Disney And Warner Bros. Prepare To Fight Over Who Owns The Public Domain Wizard Of Oz

from the sorta dept

Tue, Feb 14th 2012 10:39am — Mike Masnick

You may recall a lawsuit we wrote about last year, involving some questions about which parts of The Wizard of Oz movie were public domain, and which were still under copyright. It's a bit confusing. The books are public domain, having first started being released in 1899. No doubt about that. But the movie, made in 1939, is still under copyright. And here's the tricky part: which parts do the copyright cover? Technically, things directly from the book should be public domain -- but any creative additions put into the movie (such as the ruby red slippers...) can be covered by copyright, and held by Warner Bros.

So, here's the problem. Disney (not WB) has decided that it's going to make a movie out of The Wizard of Oz -- which it has titled Oz, the Great and Powerful. And it appears that WB wants to do everything possible to make life hellish for Disney if it moves forward on this plan. The first step? According to Eriq Gardner over at THResq, it was to quietly apply for a trademark on "The Great and Powerful Oz." Note the similarity to what Disney has called its movie. Except, it turns out Disney was sitting pretty... having filed for a trademark on its version of the phrase/title... a week earlier. Thus, Disney has the lead here and WB's application got tossed.

The THResq piece questions if WB was planning to make wider use of trademark to try to prevent things like this from happening, avoiding the fact that the copyrights on the works have long gone into the public domain.

In the past year, Warners has been one of the most aggressive filers of oppositions at the USPTO's Trademark Trial & Appeal Board. Especially over The Wizard of Oz.

For instance, the company has gone after potential merchandise associated with Dorothy of Oz, a $60 million-budgeted animation film scheduled to be released later this year by Summertime Entertainment.

Warners also has attacked registrations on a series of neuroscience books entitled "If I Only Had A Brain," a restaurant called "Wicked 'Wiches Wickedly Delicious Sandwiches," a clothing line known as "Wizard of Azz," Halloween costumes under the brand name "Wicked of Oz," and dozens of other Oz-related marks.

It goes on to talk about one ongoing case in particular, concerning a company selling wines in Kansas that it's named after aspects of the Wizard of Oz. The company is claiming (correctly) that the book is in the public domain. But WB is claiming it doesn't matter, because public domain only applies to copyright.

While that case continues, you can bet that WB won't let Disney just go ahead and make this movie without putting up a bigger fight.

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, public domain, trademark, wizard of oz
Companies: disney, warner bros.

79 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

:Lobo Santo (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 10:45am

Falcon Punch (Kan-ChYo!)
Always cute when the two local gang leaders go to war in your neighborhood over who gets the privilege of shaking down your business...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Machin Shin (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:00am
  
  Re: Falcon Punch (Kan-ChYo!)
  Well that was at least the nice thing about the classic gangs. You paid one of them and they would protect you from the others. These modern groups don't have such honor. They shake you down then leave you in the open for the next gang to have a go.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - :Lobo Santo (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:04am
    
    Re: Re: Falcon Punch (Kan-ChYo!)
    Yeah... frigging breach of contract.
    
    ;-P
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:44am
  
  Re: Falcon Punch (Kan-ChYo!)
  Let them fight each other.To bad they both don't die.The Country would be better off seeing any MPAA Ass dying.Then maybe we can have peace on the Internet.
  
  I have a real big hate for anything that has to do with Hollywood !!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Loki, 14 Feb 2012 @ 3:01pm
    
    Re: Re: Falcon Punch (Kan-ChYo!)
    Agreed.
    
    Personally, I think an organization that moved to/formed in California for the sole purpose of taking advantage of looser IP laws to build up their businesses, and then labor for continually stricter IP laws they can use to not only stick thumbscrews to everyone else, but each other, is beyond even contempt.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chargone (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 4:27am
    
    Re: Re: Falcon Punch (Kan-ChYo!)
    i really do wish it were possible to apply the old Shinsengumi ... philosophy? moto? whatever. applying it to all these *IAAs and their equivalents in other countries, large corporations of all stripes, and most governments, would improve things greatly.
    
    i mean, it'd be a bloody mess, but it'd make more sense and being stupid would get you dead rather than rich.
    
