Disney goin back to court over sequal?

[BRERALEX]

BBC NEWS

Last Updated: Thursday, 16 October, 2003, 11:31 GMT 12:31 UK


Disney accused of 'evil bulldozer' slur


Disney claims the film is harmless fun
Heavy equipment maker Caterpillar has seen red over a new Disney film which it claims portrays its earthmovers as "evil".
The US engineering giant is attempting to block the release of George of the Jungle 2, claiming the film will damage its reputation.

The company claims the straight-to-video slapstick comedy portrays Caterpillar earthmovers as part of an "evil attacking army" bent on destroying the jungle.

But Disney - which has vowed to fight Caterpillar's trademark infringement law suit - claims the offending scenes are harmless fun.

The film centres on George, an accident-prone Tarzan figure, and his attempts to save the jungle from scheming industrialists.

Caterpillar objects to the final battle sequence, which pits George and his computer-animated animal friends against an army of Caterpillar Wheel Loaders that a narrator calls "bulldozing bullies".


Caterpillar claims its machines are portrayed as 'evil'
The Caterpillar name and corporate logo are featured clearly throughout.

The company claims the scenes will have a negative effect on children and could affect Caterpillar's line of children's products.

A Disney statement said: "While we have great respect for Caterpillar, we consider this without legal merit and we expect the audience will view these sequences for their comedic value and not take them seriously."

The lawsuit asks a judge to issue a temporary restraining order to block the scheduled release of the film.

It also seeks an order that Disney destroy all offending material.

A Disney spokesman said the film has already been released outside the United States.

No court date has been set.

 

[KNWVIKING]

I guess Disney should sue Fox everytime the Simpson's say something less then flattering about Disney.

 

[HB2K]

I'd love to see someone make a movie where Mickey Mouse, while referred to in the dialog of the film as "the evil rodent who wants to run the world", is the evil enemy....

Let's see how Disney would react to that one.

Hypocrits.

 

[HB2K]

Viking,

The difference between the Simpson's satirical jabs and what Disney is doing is simple.

The Catapiller logo is apparently in PLAIN sight for all to see....thus the little ones will associate the logo with the bad guys from George of the Jungle.

Why they just didn't airbrush the logos out is what I don't get....why is Disney so hell bent on having the logos appear in the film?

 

[KNWVIKING]

What has Disney done that's hypocritical ? Has your hypothetical situation occurred, or are they just hypocritical in your opinion because they MIGHT act this way ?

 

[HB2K]

The fact that Disney has forced day care establishments to remove IMAGES of their characters from walls, yet feels they should be free to paint another company with whatever paint they feel is hypocritical.

And do I think they'd act as Catapiller is if the roles were reversed?

You're god d***ed right I do.

 

[Baileymouse]

Umm, people do. Didja see Dogma? Mooby is a combination of Disney and McDonalds.

Some comic strips have made fun of Disney for years. It goes with the territory.

KNWVIKING is right - the Simpsons poke fun at Disney all the time. The episode where they go to an amusement park (Itchy & Scratchy land) shows Homer buying something like Disney Dollars, only to find that they are not accepted at the parks, and the audioanimatronics run wild. The animatronics are all mice!

By ignoring it, it goes away and people laugh. By making an issue out of it, publicity ensues.

 

[KNWVIKING]

Television & movies are full of logos and actual products- have been for years. At least in the movie the child needs to see the logo and understand its relevance. For children, Disney is much better known then Caterpillar earth moving equipment. The Simpsons don't hesitate to throw the Disney name around negatively. Kids don't have to look for it, they hear it. If Disney were hypocrites they'd be suring Fox.

 

[HB2K]

But you don't see Walt's face or trademarked signaure on the bills Homer buys.

You don't see Mickey Mouse as the audio animatronic running wild.

Catapiller's main beef as I understand it from the article is that THEIR LOGO is on the villanous machines. I don't think Catapiller is petitioning Disney to change the villan from bulldozers to cartoons....they are trying to protect their company's image.

Why does the catapiller logo have to be there?

 

[HB2K]

The Simpsons don't hesitate to throw the Disney name around negatively. Kids don't have to look for it, they hear it. If Disney were hypocrites they'd be suring Fox.

