Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Provia100F t1_je9wv10 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in TIL a special law in the UK was created to ensure that the Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital will forever be able to collect royalties from stage performances, audiobooks, book releases, etc. of Peter Pan in the UK. This is the only work with an 'exception' to copyright laws. by [deleted]

Disney be rubbing their hands together trying to figure out how to get on this gravy train

105

OfficeChairHero t1_jea4qnw wrote

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Disney already do that?

48

ProbablyABore t1_jea6bpv wrote

They pulled out of a Peter Pan movie like 20 years ago because they refused to share profits with GOSH.

Disney is a dispicable company.

148

Halvus_I t1_jeagpvk wrote

Perpetual copyright is not legitimate.This is the State vastly overreaching. No one should owe royalties for it.

−80

ProbablyABore t1_jeaib19 wrote

>Perpetual copyright is not legitimate.

It is if the law says it is.

>This is the State vastly overreaching.

Cool opinion

>No one should owe royalties for it.

Because you said so?

56

HeightPrivilege t1_jea7yhc wrote

Pretty much, lobbied to have copyright terms extended. It's not in perpetuity yet though.

22

Careful_Yannu t1_jeab43h wrote

They gave up on that, their earliest Mickey Mouse shorts have entered the public domain while the mouse himself is still a trademark.

27

oswaldluckyrabbiy t1_jeaq9ns wrote

Not quite true. Steamboat Willie isn't set to enter public domain until Jan 2024.

Disney has been using the likeness of Mickey in Steamboat Willie as the logo for Walt Disney Animation since Tangled in 2010 with the goal of establishing trademark for that version of Mickey.

They have been using red-pants Mickey as part of the logo of The Walt Disney Company since (I think) the 50's so their case there is stronger.

They are hoping between the two that any other style of depicting Mickey Mouse will be close enough to create 'brand confusion' with one of the versions and hence be able to be litigated against.

Not guaranteed to work but Disney has one of the best legal teams.

24

NewPassenger6593 t1_jed809m wrote

How do you know they have one of the best legal teams?

1

mobilehobo t1_jedew0g wrote

I would of thought he meant probably one of the better funded legal teams in corporate America, as well as one that seems to be on top of their stuff for how quickly they act on potential copyright infringement.

Examples like this whole current thing with desantis vs Disney world in Florida if you look at some of the details, their legal team knows their stuff. At the very least anecdotally.

1

oswaldluckyrabbiy t1_jeet0p5 wrote

As said it is one of the better funded legal teams in the world and is very proactive in intervening v.quickly. Disney is infamously trigger-happy with litigation when it comes to copyright and knows the rules regarding it better than probably anyone else. In 1989 they sued the Academy of Motion Pictures for use of the Snow White character at the Oscars! If they can't win in court they also have a huge team of lobbyists to change the law to ensure they still get what they want.

Disney is so large and encompasses so much that they need experts in almost every field who can all call on each other for advice. They are also one of the largest possible potential targets for lawsuits. They have loads of money and an image to protect. The best way to save themselves constant lawsuits or settling to protect their image was to repeatedly demonstrate you never beat the Mouse in court.

They also have a corporate culture of perfect realisation of vision dating back to Walt Disney himself. If Walt wanted something you couldn't tell him no - you were expected to find out how you could achieve EXACTLY what he wanted. Naturally this often requires very specific legal knowledge to circumvent whatever restriction you face and historically they have made some outstanding wins in court. If Disney wants non-regulation yellow lifeboats for their cruise line then they will prove that that shade of yellow matches international standards for visibility and lobby for exclusive rights to use that colour. So Disney gets Mickey-Mouse shoe colour lifeboats, a tiny detail few will care for or notice but Disney took the effort to get their way.

The cases I'm most familiar with regard the theme parks. Just acquiring the land for Walt Disney World and the rights over it they did is enough for them to sit on their laurels but the parks have also won a myriad of personal injury suits - some of which they probably shouldn't have. If they genuinely think they will lose it gets settled out of court with an NDA. Most recently they curb-stomped DeSantis regarding land management in Florida.

1

Johannes_P t1_jedvegp wrote

> It's not in perpetuity yet though.

Well, it would be against the US Constitution.

1

Sarcosmonaut t1_jea4o0w wrote

They don’t have to. The law doesn’t affect US copyright

19

gahidus t1_jeaf168 wrote

They meant trying to get a law passed to extend copy right indefinitely in America as well, obviously for their own properties.

19

SirDickButtFarts t1_jeanyp4 wrote

They wouldn't be able to release Peter Pan in the UK though.

Then they would need to deal with the negative publicity that comes from explaining why they refused to release Peter Pan in the UK.

11

neryen t1_jearc1l wrote

They can release it in the UK, and have previously, just fine. The hospital sold the rights for movie adaptations to Paramount pictures, who then sold it to Disney in the 1930s. They likely pay royalties to the hospital.

9