    Aku Soku Zan.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 12:10pm
  
  Re: Falcon Punch (Kan-ChYo!)
  Reminds me of the Iran-Iraq war!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2012 @ 10:46am

We Win!
I have no doubt that by the time this is over, consumers, culture, and the general public will have won.

That's what trademark and copyright laws were put in place for, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 10:55am
  
  Re: We Lose!
  Fixed the title for you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Moondoggie, 14 Feb 2012 @ 7:38pm
    
    Re: Re: We Lose!
    You sure you don't have anything to do with this "catfight"?
    *munches popcorn and watched for Disney and WB to destroy each other*
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2012 @ 10:53am

nice to see this. it's sort of 'in house' fighting. plus, while they concentrate on screwing each other over, hopefully, they're leaving everyone else alone!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike42 (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 1:40pm
  
  Re:
  They have lots more lawyers than you think.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 10:56am

It's my gate! I'm the gatekeeper!

No, it's my gate! I'm the gatekeeper!

I'm gonna sue you.

Well, my lawyers are bigger than yours!!!

You're stupid.

You're stupider.

You're stupiderest.

You're stupider than stupiderest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:16am
  
  Re:
  I am Gozar the Gozarian. I am the Gatekeeper.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2012 @ 10:57am

I'm sure being a big SOPA supporter that Disney will take itself off the Internet because of these baseless copyright & trademark infringement claims by WB, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 10:57am

Pay no attention to the lawyer behind the screen in the corner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:13am
  
  Re:
  Please report to court at 9am. You(Marcus Carab) are being sued for improper usage of a trade mark that We/Us(Warner Brother and it affiliates) own. Note, trying for Fair Use will be denied as we have already payed off oops We mean talked to a judge and it has been decided you are guilty. Please bring 18.7 Billion for damages You have caused Us.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2012 @ 10:59am

Once again... Black March is coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Violated (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 5:19pm
  
  Re:
  Yes it sure is. Black March is already on the horizon and due to hit in 2 weeks time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Benjo (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:01am

1939?
The current state of copyright law is a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:04am
  
  Re: 1939?
  Did you know they could just translate it into another language and then copyright it again, legally? I had a professors in college who was also a patent lawyer and he pointed out that English versions of Plato and Aristotle are under copyright because they re-translate them every time the copyright expires. A complete and total joke but the joke is on us.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Glen, 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:12am
    
    Re: Re: 1939?
    Where is the "What the Hell?" button when you need it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Adam V, 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:19am
    
    Re: Re: 1939?
    IIRC, any given translation is copyrightable. However, nothing stops you from creating your own work (by paying someone to do a translation for you) and putting yours in the public domain.
    
    That's the idea behind Kickstarter campaigns to hire a musical group to perform public domain symphonies, and putting the resulting recordings in the public domain.
    
    (Found a link: here)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 12:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: 1939?
      Check the updates tab - recordings recently completed!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 5:08am
    
    Re: Re: 1939?
    That would only work for any given translation. So older translations would be coming out of copyright - use one of them! After all, they can't all be by the same company, and therefore they will have to be a bit different or they would have infringed already.
    
    If 'translation' of a work allowed full re-copyrighting, the companies would simply translate a work into another language, 'translate' it back, and extend copyright (even more) indefinitely...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:03am

But I hate WB AND I hate Disney

Who should I be backing here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:12am
  
  Re:
  NBC Universal, who'll quietly make the production, distribute it, and then set their legal team on both Disney AND WB.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Al Bert (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 7:12pm
    
    Re: Re:
    See, i was reading that comment and my hope was escalating as my brain autocompleted the sentence.
    
