Disney Sues FL Couple - Trademark Infringement

[Ed]

Disney takes Lake County business to federal court
Stephen Hudak
Sentinel Staff Writer

July 10, 2008

Step aside, Cruella De Vil.

A federal lawsuit filed by Disney Enterprises Inc. has cast a Clermont couple as villains who exploited the trademarked likenesses of Winnie the Pooh, Eeyore and Tigger, too, to enrich their family business, Kool Klown Party People Inc.

Maitland-based lawyers for Disney demanded in the million-dollar copyright-infringement suit that David Chaveco, 32, and Marisol Perez-Chaveco, 31, stop offering live entertainment services for children's parties that feature performers in "unauthorized reproductions" of character costumes.

The 2-year-old Lake County company offers custom-baked cakes, face painting, pinatas and inflatable "bounce" houses.

Perez-Chaveco, a work-from-home mother of two preschoolers, said she and her husband did not realize they were harming the film and resort giant when they paid $500 plus shipping for the adult-sized costumes of a "blue donkey" and an "orange tiger" from a Peruvian company on eBay.

The costumes were close matches to cartoon versions of droll Eeyore and bouncy Tigger.

"All of a sudden, I'm like some Cruella, the woman who steals puppies," Perez-Chaveco said, referring to the villainess in 101 Dalmatians.

"We're just trying our best to make ends meet and put food on our children's plates," she said.

The couple, who receive public assistance, filed a response in federal court in Orlando, contending they have complied with all of Disney's demands but one: They sent the knock-offs back to Peru for a refund.

"We needed the money," Perez-Chaveco said when asked why she didn't surrender the unlicensed costumes to Disney to destroy.

Disney officials in Florida declined to comment Wednesday, saying the lawsuit spoke for itself.

Disney's lawsuit contends it has the right to "combat willful and intentional infringement of its copyrighted properties" to prevent misuse of its characters. The company says it has, in the past, received complaints about unauthorized use of its characters.

Without firm licensing agreements, the company noted, it "cannot control the quality and nature of the performance, the quality of the costumes, [or] the quality and background of the individuals providing the performance . . . "

Disney has a history of vigorously protecting its copyrights, objecting to the unauthorized use of Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Goofy in murals at three South Florida preschools and challenging the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for using the company's Snow White character without permission during the 1989 Oscars.

In the lawsuit against the Clermont couple, Disney also is seeking attorney's fees.

[Jasper]

It is amazing what lengths companies will go to in order to "protect" their properties! While I can't speak to what happened here, I do think though that there are times when all the companies, not just Disney, go to extremes.

[Zone Stop]

I'm not awake enough to put this eloquently, but Disney HAS to protect their copyrighted material, otherwise they would legally lose control of said material. Even in situations with day care centers and people on minimum wage.

:number1: Corporate America!

[TheRustyScupper]

1) Got no problem with suits to protect your interest.
2) WDW should have no problem with people suing them for plagiarism.

NOTE: Disney gets sued frequently for stealing ideas form others and using them for their own purposes. Yet, they get upset when they lose the suit. What's good for the goose . . .

[luvdiznee]

Good for Disney to protect itself. :mickey:

[crazypoohbear]

seriously, this couple lived near disney and didn't realize that buying a "blue donkey and orange tiger" wouldn't have some resemblance to eeyore and tigger???
Playing the cynic here..... how did they come up with $500.00 to purchcase these costimes IF they are on public assistance??
I'm sorry but if you are on public assistance how do you come up with an extra 500.00 bucks??
I'm not on public assistance both DH and I work and like most of middle america we are living paycheck to paycheck without too many extras. Especially these days with gas/fuel/home heating.

Disney has to protect itself. what would stop people from distroying the image of the characters

[Ed]

seriously, this couple lived near disney and didn't realize that buying a "blue donkey and orange tiger" wouldn't have some resemblance to eeyore and tigger???

That was my thought exactly. They live within "spitting distance" of WDW. If they were using these costumes at kids' parties, etc., they had to be totally brain dead to assume that Disney would never find out. WDW has over 62,000 employees. Somewhere along the line, a WDW employee had to come across them at a party, through word of mouth, etc., and report it back to the company.

Like a lot of other situations, WDW needs to consistently enforce their trademark rights. If they let one person/company get away with it, they are allowing their rights to be gradually chipped away.

[Mickey91]

I'm not on public assistance both DH and I work and like most of middle america we are living paycheck to paycheck without too many extras. Especially these days with gas/fuel/home heating.


That's because you're not on public assistance.:D Honestly, we are right where you are. I am thrilled every time I have $20 left before payday. Our one big thing we scrimp and save for is our Disney trip. We have many bills, especially utilities these days, that we have a very hard time coming up with the money to pay. I'm not trying to glorify welfare but it gets old driving by houses where you know the family is on public assistance and seeing all this high dollar stuff in the yard and the big screen plasma in the living room window, knowing it will take years of working overtime and eating mac n cheese to afford even one of those items. I have no trouble believing the couple could afford the costumes. And, you know they were thinking of Eeyore and Tigger when they used them at children's parties. They should have to pay some restitution. I don't think a million$$ lawsuit is appropriate though. Honestly, it didn't do any harm to Disney. People all over America use fake, ugly costumes claiming them to be a Disney character. Even other theme parks have similar stuffed toys at their games etc. What else are they trying to make you think an orange bear in a red shirt is? Anyway, I hope this couple gets what they deserve, no more, no less.

[WDWHart]

That was so silly. I live in Illinois and I know you can't wear, paint, or speak anything that is Disney Without Permission. Maybe they should use the $500 to take a Business Management Class. ;)

I will admit it is like David versus Galiath, but if it was them sueing Disney they would ask for Bazillions in retrun. :thedolls:

I agree it has to go both ways!

[DizneyFreak2002]

This family was warned two or three times by Disney to stop... They ignored the letters from Disney's lawyers... Do I feel bad for them?? Heck no... They received a fair amount of warning and continued to ignore them... Now they want to cry that Big Bad Disney is coming after a small little family??? They should have thought about that BEFORE infringing on Disney owned licenses and characters...

[Polynesian Dweller]

I'm not awake enough to put this eloquently, but Disney HAS to protect their copyrighted material, otherwise they would legally lose control of said material. Even in situations with day care centers and people on minimum wage.

That's actually pretty eloquent. Copyright law pretty much requires you to protect your rights once you have found out about infringement. If you don't as you say you lose control and it becomes public domain. Disney is all about the characters and has to protect its rights. If this couple infringed and got away with it you can bet that companies would start using them and Disney would lose control of part of its image.

[Scar]

This family was warned two or three times by Disney to stop... They ignored the letters from Disney's lawyers... Do I feel bad for them?? Heck no... They received a fair amount of warning and continued to ignore them...If this is true, then I agree with you. But I read the article 3 times and I don't see that claim. :shrug:

Of course Disney has every right to vigorously defend their trademarks, but if this family really is as poor as they claim, then Disney will never see a dime and they should probably just drop it after getting some sort of assurance that they will never do it again.

[big blue and hairy]

If this is true, then I agree with you. But I read the article 3 times and I don't see that claim. :shrug:

Of course Disney has every right to vigorously defend their trademarks, but if this family really is as poor as they claim, then Disney will never see a dime and they should probably just drop it after getting some sort of assurance that they will never do it again.
I don't think Disney expects to win any money. They expect to send a message to them and anyone else infringing their copyrights.

