Is Sesame Workshop the only of the main companies required to do a trademark credit?

[minor muppetz]

I've noticed recently that when it comes to releasing past material featuring Henson creations owned by different companies, Sesame Workshop seems to be the only company to acknowledge the character copyright. When something with Kermit is shown on TV or included on a Sesame Street DVD, album, or book, there's always the "Kermit the Frog copyright and trademark of The Muppets Studio", in addition to the trademark credit on the use of the term "Muppet". But Henson and Disney don't seem to do this when they release stuff with characters owned by the other companies.

On The Muppet Show DVDs, there's no added copyright credits for the Sesame Street characters in episodes and specials that featured them. Not on the box, not at the end credits (The Muppet Show episodes have new copyright credits regarding ownership of the Muppet characters... for some reason it seems like The Muppet Show and Muppet movies originally didn't have any copyright credit regarding who owned the Muppet characters). The movie DVDs sort of do acknowlege ownership of the Sesame Street characters, and it seems that before the sale of characters those were the only Henson productions to acknowledge Sesame Street being from the Children's Television Workshop (TMM and GMC credits acknowledge "Big Bird/Oscar the Grouch appears courtesy of Children's Television Workshop", while the CTW gets a "special thanks" credit in MTM).

But it looks like the most recent Henson releases don't. Sesame Street: 20 and Still Counting is the exception, but that is more like a regular Sesame Street DVD and seems to follow the rules of the Sesame Street DVDs (heck, that one doesn''t even have any promos for other Lionsgate releases, and the Sesame Street releases only advertise other Sesame Street DVDs and products). The Dog City DVD gives no copyright information regarding ownership of Rowlf (I've mentioned this in another thread but Sesame Street: Old School Vol. 1 doesn't give that kind of info either regardign Rowlf, nor does the 40th anniversary book, which includes a photo of the character... Yet Sesame Workshop acknowledges ownership for all other copyrighted non-Sesame characters). I still haven't found a copy of Henson's Place, but I found a page for it at iTunes (I've been having trouble downloading there recently), and that page had some copyright infromation, but no copyright/trademark credits for the use of Muppet and Sesame Street characters.

 

[D'Snowth]

I've noticed recently that when it comes to releasing past material featuring Henson creations owned by different companies, Sesame Workshop seems to be the only company to acknowledge the character copyright. When something with Kermit is shown on TV or included on a Sesame Street DVD, album, or book, there's always the "Kermit the Frog copyright and trademark of The Muppets Studio", in addition to the trademark credit on the use of the term "Muppet".

That's because since Disney acquired the Muppets, including Kermit, SW HAS to, otherwise they could be sued for copyright infringement.

But Henson and Disney don't seem to do this when they release stuff with characters owned by the other companies.

Big companies like Disney feel it's not their place to acknowledge credit to other people's work; after all, they're a BIG corporation, and "little people", like Sesame Workshop for example, wouldn't stand a chance in suing them for copyright infringement (even though Sid & Marty Krofft were successful in suing McDonald's in 1970).

You mentioned TMS on DVD not having a copyright disclaimer regarding the use of the SST Muppets, well, that's mainly because the appearance of the SST Muppets on TMS were regarded as special guest stars, and that was part of the whole premise of TMS, was each episode had a special guest star, it just so happened these special guest stars were puppets rather than people. Likewise, had TMS had OTHER puppety guest stars, like say any Krofft character, or Shari Lewis' characters, etc, I doubt you'd see a special disclaimer regarding their copyright and trademarks as well.

 

[minor muppetz]

Big companies like Disney feel it's not their place to acknowledge credit to other people's work; after all, they're a BIG corporation, and "little people", like Sesame Workshop for example, wouldn't stand a chance in suing them for copyright infringement (even though Sid & Marty Krofft were successful in suing McDonald's in 1970).

Wow, I'd hate for a big coporation to steal my work and not acknowledge me. But I know that Disney did acknowledge copyrights for the various cartoon characters who appeared in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and the toys in Toy Story.

 

[D'Snowth]

Wow, I'd hate for a big coporation to steal my work and not acknowledge me.

That's why it's important to fight for what you create, because you never know will pull the wool over your eyes, and pull the rug out from under your feet -- offers may be tempting, but they're never worth it in the end.

