That.Hat.
 

I heard a rumor that the 100 years of magic emblem of MGM is comin down! has anyone else heard that rumor? is it true?

I wish it were. I've said it here before, but I'm pretty sure that the main reason the hat is there is because of PhotoPass. If I understand correctly, DIsney does not have the rights to sell anything with the image of the Chinese Theater on it. So if the hat were not there, they could not have their photographers taking PhotoPass pictures in that direction down Hollywood Boulevard, because they cannot legally sell pictures that show the theater. (Same is true for the Brown Derby, incidentally.) Hence the hat -- to block the (much more attractive, IMO) view of the theater.

If the image rights for the theater are ever rectified, I would think the hat would be gone pretty quick. I would love to see it moved to the semi-circular area on the water outside of the turnstiles. I don't think it's a bad icon for the park, I just don't like its location.

But then where would the Christmas tree go!?

When did Disney start having photographers in the parks?

I'm pretty sure you used to be able to buy Disney/MGM postcards with the theater on them. And slides. I mean, the place existed for 10-11? years before that stupid thing was put in. Surely Disney put it in pictures before that time.

The "rights issues" over the Chinese Theater are an urban legend that has been repeated so many times that it's almost accepted as fact.

It's possible that Disney was able to reduce or eliminate any royalties paid by blocking the theater as a photo backdrop. Knowing how Disney operates ($$$), IMO that makes a lot more sense than theories about the hat being a better park icon.

Is there a source which refutes this supposed urban legend?

http://www.yesterland.com/removehat.html


Urban Legend.

Before the Big Hat, the Christmas Tree used to go where the hat is now.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VkqXgjEVVB...udios-2000.png

I've said this before and I'll say it again: With all due respect to Werner and Yesterland, he doesn't provide any proof that it is an urban legend. Nowhere in that story does it confirm or deny the existence of an agreement to replicate the Chinese Theater.

The piece contains a lot of deductive reasoning which may or may not be accurate. Just because the argument sounds good doesn't make it true.

Personally I think the photography angle makes perfect sense...particularly if the agreement didn't properly address digital photography and PhotoPass. There are countless examples of rights disputes arising when emerging technologies are applied to legacy contracts.

Assuming for the moment that some contract does (did) exist, it's one thing for Disney to agree to pay a few pennies per hardcopy photo purchased when the contract was written in the late '80s. But if its terms were successfully applied to millions of digital PhotoPass images viewed online, purchased on CD and displayed on a wide range of personalized merchandise, suddenly the bill gets much larger.

How much do they pay for the image used on the Disneyworld.com website?

I mean come on your jumping through a lot of hoops here.

Good point!

https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/at...at-movie-ride/

The reason so many people believe so many urban legends is they tend to "make perfect sense," at least on the surface.

The burden of proof should be to prove that there IS such an agreement with the owners of the Chinese Theater.

Conversely though, is there any proof that the agreement is the reason? As far as I know, there is not, but I could be wrong.

In the absence though, I have a hard time getting firmly behind either possibility. Though I will say that I would think Disney could find a way to resolve the contract dispute short of having to build a BAH and stick it in front of the theater.

Keep in mind, however, that this occurred around the same time they put a giant 2000 on Spaceship Earth. That was bad enough, but then instead of just taking it down in 2001, they chose to put a giant Epcot sign up there.

So, the idea that they thought the BAH (that is the proper name, btw), was a better icon is not far-fetched at all. Even less so when you consider the synergistic implications.