:sulley:

[RBrooksC]

In this case, one has to remember, if you don't handle each case evenly, you get to the point where you have issues down the road. So, the attorney's for Disney or any other company for that matter has to pursue each case without prejudice at the beginning.

That doesn't mean as things progress exceptions can't be made but they should always be made after the fact.

[Marker]

The first thing that bothers me about this is the story itself. At least in my opinion it is written with a definite spin to make these people sound like the victim of the Disney Devil with mutiple quotes such as "We're just trying our best to make ends meet and put food on our children's plates," .

And then to read some of the responses, I hear what sounds ike sympathy for them, and more willingness to believe them than Disney.

You know, if someone walked into a store and walked out with something without paying, that would be stealing. How is this any different. If the accusations hold true, they used something that belonged to someone else, to make money. Doesn't matter if it's something that belonged to the guy next door or to a major corporation, stealing is stealing.

And why would Disney go after these folks so harshly, well why wouldn't they. Besides the fact of having their property stolen, thay have to protect themselves. Imagine if this psuedo-Tigger did something inappropriate, especially to a child. What do you suppose the news reports would say, "Tigger goes crazy at party and harms child", and suddenly Disney is being held to blame in the public's eye. And if Disney had prior knowledge and didn't say "NO", then they might be held legally to blame as well. With the giant target Disney is forced to wear on it's back, they have little choice but to protect themselves.

It bothers me that the public is so quick to listen to often unreliable information, and then make judgements based on not only that unreliable info, but also with a preconcieved notion that since there is a major corporation involved, they must be at fault.

My opinion, even if it is in the minority, let the court determine the REAL facts before any judgements are made. But that's just me.

[brownie]

I can't believe they wouldn't have know better living as close as they do to Disney World. Being on public assistance doesn't justify doing it either. I see no problem with Disney putting a stop to it. There are plenty of other costume set-ups the couple could have used instead of a Tigger and Eeyore knock-off. Of course, buying something like for your business through eBay probably wasn't the best first step to take.

[Goofster]

It amazes me how an individual will downplay the fact she is stealing someone else's property because she needs the money. Infringing on Disney's trademark, to make money, is stealing. It would be the same as if she broke into Disney's bank account and withdrew some cash. I'm sorry that her family is struggling, but it doesn't excuse her behavior.

And, I don't buy the fact that she didn't realize a blue donkey and an orange tiger from Peru were innocent purchases. They were marketing those costumes as Eeyore and Tigger - they knew what they were doing.

[Polynesian Dweller]

I don't think Disney expects to win any money. They expect to send a message to them and anyone else infringing their copyrights.


Absolutely! This is especially about anyone else who might think of infringing. This is all about a message to everyone who might infringe and not this couple specifically. They don't want money. They do want to be seen as willing to defend their copyright which copyright laws compel them to do.

[DonaldDuck1117]

I actually think Disney IS the bad guy here. They protected their copyrights, good for them, that is what they are allowed and supposed to do, I have no problems with that. In the article the couple said that they stopped using the costumes and SENT THEM BACK FOR A REFUND. This is the part that bugs me. Ok Disney, you got what you wanted, the costumes are gone, the couple won't be using them anymore. This couple is struggling to make ends meet and they needed that refund for the money. But the Mouse is still upset because they wanted the costumes to destroy, in which case the couple would be out $500. If that is the big deal here, (being able to destroy the costumes) I think Disney is suing the wrong people, might want to go after the company that makes the costumes. The couple has complied with Disney's wishes! They just wanted their $500 back. Give them a break Mouse.

[crazypoohbear]

I can see why Disney would want the illegal materials to destroy. What is going to stop the company from reselling it to another person? This is akin to the police confiscating illegal drugs or alcohol and then turning around and giving it back to the teens who purchased the alcohol so they can recoup their money??!!!
Come on, what lesson is to be learned.
These people knew they were buying product that they had no business purchasing. Anyone with half a brain knows you can't legally purchase knockoffs.
They should have given the ill gotten gains over to Disney and been done with it.
What's to stop them from getting credit from this company and turning around and purchasing batman or superman suits and doing the same thing over again with different infringement issues.




I actually think Disney IS the bad guy here. They protected their copyrights, good for them, that is what they are allowed and supposed to do, I have no problems with that. In the article the couple said that they stopped using the costumes and SENT THEM BACK FOR A REFUND. This is the part that bugs me. Ok Disney, you got what you wanted, the costumes are gone, the couple won't be using them anymore. This couple is struggling to make ends meet and they needed that refund for the money. But the Mouse is still upset because they wanted the costumes to destroy, in which case the couple would be out $500. If that is the big deal here, (being able to destroy the costumes) I think Disney is suing the wrong people, might want to go after the company that makes the costumes. The couple has complied with Disney's wishes! They just wanted their $500 back. Give them a break Mouse.

[Momof2boys]

I'm curious to know how they were marketing the characters - as Eeyore & Tigger or as a "blue donkey" and "orange tiger".

[Goofster]

I looked up Disney's Complaint and apparently they also had a Pooh costume they were using. Interestingly, Disney's attorney notified them by letter in February to discontinue the use of the costumes and to notify them of where they received them. In response, the Kool Klown's put a disclaimer on their website that they weren't affiliated with Disney. Disney's attorney then sent another letter reaffirming their demands and stating the disclaimer was not sufficient. Another letter was sent in March because the Kool Klowns didn't respond. Finally, after Disney filed its lawsuit in Federal Court, the Kool Klowns complied with their demands - somewhat. In their letter, they wouldn't say where they got the costumes or that they even had them. They claimed they were poor, couldn't afford admission to the Disney parks, and that the pictures of the costumes were taken from another website. Clearly, they were up to something and were trying to pull a fast one - now they're hiding behind the 'we're poor please give us a break' line.

Ironically, if you visit this family's website, they are claiming trademark rights in the name "Kool Klown Party People" - the name of their business. They knew what they were doing was wrong.

[DizneyFreak2002]

I looked up Disney's Complaint and apparently they also had a Pooh costume they were using. Interestingly, Disney's attorney notified them by letter in February to discontinue the use of the costumes and to notify them of where they received them. In response, the Kool Klown's put a disclaimer on their website that they weren't affiliated with Disney. Disney's attorney then sent another letter reaffirming their demands and stating the disclaimer was not sufficient. Another letter was sent in March because the Kool Klowns didn't respond. Finally, after Disney filed its lawsuit in Federal Court, the Kool Klowns complied with their demands - somewhat. In their letter, they wouldn't say where they got the costumes or that they even had them. They claimed they were poor, couldn't afford admission to the Disney parks, and that the pictures of the costumes were taken from another website. Clearly, they were up to something and were trying to pull a fast one - now they're hiding behind the 'we're poor please give us a break' line.

Ironically, if you visit this family's website, they are claiming trademark rights in the name "Kool Klown Party People" - the name of their business. They knew what they were doing was wrong.

Like I said, they were told three times to stop... They also had images of TIGGER, POOH and EYEORE on their website, so they were obviously advertising them as POOH, TIGGER and EYEORE... and not blue donkey and orange tiger...

[Goofster]

Like I said, they were told three times to stop... They also had images of TIGGER, POOH and EYEORE on their website, so they were obviously advertising them as POOH, TIGGER and EYEORE... and not blue donkey and orange tiger...

...and big yellow bear...

[tinksmom02]

I wonder if Disney will attempt to go after the company in Peru that's selling the costumes.