But I know that Disney did acknowledge copyrights for the various cartoon characters who appeared in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and the toys in Toy Story.

Well, those are different cases, in these cases, they were projects that they were working on that they wanted the elements for, and needed actual permission to use them; notice whenever you're looking at Toy Story merchandise, you never see Mr. Potato Head? Because he's already a copyrighted/licensed character owned by another big corporation, so they can't legally license their Toy Story Mr. Potato Head, he has to be through Hasbro-Playskool.

It's all a very complicated legal system, copyrights and trademarks are, and sometimes it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, which is why you really have to know the ins and outs, and all the tricks inbetween... that, and to have a lawyer to represent you, lol.

 

[minor muppetz]

notice whenever you're looking at Toy Story merchandise, you never see Mr. Potato Head? Because he's already a copyrighted/licensed character owned by another big corporation, so they can't legally license their Toy Story Mr. Potato Head, he has to be through Hasbro-Playskool.

I was just thinking about that recently. I've noticed that the copyrighted toys (Mr. Potatoe Head, Slinkey, and Barbie) have been left out of Toy Story 3 merchandice, though I recall seeing Mr. Potatoe Head and Slinkey Dog toys promoted as Toy Story toys back when the first movie came out (I know that Mr. Potatoe Head at least was in the Sega Genesis game as well, and both were in the computer game).

 

[D'Snowth]

I know Cracker Barrel supplies old-fashioned products from olden times, and for a very short while, I remember that they were selling the original Slinky Dog, and it looked more like in the movie than the ones Disney had merchandised when the first movie came out.

 

[Drtooth]

notice whenever you're looking at Toy Story merchandise, you never see Mr. Potato Head? Because he's already a copyrighted/licensed character owned by another big corporation, so they can't legally license their Toy Story Mr. Potato Head, he has to be through Hasbro-Playskool.

NOT necessarily. Certain products have them on it (they were negotiated and have copyrights). The Slinky Dog Pez dispenser for one. And I've noticed quite a few other things with the Potatoes, Ken and Barbie and Slink in them. However, the glaring difference is the Mattel line. It wouldn't make sense for 2 rival companies to lend out their characters for another line. But Hasbro was able to do Mr. Potatoheads, Mattel was able to do Barbie and Ken... but I see them on shirts and stuff all the time. I have a Mr. Potatohead Toy Story T-shirt. I actually had one when the movie first came out too.

On that nore, it was always Disney/Pixar in the titles of those movies... though, a technicality had Disney OWNING those characters. Again, if the Disney and Pixar split happened as planned and Disney didn't buy them out, Disney could do whatever they wanted WITH those characters, and Pixar couldn't stop them.

As for Sesame Street, here's the deal.

They use the word "Muppet" willingly in their end credits. As Disney owns the term now, I'm sure a deal was made saying "Look, you can still call them Muppets, but put a disclaimer of ownership under it." While the Fraggle rock DVD's are untouched Henson can no longer call them that. BUT Henson can still use their own name and call everything "Jim Henson's ________" while Disney can no longer say "Jim Henson's Muppets." But they never called them Disney's the Muppets, and even the copyright, Muppet Studios, reflects that.

But then again Sesame Street ALWAYS had a Muppet copyright disclaimer, except for those years where they owned their own characters. A LOT of old Sesame Merchandise has "Henson" on it somewhere.

 

[MelissaY1]

I think it also has to do with the fact that Sesame Street is a non profit organization, in that any money they make goes right back into the production for the show. They don't advertise, etc.

 

[minor muppetz]

I guess many of these are good points. Though it's been reported that Disney wants to avoid confusion as to who belongs to what company, and I would expect The Jim Henson Company to feel the same. I'm sure many casual fans still associate the Muppets, Sesame Street, and other Henson creations as one.

If it's a "big company vs. small company" thing regarding trademarks, I would think that The Jim Henson Company would be somewhere between Disney and Sesame Workshop. I'd guess slightly bigger than SW. I still can't believe that the Dog City DVD didn't give Rowlf a trademark credit (I don't think he was presented as a guest star in that produciton, not in the context of the special or the DVD packaging).