It Appears Mickey Mouse May Have Picked An Intellectual Property Fight With The Wrong Mau5
from the oops dept
I actually don't think that Disney's trademark opposition to Deadmau5's attempt to trademark his mouse-shaped helmet thing is that crazy. Disney hasn't gone after Deadmau5/Joel Zimmerman all these years for using it. They're just saying "hey, maybe he shouldn't have a registered trademark on that." And they may have a point. Yes, the designs are different, and no, there isn't likely to be much confusion between Deadmau5 and Mickey, but why is Deadmau5 seeking to get a registered trademark on this in the first place?That said, if notorious copyright maximalists Disney were going to pick an intellectual property fight with someone, it would probably make sense to make sure their own mouse house is in order, no? Apparently, it's not, because Deadmau5 has discovered that... Disney (yes, I'll repeat that: Disney) has uploaded some of his music on its website without permission. The music was on a "re-micks" (ha ha, get it?) page on Disney's website that has since been taken down -- but not before Deadmau5's lawyers sent a takedown letter over it. The letter also, amusingly, makes a trademark claim, though frankly the trademark claim is quite weak. Deadmau5's lawyer is basically claiming trademark infringement over the video as well. That almost certainly wouldn't fly in court.
I tend to not be a fan of takedowns in general, but it's pretty clear that this is basically just being done to call out Disney's hypocrisy here. Not that I expect the message to get through. Still it's surprising that such a copyright maximalist company would be posting videos like that...
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, deadmau5, joel zimmerman, licensing, mickey mouse, takedowns, trademark
Companies: disney
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Laws...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laws...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laws...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was it taken down? Looks up to me: http://video.disney.com/watch/ghosts-n-stuff-re-micks-4cc34ca4636bec7bd7bd38a3
If Disney doesn't take it down soon, that leads me to believe that maybe they have a license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re : Legal Chicken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re : Legal Chicken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Namely, that an alleged infringer deserves the benefit of the doubt because they've kept their video up, while the legal team sending takedowns is probably in the wrong for the same reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Namely, that an alleged infringer deserves the benefit of the doubt because they've kept their video up, while the legal team sending takedowns is probably in the wrong for the same reason.
I didn't really explain my reasoning, but I'm happy to do so now. Disney is a sophisticated rightholder, so I find it hard to believe that it would use the song without permission. And if it did discover such an infringement, I believe it would respond quickly--especially considering its opposition to Zimmerman's registration and the publicity involved.
That said, the lawyer's letter leaves a lot of wiggle room and is quite unclear. He mentions that Zimmerman granted rights in the Composition to EMI. And he only claims that Zimmerman’s rights in the Master have been violated. So presumably, whatever rights in the Composition Zimmerman granted to EMI are the only rights in the Composition that he thinks are being violated. Yet, he also says Zimmerman owns the "copyright and/or exclusive rights" in the Composition. From this I deduce that, while Zimmerman may own some exclusive rights in the Composition, he clearly doesn’t own the rights at issue here since there’s no claim that Disney is violating them.
As for the Master, he claims that Zimmerman’s rights are being violated, but then he also says that Zimmerman granted “certain rights thereto” to Virgin and Ultra that possibly are also being infringed. Which is it? Unless they’re joint owners, I don’t think this makes sense. He notes that "Zimmerman is unaware of any license(s) between Disney and EMI, Virgin, and/or Ultra" granting Disney the right to use the Composition or the Master. So he doesn't even know if Disney has a license. Perhaps he should have checked on whether Disney had a license before sending the letter.
So basically it claims infringement, but then admits that maybe other parties who hold some unspecified rights might have granted a license. Combine this with the sophistication of Disney, both to gain the proper rights ahead of time and to timely respond to proper takedown notices, and I arrive at my conclusion “that maybe they have a license.” Make sense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Fantastic reasoning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fantastic reasoning.
