1. Follow the DIS on Instagram! www.instagram.com/the.dis

That.Hat.

Discussion in 'Disney Rumors and News' started by bigdisz, Jan 25, 2013.

  1. Lewisc

    Lewisc <a href="http://www.wdwinfo.com/dis-sponsor/index.

    Joined:
    May 23, 2000
    Messages:
    18,298
    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.
     
  2. Avatar

    Google AdSense Guest Advertisement


    to hide this advert.
  3. lockedoutlogic

    lockedoutlogic DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,687
    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:
     
  4. AnnaNonamus

    AnnaNonamus Mouseketeer

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2012
    Messages:
    154
    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.
     
  5. lockedoutlogic

    lockedoutlogic DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,687
    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"
     
  6. Lewisc

    Lewisc <a href="http://www.wdwinfo.com/dis-sponsor/index.

    Joined:
    May 23, 2000
    Messages:
    18,298
    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.
     
  7. tjkraz

    tjkraz <img src="http://www.wdwinfo.com/images/silver.jpg

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    13,306
    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."

    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:

    [​IMG]

    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.
     
  8. raidermatt

    raidermatt Beware of the dark side. Anger...fear...aggressio

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2000
    Messages:
    6,459
    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.

    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.
     
  9. Q-man

    Q-man DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    693
    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!
     
  10. Mouse14

    Mouse14 Wish I was at the Lodge

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    349
    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...
     
  11. disneyworld1977

    disneyworld1977 Mouseketeer

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Messages:
    399
    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!
     
  12. Lewisc

    Lewisc <a href="http://www.wdwinfo.com/dis-sponsor/index.

    Joined:
    May 23, 2000
    Messages:
    18,298
    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.:confused3 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....
     
  13. mbrou24

    mbrou24 Theme Park Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2012
    Messages:
    217
    One could make the case that the hat is representative of fantasmic. It'd be a weak point but a point none the less
     
  14. manning

    manning <font color=blue>Just for that I have requested it

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Messages:
    11,235
    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.
     
  15. tjkraz

    tjkraz <img src="http://www.wdwinfo.com/images/silver.jpg

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    13,306
  16. YoHo

    YoHo If you have any poo to fling, now is the time.

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 1999
    Messages:
    3,447
    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
     
  17. Lewisc

    Lewisc <a href="http://www.wdwinfo.com/dis-sponsor/index.

    Joined:
    May 23, 2000
    Messages:
    18,298
    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.

    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.
     
  18. DizCaptain

    DizCaptain °o° Disney Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2005
    Messages:
    612
    First things first... Lets get rid of that godawful stage in front of the hat. That REALLY needs to go... It's terribly ugly.
     
  19. YoHo

    YoHo If you have any poo to fling, now is the time.

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 1999
    Messages:
    3,447
    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

    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.
     
  20. Horace Horsecollar

    Horace Horsecollar <font color=blue>DVC members represent a unique ca

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Messages:
    7,297
    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.
     
  21. DVC-Landbaron

    DVC-Landbaron What Would Walt Do?

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2000
    Messages:
    1,861
    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!!!
     

Share This Page