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

61–70 of 85 posts

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

#61

Post by Terr_ »

zdragnar wrote: post #53
Terr_ wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-grandios…

You can trademark a novel turn of phrase that includes historical figures, but not the actual names, as that falls under the "right of publicity" and protections against false endorsement. So, you could start a new church and trademark "Terr's Church of Jesus Christ", as the trademark covers the organization, but you cannot trademark the name "Jesus Christ" itself.

> not the [historical figure] actual names, as that falls under the "right of publicity"

IANAL but I don't think it'd be blocked for that reason: "Right of publicity" is a per-state affair, where it exists it may not be posthumous, where it is posthumous it may not include historical figures, and even if it could apply, there's there's no credible estate/heir of Jesus Christ with standing.

... But I gotta admit it would be amusing to watch someone try to fill that role.

As an example, see Pirone v. MacMillan [0], where there was no posthumous "right of publicity" for Babe Ruth's daughter to draw upon. (At least, not back then.)

[0] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/894...

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

#62

Post by kbelder »

gamblor956 wrote: post #55
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).

This isn't a copyright case, it's a trademark case. The issue is that some of the specific expressions of the elements may be extremely distinctive, and trademarked by a person (or company) for commercial use. In those situations, you can still use the element, but not the specific expression of that element that is trademarked because that specific expression is being used by another person for ongoing commercial ac…

This is what's keeping me from working on my own "John Carter of Mars" game. The books (at least the first 5-6) are public domain, but Edgar Rice Burroughs, inc has John Carter, Dejah Thoris, etc., all trademarked, and can continue that indefinitely. I don't think it would be a slam dunk legal case, but it's enough to discourage me from trying (I've heard they are litigious).

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

#63

Post by kbelder »

happyopossum wrote: post #54
freejazz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Mickey is still a trademark of the Disney corporation. Mickey, yeah. But steamboat willie is covered by a copyright that has now since expired.

Steamboat Willie has been part of Disney animations trademark for at least a decade. It is literally the trademark animation used at the beginning of every Disney animation film.

Deliberately so, because they knew it was leaving copyright protection. This was their strategy to keep it locked up.

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

#64

Post by anonymouskimmer »

raybb wrote: post #36
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?

Who's cheaper: The mom-and-pop, or Walmart? According to Wikipedia, Morgan & Morgan has 108 offices and over 3000 employees.

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

#65

Post by zdragnar »

Terr_ wrote: post #61
zdragnar wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can trademark a novel turn of phrase that includes historical figures, but not the actual names, as that falls under the "right of publicity" and protections against false endorsement. So, you could start a new church and trademark "Terr's Church of Jesus Christ", as the trademark covers the organization, but you cannot trademark the name "Jesus Christ" itself.

> not the [historical figure] actual names, as that falls under the "right of publicity" IANAL but I don't think it'd be blocked for that reason: "Right of publicity" is a per-state affair, where it exists it may not be posthumous, where it is posthumous it may not include historical figures, and even if it could apply, there's there's no credible estate/heir of Jesus Christ with standing. ... But I gotta admit it wo…

Hence why I included the bit about false endorsement, which is a federal rule.

Notably, from your link:

> Therefore, a trademark is "not property in the ordinary sense," but only a word or symbol indicating the origin or source of a product.

> Although its registration is limited to the words "Babe Ruth," Pirone would have us read her rights in that word mark to include every photograph of Ruth ever taken. We decline to do so.

The product in question didn't use Babe Ruth's name in any way implying an endorsement or origination of the calendar; it merely included some pictures. The ruling determined that trademark does not apply here.

Pictures have been deemed eligible for copyright, but that's neither here nor there. The name "Jesus Christ" is not eligible for trademark.

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

#67

Post by ziml77 »

gamblor956 wrote: post #59
joecool1029 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, the Louis Vitton cases would not help M&M here. To successfully make a parody case in regards to trademark the parody itself must make it obvious that the defendant is not in anyway connected to the owner of the trademarked thing. The Morgan and Morgan ad doesn't do that; without the disclaimer at the beginning it wouldn't be obvious that the ad wasn't a animation created by Disney. (In the original Steamboat Wil…

> To successfully make a parody case in regards to trademark the parody itself must make it obvious that the defendant is not in anyway connected to the owner of the trademarked thing. The Morgan and Morgan ad doesn't do that; without the disclaimer at the beginning it wouldn't be obvious that the ad wasn't a animation created by Disney.

This is what I was wondering about. Do those disclaimers make it okay? Because without that context it certainly feels like this ad could be officially endorsed by Disney. And that seems to be exactly the kind of thing trademark law is meant to deal with: avoiding trust problems from people being misled about who is selling them what.

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

#68

Post by freejazz »

happyopossum wrote: post #54
freejazz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Mickey is still a trademark of the Disney corporation. Mickey, yeah. But steamboat willie is covered by a copyright that has now since expired.

Steamboat Willie has been part of Disney animations trademark for at least a decade. It is literally the trademark animation used at the beginning of every Disney animation film.

And? Trademark isn't copyright law. It doesn't operate the same way. You can indicate that something isn't being used as a mark to indicate source (all trademark protects) and therefore it isn't necessarily an infringement of someone's mark, the same way direct verbatim copying would most likely be.

What's your point anyway? That copyright should be subsumed into trademark? Some others here are posting it, not that it makes any sense. Even funnier, they complain about the term limitations of copyright... but trademarks are indefinite.

Oh here I go arguing about IP law on HN again...

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

#69

Post by freejazz »

xp84 wrote: post #50
Terr_ wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

After some AI-assisted probing, it seems like if Disney wants to challenge this use, they'll likely be arguing that S.W. is a "famous mark" akin to Coca-Cola or Nike and thus merits additional broad protection under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (TDRA). (I haven't checked to see whether one of Disney's pet congresscritters sponsored that one, as was the case with at least one of the copyright extension…

Oy! Why do people do this?

Yeah they might want to argue that. It's not going to get very far considering that the issue is they are actually just trying to turn their copyright into a trademark, so no court is just going to ignore that the way your stupid AI did.

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

#70

Post by freejazz »

flkiwi wrote: post #25
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.

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.

The idea that cases settle before trial because of Plaintiff's and not defendants is pretty silly. I'm not sure where everyone got the idea that the powerful people in this country are personal injury attorneys and not the gigantic insurance companies they are always battling.
Post reply on HN