Disney lobbies Congress to change copyright laws; The Highlander, University of California Riverside, February 12, 2019

Robert Gold, University of California Riverside; Disney lobbies Congress to change copyright laws

"Copyright law is a tedious topic but it affects people in their daily lives."

Hakuna Matata™? Can Disney Actually Trademark That?; The New York Times, December 20, 2018

Kimiko de Freytas-Tamura, The New York Times; Hakuna Matata™? Can Disney Actually Trademark That?

"Trademark experts said the talk of colonialism and robbery was overwrought, and that the trademarking of phrases, particularly those from other languages, is commonplace.

“People talk about appropriation,” said Phillip Johnson, a professor of commercial law at Cardiff Law School in Wales and a specialist on intellectual property law, “but a trademark is all about appropriation of language within a narrow commercial sphere, outside that space people are free to use the language as they wish.”

“What’s difficult about this case is whether it was a sensible commercial decision for the Disney brand, rather than whether, legally, the mark should or should not be registered,” he added. “The question is, does their brand benefit from having trademark or does it get damaged from bad publicity from having that trademark?”"

Inside the windowless bunker where Disney stores its 'secret weapon'; The Guardian, October 20, 2018

Rory Carroll, The Guardian; Inside the windowless bunker where Disney stores its 'secret weapon'

"Some in Hollywood still refer to Disney as the House of Mouse but the company archives showcase its real key to world domination: intellectual property (IP)." 

How copyright law hides work like Zora Neale Hurston’s new book from the public; The Washington Post, May 7, 2018

Ted Genoways, The Washington Post; How copyright law hides work like Zora Neale Hurston’s new book from the public

"Now, according to the Vulture introduction, the Zora Neale Hurston Trust has new representation, interested in getting unpublished works into print and monetizing those archives. That’s great, from a reader’s perspective, but it also reveals a larger problem where scholarship of literature between World War I and II is concerned. It’s mostly due to the Walt Disney Co.’s efforts to protect ownership of a certain cartoon mouse. Over the years, the company has successfully worked to extend copyright restrictions far beyond the limits ever intended by the original authors of America’s intellectual property laws. Under the original Copyright Act of 1790, a work could be protected for 14 years, renewable for another 14-year term if the work’s author was still alive. In time, the maximum copyright grew from 28 years to 56 years and then to 75 years. In 1998, Sonny Bono championed an extension that would protect works created after 1978 for 70 years after the death of the author and the copyright of works created after 1922 to as long as 120 years.


This worked out great for Disney — which, not coincidentally, was founded in 1923 — but less so for the reputations of authors who produced important work between the 1920s and 1950s. Because copyright law became such a tangle, many of these works have truly languished. Here, Hurston is the rule rather than the exception. I have a file that I’ve kept over the years of significant unpublished works by well-known writers from the era: William Faulkner, Langston Hughes, William Carlos Williams, Hart Crane, Sherwood Anderson and Weldon Kees, among others. The works aren’t really “lost,” of course, but they are tied up in a legal limbo. Because of the literary reputations of those writers, their unpublished works will eventually see the light of day — whenever their heirs decide that the royalties are spreading a little too thin and there’s money to be made from new works. But other important writers who are little-known or unknown will remain so because they don’t have easily identifiable heirs — or, worse, because self-interested, or even uninterested executors, control their estates."

Disney Can’t Use ‘Marvel’ in Disneyland Avengers Theme Park; Comic Book Resources, April 8, 2018

Kirsten Thompson, Comic Book Resources; Disney Can’t Use ‘Marvel’ in Disneyland Avengers Theme Park

"Disney California Adventure Park will be expanding in the next year or so and in the process, will be removing several attractions. The new space will showcase superheroes from Marvel Entertainment’s movies, comics, and video games. The Hulk, Iron Man, Spider-Man and other characters will be spotlighted. However, this theme park attraction won’t be called “Marvel Land,” even though such a title would encompass the entirety of the entertainment giant’s characters. This is due to legal fine print.

Although Marvel was purchased by Disney in 2009, there are still a myriad of licensing agreements with other movie studios that have to be followed. Some of these are with Disney’s rival, Universal Studios, and they put limits on the company’s intellectual property rights.

In particular, these agreements bar Disney from using certain Marvel characters in Disney theme parks east of the Mississippi River and prohibit them from using the word “Marvel” in the title of any other theme park land."

