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

31–40 of 85 posts

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

#31

Post by zdragnar »

Terr_ wrote: post #27
hamdingers wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 J…

There's not much point to the thought exercise. You wouldn't get the trademark in the first place.

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

#32

Post by JohnMakin »

abduhl wrote: post #28
umpalumpaaa wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Presumably talking about damages.

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

#33

Post by [deleted] »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #18
hamdingers wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

But why shouldn't you be able to make a new Toy Story movie 100 years, give or take, after the original?

[deleted]

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

#34

Post by toast0 »

gamblor956 wrote: post #7
nomel wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To help understand your comment, are you a lawyer?

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.

OTOH, making a bunch of noise about the case gets the ad and their product seen by a different demographic than paying for the ad to be placed wherever they would have. IMHO, this is an alternate marketing campaign, costs go to the courts instead of broadcasters. There's some public benefit if the case generates precedent, so that's nice that they want to spend their ad budget on this.

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

#35

Post by flkiwi »

abduhl wrote: post #28
umpalumpaaa wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

For example, Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(a) prohibits "clearly excessive" attorney's fees, while 4-1.5(f)(4)(B) sets several criteria for contingency fees (typically the sort of fees a plaintiff's firm would charge) that, if not met, renders a fee presumptively "clearly excessive".

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

#36

Post by raybb »

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…

I think when places have such huge advertising budgets does that means you're paying more or getting less. Do you think that applies to law firms like Morgan and Morgan?

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

#37

Post by Terr_ »

zdragnar wrote: post #31
Terr_ wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 J…

There's not much point to the thought exercise. You wouldn't get the trademark in the first place.

> There's not much point to the thought exercise. You wouldn't get the trademark in the first place.

My brother in Jesus Christ paperwork, even now there are already 236 active and formally-registered trademarks which have been granted involving "Jesus Christ", 18 if you limit it to "wordmarks." [0]

Also, as per the concurrent(?) edited-in last paragraph, the basic idea remains even if the scope is, er, less-grandiose.

[0] https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/

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

#40

Post by softwaredoug »

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…

This is basically what we have in the US instead of a strong regulatory state. One of the few ways consumers might seek justice against a giant corporation.
Post reply on HN