[Marker]

In the article the couple said that they stopped using the costumes

Just because they said it, doesn't make it so. And just because it was reported, also does not make it so.


Ok Disney, you got what you wanted, the costumes are gone, the couple won't be using them anymore.

I would suspect they want more than that. I suspect they want people to stop stealing their characters and profitting from them. I also suspect they want violators to have consequences.


This couple is struggling to make ends meet and they needed that refund for the money.

That doesn't excuse them from the laws applying to them. That doesn't excuse them from being accountable for their actions.


I think Disney is suing the wrong people, might want to go after the company that makes the costumes.

How do you know they're not?


The couple has complied with Disney's wishes! They just wanted their $500 back. Give them a break Mouse.

-- "Your honor, we admit we stole the car, and we knew we weren't supposed to, but we gave it back after they caught us.".

-- "Your honor, we knew we were buying a stolen car, but we didn't have the money to buy one the legal way, like everyone else has to. Can't you let us keep the car if we promise not to drive it? We just want to take it back for a refund"

Would you want them to be given a break if it were something of yours they stole? It shouldn't matter how deep Disney's pockets are, or how shallow the accused pocket are, steeling is steeling. If they are found to be guilty, they should face the consequences.

[Marceline]

Hmmm, this whole lawsuit works both ways though. As they say, any publicity is good publicity.

These folks just got thousands of dollars worth of free advertisement for their Klown Kompany ;) BECAUSE Disney went after them.

I know I just Googled them and hit their website for a second.....I bet they are booking more parties than ever now.

I think these folks will do just fine even if the mean ol' Main Mouse made them send their knock-offs back to South America.

The bigger fish to fry is the Peruvian seam shop. Go get em' Tigger!

[Zone Stop]

Disney knockoff costumes

... steeling is steeling ...

*** Insert wordplay involving "forge" and "forgery" here.

[lockedoutlogic]

Disney is WRONG here......

leave the people alone....you money grubbing devils!!!!

there are enough impoverished families in florida staring down the barrel of a really bad economy without Disney playing bully in the suburbs....

Grow Up....those people's business has zero....nilch...nada....nein.....effect on disney's business in their little vatican up the road.....

geez....

[wizardmickey]

Gotta side with the Mouse on this.
As a musician, I understand and fear the pain of someone stealing something that you've spent time and money creating/ promoting/ making a name with.
As for them "wanting their refund" and everyone saying "oh lighten up, let them have their $500"; How much money did they make using those costumes? I'm sure the usuage of the costumes more than paid for themselves before they got caught... I could equate that personally to everytime I either take a guitar in for restringing, tuning or intonation (or even buy new equipment) that within a few shows it has paid for itself. Same principal would apply, so I don't fall for the whole refund excuse.

[CaptainJessicaSparrow]

Disney is WRONG here......

leave the people alone....you money grubbing devils!!!!

there are enough impoverished families in florida staring down the barrel of a really bad economy without Disney playing bully in the suburbs....

Grow Up....those people's business has zero....nilch...nada....nein.....effect on disney's business in their little vatican up the road.....

geez....

It's not about the effect on business. It's about integrity. Which others have already addressed here. What if the character hurt someone? Or was sitting there smoking when they were off? They want to protect and preserve the image they created. This isn't about money.

And honestly, I don't care if they are broke as tomorrow's dawn. Don't use that as a guilt-trip. You break the law, you need to pay.

Stealing food to feed your kids is stealing nonetheless.

I hope that Disney takes this as far as they can and to find the company making the costumes so that it doesn't happen again.

[big blue and hairy]

Disney is WRONG here......

leave the people alone....you money grubbing devils!!!!

there are enough impoverished families in florida staring down the barrel of a really bad economy without Disney playing bully in the suburbs....

Grow Up....those people's business has zero....nilch...nada....nein.....effect on disney's business in their little vatican up the road.....

geez....

You are way off base here. Disney characters are Disney characters, period. They are a copyrighted image and cannot be used without permission. Anyone who can't understand that shouldn't be in that type of business!

Disney is not taking away their right to make a living. There are plenty of other characters you can use. I've seen Barney's and Spidermen, and Dora the Explorers.

They were told to stop two or three times. They didn't. They knew what they were doing was not legal. Acting pathetic afterward doesn't change that.

Like I said, I doubt Disney really wants money out of this, but they have a right to protect their characters. Like someone said earlier, what if those characters are acting inappropriately? Even something as simple as walking around with out the head on, that's a huge Disney no-no.

I don't want to see them go out of business and I doubt not using illegal chacters would be the reason, but they have no more right to use the characters than they do to claim that they are Disney.

:sulley:

[doombuggy]

As a local, I saw this on the news the other day. Here's a link to the video from the ABC affiliate, WFTV:
http://www.wftv.com/video/16824445/

I have no symphathy for this couple. Where is my "I see dumb people" mug? Oh yea, it's here on my desk....

They had photos of the Pooh characters on their website; they knew what they were doing. If they had been in Nebraska or some other place far away they might have gotten away with it...

[lockedoutlogic]

You are way off base here. Disney characters are Disney characters, period. They are a copyrighted image and cannot be used without permission. Anyone who can't understand that shouldn't be in that type of business!

Disney is not taking away their right to make a living. There are plenty of other characters you can use. I've seen Barney's and Spidermen, and Dora the Explorers.

They were told to stop two or three times. They didn't. They knew what they were doing was not legal. Acting pathetic afterward doesn't change that.

Like I said, I doubt Disney really wants money out of this, but they have a right to protect their characters. Like someone said earlier, what if those characters are acting inappropriately? Even something as simple as walking around with out the head on, that's a huge Disney no-no.

I don't want to see them go out of business and I doubt not using illegal chacters would be the reason, but they have no more right to use the characters than they do to claim that they are Disney.

:sulley:


You are aware that disney was sued over the winnie the pooh characters for under reporting financials in a licensing agreement?

How can they hold the morale high ground?

anyway....disney does not need to go after a couple with a small business.....and they know that people trade on their names all over town....heck....they've encouraged it. Any promotion is good promotion....they know that....

The sentinel did the couple a favor....as i imagine this suit will quietly go away in the very near future.....

unless i missed something.....these people have no effect on disney and they should be ashamed of themselves......unless...there's something more to this story that they aren't saying.....

it's not a question of whether or not disney has a case.....it's a question of THEIR integrity.....just because they can so....doesn't mean they should....

[Marker]

You are aware that disney was sued over the winnie the pooh characters for under reporting financials in a licensing agreement?

How can they hold the morale high ground?

anyway....disney does not need to go after a couple with a small business.....and they know that people trade on their names all over town....heck....they've encouraged it. Any promotion is good promotion....they know that....

The sentinel did the couple a favor....as i imagine this suit will quietly go away in the very near future.....

unless i missed something.....these people have no effect on disney and they should be ashamed of themselves......unless...there's something more to this story that they aren't saying.....

it's not a question of whether or not disney has a case.....it's a question of THEIR integrity.....just because they can so....doesn't mean they should....

So, if I am understanding correctly once a large or successful business reaches a certain level of success or earning, their copyrighted property is no longer protected by law and is fair game for others to use.

Who gets to define what that level of success is?

Likewise, businesses who have not achieved success are free to ignore copyright laws and use whatever property they wish, as long as they take it from successful owners.

And copyright protection only applies to the less successful businesses, those below the arbitrary line of success.

I guess if this really were the way it "should" be, we'd be seeing Mickey Mouse selling used cars; Donald Duck doing infomercials for miracle knives in the middle of the night, Superman selling Viagra, Spiderman selling promoting the adult entertainment industry....