    "...and then set their legal team on fire"
    
    Now i'm disappointed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:43am
  
  Re:
  L. Frank Baum
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 12:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually, he was sort of a racist dick and argued publicly for the extermination of Native Americans. Best to leave him out of it. Disney already has trouble keeping themselves from being publicly called Mouschwitz.
    
    On a side note, I'd like to see the creators of Zardoz get in on this fight, if only to see pictures of Sean Connery in a red leotard splattered all over the news.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 12:53am
  
  Re:
  The public. Only when the art that should have been returned to us in the public domain, under the rules agreed to at the time of its production, has been returned will there be justice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 5:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    There should be a central Public Domain defender who could sue the living daylights out of anyone who tries to falsely claim ownership of public domain material.
    
    I'd settle for someone suing these companies out of existence anyway.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:05am

Live by the sword...
Please pass the popcorn, I'm gonna enjoy this. Let them pound each other right off the earth, I say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:10am
  
  Re: Live by the sword...
  The one who forced you to sell your kidney for medical treatment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Raphael (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:06am

The respect these companies have for human creative potential is summed up by the fact that they're going hammer and tongs over a movie that was made ~73 years ago. It's like watching the only two people in Nebraska fight over a single acre of farmland because someone planted seeds there years ago and there might be a few volunteer plants come spring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:08am
  
  Re:
  Has anyone else noticed the number of remakes and reboots they are making just so they can put old content under copyright for a longer period of time? I wonder how many 10 year olds are being given credit on movies just because they'll live longer and keep the copyright alive longer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    None, they're too savvy to have their culture stolen like that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701 (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 3:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    > I wonder how many 10 year olds are being given
    > credit on movies just because they'll live
    > longer and keep the copyright alive longer.
    
    I've been wondering how the whole "x years + life of the author" thing works when the author is a corporation.
    
    There are companies in existence today that predate the American Revolution. Do we really have to wait until Disney goes bankrupt (if ever) before its copyrights will run out?
    
    When a law is passed which defines a time period as dependent upon the length of a life, it seems the underlying assumption has to be that the target of the law will actually die at some point. That's kind of obviated with an essentially immortal entity like a corporation which nevertheless (and often paradoxically) enjoys personhood status under the law.
    
    If "the life of the author" is literally defined as "until Disney goes out of business", then for all practical purposes, we've already reached the point where copyright is perpetual and never-ending.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chosen Reject (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 5:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      In the US, copyrights on works made after January 1, 1978 expire 70 years + the life of the author. Works made by multiple authors last 70 years + the life of the last surviving author. Anonymous works, Pseudonymous works, and works made for hire have a copyright duration of either 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first.
      
      Steamboat Willie was published in 1928, which means that Disney only has 11 years to get Congress to extend copyright terms yet again. Though, if a Disney researcher and two law students are to be believed, the copyright on Steamboat Willie expired a long time ago due to technicalities.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Niall (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 5:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You see, that's what current copyright law is missing, those fun technicalities. Without the possibility of someone screwing up their registering or extension of a copyright (it's automatic and way too long) then we lose so many opportunities for works to (re-)enter the public domain!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew F (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:13am

Whine
WB isn't in the wine business, is it? No risk of confusion, no trademark violation! And the public domain book should be relevant in defeating any claims of dilution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:15am

ahhh corporate domain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nosy Rosie, 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:19am

The Witches Wiz
This is foolishness!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:31am
  
  Re: The Witches Wiz
  That sounds like a terrible drink, on the other hand at least you know it would get you pissed :D
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 12:37pm
  
  Re: The Witches Wiz
  Foolishness?
  
  THIS IS HOLLYWOOD!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pwdrskir (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:31am

Same old, same old...
Again, Hollywood just regurgitating an old story.

