Disney Sued by Law Firm Wanting to Use 'Steamboat Willie' in Its Ads (apnews.com)
- Reference: 0179420308
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/09/21/0550202/disney-sued-by-law-firm-wanting-to-use-steamboat-willie-in-its-ads
- Source link: https://apnews.com/article/disney-morgan-morgan-steamboat-willie-6f8b8ab3fa1d7168424803f38d09838a
Now one of America's largest personal injury firms is suing Disney, [2]reports the Associated Press , "in an effort to get a ruling that would allow it to use Steamboat Willie in advertisements..."
> [The law firm said] it had reached out to Disney to make sure the entertainment company wouldn't sue them if they used images from the animated film for their TV and online ads. Disney's lawyers responded by saying they didn't offer legal advice to third parties, according to the lawsuit. Morgan & Morgan said it was filing the lawsuit to get a decision because it otherwise feared being sued by Disney for trademark infringement if it used Steamboat Willie.
"Without waiver of any of its rights, Disney will not provide such advice in response to your letter," Disney's attorneys wrote in their letter (adding "Very truly yours..."). A [3]local newscast showed a glimpse of the letter , along with a few seconds of the ad (which ends with Minnie Mouse pulling out a cellphone to call for a lawyer...)
Attorney John Morgan tells the newscast that Disney's legal team "is playing cute, and so we're just trying to get a yes or no answer.. They wrote us back a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that made no sense, didn't answer the question. We tried it again, they didn't answer the question..." (The newscast adds that the case isn't expected to go to court for at least a year.)
[1] https://slashdot.org/story/22/12/28/1455209/mickeys-copyright-adventure-early-disney-creation-will-soon-be-public-property
[2] https://apnews.com/article/disney-morgan-morgan-steamboat-willie-6f8b8ab3fa1d7168424803f38d09838a
[3] https://youtu.be/DThJtvF6_4c?si=YE2YAWt3wx6VvpV2
Sounds pretty lame (Score:2)
I'm not a huge fan of what Disney has become, but I'm even less of a fan of lawyers, and this sounds like a douche-bag thing that a law firm is doing just because it's easy for them to do. I hope Disney counters for damages and wins.
Re: (Score:2)
> I hope Disney counters for damages and wins.
What damages? The law firm is suing for declaratory judgment, which means filing the lawsuit that the other party would file, but doing so before you do the thing that you're suing over, specifically so that you know beforehand whether or not the other party will be able to sue you for damages.
Re: (Score:2)
So the Morgans are deliberately hoping they lose so that the judgement will include a settlement allowing them to use the public domain for a fraction of what it would it might have cost if Disney had sued them and won?
Re: (Score:2)
My apologies if what I said confused you. The point of suing for declaratory judgment is to get a court to declare that what you want to do is legal. The case proceeds basically the same as if Disney were to sue after the fact; both sides present their arguments, and the court decides who's right. In this case, if the court rules that what Morgan & Morgan wants to do is legal, and they go ahead and do it, Disney can't sue them for it because a court has already ruled on it.
There is no settlement invo
Re: (Score:2)
> So the Morgans are deliberately hoping they lose so that the judgement will include a settlement allowing them to use the public domain for a fraction of what it would it might have cost if Disney had sued them and won?
They are asking the court for a judicial declaration. The declaration would formally state rights and obligations for the parties relevant to the issue, if any.
A "win" would be a declaration that states they can do what they want without an obligation toward Disney, a "loss" would be a declaration stating they cannot without some sort of agreement from Disney,
There are not going to be "damages" as the lawsuit is preventive: they whole point is to formally know the potential legal consequences of an action b
Re: (Score:2)
What damages?
I have to admit I'm a bit confused as to why they are even asking anything from Disney since the likeness they wish to use is in the public domain. But I suppose doing this preemptively is slightly cheaper than Disney launching a frivolous lawsuit against them.
Re: (Score:2)
> I have to admit I'm a bit confused as to why they are even asking anything from Disney since the likeness they wish to use is in the public domain. But I suppose doing this preemptively is slightly cheaper than Disney launching a frivolous lawsuit against them.