I guess there would be no real reason for small companies to go through the work and effort to develop their own when they can just legally take it from others.

[big blue and hairy]

You are aware that disney was sued over the winnie the pooh characters for under reporting financials in a licensing agreement? AND??! If the owners of copyrighted product feel their product is being used improperly, they have a legal recourse.


How can they hold the morale high ground? So it's fine for Disney to be sued but not for Disney to defend their property?


anyway....disney does not need to go after a couple with a small business.....and they know that people trade on their names all over town....heck....they've encouraged it. Any promotion is good promotion....they know that....

Trading on someone's name in your vacinity is one thing, stealing their copyrighted material is another


The sentinel did the couple a favor....as i imagine this suit will quietly go away in the very near future..... It probably will go away, because unless the people are completely brain-dead, they won't use those characters again, that's what Disney wants.


unless i missed something.....these people have no effect on disney and they should be ashamed of themselves......unless...there's something more to this story that they aren't saying.....
1. You don't know that..
2. You do know, if a Disney character does something inappropriate, people will remember Disney, NOT Kool Klown.


it's not a question of whether or not disney has a case.....it's a question of THEIR integrity.....just because they can so....doesn't mean they should....
Yes it is a case of integrity, and Disney's integrity could be at stake because of someone violating their copyright. If they let this go, how do they go after some idiot at an amusement park that decides to have Mickey walk around.

Sorry locked, you couldn't be more wrong here.

:sulley:

[tigmickey]

Disney was ABSOLUTLY right to act as they did. What if a small nearly backrupt condom company started putting their product in a Mickey shaped container and called them "Mickey's Best"? This is exactly why Disney, and other companies, go after this sort of situation.

On a second note, what if one of "Kool Klown" was using the costumes to go lure children in a way that I, as a father of 2, can't even imagine? Disney would get the worst kind of press.

How can anyone think that what Disney did was wrong? Is the climate in America so twisted that people think that corporations, who employ millions of people, are the bad guys? The 62,000 employees at WDW do not need to be on public aide unlike the people who cheat and steal while "trying to put food on our kids plates".

Just my 2 cents.

[lockedoutlogic]

Wow....two against one doesn't seem fair...but i'll manage....

here's what I'm saying....

disney has every right to pursue infringement suits.....
and....if this had a negative effect on their business....they have a responisbility to....

but this story...as presented.....has ZERO effect on disney....

these are locals.....who probably do mostly birthday parties.....

it's not as though there are in OIA pulling british tourists off the planes and convincing them not to buy a parkhopper....

And i'm not saying that it has anything to do with the SIZE of Disney......

what it has to do with is that Disney has been bullying and pushing it's way around Central Florida for years.....blocking "unfavorable" development (like a highspeed rail line that would...GHAST...conncet ALL parts of the orlando area)......forcing "favorable" development (SEE: Parkway, Osceola) on local government that doesn't quite know what to do with it......
They run the place.....if the natives get a little restless at times.....just smile and go count the hundreds of billions you've made....

so....i'm aware of the legal rights.....but the problem with disney is being illustrated on this thread beautifully....

they act as any american corporation would do....but they have a legion of fans who won't label them as being aggressive.....as they would any other corporation doing the same thing....

the defense rests....

[big blue and hairy]

Wow....two against one doesn't seem fair...but i'll manage.... It's a lot more than two, just about everyone on this thread agrees that Disney is right.


here's what I'm saying....

disney has every right to pursue infringement suits.....
and....if this had a negative effect on their business....they have a responisbility to....

but this story...as presented.....has ZERO effect on disney.... You don't know that. You don't know how the characters act. you don't know what kind of damage they could do to Disney's image, and by the way it's Disney's image, not Kool Klown's.



And i'm not saying that it has anything to do with the SIZE of Disney......
Really? You're next comment seems to contradict that.

what it has to do with is that Disney has been bullying and pushing it's way around Central Florida for years.....blocking "unfavorable" development (like a highspeed rail line that would...GHAST...conncet ALL parts of the orlando area)......forcing "favorable" development (SEE: Parkway, Osceola) on local government that doesn't quite know what to do with it......
They run the place.....if the natives get a little restless at times.....just smile and go count the hundreds of billions you've made....

I don't think a small company could do anything like that....



they act as any american corporation would do....but they have a legion of fans who won't label them as being aggressive.....as they would any other corporation doing the same thing.... Wrong again...I don't have a problem with any rightful owner of a copyright defending it. Where did you get that idea?!


the defense rests.... The defense would be thrown out of court on this one

:sulley:

[GrumpyFan]

disney has every right to pursue infringement suits.....
and....if this had a negative effect on their business....they have a responisbility to....


So, are you qualifying the law? Are you saying a company/property owner should only be allowed to persue legal claim against theft, if the property stolen has a negative financial effect on the owner? Would you feel the same if someone stole your TV or other property? Because, it's essentially the same thing. They took something or used something that wasn't theirs to take/use.



but this story...as presented.....has ZERO effect on disney....


Are you saying that since Disney is a big company, and they're not hurting financially from this, they shouldn't persue legal action? Should they just let it go and allow it to take place? If so, then at what point should they take action?



these are locals.....who probably do mostly birthday parties.....

it's not as though there are in OIA pulling british tourists off the planes and convincing them not to buy a parkhopper....


So, what's your point here?



what it has to do with is that Disney has been bullying and pushing it's way around Central Florida for years.....blocking "unfavorable" development (like a highspeed rail line that would...GHAST...conncet ALL parts of the orlando area)......forcing "favorable" development (SEE: Parkway, Osceola) on local government that doesn't quite know what to do with it......
They run the place.....if the natives get a little restless at times.....just smile and go count the hundreds of billions you've made....


I still don't understand your point. It seems like you're suggesting that since they're rich, they shouldn't worry about the little infirngments on their propety such as this. If so, I have to ask again, at what point should they?



they act as any american corporation would do....but they have a legion of fans who won't label them as being aggressive.....as they would any other corporation doing the same thing....

the defense rests....

The Law is the law. It protects the big guys and the little guys equally. That's why they say "Justice is blind". Of course, the big guys usually have more and better paid lawyers, to fight for them. But in the end, they still have to abide by the letter of the law. It's not about their fanbase, or how much this has or has not hurt the company's bottom line. It's about a plain and simple theft or use of a property that is owned by the Plaintiff and not authorized or permitted to be used by the defendant.

[GrumpyFan]

I will add this. Based on what little I know about this and if I were on the jury I would award in favor of Disney. However, the reward of a $Million+/- might be adjusted down significantly. I agree that there appears to be a clear case of taking/using others' property without permission. Which is against the law, and should be punished. However, I don't believe that the damages/penalty should be as high as what they're asking. At the most, I would slap a $50,000 penalty and require them to pay lawyers fees. Reason for such a small fine, is that I don't believe there was $Million worth of damages inflicted.

[Goofster]

Wow....two against one doesn't seem fair...but i'll manage....

here's what I'm saying....

disney has every right to pursue infringement suits.....
and....if this had a negative effect on their business....they have a responisbility to....

but this story...as presented.....has ZERO effect on disney....

these are locals.....who probably do mostly birthday parties.....

it's not as though there are in OIA pulling british tourists off the planes and convincing them not to buy a parkhopper....

