A buddy of mine is being sued by a

[DMRick]

Surely images that are recognizably Disney characters are not permitted to be integrated into any home-crafts and then sold, on eBay, craft fairs, church fund drives, etc., without permission from Disney.

That is not entirely true, since items meant to be reused may be resold. Again, such as the yardage material, stickers, and paper that Disney sells. They did try to restrict the use when they first came out with it, but no longer.

I don't care if you believe it or not, but I've already been down that road, and I've not only sold items and continue to sell items with them knowing it, but they have enjoyed one of the items I have made in the past.

 

[C.Ann]

You cannot. At least not how I'm reading what you are asking. However, Disney sells items such as yardage or paper or stickers. Those items you can (according to Disney) now reuse to make into something else, and resell them. I can't however, take a character from the internet, or even from one of the many software packages I own, and put it on something and resell it. I cannot find a great picture of Mickey, on for instance a mug, and scan it and then put it on something, such as a mousepad, and sell it.
Those types of items eBay is pretty good at taking down and sending a vero notice. However, on the few occasions they have sent me a notice, I send back a copy of the document I have from Disney and it gets restored. You can actually get permission from Disney to sell items with their characters on them, but the form they sent me, when I asked their legal department, had a lot of restrictions. They also had a very high minimum I would have had to sell (and I had to give them all of my private info, on how much we sell, and for how much) and of course they would have gotten a very healthy cut. So we passed, and do very limited things using the stickers and actual Disney items that are meant ot be reused.

Okay - two things here.. First of all, do you remember the incident with the bar that I'm talking about? That was one incidence of Disney coming down on an establishment for what they felt was infringement issues.. (And to me, that "Mickey" head looked nothing at all like "Mickey Mouse" - just a rather ugly mouse if I recall.. LOL..)

The other is (and this is where I'm getting confused the most) is that maybe 7 years ago, I purchased a "Disney Princesses" dress for my DGD on eBay - from a woman who sold handmade clothing with Disney characters on it.. She didn't "embroider" anything on there - the images were already on the material - she just made items of clothing out of it and advertised them on eBay as "Disney" dresses, p.j.'s, whatever.. So - was that legal or not? Doesn't really matter to me - 7 yrs. later - LOL - but now I've read on here that even day care centers have had issues with using Disney characters.. I guess I'm trying to figure out where it is that they draw the line..

Obviously they have the right to do anything they want - but it seems there are gray areas - or areas of inconsistency - know what I mean?

 

[HelenePA]

I think as long as disney made the material its okay to resell.

 

[DMRick]

Wasn't that that the Mousetrap? A bar with music near the main post office? I remember that. I think they kept the name but removed the horrible Mickey (it had the colors and we knew it was Mickey, but you are right, it was terrible). Another local place has that name now I recently saw.

I would have to pull out my paperwork to see when Disney started allowing the material to be used for resale...but they did used to fight it (and vero them on eBay), until Taberone took them on.

We have a nursery school in my city, you might know the place (I know the owner, they used to be in our church, until they got their own place) with an obvious Disney name..I've never understood how they got away with it, but they did have to change the characters they used to have on the sign. It's still got the Disney name though.

Disney does send a letter first, telling you to stop selling, which is when I decided I wanted to continue selling items that they sold to me and I used to create something. And so I did. They certainly seemed to know who Tabberone was.

Okay - two things here.. First of all, do you remember the incident with the bar that I'm talking about? That was one incidence of Disney coming down on an establishment for what they felt was infringement issues.. (And to me, that "Mickey" head looked nothing at all like "Mickey Mouse" - just a rather ugly mouse if I recall.. LOL..)

The other is (and this is where I'm getting confused the most) is that maybe 7 years ago, I purchased a "Disney Princesses" dress for my DGD on eBay - from a woman who sold handmade clothing with Disney characters on it.. She didn't "embroider" anything on there - the images were already on the material - she just made items of clothing out of it and advertised them on eBay as "Disney" dresses, p.j.'s, whatever.. So - was that legal or not? Doesn't really matter to me - 7 yrs. later - LOL - but now I've read on here that even day care centers have had issues with using Disney characters.. I guess I'm trying to figure out where it is that they draw the line..

Obviously they have the right to do anything they want - but it seems there are gray areas - or areas of inconsistency - know what I mean?

 

[bumbershoot]

I'm talking about Disney material (yardage, that used to say on the end, may not be resold) and stickers (not stitching that you mentioned..can't use that still, if you mean embroidery onto something), that in the past would be pulled off eBay..not any longer. You can say it's pathetic, but I'm in my 12th year of a successful business, and it's been very very helpful to us.

I definitely remember when this started to change, it was a few years back.

Let's put it this way: If someone creates something original, as defined and recognized by our government, then they are the only people allowed to give people permission to utilize that thing especially within the context of commercial ventures for as long as the laws say the protection lasts.

Surely images that are recognizably Disney characters are not permitted to be integrated into any home-crafts and then sold, on eBay, craft fairs, church fund drives, etc., without permission from Disney.

