Really, where are the Disney lawyers to do something about these rip offs!

[JJandJanice]

What's going on? Disney used to be hardcore about bringing people or companies to court, whenever they felt something of there's was being rip off. I mean for pete's sake, this company force day care centers to remove their cartoon characters off the wall.

Whre are the companies' lawyers now, though? I mean first when Disney and Pixar's Up come out we got this totally lame What's Up Balloon to the Rip off...I mean Rescue

Than just a day or so ago, I was looking though Wal-Mart and saw this blatant rip off. I mean sure it's not like Disney totally come up with the story of the Frog Prince, but come on. You can't tell me the princess on that cover doesn't look like Disney's Princess Tianna. For gosh sakes, could they at least make the princess look different, maybe I don't a blonde or something, so a case could be made that it's just a different verison of the story.

I'm not one to encourage lawsuits. But man if there was ever a time Disney needs to get there infamous lawyers on the phone, these times would be it. Don't you agree,

 

[ReneeLouvier]

Although I, too, don't encourage lawsuits...I have to honestly agree with you JJandJanice! It's just crazy the amount of rip-offs I've seen around that encrouch on Disney as well as other licensed properties.

Although I do not have evidence on hand (pictures or the like) I've seen plenty of knock offs around in stores and stuff.

They should be shown this honestly, and be giving those companies a run for their money. I mean, hey if they're going to be so darned hard on the poor daycares....why not those other companies?

 

[D'Snowth]

Whoa, now Sara's back!

Sure is great so many old members are coming home for the holidays... well, for the most part anyway.

 

[Beakerfan]

Here's the problem... the companies that make the knock-offs haven't done anything legally wrong. While it sucks that they're trying to make a profit off of Disney's success, Disney can't sue them for having made a movie (or anything else) just because it's eerily similar to something already out. Very rarely do law-people find any validity in cases like this because it would be like suing Weird Al for making a parody. While there have been one or two cases that made it court where something was clearly a deliberate knock-off (i.e. Starbucks sued a coffee chain in India for calling themselves "Starstrucks"), these knock-offs don't infringe on any sort of copyright or protection Disney might have.

Also, it may be that Disney is such a large company that they don't wish to bother with the knock-off companies because they have other, more substantial, issues.

 

[Boober_Gorg]

Anyone seen this?

 

[Drtooth]

Anyone seen this?

Dude... that sketch nails it on the head... right there.

I completely agree 100%. I've said it a million times... these companies can go after people who steal music MP3's and Steal movies online... but how come they're all thumbs to stop the Taiwanese/Korean/ etc. companies that illegally use their characters on poorly produced merchandise (some that are made with dangerous amounts of lead at sweatshops), or willfully knockoff movies with lame little videos that just so happen to look like the same ones made in theaters for millions of dollars with the production value of a student computer generated film?

Is it because they're afraid of looking like hypocrites over the Kimba the White Lion/Lion King or Secrets of the Blue Water/Atlantis: The Lost Empire controversy (look it up)? In those cases, those are just bizarre co-incidences (sort of like the movie Ghostbusters not knowing of the live action 70's series The Ghost Busters, and causing 2 cartoons in the 1980's)... but this is willfully trying to steal a movie in theaters and profiting from someone else's copyright. Plus, I think it would be a boon to mankind if Disney shut these lousy little animation studios that make horrible movies that nearsighted old people buy for their Grandkids.

It's just as bad as that illegal "Chicken Little" sticker sets I saw called "Sea Life" I swear I'll buy them and post them here someday.

 

[mr3urious]

Thank Brazil and their loose copyright laws.

 

[JJandJanice]

Here's the problem... the companies that make the knock-offs haven't done anything legally wrong. While it sucks that they're trying to make a profit off of Disney's success, Disney can't sue them for having made a movie (or anything else) just because it's eerily similar to something already out. Very rarely do law-people find any validity in cases like this because it would be like suing Weird Al for making a parody. While there have been one or two cases that made it court where something was clearly a deliberate knock-off (i.e. Starbucks sued a coffee chain in India for calling themselves "Starstrucks"), these knock-offs don't infringe on any sort of copyright or protection Disney might have.