And i'm not saying that it has anything to do with the SIZE of Disney......

what it has to do with is that Disney has been bullying and pushing it's way around Central Florida for years.....blocking "unfavorable" development (like a highspeed rail line that would...GHAST...conncet ALL parts of the orlando area)......forcing "favorable" development (SEE: Parkway, Osceola) on local government that doesn't quite know what to do with it......
They run the place.....if the natives get a little restless at times.....just smile and go count the hundreds of billions you've made....

so....i'm aware of the legal rights.....but the problem with disney is being illustrated on this thread beautifully....

they act as any american corporation would do....but they have a legion of fans who won't label them as being aggressive.....as they would any other corporation doing the same thing....

the defense rests....

Locked....we are a nation of laws, not a nation of "forget the law, and do what's best for me" (though that seems to be where this Country is going - but that's a topic for another day). Disney warned this family 3 times to comply with its very simple demands. The family ignored Disney, tried to get around their demands, and now that they're facing a lawsuit, are crying "poor me". Don't symphathize with them or buy into their 'let's blam big ole rich Disney.'

At the end of the day, they had three opportunities to do what was right, but instead chose to ignore Disney, manipulate the facts, and outright lie about using the costumes.

[Goofster]

I will add this. Based on what little I know about this and if I were on the jury I would award in favor of Disney. However, the reward of a $Million+/- might be adjusted down significantly. I agree that there appears to be a clear case of taking/using others' property without permission. Which is against the law, and should be punished. However, I don't believe that the damages/penalty should be as high as what they're asking. At the most, I would slap a $50,000 penalty and require them to pay lawyers fees. Reason for such a small fine, is that I don't believe there was $Million worth of damages inflicted.

Disney is asking for statutory damages, which has a minimum penalty of $500.00 and up to a maximum of $1 million if the infringment was willful. Primarly, the family has to account for their profits and use of the infringing costumes and Disney gets to recoup those profits and can get a multiple of those in damages. A million isn't likely, but a good lawyer always asks for the maximum for his client. :D

[big blue and hairy]

I will add this. Based on what little I know about this and if I were on the jury I would award in favor of Disney. However, the reward of a $Million+/- might be adjusted down significantly.
Oh, there's no doubt about that. Disney wants to let the world know that they won't stand still while someone rips off their copyrighted property.

:sulley:

[DizneyFreak2002]

I am looking at their website and I see something interesting... On the bottom of the page they have a Copyright mark and it says... All pictures and images C Kool Klown Party People... How can they copyright pictures that aren't theirs???

[GrumpyFan]

I am looking at their website and I see something interesting... On the bottom of the page they have a Copyright mark and it says... All pictures and images C Kool Klown Party People... How can they copyright pictures that aren't theirs???

Well, technically, the pictures are theirs. However, the character images that are represented in the picture are not.

[lockedoutlogic]

Locked....we are a nation of laws, not a nation of "forget the law, and do what's best for me" (though that seems to be where this Country is going - but that's a topic for another day). Disney warned this family 3 times to comply with its very simple demands. The family ignored Disney, tried to get around their demands, and now that they're facing a lawsuit, are crying "poor me". Don't symphathize with them or buy into their 'let's blam big ole rich Disney.'

At the end of the day, they had three opportunities to do what was right, but instead chose to ignore Disney, manipulate the facts, and outright lie about using the costumes.


i have yet to debate the legal standings of the claim.....

i'm simply saying that in everything there is a choice......usually there is a "right" choice...and a bunch of "grey area" choices....

Disney probably could've handled it differently....that's my suggestion....

i guess i wish things were handled "among gentlemen" a little bit more.....and therefore less could be handled by paralegals....

[big blue and hairy]

i guess i wish things were handled "among gentlemen" a little bit more.....and therefore less could be handled by paralegals....
Three written warnings seems pretty gentlemanly to me. Both sides have to be gentlemen.

:sulley:

[GrumpyFan]

i guess i wish things were handled "among gentlemen" a little bit more.....and therefore less could be handled by paralegals....

I think read somewhere that Disney tried that two or three times when they wrote them asking to stop using their images. When the couple persisted past the warnings, they forced Disney to call in the dogs.

[lockedoutlogic]

I think read somewhere that Disney tried that two or three times when they wrote them asking to stop using their images. When the couple persisted past the warnings, they forced Disney to call in the dogs.


yeah...but what will "the dogs" change? Disney's point is to say "don't mess with our gravytrain".....

yeah....who doesn't know that?...expecially in florida?

again....not saying the claim isn't valid....but it probably could have been handled with a little more discretion....

[big blue and hairy]

yeah...but what will "the dogs" change? Disney's point is to say "don't mess with our gravytrain".....

yeah....who doesn't know that?...expecially in florida?


Kind of the whole point everyone else is making. How could you be so stupid as to not know that you couldn't use Disney's characters? Then go on TV and tell everyone that you had no idea it was illegal. Well, don't you think after one, two or three letters they'd figure it out?

Disney is not going to expect a million dlooars from these people. What they are going to expect is for people not to mess with their legally copyriughted characters!

This was originally handled quietly. Go back and watch the video. It shows the three letters Disney sent them. They chose not to comply with Disney so Disney took the only logical next step.

Sorry, the defense needs to rest, it's got no muscle at all.

:sulley:

[MississippiDisneyFreak]

:( Although I think Disney has the right to protect their interests, not allowing the couple to send the suits back to get their money back is unreasonable.....they should demand the suits back from the manufacturer.

[GrumpyFan]

LockedOutLogic, perhaps you're right. Disney could and maybe should act with a little more discretion on this.

I read the full news items, which still seem a little slanted toward the couple, but that's somewhat expected. It would appear that there was only ONE letter, not THREE as rumored, I never saw, and never heard where there was more than one. And, the couple complied with all but 1 of the 7 demands of the letter. The one demand they failed to comply with is what Disney is going after. Disney wants the costumes handed over so they can destroy them. However, the couple is claiming they returned them to the vendor they bought them from so they could get their money back.

So, should Disney persue them on this? It does seem a bit heavy-handed considering all of the other demands were met. Which leaves me kind of on the fence. I might alter my decision from earlier, to still rule in favor of Disney but reduce the fine to $1000 and half the legal expenses. If they could produce hard evidence of the return of the costumes, I might even consider a lower fine.

[big blue and hairy]

LockedOutLogic
I read the full news items, which still seem a little slanted toward the couple, but that's somewhat expected. It would appear that there was only ONE letter, not THREE as rumored, I never saw, and never heard where there was more than one. Go watch the news video linked on page 2 of this thread it reports and shows three letters from Disney.

I agree that Disney is not going to get a million from this couple, but they new full well after the first letter that they were in violation and claimed in the story that they didn't know. And like locked said, who in Florida, doesn't know you can't use Disney characters.

This is party company. If they didn't know something as basic as what characters to use, what else didn't they know?

They had their chance to make it right, they refused. Heck, they could have even asked Disney for help getting their money back.

:sulley:

[big blue and hairy]

:( Although I think Disney has the right to protect their interests, not allowing the couple to send the suits back to get their money back is unreasonable.....they should demand the suits back from the manufacturer.
Anyone who is running a party company and advertising characters better know the copyright laws. If you don't know...find out!! Ever heard of the internet, over which they ordered the costumes? They never should have bought them. At this point, why should Disney beleive they were sent back and why shoud Disney have to chase them down in Peru. Disney isn't the one who used someone elses copyrighted material for profit.


:sulley:

[Goofster]

LockedOutLogic, perhaps you're right. Disney could and maybe should act with a little more discretion on this.