A) While I don't watch the show religiously, I've never heard the Simpsons refer to the Disney company by name, nor have I ever seen the company's logo on the show. The content isn't the issue here....it's the unwilling placement of another company's logo.

B) Most shows take great pains to avoid displaying a company's logo on ANY props used in filming...unless they're paid to display them via a sponsorship agreement (The whole E.T. situation comes to mind).

 

[KNWVIKING]

How come Coke doesn't sue Pepsi when a Pepsi commercial "shows up" Coke products ? Or how about Ford sueing over GMC's latest commercial with the Ford F150 trying to keep up with the GMC Sierra ?

Caterpillar will get a ton of free advertising mileage out of this. They should be thanking Disney, not sueing them.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"A) While I don't watch the show religiously, I've never heard the Simpsons refer to the Disney company by name, "***

They have said "Disney" and Disney World more then once. I believe they have also said Disneyland. If my DS were on-line I would ask him....he would tell me the episode number, what charactor said it, and in what context it was meant

 

[HB2K]

Caterpillar will get a ton of free advertising mileage out of this. They should be thanking Disney, not sueing them.

Oh yeah they should thank someone for making lots of little kids think their logo is synonomus with evil and the villans.

Thanks Disney!

They have said "Disney" and Disney World more then once. I believe they have also said Disneyland. If my DS were on-line I would ask him....he would tell me the episode number, what charactor said it, and in what context it was meant

As I said, I don't regularly watch the show so I will readily admit I could be wrong. I'd like to know what context the company Disney company was portrayed as....a single line snide joke or the full fledged villan of one episode?

 

[DemoBri1]

I can tell you one thing...If Caterpillar wins this (which I don't believe they will) it is going to set-up some interesting legal precedents that could turn the advertising and movie-making industry upside down.

Just think of the ramifications that may result, GM can't show a Ford truck being beaten up by a Chevy Silverado w/o airbrushing the Ford logos out or referring to a Ford F150. Those cool Coke vs. Pepsi commercials will now be Coke vs. Cola X, or Pepsi vs. Cola Y.

This just proves how litigous our society has become.

 

[jlambrig]

This has in part to do with the protection offered by the law with regard to satire. I am not even going to try and pretend I know all of the intricacies involved but this is a very salient point.

Kevin Smith used Mooby because he was paranoid about what would happen if he actually used Disney and or McDonald's. And rightfully so, they would have sued him to try and keep the film from being released. It was thinly disguised but unless someone actually introduces known falsehoods, their is protection by the law when satire is involved.

And yes the Simpsons have referred to Disney multiple times even originated a show from WDW. Apparently, Duff World has a vacuum cleaner problem that interfers with the Last Call music so they decided to try something different.

I don't think Cat has a leg to stand on here. Remember, bulldoers don't destroy the jungle, people do.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"Oh yeah they should thank someone for making lots of little kids think their logo is synonomus with evil and the villans."***

Ok, be honest HB2K, do you really think the kids that watch GotJ2 will ever associated Caterpiller as evil ? Do you believe Cat will lose income,market share or prestige because of this video ? Or is Cat just looking for a headline ?

Besides, how many kids would think the evil 'dozers are "Kewl" ? If Cat were smart they'd find a way to put their toy trucks on the same shelf as the video.

 

[Another Voice]

The laws about this are pretty clear.

A company's trademark and logos are owned by the company. They can not be used without the company's agreement.

When you show a company's marks in a movie, you have to get permission. If you're shooting on a public street, you have to get McDonalds to sign off if you just happen to see one of their burger stands down the street. There are a lot of people in town whose job is get these clearances and whole fleets of lawyers as well. And when the clearances don't come through, there are a herd of stagehands to paint over logos and CGI artists to blur out faces and signs. Watch any reality show and you're likely to see logos on clothing blurred out (because it's cheaper than getting permission) unless they happen to be a sponsor for the show.

There's another whole industry that deals with product placements where pay to get their products on screen. So when the '8 Simple Rules' family heads out for their Magical Gathering® at WDW, you'll be sure to see plenty of glowing references to their magical® DELTA AIRLINES flight.

But you ever notice that when the plane crashes that's it's ALWAYS a made-up airline you never of heard of?

