That.Hat.

[Lewisc]

Actually the rumor should be easy to prove. Ask a Disney photographer to take a picture of you with the theater behind you. Specifically ask for that shot. If the rumor is true the photographers would have been told not to take such a picture.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Actually the rumor should be easy to prove. Ask a Disney photographer to take a picture of you with the theater behind you. Specifically ask for that shot. If the rumor is true the photographers would have been told not to take such a picture.

I reject that one...

Disney "photographers" are plucked off the street like people who clean the benches at typhoon.

The have little training in photography...let alone corporate tort law in regards to IP and copyright infringement.

They'll take the pictures and think nothing or it...but that isn't enough evidence to make a judgement:

 

[AnnaNonamus]

I reject that one...

Disney "photographers" are plucked off the street like people who clean the benches at typhoon.

The have little training in photography...let alone corporate tort law in regards to IP and copyright infringement.

They'll take the pictures and think nothing or it...but that isn't enough evidence to make a judgement:

One would think if it was against licensing agreement, then the photo pass people would be well versed NOT to take photos they are not allowed to take. It isn't a matter of them being versed in corporate tort laws, as much as having a written list of rules to follow on the job.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

One would think if it was against licensing agreement, then the photo pass people would be well versed NOT to take photos they are not allowed to take. It isn't a matter of them being versed in corporate tort laws, as much as having a written list of rules to follow on the job.

Actually...it wouldn't matter if they took them...

It would be on the photopass kiosks/website to not sell them for fee.
That probably is the copyright infringement safeguard.

It's not whether
You take them-- it's if you print/sell them for profit.

Just like Walgreens won't print Disney pictures anymore.

I can go take pictures of the theater behind the hat right now if I want...but I can't sell them outside the gates

Mainly because I would have to run away from the retired mall cop "security"

 

[Lewisc]

I reject that one...

Disney "photographers" are plucked off the street like people who clean the benches at typhoon.

The have little training in photography...let alone corporate tort law in regards to IP and copyright infringement.

They'll take the pictures and think nothing or it...but that isn't enough evidence to make a judgement:

Second thought, it doesn't prove it, but not for the reason you gave. Poster gave the reason. If this was a legal issue the Disney photographers would be specifically instructed not to take such a picture.

Doesn't prove it because something could have changed since the hat went up.

 

[tjkraz]

The rumor I heard is slightly different. The issue wasn't with guests taking pictures but with professional photographers (Disney) taking pictures with guests.

Interestingly that jives with another piece of info I came across over the years. Back in 2002 I contacted Disney Event Photography to schedule a photo session during a family trip. The only prohibited location on all of Walt Disney World property was (then) MGM Studios. We could have scheduled the session at any resort hotel or the other 3 theme parks, but not MGM/DHS. Only explanation given was vague "licensing reasons."

If you are indeed not actually leaning toward the contract side, we are on the same page.

Actually I do lean toward contracts being the primary reason the hat was erected.

Disney has spent millions over the years to build, maintain and light the thing. I'm guessing we agree that there's very little Disney does which isn't financially motivated. And I find it hard to believe that the hat somehow generates more revenue than either Earful Tower or Chinese Theater would as a park icon for DHS. Heck, the Tower is even getting some play as a park icon these days:

The Epcot wand came down 6 years ago but Disney has stood firm on the hat despite similar fan rejection / outcry. I think the reasons for its existence go deeper than simple aesthetics.

 

[raidermatt]

For what it's worth, Photopass started in late 2004. But I can't remember how long before that they were taking/selling photos in front of the theater/hat using the old system.

I'm guessing we agree that there's very little Disney does which isn't financially motivated. And I find it hard to believe that the hat somehow generates more revenue than either Earful Tower or Chinese Theater would as a park icon for DHS. Heck, the Tower is even getting some play as a park icon these days:

The Epcot wand came down 6 years ago but Disney has stood firm on the hat despite similar fan rejection / outcry. I think the reasons for its existence go deeper than simple aesthetics.

But see, I don't think the outcry is similar at all. Among the Disney populace at large, there's a lot more support for the BAH than there was for the Epcot sign. Many see it as an individual entity only and don't know or care about the signifigance of the theatre behind it.

I agree on the financial motivation of course, but in the grand scheme the BAH is cheap. It gave them a symbol for MGM for 100 Years of Magic in the absence of anything substantial. When viewed that way, it was a bargain. On top of that, it was a synergistic move. It promotes Fantasmic and Fantasia instead of Grauman's.

Again, I'm not dismissing the possibility of a contract issue, that could very well be at least part of it. But I don't see it as any more likely either.

 

[Q-man]

Grauman's Chinese Theatre was sold to Paramount and Warner Bros as part of the bankruptcy of Mann's. I've heard the bankruptcy court decided the agreement didn't include permission for professional photography, the agreement was up for renewal and finally Disney wouldn't agree to whatever terms Paramount and Warner Bros wanted.

JMO but given the "decoration" of Spaceship Earth at around the same time the most likely explanation may be Disney thought the hat was an improvement. This was done when Disney was pushing pin sales and pin trading.

Grauman's Chinese Theatre was sold in May of 2011 to Chinese Theatres, LLC.

I have no idea on the legal front but miss the 'Grauman' anchoring the Hollywood Boulevard recreation.

Get rid of the hat!