That wasn't my reasoning. Of course Disney can do wrong. Maybe they're wrong here. I just think that Disney leaving it up after being put on notice shows that maybe the mistake is Zimmerman's. After all, Zimmerman's lawyer admits that Disney may have a license. Why Zimmerman wouldn't ask the other parties that have the ability to license the work whether they did so is beyond me. I'm not sure where you get the notion that I think Disney is incapable of mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. Me, you, Disney, Zimmerman, everybody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Disney is capable of mistakes, but you have to think they have plenty of lawyers who vet everything that ends up in their productions, on their websites, and so on. Certainly they could have made an error, but it seems equally likely that the dead rodent just isn't sure WHO has the rights to his work, and who they may have assigned them to after.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For a second there I thought there might be some sort of problem in intellectual property land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and this is another problem with IP laws. There is almost no punishment for false takedown requests (and where punishment exists it's hardly even enforced because it's so low it's not even worth pursuing) and so everyone has very little incentive to do their homework before making such requests. The laws makes it such that the best strategy is to shoot first and ask questions later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's a strange response. Of course Disney makes mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. The video could be infringing, and it could be a mistake on Disney's part. I simply said that leaving up the video after being put on notice "leads me to believe that maybe they have a license." If it were infringing, I believe it's likely that Disney would take it down. And if Disney thinks it's noninfringing, I believe it's likely it would leave it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Disney is a sophisticated rightholder, so I find it hard to believe that it would use the song without permission."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is evidence of having an open mind?
Wow, that is perverse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think I'd make a great juror. I've never done it, but I'd like to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
i'm not sure about your state, but most, you can VOLUNTEER to serve on jury duty, wickless, you don't have to be called up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In this case, however, my best guess would be that EMI can grant broadcast/public performance rights only, and Disney doesn't have the right to create and distribute derivative works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In this case, however, my best guess would be that EMI can grant broadcast/public performance rights only, and Disney doesn't have the right to create and distribute derivative works.
I left out one thing. This "Re-Micks" video isn't just a one-off, it's part of a series of videos Disney put out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_a_Laugh!#Re-Micks
There's 20 of them, each with a different song. These are included as bonus features on DVDs, and they play them on the Disney channel between shows as filler. I find it hard to believe that Disney wouldn't obtain the proper licenses, but it's certainly possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[common sense needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your entire post rests on the idea that a "sophisticated rightholder" would not infringe on copyright. Of course they would. They would infringe upon whatever copyright that they can, if the rights holder is someone who can not afford an expensive lawyer. If it isn't, then they can infringe however they like, because the artist can't afford to sue them.
As for the Master, he claims that Zimmerman’s rights are being violated, but then he also says that Zimmerman granted “certain rights thereto” to Virgin and Ultra that possibly are also being infringed. Which is it?
You're being disingenuous. Let's read the quote in context:
Clearly, Disney does not have any sort of licence. He only brings up the other parties to make it clear to the Court that Disney is infringing upon the rights of multiple rights holders.
The request from Disney is something that they do not believe Disney can provide, because they clearly do not believe Disney has any kind of license with any of those rights holders; it's simply boilerplate language.
So basically it claims infringement, but then admits that maybe other parties who hold some unspecified rights might have granted a license.
No, it claims infringement of the plaintiffs' rights, then accuses Disney of infringing upon the rights of other rights holders. It "admits" nothing.
Incidentally, it's pretty telling that you take the side of Disney in a copyright fight against an actual artist - but you always take the side of the rights holders in any case where the rights holder isn't an artist, but is a major media company instead. It demonstrates pretty clearly where your loyalties lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypocrisy, much?