It's because companies don't want their products shown in a negative light. They own the rights to the name and their marks, and they can decide how to use them. Just because some writer at 'JAG' needed a cool action scene where a plane blows up doesn't give them the right to take someone else's property (the Delta Airlines logos) and uses them for a dramatic purpose. And if they that did happen, I'm sure someone at Delta Airlines would rather upset at how their product is being represented.

That seems to have happened here. Someone either failed to get the required clearances from CAT for the use of their logos or someone forgot to paint over them while they were filming. Obviously, CAT doesn't want their product associated with the villains and it's their right to prevent other people from profiting from their trademarks. Yes, perhaps CAT is over reacting a bit - but someone at Disney clearly failed at one of the most routine and common aspects at studio movie making.*

There are two exceptions to the "my marks are my property" laws. The first is parody. This has been time and time again that "public figures" are fair game within the limits of slander and liable - it goes back to the First Amendment and why you can make fun of Hillary Clinton or George Bush and not get sued.

The same holds for companies, but only for their "public image" - it does not go for owned property like characters and trademarks. Watch 'The Simpsons' - they can talk about Disney all they want and create a parody of the castle - but they can't actualy have Mickey Mouse hitting Bart. It's also why 'C.S.I.: Miami' can't just show up one day with their cameras and film an episode about carnage at Dino-Rama.

The other exception is commercial speech (as in trying to sell my products) which, as Nike just found out, has fewer protections than other forms. That tends to be regulated and the latest FCC rules seem to make it easier for you to say "my product is better than that guys" and be able to show "that guy's" product. For a long time it wasn't allowd, which is why ever soap worked better than Brand X. Some of the more recent commercials (like Pepsi/Coke) seem to really be pushing the edge on this. A lawsuit is bound to happen sooner or later.


* - as a side note, the courts have also ruled that if brands are used long enough in "general speech" that a company can use the brand name. Read through any trade publication for writing and you'll see ads from people like Kleenex yelling at people to use words like "tissue" instead of Kleenex. I remember seeing several from CAT asking people to use "tractor" instead of "Caterpillar". They already have a sensitivity to the issue.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"That seems to have happened here. Someone either failed to get the required clearances from CAT for the use of their logos or someone forgot to paint over them while they were filming. "***

That's one heckuva oversite. We're not talking about an innocent Coke can sitting on a table. You would think that someone in the legal dept would have addressed this issue long before the first DVD was ever produced.

 

[HB2K]

***"Oh yeah they should thank someone for making lots of little kids think their logo is synonomus with evil and the villans."***

Ok, be honest HB2K, do you really think the kids that watch GotJ2 will ever associated Caterpiller as evil ? Do you believe Cat will lose income,market share or prestige because of this video ? Or is Cat just looking for a headline ?

Besides, how many kids would think the evil 'dozers are "Kewl" ? If Cat were smart they'd find a way to put their toy trucks on the same shelf as the video.

OK So now you're changing your arguement that Disney is in the wrong on this, and CAT should be happy Disney is using their trademarks as Disney sees fit?

Puleeze.

That's one heckuva oversite. We're not talking about an innocent Coke can sitting on a table. You would think that someone in the legal dept would have addressed this issue long before the first DVD was ever produced.

Which is what I said earlier....why did Disney leave the logos there unless:

A) They are trying to cash in on CAT's recognition
B) Someone was asleep at the wheel

 

[Another Voice]

Yes, it rather is. Next time you see it one TV, watch how carefully the actor holds that "innocent" can of branded soft drink so the logo does not appear (unless it's a paid placement).

All of the studios are extremely picky about this. It is impossible to even mention the name of a product without some lawyer getting in a fuss. It's even to the point where character names have to be reasearched: if a script calls for an evil doctor someone will check to see that there are no real doctors with a similar name in a similar town or city.

My only guess (I haven't seen this movie) is that someone thought that Caterpiller was generic enough so that no one would notice. Just like you can get by with using real cars as long as no one says anything bad about them, I'm sure someone thought "they're just tractors, no one will mind".

Another twist that I just remembered is that CAT is a sponsor at California Adventure. They have some big equipment parked in the Farm area-ette for the kids to climb on. Here's the link on Disneyland's website (http://disneyland.disney.go.com/dlr/detail/attraction?id=BountifulValleyFarmAttractionPage) which includes "Tip: Feel free to climb on the Caterpillar Tractors."