I almost lost the last thing you said...thought it was saying the opposite of what I now think you were saying! The "not permitted....without permission" caught my attention just before posting, whew! So yes, it does seem that there are permissions given, though they seem to be varied.

Go to ebay. Look up, for example, "disney mermaid book/bag" to find autograph books and bags made/covered with disney fabric. She's been selling these for a few years now. She (the one with the ebay name starting with nick) has sparked others to make similar things, and I was exploring them last night after buying said disney mermaid book/bag for a cousin. One of the competitors (ebay name starting with howd) has wording on her site to indicate the difference in the things that she has made on her own vs made from existing products. Looking at her Donald Duck book and bag...

Disclaimer: The bag in this auction has been handcrafted by me from Disney Licensed Fabric which I purchased.
I am not affiliated with the Disney Company at all.

No clipart on the autograph book is owned by Disney, the designs have been created by me from copyright free graphics & fonts. Donald Duck on book cover has been painstakingly created by me, and is not a Disney Clipart.

 

[C.Ann]

Wasn't that that the Mousetrap? A bar with music near the main post office?

No - it was in the Latham area.. I haven't been over there in years though so I don't know if it's still even there..



We have a nursery school in my city, you might know the place (I know the owner, they used to be in our church, until they got their own place) with an obvious Disney name..I've never understood how they got away with it, but they did have to change the characters they used to have on the sign. It's still got the Disney name though.

No - not familiar with that, but I guess I don't understand what harm it does.. It's not like they're pretending to be Disney World - LOL..

I wonder if that woman still sells those dresses and things on eBay? If so, then I guess it would be safe to assume she got the okay because she got a lot of orders (very nice work) and I would imagine was making a pretty good income from it.. The dress I bought was far more than I would normally pay for a dress for my DGD, but she was at the prime of her "Disney Princess" stage and - well - I'm her "grandma"...

 

[bicker]

I almost lost the last thing you said...thought it was saying the opposite of what I now think you were saying! The "not permitted....without permission" caught my attention just before posting, whew! So yes, it does seem that there are permissions given, though they seem to be varied.

The content owner always has the right to grant permission.

 

[J3nn78]

had to be much more than innocent fun if he LOST $4000 trying to sell hats, shirts, and posters. That sounds like much more than a hobby or fun.

 

[Art 1]

had to be much more than innocent fun if he LOST $4000 trying to sell watches, shirts, and posters. That sounds like much more than a hobby or fun.

Amazing. Never did I say that watches were sold. It is not illegal to sell watches. You could not buy a watch that we play around with for $4000, not even close.

He made some posters and shirts with a watch company logo, gave most away, sold a few, got caught selling the few that were sold.

 

[J3nn78]

Amazing. Never did I say that watches were sold. It is not illegal to sell watches. You could not buy a watch that we play around with for $4000, not even close.

He made some posters and shirts with a watch company logo, gave most away, sold a few, got caught selling the few that were sold.

My bad, I knew you said not watches, which is why I meant to say I don't understand how you lose $4000 in hats, shirts, and posters.

 

[DMRick]

The Latham Mousetrap is still there. It's a restaurant. There was also a Mousetrap on 155 that had to remove their character.

I don't want to mention the name, but believe me, it's a Disney name LOL. She's had the name since about 1975. She did used to have the characters as well. Those had to go.

 

[C.Ann]

The Latham Mousetrap is still there. It's a restaurant. There was also a Mousetrap on 155 that had to remove their character..

Yup.. I thought my memory was really fuzzy on that.. Old age..

 

[LBIJim]

I can't tell you how many local fairs/festivals I have gone to where people were selling things with Disney characters on them. I have seen blankets, jackets, things to hang on your walls, all sorts of things. DH and I always wondered how these people get away with selling stuff like this? Also, I can think of at least 4 daycares that I have seen that have Disney characters painted on their walls. I always thought that wasn't allowed, am I wrong?

Yep, I see stuff like this a lot at street festivals and fairs. Not only Disney knockoff merchandise, but other companys' trademarked characters as well.
I guess Disney lawyers can't be everywhere.

There's this miniature golf course on the boardwalk in Ocean City, NJ with really cheesy replicas of the Flintstones, Peanuts characters, Disney, and maybe a few others. I'm amazed that the place hasn't been shut down by now. Then again, the replicas are SO awful that it's not worth the effort.

Jim

 

[tlbwriter]

Disclaimer: The bag in this auction has been handcrafted by me from Disney Licensed Fabric which I purchased. I am not affiliated with the Disney Company at all.

No clipart on the autograph book is owned by Disney, the designs have been created by me from copyright free graphics & fonts. Donald Duck on book cover has been painstakingly created by me, and is not a Disney Clipart.

I'm really surprised she's getting away with this part. The fact that she created the image of Donald Duck herself doesn't give her the right to sell it. Disney owns the character of Donald Duck, and she has absolutely no legal right to create her own version of him.

 

[tlbwriter]

Yep, I see stuff like this a lot at street festivals and fairs. Not only Disney knockoff merchandise, but other companys' trademarked characters as well.
I guess Disney lawyers can't be everywhere.

Every time you see a peeing Calvin on someone's car, it's an illegal knockoff.