Nothing new to see here, move along...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2012 @ 12:31pm
  
  Re: Same old, same old...
  I hear ya. I thought they want stronger copyright to motivate artists and writers to create new ideas. What's new in any of this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TOG, 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:32am

2 deep pockets collide in the woods - do they make a sound?
In this case, they probably will make a lot of noise.

This potentially could end really well. I don't see either company willing to settle - there's too much at stake. But it sure is going to be interesting to watch Darth Vader and Emperor Palpatine fight each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:34am
  
  Re: 2 deep pockets collide in the woods - do they make a sound?
  Naw, seen it. Darth wins in round 2 with a TKO.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - byte^me (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 2:40pm
    
    Re: Re: 2 deep pockets collide in the woods - do they make a sound?
    NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:38am
  
  Re: 2 deep pockets collide in the woods - do they make a sound?
  The more money they waste on suing each other, the closer they are to dieing off.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Colin, 14 Feb 2012 @ 3:24pm
    
    Re: Re: 2 deep pockets collide in the woods - do they make a sound?
    Unfortunately, I see it as the more money they waste on suing each other, the more they'll complain about losing money to piracy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bengie, 14 Feb 2012 @ 12:04pm

wtf...
"But WB is claiming it doesn't matter, because public domain only applies to copyright. "

The winery should reply back, "Trademarks only apply to a specific industry"

Heck, even within the movie industry, a movie title is only needs to be unique per year. I've seen my share of movies with identical names, but different years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Al Bert (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 7:23pm
  
  Re: wtf...
  Why is it that copyright is only distinguishable from trademark rights when they don't benefit from the conflation?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Torg (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 7:32pm
    
    Re: Re: wtf...
    Because now they aren't benefiting from the conflation.
    
    Honestly, haven't you ever dealt with a hypocrite before?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2012 @ 12:10pm

It's Mickey vs.Bugs all over again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 12:12pm

Aren't these behemoth companies dead yet? What's taking them so long?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DOlz (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 2:52pm
  
  Re:
  They are, but are now just running around with their heads cut off. Of course no heads explains a lot of their actions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Torg (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 12:19pm

I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with my lawyers
Consultin' with Iran
And my cash I'd be countin'
Gold bars piled like a mountain
If you couldn't make movies

I'd copyright every ditty
However short or shitty
No data should be free

With the thoughts they'd be buyin'
They could really just stop tryin'
If we couldn't make movies

Oh I, would tell you why
Our artists are our whores
I could sell you things you've bought ten times before
So go lawyers and buy some more

I would make you just a nuffin'
Your wallet full of stuffin'
Your art belongs to me
I would dance and be merry
Life would be a ding-a-derry
If you couldn't make movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tick-Tock, 14 Feb 2012 @ 12:46pm

Because Disney has done nothing with The Wizard of Oz, oh wait they have!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_to_Oz

And it's arguably better (and darker) then the original, IMO of course. If WB knows that Disney could actually outbeat them, that would give them an excuse to pull a stunt like this. Either that or they are just being total assholes.

And speaking of seeing how the ORIGINAL books are now in public domain and hypothetically speaking I wanted to make an adaption from the novels, would I risk being sued by Warner Brothers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2012 @ 1:43pm
  
  Re:
  Considering Disney is doing a zillion-dollar movie of Edgar Rice Burroughs' novel "Princess of Mars" (which is PD) entitled "John Carter", and a direct to video version of the same PD novel came out last year from Asylum Pictures called, surprise, "Princess of Mars", I don't think Disney would have any say in the matter of your doing your own version as long as you use the book's title.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MAFIAA, 14 Feb 2012 @ 12:51pm

Wizard of Azz you say...I might have to investigate this personally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SuperiorAnonymousCoward, 14 Feb 2012 @ 12:54pm

Both suck hard but crapper bros has been crapping movies every 2-3 weeks for a 2/year/s now. At least Disney has hot girls so they should win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 14 Feb 2012 @ 1:38pm

At least Disney understands the value of the public domain. I'm sure they're going to be enriching it with tons of their own content any day now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
btr1701 (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 2:54pm

Oz
So by claiming that it doesn't matter if the book is in the public domain because they're claiming trademark, not copyright, does that mean these companies believe they can remove any work from the public domain and own it merely by making a movie out of it and trademarking the distinctive aspects of the story?