Current copyright regime makes entertainment industry boring; The Daily Texan, June 18, 2017

Usmaan Hasan, The Daily Texan; Current copyright regime makes entertainment industry boring

"The current system of copyright and intellectual property protections quells artistic expression gives consumers the short end of the stick.

Mickey Mouse, as a property of Disney, enjoys bipartisan support in Congress. He was created in 1928, and under the existing copyright regime of the time, Disney’s right to Mickey should have ended in 1956 at the soonest, 1984 at the latest. Yet with some Disney magic, without fail, Congress expands copyright protections every time the Mickey is about to lapse into the public domain.

The hypocrisy coming from Disney is staggering. It has gained its immense wealth by monetizing properties in the public domain – like Cinderella, a centuries old fairy tale owned by no one – lobbying for copyright protections for those properties, and then reworking properties while constantly expanding the lifetime of their protections. It is a company that has managed to exercise artistic reinterpretation of cultural touchstones while making it nearly impossible for others to do the same. In fact, Disney has made its wealth by making movies on at least 50 works in the public domain."

Disney seeks patent to block 3D-printed knockoffs; Orlando Sentinel, June 9, 2017

Paul Brinkmann, Orlando Sentinel; Disney seeks patent to block 3D-printed knockoffs

"As usual with Disney patents, it’s not clear whether the company actually wants to make the 3D scan-resist figurines, or if it’s just protecting research it has done."

DISNEY, LUCASFILM TRADEMARK MYSTERIOUS NEW STAR WARS TITLE; Comic Book Resources, February 28, 2017

Brett White, Comic Book Resources; DISNEY, LUCASFILM TRADEMARK MYSTERIOUS NEW STAR WARS TITLE

"Star Wars fans may soon become familiar with a new branch of the franchise, if a recent trademark filing is any indication. Max Palas of the site Star Wars Post reported that a trademark has been filed for the title “Star Wars: Rivals.”...

io9 did their own research and noted that Lucasfilm and Disney filed two trademark applications for “Star Wars: Rivals” on February 23, 2017. One application is for “education and entertainment services,” while the other covers, well, pretty much everything else..."

Disney Wins ‘Cars’ Copyright Case in China; Variety, 12/30/16

Patrick Frater, Variety; 

Disney Wins ‘Cars’ Copyright Case in China:

"A Shanghai court has awarded damages to Disney and Pixar Animation in a copyright case over a Chinese-made film called “The Autobots.” The court ruled that the film was an illegal copy of Disney’s “Cars.”

The court said that the Chinese producer Bluemtv and distributor G-Point had been fined some $190,000 (RMB1.35 million) and ordered to cease their copyright infringement. “The Autobots” film was released in July 2015, and grossed some $863,000 (RMB6 million.)"

DISNEY SUES LIGHTSABER ACADEMY FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT; Comic Book Resources, 10/17/16

Jacob Hill, Comic Book Resources; DISNEY SUES LIGHTSABER ACADEMY FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT:

"According to The Hollywood Reporter, Michael Brown operated numerous businesses based on the Star Wars trademark including New York Jedi, the Lightsaber Academy and Thrills and Skills. After serving multiple cease and desist notices, Disney finally filed a complaint with the California federal court."

WATCH: X-MEN BATTLE THE AVENGERS IN EPIC SUPERCUT TRAILER; Comic Book Resources, 8/15/16

Marykate Jasper, Comic Book Resources; WATCH: X-MEN BATTLE THE AVENGERS IN EPIC SUPERCUT TRAILER:

[Some graphic language; NSFW]

"While comics readers got to see these teams fight in 2012's "Avengers Vs. X-Men" event and a number of other series, the cinematic universes have been kept separate due to Disney and Fox's competing rights. Thanks to this supercut, fans can experience a glimpse at the super-powered showdown they may never get to see on the big screen, featuring Storm taking on Iron Man, Wolverine challenging the Hulk, Jean Grey facing Scarlet Witch, and more!"