It's also their understanding that they don't need Disney's permission, but it would likely be very bad for them to find out the hard way that for some reason they actually do need permission.
This lawsuit should be relatively cheap and would mitigate a risk that might have a very low chance but a very high stake.
Trade mark vs. copyright (Score:3)
Copyright law protects the author for 100 years, but there is no expiration date on a trademark as long as it is continuously in use and renewed every 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
> Copyright law protects the author for 100 years, but there is no expiration date on a trademark as long as it is continuously in use and renewed every 10 years.
Judging from what I've seen, if WDC trademarked the original Steamboat Willie character and renewed the mark as required, it has been in use continuously via pins, toys, etc..
Re: (Score:2)
> Judging from what I've seen, if WDC trademarked the original Steamboat Willie character and renewed the mark as required, it has been in use continuously via pins, toys, etc..
You technically don't have to renew the mark - you just have to use it. Registering the mark is useful in legal proceedings, but even without registration it doesn't mean there's no protection in place. Most small businesses don't register their company name as a trademark, but the law still protects them from other companies trying to
Re: (Score:3)
Trademark means that they can't use Mickey Mouse in a way that would confuse people into thinking they are Disney.
You are legally allowed to use someone's trademark. For example, the word "Boston" is trademarked, but we can use it. We can use the word Pentium, and even say "Pentium sux", but you can't fill a box with AMD chips and use the Pentium logo to convince people it's from Intel.
Link to filing (Score:4, Informative)
How about linking to the original source (court filing) in the summary?
Link to filing [1]https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.... [thomsonreuters.com]
[1] https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/movadzekwpa/MORGAN%20DISNEY%20LAWSUIT%20complaint.pdf
Re:Link to filing (Score:4, Informative)
The full ad as linked in the filing [1]https://docsend.com/view/q9x3b... [docsend.com]
[1] https://docsend.com/view/q9x3bdin5vy9cst8#
So Disney has Lawyers doing Lawyer stuff! (Score:2)
"They wrote us back a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that made no sense,"
Re: So Disney has Lawyers doing Lawyer stuff! (Score:2)
Indeed... good lawyers filter out the real message. Mumbo jumbo is the mode of operation amongst lawyers. First they have trouble interpreting what the law says wrt steamboat willy... and they ask what it means from Disney's lawyers. That does not portray much confidence in their own judgement. Then Disney replies, no doubt in professional state of the art lawyer mumbo jumbo and they say out loud that they do not understand it? Mmmm... yup, this office only gets clients by making lots of noise, not by good
Kinda disappointed (Score:2)
I am kind of disappointed in the wake of Steamboat Willie going PD ... I had hoped to see a lot of creative use of (granted, limited canon) Mickey.
Instead we get lame horror stuff, some token game appearances, and now ... an ad for lawyers?
I'm almost tempted to conspiracy theory about false flags here, lol
Re: (Score:2)
For most any major company I imagine while legally protected they are reticent of getting on The Mouse's bad side. No law prevents them from being petty jerks.
So they didn't want Disney to sue them (Score:2)
So they sued Disney instead???
Both routes lead to a lawsuit.
Seems more like a publicity stunt to me.
"Look at us! We're suing Disney!"
Re: (Score:3)
It's much cheaper this way. If they lose there would be no damages awarded to Disney. And they come into this with the upper hand---the law is technically on their side.
It's easier to ask for forgiveness ... (Score:2)
... than for permission.
Why are they asking for permission to use something in the public domain?
Re: (Score:2)
Something in the ad that defames Steampunk Mickey?
You're enjoying a calm Sunday afternoon with your date on a rowboat and a maniacal mouse hurtles down the river causing you to panic and break a fingernail. Lawyer up, rodent! call Captain Morgan on 1-800-...
Re: (Score:2)
> Why are they asking for permission to use something in the public domain?
Because there is a reasonable suspicion that Disney will sue them for some reason, public domain or not, and they want to prevent that.
