Mighty Docs

[the_cynic]

Well I can see the reason for Pixar to break the contract. Eisner wants Disney to be mercenaries and be possessive of whatever they can.

[MrTitan]

I understand wanting your copyright, rights...but this is sorta like free advertising I mean if nothing else people subcontiously remember where that bootlegged or altered logo is from.

I remember playing football for high school a few years back here in FL every other team had and altered pro logo.

Why not go for the free advertising and help other people make it in life?

[NJTank]

Why not go for the free advertising and help other people make it in life?

So true it is free advertising.

I can understand DIsney being upset if thsi company was making money off a Mighty Docs logo, but I doubt they are selling it.

Soo essentially it is free advertising.

[MC Buffalo]

There are some really talented logo designers who use this forum everyday. Some spends hours and hours making some very intricate and many times genuinely unique and createive logos, so let's pose the question to them.....

Would any of you want other people to use (with only slightly altering) the designs that you post here any way they see fit?

It shouldn't matter if it's an amateur, someone trying to make a name for themselves or a huge corporation/League, the logos created are their property and unless consent is given, those using the logos open themselves up to legal action.

My personal opinion is that if asked ahead of time Disney, the NHL or any professional sports team should be honored and happy to let an "amateur/ not for profit" team use a form of their logo as their own. If I was the Mighty Ducks or the NHL I would just request that a thank you be posted permanently on their website (if they have one) along with a link to the NHL and/or Mighty Ducks website.

[Sterling84]

There are some really talented logo designers who use this forum everyday. Some spends hours and hours making some very intricate and many times genuinely unique and createive logos, so let's pose the question to them.....

Would any of you want other people to use (with only slightly altering) the designs that you post here any way they see fit?

It shouldn't matter if it's an amateur, someone trying to make a name for themselves or a huge corporation/League, the logos created are their property and unless consent is given, those using the logos open themselves up to legal action.

My personal opinion is that if asked ahead of time Disney, the NHL or any professional sports team should be honored and happy to let an "amateur/ not for profit" team use a form of their logo as their own. If I was the Mighty Ducks or the NHL I would just request that a thank you be posted permanently on their website (if they have one) along with a link to the NHL and/or Mighty Ducks website.

OK, I'll bite. Even though it's terribly presumptous of me to assume you may have lumped me in that category.

Obviously we wouldn't want people using our logos, themes, even templates without asking permission or at least giving props.

But I think the reason people get outraged at Disney is the zeal with which they pursue these minor offenses. I would be inclined to theorize like you, that a crime is a crime is a crime. But the world doesn't always see it that way. There are misdemeanors, felonies and all manner of classes of law breaking. Armed robbery and shoplifting are at their core, both theft. But are they the same? A day care, looking to provide some bright colors and familiar faces to some rotten kids, is not the same as one corporation stealing intellectual property from another for profit. Something I might remind you , that Disney has been accused of MORE THAN ONCE in the last 15 years from the Lion King all the way up to Nemo.

For what it's worth, I might certainly raise a fuss if I found out someone had appropriated my work. But I doubt I could draw the direct correlation to money being taken out of my pocket. I guess I have more of a Native American philosophy on ownership. Can I really OWN an idea? Can you copyright the human genome? They tried. Doesn't make it right. Pfft. I sincerely doubt there is anything completely original in the whole realm of sports marketing anymore.

As for the me, luckily I've got a bucketfull of concepts nobody really wants. And the one that worked ain't my property or my problem anymore.

PS - if you read the above post I made, I have asked Disney in advance and they are just as firm on the NO. Plus, then they know you were thinking about it. Double trouble.

[goalieboy82]

the nhl just wants more money.

[MC Buffalo]

I guess I have more of a Native American philosophy on ownership. Can I really OWN an idea? I sincerely doubt there is anything completely original in the whole realm of sports marketing anymore.

PS - if you read the above post I made, I have asked Disney in advance and they are just as firm on the NO. Plus, then they know you were thinking about it. Double trouble.

I am Native American (Cherokee) myself, although I don't think that in itself forms any of my personal opinions. Except I get a wram and fuzzy feeling any time I smell Cheap Gas, her someone yell Bingo or hear the sound of coins being dropped in Slot Machines.

You can't own an idea, but once that idea is on paper and copyrighted, damn straight you can and do own it.

If you read MY post more carefully you would see that I said that I thought Disney and the NHL should NOT have a problem with people who are not making a profit using their logos. But I have to defend the fact that they do.

The point of my post was simply... it does not matter WHO owns the logo, if someone else wants to use it they need to ask, if the owner does not want it used then it should not be.