For example, if they made a movie out of 'Romeo & Juliet' would these asshats actually have the stones to claim exclusive ownership of a Shakespearean play merely because they trademarked the title and key plot elements of the film?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violated (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 5:09pm

Theory
Warners also has attacked registrations on a series of neuroscience books entitled "If I Only Had A Brain,"

I would call that feeble being a very different subject. I mean how can Warners have any gain or loss if these books used this name or some other?

a restaurant called "Wicked 'Wiches Wickedly Delicious Sandwiches,"

I am very doubtful that Warners own the "wicked witch" term.

Witch in its self is a rank in the Pagan/Wicca religion which is older than Christianity. Then due to the Bible's attack on Pagans these "witches" were soon seen as evil and wicked.

So that is the theme under which the books were wrote that pre-date the movie. No hope there in other words unless they infringed the character.

a clothing line known as "Wizard of Azz,"

Now they are getting silly.

Halloween costumes under the brand name "Wicked of Oz,"

Seeing that we do refer to Australia as "Oz" short for Aussie then I doubt they can make that one stick. Then we also use Oz as ounces as in weight.

and dozens of other Oz-related marks.

As I am very sure these books used the word "Oz" then even that direct mention is now public domain.

But WB is claiming it doesn't matter, because public domain only applies to copyright.

I have seen such a claim once before. This is when someone is about to lose their case and makes an idiotic claim of pure arrogance.

My previous example was when UMG claimed that they did not have to consider "fair use" when taking down a video. The Judge not only pointed out they did indeed have to consider "fair use" but also they were wrong to remove the video.

Oh and thanks for insulting everything that is not under copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 6:52pm

What's so amusing here is that two of the "giants" of IP maximalism are about to drag themselves through the courts, spending millions as they do that ought to go to their highly successful lobbyists in DC.

Let's see now. SOPA was "for the artists". "for the creators", "for the lunch wagon sandwich makers" and so on. Not the studios. Nooooooooooo. And now here they are bringing out the neutron bombs to use on each other.

This'll be fun to watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GreyGeek (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 7:58pm

Return of the Robber Barons
Arguing over public domain? Why of course! They've already bribed ("campaign contributions") and the courts (tripsforjudges.org) to allow them to copyright works that have been in the public domain for years. In the case of the Wizard of Oz, over a century! On January 18th of this year the Supreme Court gave them the go-ahead to plunder the commons like the ordinary pirates and thieves they are:

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/01/19/supreme-court-oks-public-domain-works-being-copyrighted /id=21867/

"Yesterday the United States Supreme Court issued a truly regrettable decision in the much anticipated copyright case Golan v. Holder. At issue in this case was nothing short of whether the United States Congress has the authority to restore copyrights in works that were in the public domain, or in other words whether Congress has the authority to strip works from the public domain and grant copyright protection. In one of the more intellectual dishonest decisions I have ever read, the U.S. Supreme Court, per Justice Ginsburg, determined that Congress can pretty much do whatever it is that they want with respect to copyrights. Removing works from the public domain and restoring copyright protection is said to be a power granted to the Congress under the Constitution, and there are no legitimate First Amendment concerns.

To all those who can read the Constitution it has to be clear that the Supreme Court�s decision in Golan v. Holder is absurd. It is a ridiculous decision that lacks intellectual honesty and defies common sense. ..."

Corporations don't care if the SCOTUS is being absurd, as long as they can make an easy buck by claiming to be the creators of someone else's work.

Just another of the many instances of the corruption that has taken hold on this country at ALL levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
G Thompson (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 8:22pm

I'm an Australian.