I read the full news items, which still seem a little slanted toward the couple, but that's somewhat expected. It would appear that there was only ONE letter, not THREE as rumored, I never saw, and never heard where there was more than one. And, the couple complied with all but 1 of the 7 demands of the letter. The one demand they failed to comply with is what Disney is going after. Disney wants the costumes handed over so they can destroy them. However, the couple is claiming they returned them to the vendor they bought them from so they could get their money back.

So, should Disney persue them on this? It does seem a bit heavy-handed considering all of the other demands were met. Which leaves me kind of on the fence. I might alter my decision from earlier, to still rule in favor of Disney but reduce the fine to $1000 and half the legal expenses. If they could produce hard evidence of the return of the costumes, I might even consider a lower fine.

Grumpy, as a lawyer admitted to the Federal Bar, I have online access to all cases filed in the U.S. District Courts. I looked up Disney's complaint, along with the family's answer, and attached to the complaint are Disney's three written warnings and demands.

Notably, the family did not respond to Disney's attorney in the following ways - 1) they refused to tell Disney where they got the costumes, 2) they refused to tell Disney how often they used the costumes, and 3) they refused to immediately remove the images. Later on, after the third letter, the family finally responded in writing, denying they even had the costumes in the first place (despite the images on their website or their later story to the newsmedia that they purchased the costumes on ebay). Disney gave them adequate opportunity to comply. They refused. Disney followed through on its legal threat.

[big blue and hairy]

Notably, the family did not respond to Disney's attorney in the following ways - 1) they refused to tell Disney where they got the costumes, 2) they refused to tell Disney how often they used the costumes, and 3) they refused to immediately remove the images. Later on, after the third letter, the family finally responded in writing, denying they even had the costumes in the first place. Disney gave them adequate opportunity to comply. They refused. Disney followed through on its legal threat.
Then she had the audacity to cry on camera that Big Bad Disney is picking on her and she just doesn't understand why. What a load of horse hockey (thank you Col. Potter)

:sulley:

[GrumpyFan]

Notably, the family did not respond to Disney's attorney in the following ways - 1) they refused to tell Disney where they got the costumes, 2) they refused to tell Disney how often they used the costumes, and 3) they refused to immediately remove the images. Later on, after the third letter, the family finally responded in writing, denying they even had the costumes in the first place (despite the images on their website or their later story to the newsmedia that they purchased the costumes on ebay). Disney gave them adequate opportunity to comply. They refused. Disney followed through on its legal threat.


Wow, what a shock! I'm so surprised that the media left all of this out! Big Bad Disney picking on this poor little couple, they should be ashamed!

Seriously though, I'm not surprised. I would've expected a couple of warnings before the "Big Dogs" were called out and they turned it into a suit.

It is more than a little irritating though at how the news channels left these "tiny" details out of the story.

[lockedoutlogic]

Kind of the whole point everyone else is making. How could you be so stupid as to not know that you couldn't use Disney's characters? Then go on TV and tell everyone that you had no idea it was illegal. Well, don't you think after one, two or three letters they'd figure it out?

Disney is not going to expect a million dlooars from these people. What they are going to expect is for people not to mess with their legally copyriughted characters!

This was originally handled quietly. Go back and watch the video. It shows the three letters Disney sent them. They chose not to comply with Disney so Disney took the only logical next step.

Sorry, the defense needs to rest, it's got no muscle at all.

:sulley:

well...i agree that the defendants used the press a little in this one....once they got calls from the tv stations and the sentinel....i'm sure they figured they could use it for some advertising....as there is a large anti-disney segment of the population in the orlando area....

but no.....still not buying it......it never should have gotten to the point of a law suit.....

disney used to avoid bad publicity at all costs...this is bad publicity for them....

as the rest of the world.....you know....those that aren't on D-boards and don't travel there 4 times a year.....will look at disney as being petty.....

your love of all things disney is clouding your judgement as to how this would look to those that don't have a strong for/against opinion.....

hey....agree to disagree?

this will be gone by next week....i have no doubt....

[Polynesian Dweller]

disney used to avoid bad publicity at all costs...this is bad publicity for them....


Lets get this back to the points.

1. From everything we do know, this was handled via letters (3 by last count) first so Disney did handle this softly first and then followed a progression in response. So they did try discretion.

2. Its all about copyright protection and the facts is, under copyright law, you must actively protect your copyright. Failure to do so can effectively put your material into the public domain. When that happens you lose control of it and anyone can use it. Disney must defend its copyrights, it is compelled to do so by law. When the discrete methods didn't work (a couple of letters with no apparent response) Disney had no choice but to escalate their efforts.

3. It isn't about avoiding bad publicity. Disney appears to have tried to do so, its the couple going to the press that makes it public. But again, Disney had no option to pursue it and to get compliance with its copyrights.

4. Disney isn't stupid. I have no doubt that they don't expect to get that money. But, what they had to do, was to say to any other party who might infringe on their copyrights, that they will defend them strongly, That's the point of the monetary figures.

Only a person who infringes on a copyright is a culprit in this, a party that defends its copyright against a percieved infringement (Disney here) is doing the right thing.

[DizneyFreak2002]

Lockedoutlogic, you are living up top your name.. Your logic is completely locked out.. Do me a favor... get a Shrek costume... Open a website.. Put images of YOU in the costume and advertise yourself as The Green Ogre.... See how fast you get letters from Dreamworks asking you to stop using the costume... Then do as this couple did, IGNORE THE WARNING.. See how fast you are then sued.... Heck, Dreamworks may not even give you three chances, you may only get one...

People cannot be so stupid to know what the law is when opening a business, especially a business that uses characters to entertain at parties...

[GrumpyFan]

It too bad really, that the media won't report ALL the facts, instead of dramatizing the plight of this "poor couple trying to make a living".

[DizneyFreak2002]

It too bad really, that the media won't report ALL the facts, instead of dramatizing the plight of this "poor couple trying to make a living".

Well, it isn't working on me.. I feel no sympathy for these "criminals"... :)

[GrumpyFan]

Lockedoutlogic, you are living up top your name.. Your logic is completely locked out..

Let's be careful and not resort to name calling or fighting amongst ourselves. Try and keep to the topic.

[GrumpyFan]

Well, it isn't working on me.. I feel no sympathy for these "criminals"... :)

Nor I, but what I meant was that the media should dig into this story a little and find out all the facts, not just those that this "poor couple" is feeding them. There's more to the story than they're telling their viewers/readers. Of course, this is nothing new for most media outlets.

[big blue and hairy]

your love of all things disney is clouding your judgement as to how this would look to those that don't have a strong for/against opinion..... That's twice you've tried to justify your untenable postion by questioning my judgement. Once again, you are wrong. I don't care who it is that has a copyright, that gives them the right to protect it. That is what they are for.




this will be gone by next week....i have no doubt.... That is if the people who stole Disney's intellectual property, lied to them about it, ignored them and then cried about it to the media, shut up and follow the law.


Judging from the amount of people who agree with me and the lawyer who explained it to you. I don't think it's my judgement that's clouded. You can bash Disney for this if you want. They gave ample warning and then took their only legal recourse. They didn't put a hit out on someone, they used the legal system that is there for everyone.

:sulley:

[Puppy Mom]

Lockedoutlogic, you don't seem to be understanding what people are telling you about the law.

