
First, it would be funny if he were suing under copyright in LA County court, because it should be dismissed right away because you can only sue in Federal Court for a copyright claim. Moreoever, though technically you have a copyright upon creation of an expressive work on tangible medium, you still have to register or try to register your copyright with with Copyright office before you sue.

And the chair design would probably not qualify for a copyright itself. A copyright is a protected expression work that can be transferred onto another medium, in other words, copyright is generally medium neutral. The design of chair could be protected by a design patent, but I doubt he has one of those either and he would still have to sue in Federal Court.

I would love to see the complaint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2010 @ 1:27pm

Here you go: http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/efile/C/109535.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2010 @ 1:30pm
  
  Re:
  OOps, that's an earlier lawsuit. Does has his email and phone number though. Looks like he's a few cards shy of a deck.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - rbilotta (profile), 18 Aug 2010 @ 1:35pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I just skimmed through that complaint and couldn't help but laugh. It seems like a 5 year-old wrote that. I love his handwritten relief is asking for "Please justify the incidents..."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumb, 19 Aug 2010 @ 10:08am

So Dumb
People are so dumb. Do we not all know that all of these incredibly asinine lawsuits over the years are costing us our freedom; not to mention so much money and time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 9 Apr 2013 @ 8:43pm

You clearly don't understand
You legally don't need permission to use a regular carpet or chair or table. But this is a custom, one-off, queen's throne, that normally the art department would design for tens of thousands of dollars. This is a feature art piece of the movie. But Disney just stole this guys artwork and put it in their movie to save money by stealing someone else's. Clearly illegal and morally wrong to boot.

You are just writing this story from that viewpoint to be a troll and get more hits. Congratulations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]