‘Star Wars’ Doesn’t Belong to George Lucas. It Belongs to the Fans.; New York Times, 10/29/15

Manohla Dargis, New York Times; ‘Star Wars’ Doesn’t Belong to George Lucas. It Belongs to the Fans. :

"Mr. Lucas’s true genius may be in marketing, including of his vision. Like other filmmakers who came of age in the 1960s, when American directors became auteurs, he has strong views on authorship. In a 1997 interview with Wired, he addressed the studios’ and artists’ rights, arguing that a copyright should belong to “the artist” of a film and not the large corporation that owns it. “I solved the problem by owning my own copyright,” Mr. Lucas said, “so nobody can screw around with my stuff. Nobody can take ‘Star Wars’ and make Yoda walk, because I own it.” When asked about the changes that he had made to his earlier work, including to “Star Wars,” he said: “It’s my artistic vision. If I want to go back and change it, it’s my business, not somebody else’s.”...

Years before the popularization of the idea of participatory culture, a term for those who are at once pop-culture consumers and contributors, “Star Wars” fans had staked their claim on this world. That engagement sometimes took Mr. Lucas aback. “It’s always amazing to me when people take them so seriously,” he is quoted as saying in Dale Pollock’s essential book “Skywalking” (1983).

In the years since, Mr. Lucas has clearly embraced his destiny as a force. And while it may seem strange, given his hatred of the studios, that he sold Lucasfilm to Disney in 2012, he found it a perfect home. Mr. Lucas helped shape modern conglomerate cinema, to borrow a term from Mr. Schatz, but it was Disney that really pioneered cradle-to-grave entertainment. In 1929, Walt Disney sold the rights to use Mickey Mouse (soon called the “million dollar mouse”) on children’s writing tablets, signing his first licensing contract a year later. “The sale of a doll to any member of a household,” Roy Disney, Walt’s brother, said, “is a daily advertisement in that household for our cartoons and keeps them all ‘Mickey Mouse Minded.’ ”"

Copyright concessions may be downside of TPP deal; Globe and Mail, 10/22/15

Globe Editorial, Globe and Mail; Copyright concessions may be downside of TPP deal:

"The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a good deal for Canada. It will give Canadian businesses new access to markets in Asia and provide consumers with less expensive goods.

But no deal is perfect. Based on the few details available at this point, Canada may have yielded to changes to its copyright regime by agreeing to extend protections on original works from the current 50 years beyond the death of the author, to 70.

In effect, this country and the other TPP partners will adopt U.S. rules that were largely crafted by lobbyists for Disney, which sought to forestall Mickey Mouse entering the public domain.

There is no mention of this on the federal government website summarizing the pact. Instead, it emerged via leaks and information released by other countries, and was brought to the fore by intellectual property experts like University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist, who reckons Ottawa “caved.”"

Disney, Marvel, Lucasfilm & Sanrio slice into cake-frosting seller; ComicBookResources.com, 9/4/15

Kevin Melrose, ComicBookResources.com; Disney, Marvel, Lucasfilm & Sanrio slice into cake-frosting seller:

"Disney, Marvel and Lucasfilm have joined with Sanrio to stop a company from selling unlicensed cake frosting featuring their incredibly lucrative properties.

As first reported by THR, Esq., the entertainment giants filed a trademark- and copyright-infringement lawsuit against George and Danielle Wilson, whose Wilson Cake Imaging offers printed, edible frosting sheets and cake toppers depicting a wide range of characters and performers."

Mickey Mouse Takes Deadmau5 to Court; Daily Beast, 9/3/14

Jay Michaelson, Daily Beast; Mickey Mouse Takes Deadmau5 to Court:

"As Mouse-watchers know, none of these questions really matter to Disney, which has gained a reputation as the world’s largest copyright enforcer (some would say copyright troll). Ranked #66 on the Fortune 500, Disney has plenty of lawyers to keep busy. They’ve sued Etsy stores, Stan Lee, Megaupload.com, YouTube, and hundreds of unauthorized merchandisers, dealers, and artists.

And in addition to passing the Mickey Mouse Protection Act just before the Mouse himself was to enter the public domain, Disney lobbied hard for SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act, which would have authorized court orders barring search engines and advertisers from even linking to infringing websites.

And Disney doesn’t just sue—it gets nasty. In 2008, Disney sued a family that bought unauthorized Tigger and Eeyore costumes on Ebay for $1 million plus legal costs. Really? A million bucks for a Halloween costume?

And now, Deadmau5.

There are three reasons why this case may be different, though."

