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

81–85 of 85 posts

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

#81

Post by gamblor956 »

Flimm wrote: post #72
gamblor956 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The Winnie the Pooh books by A. A. Milne are no longer under copyright, that copyright expired. However, the Disney animations of Winnie the Pooh are still under copyright, and they have a distinctive style compared to the illustrations in the books. It's mainly about copyright, not trademarks.

Yes they is also true but the point of the comment was the M&M/Disney case is a trademark issue.

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

#82

Post by xp84 »

freejazz wrote: post #69
xp84 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oy! Why do people do what?

"the issue is they are actually just trying to turn their copyright into a trademark"

That is certainly your opinion of "the issue," but that is a complete begging of the question. That would have to be argued in court. They do have a trademark which includes that public domain character in it, that much is fact. This is no less of a trademark than any other trademark that consists of non-copyrightable elements. The rulings on a trademark case would simply be based on the intent or likelihood to mislead people into believing there's an endorsement or association there.

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

#83

Post by thaumasiotes »

zdragnar wrote: post #80
thaumasiotes wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hence why I included the bit about false endorsement, which is a federal rule. That obviously can't apply to use of the name or imagery of Jesus Christ; there is a much more important federal rule that says it is everyone's God-given right to assert directly that they are endorsed by Jesus Christ. (This comment is imbued with the divine grace of the Messiah.)

A person may assert their beliefs, but those beliefs do not extend to trademark law, most especially in the context of "sue everyone else who uses the name of a historical religious figure that I have decided to take for myself".

Your argument is gibberish. As I read your comments, you say that:

1. It isn't possible to trademark the name "Jesus Christ";

because

2. This might imply that your company is endorsed by Jesus Christ.

But that is clearly false. Those grounds are illegitimate; the government cannot take a position on whether you are or aren't endorsed by Jesus Christ.

There are no "false endorsement" concerns raised by the hypothetical trademark.

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

#84

Post by freejazz »

xp84 wrote: post #82
freejazz wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oy! Why do people do what? "the issue is they are actually just trying to turn their copyright into a trademark" That is certainly your opinion of "the issue," but that is a complete begging of the question. That would have to be argued in court. They do have a trademark which includes that public domain character in it, that much is fact. This is no less of a trademark than any other trademark that consists of non-c…

>Oy! Why do people do what?

Give an AI-slop response and pretend it's informative or helpful for the discussion. And now you're arguing about what it told you! But you have no idea what of it is real, let alone accurate. The whole thing is facially wrong. Why would they be arguing its like the coca cola or nike marks? It's not. It's a mark made from a now-expired copyrightable work. That's not true of the nike or coca cola marks. I guess you didn't realize that? That's my point.

>That would have to be argued in court

And? People make specious arguments in court all the time.

>The rulings on a trademark case would simply be based on the intent or likelihood to mislead people into believing there's an endorsement or association there.

Yeah. There's a huge disclaimer that says this it is not endorsed by Disney.

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

#85

Post by klustregrif »

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.

You cannot use a trademark to extend a copyright. Lego tried and failed.
Post reply on HN