 

[NHdisneylover]

Amazing. Never did I say that watches were sold. It is not illegal to sell watches. You could not buy a watch that we play around with for $4000, not even close.

He made some posters and shirts with a watch company logo, gave most away, sold a few, got caught selling the few that were sold.

I am genuinely curious as to why you feel the need to throw this tidbit out there Why does it matter if it is a $100 Swatch or a $15,000 Patek Philippe I notice because, well, I notice that you often throw out little hints that you are wealthy: things like how much your DD's prom and homecoming dresses cost, how someone's husband who wants to buy numerous $10K + items is not asking for much, how your wife owns many high end purses, etc. Maybe you are doing this subconciously and do not realise you come across as bragging. Especially in a thread like this I have to wonder, if you DO know yo uare doing this is that the reason you started the thread in the first place (since as many people pointed out it seems pretty pointless otherwise).
Anyway, if you have not been aware you do this, now you are and can hopefully notice and stop. If you are aware, well do nto be surprised if people take you less and less seriously as they see more and more of this type of thing. Just a word to the wise (or wealthy and wise).

 

[rie'smom]

I am genuinely curious as to why you feel the need to throw this tidbit out there Why does it matter if it is a $100 Swatch or a $15,000 Patek Philippe I notice because, well, I notice that you often throw out little hints that you are wealthy: things like how much your DD's prom and homecoming dresses cost, how someone's husband who wants to buy numerous $10K + items is not asking for much, how your wife owns many high end purses, etc. Maybe you are doing this subconciously and do not realise you come across as bragging. Especially in a thread like this I have to wonder, if you DO know yo uare doing this is that the reason you started the thread in the first place (since as many people pointed out it seems pretty pointless otherwise).
Anyway, if you have not been aware you do this, now you are and can hopefully notice and stop. If you are aware, well do nto be surprised if people take you less and less seriously as they see more and more of this type of thing. Just a word to the wise (or wealthy and wise).

So what if the OP has money? Why should that make people take him less seriously? Is there a problem with people who have money? Maybe people will take you less seriously if you show a bias towards those who do have money. I don't know why this was posted this as it has nothing to do with the thread.

 

[NHdisneylover]

So what if the OP has money? Why should that make people take him less seriously? Is there a problem with people who have money? Maybe people will take you less seriously if you show a bias towards those who do have money. I don't know why this was posted this as it has nothing to do with the thread.

I have NO issue with people who have money. I do take people less seriously who continuously bring up how much they have even when ti only very tangentially relates to the topic (as in this case--laughing at the idea that the things the OP "plays around" with could be bought for anywhere close to $4000). That had nothing to do with the topic really and sounded, to me, like just bragging and a bit condescending--and if that is the purpose of many of the person's posts then, yeah, I don't take the person all that seriously. I am sure there are many other posters on these boards who are also wealthy--and at times things about that come up totally naturally in a thread and i have no issue with that at all. I am not biased against those with money (or those without or those with kids or without or what have you) but I am biased against those who brag about what wealthy people they are, or great parents they are, or what have you. Obviously you disagree.

ETA--I honestly could not decide if OP realized he was coming off this way or not--thus my honest post about how it looks (to me at least) and wanting to point it out to him.

 

[tabberone]

Don't thank her. That website is a joke.

I do trademark/copyright law, and if somebody tried to defend themselves with that website, well, let's just say they wouldn't win. It is such a pathetic and, simply put, wrong twisting of the law and the First Sale Doctrine, which a rational court would never apply to a transformation or derivative work (i.e. using a Mickey stitching on a pillow case). That website is very entertaining to read and laugh at.

MAH4546, I find that remark interesting since I have had a number of lawyers compliment me on the web site. I have not yet had an attorney point out errors. Perhaps, since you "do" trademark/copyright law, you could enlighten me as to to what specifically on the web site you object? And you might also tell us what do you "do" concerning trademark/copyright law?

The trademark/copyright section of the web site covers thousands of pages and it is possible that I have gotten something wrong but I cannot take corrective action when someone anonymously posts vague attacks. And since you "do" trademark/copyright in the 9th Circus (the 9th Circuit is overturned twice as often by the Supreme Court as any other Circuit) it might be entertaining to hear your "professional" opinion.

Unlike my detractors, I do not post anonymously. My name, address and contact information is readily available on my web site for all to see.

 

[pioneer89]

Welcome Tabberone! I'm with you on this one, I'm no expert, but I thought that the First Sale Doctrine was exactly as you represent it.

In other words, If I buy some Disney fabric from Disney, make a pillow out of it, I can sell it with no further permission from Disney. Am I right?


BTW, to the OP: thanks for the interesting subject to discuss. Just ignore the people here who get off on deliberately misreading and misrepresenting what you say.

I swear, I could make a post that said only: "I just ate a great cheeseburger for lunch!", and by page 6 I would be all of the following:
a) Responsible for world hunger
b) A bad, bad parent.
c) A disgusting low class Wal-Mart shopper who doesn't know how to save up enough for a steak.
d) Insinuating that teachers should be paid minimum wage.