Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Morgan and Morgan takes Disney to court over 'Steamboat Willie' in ads

clickorlando.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 85 posts

Re: Morgan and Morgan takes Disney to court over 'Steamboat Willie' in ads

#21

Post by freejazz »

eYrKEC2 wrote: post #9
gamblor956 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. If this was a case that Morgan and Morgan expected to win they would not have withdrawn the ad. That they did indicates that they don't even believe their own claims.

In law, isn't the process the punishment frequently? What if they're just expecting Disney to drain their coffers with frivolous legal work? Isn't that a reasonable response then?

It prevents Disney from being able to file TRO or preliminary injunction preventing the commercial from being aired (and protected M&M from having to spend resources fighting that, which will do nothing to actually determine the overall outcome of the case).

Skeptical that gamblor is an attorney, they certainly do not seem to know what they are talking about.

Re: Morgan and Morgan takes Disney to court over 'Steamboat Willie' in ads

#22

Post by technothrasher »

flkiwi wrote: post #13

Morgan and Morgan is a plaintiffs firm specializing in personal injury (though they have other areas of practice). For those not familiar with the US system, if someone hits a victim with their car, a victim slips and falls in a store, etc. and the victim sues, Morgan and Morgan commonly handles that type of case for the victim. Basically the usual "Americans will sue each other for anything" type of law firm (though…

> Morgan & Morgan's business model places a heavy emphasis on convincing the defendant to settle before litigation.

To be fair, "ambulance chaser" lawyer or not, over 90% of civil cases in general in the US settle before a trial commences.

Re: Morgan and Morgan takes Disney to court over 'Steamboat Willie' in ads

#23

Post by Terr_ »

crooked-v wrote: post #15
shmerl wrote: post #8

Typical. They want to profit from copyright but they don't want it to ever expire even if the law requires it. Mickey Mouse curve is their invention.

The suit is about trademark. Whether it'll fly or not is up in the air, but that's the reason that Disney actively made the "Steamboat Willie" version part of their pre-film branding.

I think in a sane world (heh) using "Steamboat Willie" should only be impaired by Disney trademark exactly as much (or as little) as people would be prevented from sharing pictures of the Statue of Liberty just because some tax-preparation company has a photo-realistic outline in their logo.

In both cases the company has zero rights to the underlying public thing, and the court just needs to ask: "Is someone trying to trick consumers into mis-identifying the company or product?"

P.S.: Even if the company transitioned into being a seller of commemorative Statue of Liberty figurines, their trademarked logo shouldn't give them the ability to monopolize the subject matter. In that other context it might even be revoked as too-generic and unenforceable.

Re: Morgan and Morgan takes Disney to court over 'Steamboat Willie' in ads

#24

Post by themafia »

hamdingers wrote: post #16
cognomano wrote: post #2

I suppose trademark law will be the catch-all protection Disney will be using from now.

Am I wrong in thinking this makes more sense than decades/centuries long copyrights? Let the copyright on a work expire so I can share my copy of Toy Story with my friends, but retain a trademark on the characters so that I can't go around making new Toy Story movies (or theme parks or pajamas).

With the copyright expired you can do more than share. You could make copies and then sell them.

Re: Morgan and Morgan takes Disney to court over 'Steamboat Willie' in ads

#25

Post by flkiwi »

technothrasher wrote: post #22
flkiwi wrote: post #13

Morgan and Morgan is a plaintiffs firm specializing in personal injury (though they have other areas of practice). For those not familiar with the US system, if someone hits a victim with their car, a victim slips and falls in a store, etc. and the victim sues, Morgan and Morgan commonly handles that type of case for the victim. Basically the usual "Americans will sue each other for anything" type of law firm (though…

> Morgan & Morgan's business model places a heavy emphasis on convincing the defendant to settle before litigation. To be fair, "ambulance chaser" lawyer or not, over 90% of civil cases in general in the US settle before a trial commences.

That's true, though I wonder at times how much of that is because of the way plaintiff's firms set the market up. And, again, I don't really mean to criticize them--I tend to err on the side of access to justice--as much as to explain to anyone non-US who tf M&M are and why this is interesting.