SCOTUSblog Founder Joins Marvel Superhero Appeal for Jack Kirby Estate (Exclusive); Hollywood Reporter, 7/29/14

Eriq Gardner, Hollywood Reporter; SCOTUSblog Founder Joins Marvel Superhero Appeal for Jack Kirby Estate (Exclusive) :

"In what might be yet another sign that Marvel should begin to fret that the U.S. Supreme Court could review a massive superhero rights dispute, the respected attorney Tom Goldstein is now co-representing Jack Kirby's family members. Goldstein is perhaps most famous for running the invaluable SCOTUSblog, which on July 21 highlighted Kirby v. Marvel Characters as its "Petition of the Day."

The dispute started when the family of comic book legend Kirby sent termination notices to Marvel and its licensees Sony, Fox and Universal over such superhero characters as Spider-Man, X-Men, Captain America, Iron Man, Incredible Hulk and others. The bid fell short when the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's ruling that the former Marvel freelancer had contributed his materials as a "work made for hire." As such, Marvel was considered the statutory author, and Kirby (and his heirs) never had any termination rights under the 1976 Copyright Act.

The high court has been asked to review the 2nd Circuit opinion, and in recent months there's been signs that it could indeed be taken up: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told Marvel to respond to a cert petition after it initially declined to do so. Then Kirby's side got amicus support from the former director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the former U.S. register of copyrights and various Hollywood labor guilds."

Disney and Dish Wrangle Not Over Broadcast Fees, but the Future of TV; New York Times, 11/3/13

Brian Stelter, New York Times; Disney and Dish Wrangle Not Over Broadcast Fees, but the Future of TV: "Of course money always matters, but often, as in the Dish-Disney negotiations, which are steadily advancing in private, the bigger sticking points involve digital rights... At the same time, the industrywide plan to let paying subscribers log onto websites and watch television on laptop computers, tablets and phones, sometimes known as “TV Everywhere,” has not made nearly as much progress as its proponents would like. Both sides, the Disneys that produce programming and the Dish Networks that deliver it, say they are working on behalf of subscribers to make live and on-demand television more readily accessible. But conflicts keep cropping up, sometimes leading to programming blackouts. “Consumers are demanding, more and more, that they be enabled to watch whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want,” said Michael Willner, chief executive of Penthera Partners, who ran the cable operator Insight Communications until it was sold to Time Warner Cable last year. “The question on the table today is whether consumers are getting those rights with their current cable or satellite subscriptions or will they have to pay for them separately.”"

We Aren’t in the Old Kansas, Toto; New York Times, 2/28/13

Brooks Barnes, New York Times; We Aren’t in the Old Kansas, Toto: "...there are also some important differences between the two movies — especially if you’re an eagle-eyed Hollywood copyright lawyer. “Oz the Great and Powerful,” directed by Sam Raimiand arriving in theaters on Friday, is an original story built on material culled from L. Frank Baum’s books. But lifting from “The Wizard of Oz,” a tantalizing notion given its continued popularity, was strictly forbidden. Warner Brothers now owns that 1939 MGM film, and Warner is almost as well known as Disney for aggressively policing its copyrights."

Stan Lee Media sues Disney for billions over Marvel characters; ComicBookResources.com, 10/10/12

Kevin Melrose, ComicBookResources.com; Stan Lee Media sues Disney for billions over Marvel characters: "Undeterred by numerous legal setbacks, failed dot-com Stan Lee Media on Tuesday filed a $5.5 billion copyright-infringement lawsuit against Disney, claiming the entertainment giant doesn’t actually own the Marvel characters featured in such blockbuster films as The Avengers, X-Men: First Class and Thor, and the Broadway musical Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark. The dollar amount reflects the estimated revenue from box-office receipts, licensing and merchandising dating back three years, the statute of limitations for copyright infringement."

Court Ruling Says Marvel Holds Rights, Not an Artist; New York Times, 7/28/11

Michael Cieply, New York Times; Court Ruling Says Marvel Holds Rights, Not an Artist:

"The ruling, by Judge Colleen McMahon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, declares comics and characters created by Mr. Kirby — who helped give birth to the Fantastic Four, the Incredible Hulk and the X-Men, all of which now underlie valuable movie series — were works for hire under the Copyright Act of 1909, and cannot be reclaimed by the Kirby family."