That means I already live in "The great and powerful Oz"

Though WB should already know all about Australia via The Tassie Devil public relations stuffup
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2012 @ 8:58pm

Those collection plates that go around your church every sunday. It's to pay Cecil B Demille, he made a movie about the Ten Commandments and now owns God.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Totomike, 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:44pm

WHAT THE........!!
First off, The Disney film is a before The Wizard of oz takes place, and anyone can make a film about that. And As long as they have Silver Shoes and no singing or dancing Worner can shove it. Oh, and they shouldn't talk when they let Sir Andrew Loyd Webber destroy their property when they allowed him to make a new musical of it, which he didnt just cut two great songs from the show, and threw in songs that didn't make sense he put in reprise after reprise of the same old songs but his own lyrics. And Dorothy of oz is written and produced by the writers grandson, he can do what ever he wants with the story. And so far i have not heard a word about Ruby Slippers. You can trade mark your movies look, and the actors faceses, but you cant own what some one else has written and Disney owns the film writes to the other 14 Oz books, they can take and do what ever they want from them, and even the original Wonderful Wizard of oz book is public domain, Worner brothers needs to stop trying to take over everything and start making better films like the wizard of oz, and Harry Potter. Restarants and winery's have the right to creat and make what ever product based on the books that they want to. And may I say they are acting like Mean Old Crabby Miss Gulch. First get ride of Webbers wizard of oz, It was a bad idea, and after seeing it and hearing the music they have killed the story, and the songs from the film. Don't go after company's who are not doing any remakes of your film, And people who have the write to creat stuff based on what the author has written and created, plus if it wasn't for those oz books the film would have never been made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 2:01am

LOL to the comedy. Friends season 99, starring Disney and WB ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:11am

Anything that can slow down Disney Corporation's relentless destruction of good public-domain atories is a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violated (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:29am

I have been wondering what name a business could use to get sued by the most organizations?

"Nike MacDonalds of Oz" is my minor start including the golden M and the tick. I think a lot better could be done there.

Then we have to wonder if they would ever let this old movie become public domain one day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 5 Mar 2012 @ 12:14pm

Watch this be settled by Disney and Warners merging into one Company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don, 26 Mar 2012 @ 3:10pm

Real Pirates of the Caribbean
Disney didn't come up with an original idea. They stole it from a book called "How the Wizard Came to Oz," published in 1991. And YES - it has a copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
steve govea, 25 Sep 2013 @ 3:44pm

Mickey Mouse Clubhouse
I just seen an episode of Mickey Mouse Clubhouse that basically ripped off the story of Wizard of Oz...they called it Wizard of Diz. I was then curious who own the rights to Wizard of Oz...wow...WB and Disney clash of the titans over Dorthy..LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wicked1, 26 Feb 2014 @ 9:17am

Universal has a stake in all of this as the movie rights to the book "Wicked" was sold to them by Gregory Maguire. This occurred before it was made into a musical (which they also own the rights to).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don Austen, 4 Nov 2015 @ 1:29pm

Copywrong
I find it curious that the studios have made billions off of other people's works without any regard to the creator's families, but haggle over insignificant words. Peter Pan (J. M. Barrie), The Wizard of Oz (L. Frank Baum), The Little Mermaid (Hans Christian Anderson), the Lion King (Kimba, the White Lion), etc. But this has gone on in comic books for decades. Fawcett came out with Captain Marvel after Superman (there is now a lawsuit), Marvel came out with Mr. Fantastic after Plastic Man, which was created by Quality Comics, later acquired by D.C. Even Mad's Alfred E. Newman's image was stolen from a late 19th Century ad. After the X-Men came movie about advanced human mutations with super powers out, NBC fired back with Heroes. After Star Wars, there was Battlestar Galactica. It's all a cutthroat business. But, not to be judgmental, may the best loser win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]