Run it (Score:2)
Run some Steamboat Willie, not as an add, but as a PSA without mentioning the name of the firm (but, instruct the people airing the PSA to pass along who paid for it to be aired if Disney asks). If Disney thinks they have something to defend, they should send a cease-and-desist, and it should give the legal argument they'd use in a lawsuit. If they don't respond, run a second Steamboat PSA that invites AIs to use it for training. If they don't respond to either PSA, the failure to respond is a good argum
IANAL but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Writing a letter to a company asking them a question doesn't entitle you to an answer. Let alone a legally-binding answer.
I can imagine it's reasonable to expect a positive answer if you are going to get sued. But for a company to explicitly declare you in the clear is a courtesy, not something I'd think you can compel.
Re: (Score:2)
Dick swinging contest between Disney's lawyers and probably one of the largest personal injury law firms in the country. Likely they know someone on Disney's legal team and have beef.
Re:IANAL but... (Score:4, Informative)
> Makes you wonder why a supposed lawyer would ask such a stupid question.
It is called a [1]letter before action [wikipedia.org]. The courts like it if you have tried to come to an agreement before going to court and, potentially, wasting their time on something that did not need to be litigated.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_letter
Re: (Score:2)
>> Makes you wonder why a supposed lawyer would ask such a stupid question.
> It is called a letter before action. The courts like it if you have tried to come to an agreement before going to court and, potentially, wasting their time on something that did not need to be litigated.
So what's the basis of the lawsuit against Disney? There's no damages, so equitable relief? Of what?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. What are they being sued for? The silent treatment?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
> So what's the basis of the lawsuit against Disney? There's no damages, so equitable relief? Of what?
They want to use footage from Steamboat Willie and do not want to be sued for breach of copyright. Although this fell out of copyright last year and entered public domain the Mouse is sufficiently litigious that they have a fear that they might be sued -- a reasonable fear IMHO. Thus the request for clarification which Disney would not give. Thus going to court is their only option.
That Disney refused to answer suggests to me that they know that they would lose any attempt to sue for breach of copyright but
Re: (Score:2)
Disney surely still has trademark on all variants of Mickey and key characters of their old animations. Using those characters in a commercial context could be construed as linking Disney and that commercial enterprise, when there is no such affiliation. They will NEVER approve of it.
Because it's out of copyright, one could freely broadcast the animations, include them in an anthology of old animations, play them on a projector for the neighborhood, etc. That does not mean you can adopt Mickey as your compa
Re: (Score:2)
Well whatever they call it.. Theoretical disputes or rights another party might attempt to exercise are not properly actionable by a filing in court. You have no standing to sue a trademark holder based on your planned future projects and a personal theory that the company might regard your business as an infringement. Unless the whole thing is a USPTO action claiming the trademark is invalid and should not be granted.
The first time the case goes to court; I suspect they're quite liable to have the ju
Re: (Score:2)
> Writing a letter to a company asking them a question doesn't entitle you to an answer. Let alone a legally-binding answer. I can imagine it's reasonable to expect a positive answer if you are going to get sued. But for a company to explicitly declare you in the clear is a courtesy, not something I'd think you can compel.
I'm sure M&M would have replied with a clear answer if they represented Disney and the question was put to them. It seems just like another ploy to get news coverage. The more their name is out there, the more people know them and maybe call them when injured. I suspect they have lwayers smart enough to hav answered the question without asking Disney. As for Disney, I suspect they will do anything they can to protect their trademarks.
Re: (Score:2)
Rich guy privledge. John Morgan isnt just anyone, he's got a lot of money obviously, an army of lawyers and is a bigwig right in Disneys backyard of Orlando. He's toyed around with running for FL governor.
Re: (Score:2)
You are not a lawyer. If you want to be sure that you won't be sued, you go to court, and tell the court "I am clearly saying what I want to do, and I want Disney to tell me whether I will be sued or not". And the court will force them to make a statement either way. Google for "declaratory judgement".
Re: IANAL but... (Score:2)
I think the subject of your post explains it clearly: You are not a lawyer.
This is a law firm that wants to use this material to show that they have the legal muscle and expertise to do so. It's fantastic advertising if they can borrow Disney's power and reputation to make themselves a reputable law firm that took a swing at a known corporate bully and emerged unscathed.