If Disney starts allowing exceptions to its copyright just because the person infringing is sypathetic (if a thief can be sympathetic), then these exceptions become precedent. Other people or companies can use the precedent of making the exception to defeat Disney's copyright all together.

This is not some poor little family who made a mistake. These people know what a copyright is. They knew to copyright THEIR site. They also had THREE chances to do the honest thing and they tried to lie their way out of it.

[DizneyFreak2002]

Let's be careful and not resort to name calling or fighting amongst ourselves. Try and keep to the topic.

I wasn't name calling... His or her screen name is Lockeduplogic.. I was just simply calling their logic into question, not them as a person... And it was fully on topic... :)

[DizneyFreak2002]

Nor I, but what I meant was that the media should dig into this story a little and find out all the facts, not just those that this "poor couple" is feeding them. There's more to the story than they're telling their viewers/readers. Of course, this is nothing new for most media outlets.

When does the media EVER dig up the entire story before reporting it??? Especially with Disney???

[DizneyFreak2002]

Lockedoutlogic, you don't seem to be understanding what people are telling you about the law.

If Disney starts allowing exceptions to its copyright just because the person infringing is sypathetic (if a thief can be sympathetic), then these exceptions become precedent. Other people or companies can use the precedent of making the exception to defeat Disney's copyright all together.

This is not some poor little family who made a mistake. These people know what a copyright is. They knew to copyright THEIR site. They also had THREE chances to do the honest thing and they tried to lie their way out of it.

Let's not forget, they were using copyrighted characters for their own financial gain...

[SteveL]

Perhaps it is a bit ironic that, today, U.S. Customs announced the formation a of National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center:

From www.cbp.gov:
The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) today announced a new effort to protect American consumers from potentially harmful trade goods.

The National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center) will focus law enforcement efforts both within the U.S and between our international trading partners. “Counterfeit, pirated and substandard products are a transnational threat,” said Julie L. Meyers, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “that threat demands an international response.” The IPR Center strategy is not only to keep unsafe products out of the United States but to identify and dismantle criminal organizations behind the activity.


According to DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff growing world trade in counterfeit and pirated goods threatens America’s economy. “Much of what the U.S. contributes to the global market is innovation, we protect our innovations with patents, trademarks and copyrights,” said Secretary Chertoff, “failure to protect intellectual property rights costs our economy $200-250 billion and 750,000 American jobs.”


The center will host a team composed of personnel from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Commerce, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Food and Drug Administration (FDA),




Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. The primary function of the Center will be criminal investigations and CBP will provide vital support to this effort by targeting and interdicting counterfeit and pirated goods at the border.

IPR enforcement is a critical part of CBP’s trade efforts and focuses on keeping unsafe or substandard products from reaching consumers. While consumers often don’t know a product is counterfeit, adulterated or substandard, these goods directly affect consumer safety. Intercepted products include some that could be ingested by consumers such as toothpaste tainted with chemicals normally found in anti-freeze and pharmaceutical products that don’t contain the correct dosage of medicine.


Many counterfeit products cause significant damage such as bad circuit breakers, electrical cords, processors and batteries that catch fire and can cause serious harm to consumers.


The IPR Center will be a clearing house for intelligence, interdiction, investigations, targeting and prosecuting international organized crime. The center will also partner with the trade community to exchange best practices and conduct outreach and training. “Partnership breeds success,” said Keith Williams, President and CEO, Underwriters Laboratories, “this effort fuels our own efforts.”

[pdrlkr]

The defense would be thrown out of court on this one


I have to agree with big blue and hairy on this one. :number1: :notworth:

[Young@Heart]

Wow! There's a party store near my town that offers characters for parties. They are almost all Disney lookalikes (or, at least attempt to be-they're poor imatations) and I wondered how they're getting away with this. :confused:

[CaptainJessicaSparrow]

I'm glad Disney is pursuing this as hard as they are.

I'm sorry, but there are other ways to put food on your table than to steal someone else's property. I don't know, maybe instead of being a work-from-home mother, she could actually get a full time job, along with her husband.

Not that there is anything wrong with working from home - my mother does it but she also makes enough to keep food on her table, and the bills paid.

Disney isn't doing this for money, they shouldn't "back off" or "take it easy" on the family. They have every right and responsibility to actively protect their works.

And I could be wrong here, but I don't recall Sears actually owning Winnie the Pooh. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that Milne's widow actually sold her part of the rights to Disney in the 60's. Disney then allowed Sears to sell clothing and toys with the characters. The problem came when the widow of the publisher felt she was being cheated on her share of royalties, even though she got $66 Mil.

However, Disney owns those rights now so they should go after that family full force. Not to get money, but to make a point of what happens to those who steal from other people. Go get 'em Mickey! Protect your property.

[3Cabsfan]

This couple knew what they were doing. I'm sure this happens alot so when Disney does see it they have to make an example to show they will protect their copyrights. I love the line about just wanting to put food on the table for our children.

[DizneyFreak2002]

This couple knew what they were doing. I'm sure this happens alot so when Disney does see it they have to make an example to show they will protect their copyrights. I love the line about just wanting to put food on the table for our children.

Because they are looking for sympathy cause they knew they did wrong... No sympathy from me... NONE!!!!!!

[Polynesian Dweller]

Wow! There's a party store near my town that offers characters for parties. They are almost all Disney lookalikes (or, at least attempt to be-they're poor imatations) and I wondered how they're getting away with this. :confused:
That's easy. A legitimate business pays the required licensing fees and agrees to the rules of use of the copyright. Disney does license character usage to lots of companies. Disney sets out appropriate usage rules in the license agreement and as long as you stay within those you are OK.

Edited here to add:

Should have added the second part I was thinking when I wrote the above. If they aren't legitimate they didn't and if Disney finds out, well, then the legal stuff will start,

[big blue and hairy]

I have to agree with big blue and hairy on this one. :number1: :notworth:

Waddayameanthisone?:fresh::silly:

:sulley:

[MississippiDisneyFreak]

Anyone who is running a party company and advertising characters better know the copyright laws. If you don't know...find out!! Ever heard of the internet, over which they ordered the costumes? They never should have bought them. At this point, why should Disney beleive they were sent back and why shoud Disney have to chase them down in Peru. Disney isn't the one who used someone elses copyrighted material for profit.


:sulley:

:giveup: Oops, I admit I was skimming over the article and missed a lot of pertinent info...about the warnings and everything:sorry:

I do think the couple needs to face consequences, however yes even if they have to go to Peru (which Disney can do) they should persue the manufacturer....i

[crazypoohbear]

I'm thinking.... based on Lockedoutlogic's rational....
I could break into a rich neighbors house. Steal what I "need" and nothing would happen to me because
1. I'm poorer than them
2. I only took things that they didn't really need that much
3. The things that I took did not diminish their wealth at all.
4. they could easily replace what I took because they are wealthy.
5. I said I was sorry but that I really really needed the things I took and besides I was on public assistance?
God bless america!

[lockedoutlogic]

I have to laugh at all the people rushing to the attack on this one.....

It's not about the legality of this (though....obviously....we have some here who's instinctual "blood in the water" sense has kicked it....)

...for me.....and just for me (but again....this is an opinion board....and last time i checked my opinion didn't affect anyone else here...)

....i just don't like the way it looks.....

did the people infringe? more than likely.....
have they used it their advantage.....probably....

does disney have a claim?....definitely....

Did it need to go to court? no
Does it affect Disney's business? not one bit

Are they simply using this as a means to send a message to the locals?.....absolutely
Disney acts incredibly heavy handed when dealing with the people in florida.....it always has....and always will.....