Re: Morgan and Morgan takes Disney to court over 'Steamboat Willie' in ads

#26

Post by umpalumpaaa »

technothrasher wrote: post #22
flkiwi wrote: post #13

Morgan and Morgan is a plaintiffs firm specializing in personal injury (though they have other areas of practice). For those not familiar with the US system, if someone hits a victim with their car, a victim slips and falls in a store, etc. and the victim sues, Morgan and Morgan commonly handles that type of case for the victim. Basically the usual "Americans will sue each other for anything" type of law firm (though…

> Morgan & Morgan's business model places a heavy emphasis on convincing the defendant to settle before litigation. To be fair, "ambulance chaser" lawyer or not, over 90% of civil cases in general in the US settle before a trial commences.

And to be even more fair:

It is strictly regulated how much money Morgan and Morgan can get out of someone who they represent.

Re: Morgan and Morgan takes Disney to court over 'Steamboat Willie' in ads

#27

Post by Terr_ »

hamdingers wrote: post #16
cognomano wrote: post #2

I suppose trademark law will be the catch-all protection Disney will be using from now.

Am I wrong in thinking this makes more sense than decades/centuries long copyrights? Let the copyright on a work expire so I can share my copy of Toy Story with my friends, but retain a trademark on the characters so that I can't go around making new Toy Story movies (or theme parks or pajamas).

> retain a trademark on the characters so that I can't go around making new Toy Story movies

Here's a quick thought experiment: Suppose I create a small movie company based on another character also in the public domain, and I successfully receive a trademark for my logo, which is... Jesus Christ.

Does/Should that give me control over anyone selling or distributing other books, movies, pictures, and songs depicting Jesus?

In a sane world, the answer is "heck no", because trademarks are really about stopping fraud, where someone else is trying to leech off my good reputation by confusing people into doing business with them instead.

Now, one might plausibly argue that Jesus is "generic" and thus the original trademark was wrongly granted, but the same principles apply even if I rebrand under just one of the less-popular characters or symbols. ("As the owner Pontius Pilate Productions, your story violates my trademark!")

Re: Morgan and Morgan takes Disney to court over 'Steamboat Willie' in ads

#28

Post by abduhl »

umpalumpaaa wrote: post #26
technothrasher wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Morgan & Morgan's business model places a heavy emphasis on convincing the defendant to settle before litigation. To be fair, "ambulance chaser" lawyer or not, over 90% of civil cases in general in the US settle before a trial commences.

And to be even more fair: It is strictly regulated how much money Morgan and Morgan can get out of someone who they represent.

I’ve never heard of a regulation governing attorney’s fees. Which regulations might you be referring to?

Re: Morgan and Morgan takes Disney to court over 'Steamboat Willie' in ads

#29

Post by smelendez »

hamdingers wrote: post #16
cognomano wrote: post #2

I suppose trademark law will be the catch-all protection Disney will be using from now.

Am I wrong in thinking this makes more sense than decades/centuries long copyrights? Let the copyright on a work expire so I can share my copy of Toy Story with my friends, but retain a trademark on the characters so that I can't go around making new Toy Story movies (or theme parks or pajamas).

I’d rather a trademark approach that says you can use the characters but you can’t call it Toy Story, Disney, Pixar, etc.

Re: Morgan and Morgan takes Disney to court over 'Steamboat Willie' in ads

#30

Post by toast0 »

joecool1029 wrote: post #14
gamblor956 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright only applies to specific expressions. Mickey is still a trademark of the Disney corporation. You're right though. This is an open and shut case that Morgan and Morgan will lose. There's only several decades of case law on this...

We're talking about parody though, there's case law suggesting it would be fine: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/intellectual_property_law...

Maybe I'm just not up on my understanding, but I don't see how this is parody? There's not really any jokes, it's not a commentary on Disney, Disney's Mice, or boating or driving or society at large. Maybe running into a car on the road with a boat is a joke, I guess.
Post reply on HN