[Sterling84]

If you read MY post more carefully

Color me hasty. You are right. My bad.

You did indeed say it was them who aught not have the problem. I stand corrected.

I guess the point of my post, however more winding and whispy, is that there is always a choice. People with copyrights in hand are, as you stated , in the right. Now what? You've got the law on your side, the money, the power and influence. What next? You want to bash the people that shuck out 22.99 for your DisneyDVD and sue them? What if a 8 year old makes her own Goofy T-shirt? I used to make my own sometimes. Just as much cash is being made on that as a stupid Club Hockey Team. As in zero. When you hold all the cards, it becomes a public relations game. You're holding a full house, do you wallop your friends and talk merciless trash so they never play poker with you again? Or are you a gracious victor who plays coy and keeps future prospects in mind? I may get flamed for this, but I've heard Dr. Phil say, well many things....several of them about possums?!? But sometimes he says, "Do you want to be right? Or do you want to be happy? Sometimes you can't be both."

There's kind of a myth out there, that other people are "getting rich" off others ideas. I suppose sometimes thats very true. Probably more so in the past generations of entrepeneurs but I'm sure it happens. And when it does, that is not cool. It's unfortunate and hopefully the wounded party has enough proof and backup to correct the situation. In all of my contracts (which are standard downloady ones) there is a line you must sign that basically says "This property is yours to sell in the first place". If it was found out that it wasn't, that breaches the contract and the law can step in and help pretty easily I would think.

I just don't get what all the fuss is quite about. An individual, a day care, a club team doesnt have the resources, motive, or where-with-all to make money on these copyrighted images. Even the most driven of privateer counterfeiters runs such a high risk/reward ratio (like Superbowl merchandise grifters and such) that I doubt they are buying houses in Malibu with the profits.

About the worst I can think to say about "borrowing" copyrighted material is that it is rude...maybe a little stupid, and pretty inconsiderate. Only corporations like Disney, have the power, clout and plausible deniability to steal thoughts and make millions.

The other thing I'd like to real quick bring up. Is that while I dont recommend only following the laws you agree with (we're not animals here). People tend to look at the law in TOO firm of terms. Laws change every day. Laws are just a group of rules we've all agreed (democratically) to follow. They are not gospel. Some of them are wrong. And throughout civilazation people have taken it upon themselves to blowback against the system when it gets out of control. You can draw strong parallels in the MP3 situation. I really believe people won't disobey a law they think is reasonable and just most of the time. At one point in our nations history people had to do illegal things to get the right to vote, go to white schools, get fair wages and a million other things. A good measure of civil disobedience is healthy. There are lots of people fighting for their right to love who they want to right now, and although it's going to be made law.....it's wrong that they can't. It's preposterous. So , I just caution everyone that simply saying it's the law, isn't enough. Not in my book anyway.

Anyway, I sincerely apologize for the haste and misquote. I understand what you are saying and technically, not a one of us can argue with that.

[yh]

Im not sure of all the details but it was Pixar that broke the contract and its becuase of a fight with Eisner supposidly I beleive.

Pixar has determined that it is now cost-effective for them to establish their own distribution channels for their films and therefore don't need Disney to promote or distribute the films and all the film-related products that go along with them. Their original partnership with Disney occurred because they were investing all of their own capital in the creative side and brought Disney in as a distribution/promotional partner in exchange for a very substantial share of the revenue generated by the blockbuster films they produced. Now, Pixar's share of the profits from these films is enough that they feel they can invest in their own distribution and marketing channels and essentially don't need Disney anymore. Therefore, they are not going to continue their partnership with Disney beyond the two films that they are still working on together - one is entitled "Cars" and has to do with anthropomorphic vehicles. I forget what the other film is about. They aren't actually breaking any contracts to my knowledge, just deciding not to enter into any more joint ventures. The acrimony here has to do with the fact that Disney retains marketing and licensing rights for the films that they distributed during the partnership and they are unwilling to give Pixar licensing rights if they go out on their own. Hence, there will never be a Toy Story 3, Monsters Inc. 2 or a sequel to Finding Nemo. Disney likes clean breaks, however given the timeless successes that the Toy Story franchise, Monsters Inc. and Finding Nemo are bound to have, they are likely destined to be an unwilling partner with Pixar for a very long time. Obviously Pixar wants a hefty price to be bought out but Disney simply won't put the marketing rights to the existing Pixar/Disney films on the table as part of a severance package. This is a quagmire not likely to be solved soon. It's a panacea for attorneys however.