And hey....i can see their angle.....not saying it doesn't make sense to crack the whip.....

but i would like to think they are above the petty corporate aggression and rush to litagation that is a sickness in this country....

but they're not....

so no offense to anyone taking the disney side.....again......I'm not saying that they don't have a point.......but you really need to relax just a little bit on me on this one....

I don't like them bullying the locals.....that's it.....it's not the supreme court.....it's a web board.....(and we'll just leave it at that....not take it to the moderators....)

[crazypoohbear]

I have to laugh at all the people rushing to the attack on this one.....

It's not about the legality of this (though....obviously....we have some here who's instinctual "blood in the water" sense has kicked it....)

...for me.....and just for me (but again....this is an opinion board....and last time i checked my opinion didn't affect anyone else here...)

....i just don't like the way it looks.....

did the people infringe? more than likely.....
have they used it their advantage.....probably....

does disney have a claim?....definitely....

Did it need to go to court? no
Does it affect Disney's business? not one bit

Are they simply using this as a means to send a message to the locals?.....absolutely
Disney acts incredibly heavy handed when dealing with the people in florida.....it always has....and always will.....

And hey....i can see their angle.....not saying it doesn't make sense to crack the whip.....

but i would like to think they are above the petty corporate aggression and rush to litagation that is a sickness in this country....

but they're not....

so no offense to anyone taking the disney side.....again......I'm not saying that they don't have a point.......but you really need to relax just a little bit on me on this one....

I don't like them bullying the locals.....that's it.....it's not the supreme court.....it's a web board.....(and we'll just leave it at that....not take it to the moderators....)

I didn't think that Disney RUSHED to litigation.
THey sent THREE (3) cease and disist letters that were ignored. The "Poor people" left Disney no recourse but to litigate the matter. IF the "poor people" had acknowledged the letter and acted respectfully this would not even be discussed, we would not have found out about it.

[big blue and hairy]

I have to laugh at all the people rushing to the attack on this one.....Locked...look back at your posts, you lashed out about this. You just lashed out at Disney. Most of the people here simply don't agree


It's not about the legality of this (though....obviously....we have some here who's instinctual "blood in the water" sense has kicked it....)

Again, read you posts. Almost every time your arguement consists mainly of people over-reacting, being blinded by Disney loyalty, whatever. You've taken a personal slant on this toward the vast majority of people on this thread that think you are wrong. And no offense, you are wrong. Check the facts, watch the tape. It's pretty obvious that they are trying to get away with ignoring Disney's legal rights and crying for sympathy, which seems to have worked with you.
....i just don't like the way it looks.....

did the people infringe? more than likely.....
have they used it their advantage.....probably....

does disney have a claim?....definitely....

Did it need to go to court? no
Does it affect Disney's business? not one bitHow can you honestly beleive that? There are many ways this could affect Disney's business. Selective prosecution gets you in trouble, so if they just ignore this, what happens when someone bigger does it? Also, as I and others have said several times, what happens if someone unautorized in a Disney character suit does something illegal, being drunk, touching a child, or an adult for that matter, or something as simple as being a surley person Disney would never allow as a character?

Are they simply using this as a means to send a message to the locals?.....absolutely
Disney acts incredibly heavy handed when dealing with the people in florida.....it always has....and always will.....Disney is sending a message to the world, the only message they can send, that they will protect their integrity. It sounds as though you have an axe to grind with Disney.
but i would like to think they are above the petty corporate aggression and rush to litagation that is a sickness in this country....Again, I don't think going to court after three letters is a rush to litigation. They were given every chance to comply. They lied, stonewalled and then cried to the media about, talk about a sickness in this country....

so no offense to anyone taking the disney side.....again......I'm not saying that they don't have a point.......but you really need to relax just a little bit on me on this one.... Funny, I was thinking the same thing..


I don't like them bullying the locals.....that's it.....Local, regional, national, irrelevant, it's someone infringing on Disney's copyrights, and continuing to after they were told to stop. Again, it sounds like you have skewed vision of this because of the local angle.
it's not the supreme court.....it's a web board.....(and we'll just leave it at that....not take it to the moderators....) Before we point out the flaws in your logic again? ;)

:sulley:

[lockedoutlogic]

Now i'm really laughing.....

who was attacked?

I just think lawsuits against locals for an animal costume.....unless they steal one from the magic kingdom tunnels......is really silly....

REALLY silly.....but as i've said now....what?....5 times?.....

that's just my opinion.....that's all....

but the problem with this thread.....as it's now veered all the way off the road.....is that i apparently had the audacity to not put on the pom-poms for disney.....

Well...sometimes i do......but not in this kinda thing.....

you guys can agree or disagree with me all you want.....but if you go back and read what i wrote.......it was about disney looking small and petty.......it had nothing to do with anybody's "defending of their faith".....

it's just an opinion.....but i'm getting the "don't pick on disney" response....

seriously.....i can't stop laughing


is anyone under the impression that I don't understand Disney or the law?

way off-base

But i'll say it again......hopefully for the last time.....it's just my opinion....not a legal brief


Big Blue, i respect you....disfreak....marker......anyone who contributes good points on the board......even if i don't agree....

but you guys got all in a wrinkle because i criticized Disney....which i hate to tell you....isn't YOU.....

nothing personal was said.....go back and read it.....

there is a difference.....

[GrumpyFan]

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree here. He's stated his opinion, and we've stated ours. I don't think any of us are going to convince the others of opposite opinion any different.

Personally, I see this as Disney business as usual. They have always been very strong-handed with protecting the use of their images. This isn't any different.

[Marker]

i apparently had the audacity to not put on the pom-poms for disney.....


You are correct, some folk will "put on the pom-poms" no matter what. Likewise, others will put on the claws no matter what, perhaps even posting comments intended to fan the flames a bit.

I'd like to believe that most folks look at the facts and then form an opinion.



but you guys got all in a wrinkle because i criticized Disney

Speaking for myself, it wasn't so much Disney I was defending, it was the concept of folks facing the consequences of their actions, and not sliding by on a "poor us" excuse. In my opinion they knowingly tried to get away with something, and when they got caught, tried to turn the blame onto someone else, in this case onto the victim (yes, even a company the size of Disney can be a victim).

In my opinion, this is a far too prevalent trend these days. This opinion has NOTHING to do with Disney being involved.

[big blue and hairy]

is anyone under the impression that I don't understand Disney or the law?

way off-base

But i'll say it again......hopefully for the last time.....it's just my opinion....not a legal brief


Big Blue, i respect you....disfreak....marker......anyone who contributes good points on the board......even if i don't agree....

but you guys got all in a wrinkle because i criticized Disney....which i hate to tell you....isn't YOU..... One last time...wrong! As I have said every time, I am defending the concept of the copyright. As I have said every time, I don't care who's copyright it is


nothing personal was said.....go back and read it..... I did...telling me my judgement is clouded because I love Disney is personal. I told you several times that that is not the case. I am defending the concept of a copyright, go back and read my posts. Laugh and bash all you want. I'm done.

:sulley:

[CaptainJessicaSparrow]

Well, we better watch out!

Disney might come after us since we are called InterCot! They might claim they hold the copyright for the -COT part!

Sorry, trying to lighten the mood on this thread. LockedOut, Big Blue! Both of you play nicely and don't make me turn this car around and go home!
No Disney for you!

:ahem: Anyways...

I think mods should come in and close this before it gets any more personal.