Comments on: Disney Sues Clowns over Costumes

By: Rodney

Rodney — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:09:22 +0000

Your squirming rationalizations are just falling apart with your repetition and exaggeration. Especially when you reply so carelessly illustrating you didn’t even read my post.

YES, MP3 players that look exactly like iPods ARE ripoffs, and if sold in the US are subject to the same laws that got these clowns sued. You fail.

Not ONE of those kids is going to say “hey look its an orange tiger” they all scream with glee and shout TIGGER! in unison. Don’t kid yourself.

Its infringing on their copyright and no matter what half assed ignorant excuse they gave to the local news crews, they KNEW they were buying a Tigger costume. BECAUSE it was a Tigger costume.

Learn your laws Regina. Even this close of a similarity is an infringement on copyright and trademarks no matter what excuse you use to play dumb about it.

By: Regina

Regina — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:42:39 +0000

what does your car have to do with kids parties??? Trust me… I don’t want your car… :-)

Someone buys a knockoff hand bag… are they getting sued by Louis Vuitton?? Seriously?? People buy & sell knockoff handbags at parties… no one gets sued… they don’t sell them as official handbags.

When these people do parties, they don’t say that it’s “tigger” or “pooh”… they call them the orange tiger and the yellow bear (I guess)… as I said, they are not exact replicas just as the handbags aren’t … and they are not marketing them as such…

What about the mpg players that look like Ipods… Apple didn’t sue them for making something that looks like an ipod… it’s NOT an Ipod…

I think I am going to hire a character for my sons next party, now that I think about it. Will I be sued as well?? Trying to trick kids at his party into thinking that the real Mickey Mouse came to the party… am I going to be sued for not putting TM at the end of his name??

By: Rodney

Rodney — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:49:37 +0000

Well Regina, Copyright law has NOTHING to do with you choosing to save money to hire a ripoff artist to deliberately bought an “Orange Tiger” because it looks a lot like Tigger. No one is that dumb to think that isn’t precisely why they bought it.

And they can’t go after the manufacturers because they live in a country where the Copyright laws cannot touch them. But they sure able to touch someone professionally benefiting from the familiarity of their trademarked characters.

You seem to think its justifiable because we are in a recession. So if I steal your car because I don’t want to wear mine out, then its ok? After all, its a recession! All I am doing is trying to save some money.

Ignorant.

By: Regina

Regina — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:04:41 +0000

Is no one thinking about the kids here? So many children are thrilled when a character that looks similar to the one on their favorite TV show actually attends their birthday party and plays games with them. The characters don’t look exactly like the ones at the theme parks… and no offense, I have 3 kids & it would cost about 8000 dollars to vacation at Disney for a week.

We’re in a recession people, and this is just another way for corporate America to stay afloat… bankrupt the little people who tried to make kids happy, earn an honest living without having to sell drugs on the corner. They wanted their money back from the person who sold it to them. They didn’t buy “Tigger”… they bought and “Orange Tiger” They should be going after the companies who make the costumes.

By: Rodney

Rodney — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:19:22 +0000

Kim, unfortunately ignorance is not a valid legal defense in any democratic country. And clearly if they did not know that you cannot use the properties then why make the effort to call them “orange tiger and blue donkey”. They were fully aware that these were Disney knockoffs and fully aware of the copyright laws. Their efforts to defend themselves in this manner make that evident.

Also, Disney would have gone after the costume makers if those costumes were made in the US. Copyright laws don’t stop someone in Peru from making the costume, and doesn’t stop them from selling it to people in the US.

But I am sure that Disney would go after Ebay to have the auctions taken down. In that they have full right to do.

By: Kim

Kim — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 03:48:46 +0000

I understand what Disney is doing I just think they are doing it to the wrong people. The average person doesn’t know the extent of the copyright laws. This couple did pay for their costumes they just didn’t pay the right ppl. They probably didn’t realize that they could not use them for personal financial gain since they owned them. You would have to be pretty stupid to think they were anything other than Disney characters though. Anyway, Disney needs to get to the root of the problem, the company that made the costumes, not this couple that was trying to start a business and get off of welfare. (and you do have to give them credit for that) Although, I do wonder where they got the $500 if they are on welfare. There surely is a way to get that company…..I would hope.

By: HAZMAT

HAZMAT — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:36:14 +0000

disney isnt ran by selfish bastards that just sue people. any company with brains would have done this. if they didnt crack down on this everyone else would do it. this doesnt make disney evil and this doesnt make them suck, it makes them better because theyre respecting the loyal costumers that actually pay for the merchandise

the whole piracy shit on limewire is wrong no matter how small people think it is. almost everyone does it- so its big. same with how family guy wanted all the youtube videos taken down if they had theyr show on it. and this goes on and on to bootleging and all that crap

its stealing and its wrong no matter at what degree it is. you stole a car/ you stole a marble- it doesnt make a difference its still wrong and people dont fucking get it

By: Rodney

Rodney — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:05:38 +0000

How is it rediculous?

At what point do you decide that their financial benefit directly from using a Disney property is not worth protecting?

If they let all the little guys get away with it, then the little guy gets bigger, then more people do it because word gets out that Disney doesnt go after the little guy who abuses their copyrights.

They MUST go after people who are financially benefitting from their copyrights. You would if it was your property.

By: SupernetUser

SupernetUser — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:55:11 +0000

The whole situation is ridiculous and people need to let go. Disney will sue for everything that couple has over a silly decision. Its just bizarre.

By: Rodney

Rodney — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:41:03 +0000

The money isnt really relevant. They wont get millions out of these welfare refugees trying to keep their heads above water. The dollar value was part of the threat to show they mean business.

The copyright is Disney’s. They license the rights to the story, but the likeness is theirs. The payout to the rights of the story has nothing to do with the product Disney created.

If the couple were being sued for using the name and content of Slesinger’s story, then Slesinger would have to pursue. However they are using the likeness and imagery of the specific products created by Disney. You will notice that the clown couple were quick to simply call the costumes a “orange tiger” which means they were not making use of the story, but the imagery is undeniable. And that is what Disney is suing for.

And believe me, they are not attempting to profit from this lawsuit, they are making the effort to maintain the value of their own works.