Wait a sec, this is the behavior we expect of a company backing "notice and staydown"? Given what they expect of others, even if they have a valid license, one would think they'd have the courtesy to at least take it down for appearances sake, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
let's multiply that by the statutory infringement damages that the RIAAs/MPAA/other aasses usually ask for these days, USD 150k per unauthorized performance/distribution
29000 x 150000 = 4.350.000.000 USD ... 4 billion and some in damages that Disney might end up paying to Mau5
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
made a screenshot of it too:
http://i58.tinypic.com/15fiyyw.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, statutory damages are calculated per work, not per infringement. One song would top out at $150,000, whether the copyright was infringed once or a million times. But two songs would top out at $300,000.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Costs
29 thousand people saw the video and heard the song..for FREE. Thats 29,000 people that didn't buy the mp3! The Mp3 can be bought from deadmau5 on his site for $1.30, so I'm going to assume the entire 1.30 goes to him.
Disney......stole..... $37,700 dollars...right out of Deadmau5's pocket...because CLEARLY everyone that saw the video DIDN'T BUY THE SONG.....BECAUSE THEY HEARD IT FOR FREE!!!!!!!!!
NOW...I'm being sarcastic, obviously.
I'm sure that there are people that were exposed to Deadmau5 because of the video, and I'm willing to bet that he managed to sell some more songs and albums, because people that were never exposed to the music before heard it....but if I were him, I'd try and go after them for the extra $37,700.....just because I could....and tell Disney that their OWN STUPID LOGIC THAT EVERY EXPOSURE TO THE MEDIA WITHOUT A CORRESPONDING PURCHASE IS "PIRACY" is the reason why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright Infringement
Isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Merchandising. Concert shirts, etc with his trademark on it. So he can go after others selling them without his permission. Its part of his brand he's worked pretty hard to build and now wants to protect.
Frankly I am surprised he didn't register it a lot sooner. He really should have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, no it really isn't
As the AC above notes, 'laws are for the little people', so it's not surprising that a huge company like Disney might ignore or 'forget' to follow the same laws they push for expanding so much, they bought the laws, it's only natural they'd feel free to ignore them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I also wouldn't be shocked to find out that Disney has either license to use the video already, or is playing it in the same manner that a video channel might play a music video. The dead rodent may find that he is stepping on his own tail, essentially claiming that the video wasn't release for broadcast or online use (he should sue Google and Youtube too!)
Disney on the other hand should know better. When they started legal process against the guy, they should have sent out an all points bulletin to make sure none of his material was associated with Disney in any manner.
For the dead rodent, all I can say is that three stories in a week makes me think he is attention whoring, having found that the anti-copyright crew are easy to manipulate for wide spread press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By the way, did you not read the letter that's shown in this article? That is a DMCA notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Moreover, the dead rodent seems to think that people who do broadcast or distribute his songs or music should specifically not mention his name.
All this of course assuming that Disney did not obtain the rights to use the music in some manner already. Would you say loser pays if the dead rodent is proven wrong?
If it's a valid DMCA, then good on him for making a notice. But the current "play to the anti-copyright types" attention whoring is way too obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
you have preconceived notions and want to parade them about town.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You'll find that lawyers are experts at text padding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Moreover, the dead rodent seems to think that people who do broadcast or distribute his songs or music should specifically not mention his name.
Interesting, I've never seen you go out of your way like this to criticize bogus DMCA notices from big media companies. I wonder why that is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It takes one to know one. Go figure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you are going to troll, at least have a clue, not flaws!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If my powerful masters are (ab)using copyright it's ok, but if the smaller guy is doing it and my mighty bosses were caught pants down then I'm all angry!
Keep at it, it's entertaining!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's what good lawyers would advise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which shows the problems with IP laws once again. It creates little disincentive to file false takedown requests and lots of incentive to take a shoot first ask questions later approach so that legitimate content could be taken down and those that posted it would have to go through a complicated process to get their content back up. If you support something like this it's despicable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He did send real takedown notices. I saw a copy of the video on YouTube that had the frowny-face-we're-sorry thing, citing Deadmau5 as the sender. And there's a few search results on Google that were also taken down.
Of course, if Disney does have a license, I expect a post from Mike blaming Deadmau5 for killing innovation and free speech. Oh wait, no I don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just as soon as you call for stricter legal punishments for false takedown requests no matter who makes them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]