Honestly I don't agree with anything of what you said, though it was very well thought out. There is a difference between a rip off and a parody. No one would expect the people who made the movie "Scream" to sue the makers of "Scary Movie" cause that's just a parody. However, if Scary movie was a serious...well scary movie...that just totally ripped off the plot of Scream, I bet you anything the Scream people would be all over that. Heck I'll use our beloved Muppets as an example, a parody of Kermit the Frog like say... Late Night's Vomiting Kermit, though crude, is perfectly within the law. It would be quite another if they used that Kermit puppet and tried to promote it as Kermit and used it around shows. In fact Henson DID bring a lawsuit to the show "Wimzies house" (though they maybe debatable, but still) cause they felt it looked too much like a Henson project (though the case was settle out of court), however parodies, even crude ones, like Wonder Showzen or Peter Jackson's Meet the Feebles can't be touch, cause while they maybe a parody, don't just rip off the Muppets. Do you see a pattern here? Trust me there has been much more than "one or two" cases over knock offs, much much much more than one or two.

And honestly, using Weird Al to prove your point was a pretty weak example. Weird Al actually DOES seek permission from the artists before he does any parody song of any song. If he didn't, oh believe me there would be a massive lawsuit, , unless he changed the music and words just enough that it doesn't totally resemble the original, but fans will be able to tell it's a parody. But he doesn't do that, he seeks the artist's permission than uses either the excat same music with different words or the excat same words with different music. In fact more than a few rappers have been taken to court over "simpling" other artists music without seeking any permission. A famous example include Villian Ice's song "Ice Ice Baby" giving no credit to Queen and David Bowie's "Under Pressure."

The only time Al had a problem was with Coolio for a parody of his song "Gangsta's Paradise" which Al did the parody "Amish Paradise." Coolio clamed he never gave Al permission to do the song and Al's reps said Coolio's studio said it was fine. But that's since been water under the bridge now.

What you're talking about is a TOTALLY different thing from what I'm talking about. This cheap knock offs aren't doing a parody of Disney's work of Up or Princess and the Frog, they're totally ripping them off. Like Drtooth said they're making money off grandparents or whomever who can't tell the difference right off the bat.

But to be fair, copyright laws are a pain of sorts and can be very confusing. So some of what you said did make sense overall. There really does have to be a better way to get those laws to work.

Still on the other hand when it comes to the case of the "Princess and the Frog look alike Frog Prince" here, like I mention in my first post, if they just made a few changes, than Disney would have no case on them what so ever, since it's not like this is a totally original Disney story of course. But they didn't want to, they wanted to keep that african princess cause of all the buzz going into Disney's Princess and the Frog over having Disney's first african princess. You can't tell me there is nothing wrong with that?

In the case of the "What's Up Balloon" though...well...I don't think any case can be made to defend that one. That's just a "cut and dry case" of rip off.

 

[a_Mickey_Muppet]

btw SCARY MOVIE and SCREAM are both owned by Disney (Miramax under Dimension film, dimension film all under 2005 still belong to disney even tho the winstins took the name with them when they started TWC, The Winstin Company) so there wouldnt be a prob there.

 

[Drtooth]

But to be fair, copyright laws are a pain of sorts and can be very confusing. So some of what you said did make sense overall. There really does have to be a better way to get those laws to work.

Still on the other hand when it comes to the case of the "Princess and the Frog look alike Frog Prince" here, like I mention in my first post, if they just made a few changes, than Disney would have no case on them what so ever, since it's not like this is a totally original Disney story of course. But they didn't want to, they wanted to keep that african princess cause of all the buzz going into Disney's Princess and the Frog over having Disney's first african princess. You can't tell me there is nothing wrong with that?

I had a conversation about this with someone yesterday, and what it comes down to is that it's somehow perfectly legal to just so happen to have the same idea that comes out at the same time as the person you're intentionally trying to steal profits from by making a very similar version of it. It's like when Fox ripped off bad reality shows and rushed out crappier versions of them as soon as they read the press release.

Personally, I think they SHOULD change the copyright law to that extent that when they release a movie theatrically that a similar movie made SOLELY for the purpose of cloning it and stealing potential profits should be illegal. Having the same idea shouldn't be a problem, but willfully copying it to cut into a company's high budget film that people worked on for years? That IS theft of intellectual property.