 

[Mouse14]

I've been keeping up with this thread but I have one question mildly off topic that I don't understand ... Why does everyone dislike the hat? I like it! It's an iconic peice...

 

[disneyworld1977]

I dislike the hat as an icon of HS. I would rather see the Chinese Theater. that makes it more "Hollywood".

I think in certain situations its a good icon for something else, animation studio or something.

But I would rather see the Earful Tower as the icon as show on the other post. That is much nicer!

 

[Lewisc]

I've been keeping up with this thread but I have one question mildly off topic that I don't understand ... Why does everyone dislike the hat? I like it! It's an iconic peice...

It was originally Disney-MGM studios. The park was about movies in general, not just Disney.

The theater represented that vision of the park. The issue isn't just the hat but the fact that the hat blocked much of the view of something we liked. I'd have less of an issue if the HAT was always there and didn't block something attractive. I might even have less of an issue if the HAT part of some kind of attraction. To ruin the view for a pin stand. A negative impact without a real positive impact.

Almost all of the back lot tour is gone but we have the Stunt Show, Toy Story Mania....

 

[mbrou24]

It was originally Disney-MGM studios. The park was about movies in general, not just Disney.

The theater represented that vision of the park. The issue isn't just the hat but the fact that the hat blocked much of the view of something we liked. I'd have less of an issue if the HAT was always there and didn't block something attractive. I might even have less of an issue if the HAT part of some kind of attraction. To ruin the view for a pin stand. A negative impact without a real positive impact.

Almost all of the back lot tour is gone but we have the Stunt Show, Toy Story Mania....

One could make the case that the hat is representative of fantasmic. It'd be a weak point but a point none the less

 

[manning]

The real Chinese Theatre opened in 1927. Architectural works from prior to 1976 are not protected by U.S. copyright law. In 1976, Congress changed the law for anything new since then.

Trademarks are another matter. Disney might have a problem if it used the name Grauman’s Chinese Theatre without permission from its owners—but Disney doesn’t do so. The signs on the building all say Great Movie Ride, not Grauman’s Chinese Theatre.

Taken from article.

 

[tjkraz]

Trademarks are another matter. Disney might have a problem if it used the name Grauman’s Chinese Theatre without permission from its owners—but Disney doesn’t do so.

From: https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/attractions/hollywood-studios/great-movie-ride/

Step back in time as you behold a full-scale reproduction of Grauman’s Chinese Theatre.

 

[YoHo]

Even if they do reference Grauman's, That's a separate issue.

as was mentioned, the building itself is uncopyrightable and Disney had every right to build their own. The law didn't go into effect until 1990 and the building was built prior to 1989.

So Grauman's has no copyright to hold over Disney and therefore there is no picture taking limitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_the_United_States

 

[Lewisc]

One could make the case that the hat is representative of fantasmic. It'd be a weak point but a point none the less

You could. Fantasmic wasn't part of the original park. My objection to the hat isn't the hat itself as much as what the hat is blocking.

Even if they do reference Grauman's, That's a separate issue.

as was mentioned, the building itself is uncopyrightable and Disney had every right to build there own. The law didn't go into effect until 1990 and the building was built prior to 1989.

So Grauman's has no copyright to hold over Disney and therefore there is no picture taking limitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_the_United_States

We're not lawyers. At least I'm not, and I suspect most posters aren't. A company can register a building as a trademark. Not the same as a copyright but close enough for purposes of non-legal discussion. A trademark holder can certainly restrict use of a trademark for commercial transactions.

I'm persuaded Disney thought the Hat was an improvement is the most likely explanation. I accept the possibility there were reasons relating to photography.

 

[DizCaptain]

First things first... Lets get rid of that godawful stage in front of the hat. That REALLY needs to go... It's terribly ugly.

 

[YoHo]

I cannot find any trademark info for the building. I did see a cancelled trademark for various housewares filed by Chinese theaters in 1997 and cancelled in 2009. Those years don't match up with the BAH particularly well.

Also the Copyright law I referenced above also has a provision for photography.

http://law.wustl.edu/journal/2/p517spence.pdf

Congressional recognition of
building photographs in the public domain comes from the legislative
history; where Congress noted the prevalence of vacation mementos
consisting of photos of famous works of architecture created by a
large number of originators.

And that same link is discussing Rock and Roll Hall of Fame vs. Gentile Productions.

I am no lawyer, but what I've read makes it clear that restricting photography of the building would have been very very hard.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

I've been keeping up with this thread but I have one question mildly off topic that I don't understand ... Why does everyone dislike the hat? I like it! It's an iconic peice...

It's just a mega-decoration, like those at the All Stars and Pop Century resorts. Such decorations are fine for the value resorts because they provide some sense of fun that differentiates them from Motel 6 and Comfort Inn.

But Disney's (and Universal's) theme parks are supposed to immerse us in other places and other times, with tapestries of skillfully designed details and unfolding perspectives. That's what the Studios park had -- before the silly hat. The stage in front of the hat makes it even worse.

Compare the view up the park's Hollywood Blvd. with the wonderful view down the park's Sunset Blvd. toward the Tower of Terror.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Horace Horsecollar!!

I remember you from back when I was very active here. And I want to tell you, I couldn't have said it any better myself!! And I would have used 3 times as many words!!

Well said!!!