Disney Responds to Lion King Suit

[Sarangel]

U.S. entertainment giant Walt Disney Co said on Tuesday it was not liable in a dispute with South African lawyers over the copyright to "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" -- one of Africa's most famous tunes.
Lawyers for the family of the song's original composer, Zulu migrant worker Solomon Linda, are suing Walt Disney in South Africa for infringement of copyright to the song, which has earned an estimated $15 million since it was written in 1939.

The song, originally called "Mbube," has been recorded by at least 150 artists around the world and features in Disney's "Lion King" on film and on the stage.

A statement from the U.S. company received by Reuters in Johannesburg on Tuesday said Walt Disney had obtained the right to use the song properly from Abilene Music, the New York firm which administers its copyright in the United States.

"As a company built on the strength of its creative content, the Walt Disney Company takes all matters of copyright ownership seriously," it said.

"To the extent that a copyright ownership issue exists in this case, it should be taken up with Abilene Music publishers, from which the rights to 'The Lion Sleeps Tonight' were properly licensed."

South African lawyer Owen Dean told Reuters that although the response from Walt Disney was factually correct, the U.S. firm was still liable for copyright infringement under British laws in force in the country when the song was recorded in 1939.

Lawyers acting for Linda's family -- who live in poverty in the Johannesburg township of Soweto -- say that under laws in force in South Africa at the time, rights to the song should have reverted to Linda's hiers 25 years after his death in 1962.

Dean said the family was claiming ten million rand ($1.6 million) in damages from Disney.

They say they are suing Walt Disney rather than Abilene Music as Abilene has no assets in the country.

South Africa's High Court in Pretoria has attached use of Disney's trademarks in South Africa -- including Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck -- to the case.

That means proceeds from use of those trademarks will revert to the plaintiffs if Walt Disney loses the case.

 

[Chuck S]

They say they are suing Walt Disney rather than Abilene Music as Abilene has no assets in the country.

So, hey, Disney purchased the use rights in the US, and the plaintiff says, yep, they did purchase the rights legally, but Disney has assets in Africa and the "real" bad guys don't, so we'll sue Disney...ahhh, the court system has frivilous lawsuits in Africa just like the US.

 

[renknt]

Lawyers acting for Linda's family -- who live in poverty in the Johannesburg township of Soweto -- say that under laws in force in South Africa at the time, rights to the song should have reverted to Linda's hiers 25 years after his death in 1962.

Sorry Chuck but this makes the lawsuit real and legitimate and not frivolous. $1.6 million wont hurt Disney at all. They will probably settle for less but this falls in to the category of not doing enough research. At least the didn’t have to fight a “kimba the white lion” lawsuit.


Mike

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by renknt
Sorry Chuck but this makes the lawsuit real and legitimate and not frivolous.

It's not a frivolous lawsuit, but it is a frivolous lawsuit against Disney. Lion King wasn't even a glimmer of a gleam of a thought in someone's brain in 1962, when the rights to the song "should have" reverted back to the family based on South African law. Disney didn't have assets or concerns in South Africa then. I think that the company DID do their research -- they wanted to use the song, they found out who owned the rights, and they purchased the rights from that company for use in the film, the way they have for every other song they've ever used.

The onus, here, is on Abilene music to prove that they owned the song at the time, not on Disney because they didn't do enough research. Not to mention that the song has been used by a multitude of groups since 1962, and has appeared in many movies other than Lion King. Acappella groups from Africa to LA have recorded that song and sold it or performed it in concerts for which they sold tickets. Are all of THOSE groups also liable to this South African family? They paid rights and royalties to Abilene too, without, apparently "doing enough research." Abilene is the culprit here, if there is indeed a case.

 

[DancingBear]

From the description of the claim, it sounds like the family is not even trying to claim that current law in South Africa would operate in the family's favor---rather, they are claiming that British law which governed South Africa in 1937, when the song was written, should apply (even if those laws were subsequently changed). That's a huge stretch.

Why in the world would this mean Disney "didn't do enough research"?

 

[KNWVIKING]

Was it the poverty stricken relatives who probably lack the wearwithall to pursue something like this..... or was it a lawyer who saw a chance to take 50% on a contingency basis hoping Disney will probably offer a settlement ?

IMO, after all is said & done, the poor poverty sticken relatives will still be poor & poverty stricken.

 

[WDSearcher]

Alas, Viking, you're probably right.

 

[dcentity2000]

Points to note or query:

1) Poor, empoverished South African family can afford intellectual property lawyer who is confident enough to take on Walt Disney (lawyers like money in case they lose);
2) Disney will be eager not to be seen as having stolen from what is portrayed as a poor, empoverished South African family;
3) If there is continued exposure which casts doubt upon Disney, Disney may settle out of court - what the plaintiffs are seeking, I'll bet;
4) Intellectual property is trixy at best and the US (as well as a few other countries) is notorious for forming unique laws in the field, which they will endeavour to enforce even if 99% of the transactions were in a foreign territory.



Rich::

 

[KNWVIKING]

The problem though with Disney offering a settlement of any kind is that it may embolden others to file frivolous suits hoping for the same gift. I imagine though that if Disney has any inkling that they could lose the suit, they would offer a settlement.

 

[dcentity2000]

Viking - guess you're right. I humbly retract that part of my post



Rich::

 

[renknt]

Originally posted by DancingBear
From the description of the claim, it sounds like the family is not even trying to claim that current law in South Africa would operate in the family's favor---rather, they are claiming that British law which governed South Africa in 1937, when the song was written, should apply (even if those laws were subsequently changed). That's a huge stretch.

Why in the world would this mean Disney "didn't do enough research"?

So let me get this straight if you act in good faith with some one who sells you something they don't have a legal right to, you can tell the legal owner of the property that because you thought the person you purchased the property had a legal right to sell it you can keep it and not give the legal owner any compensation?

Well thats not right is it. I belive the greeks said "let the buyer beware"


And under South Africs previous form of government how much of a voice do you think a poor black family had?

 

[WDSearcher]

That all makes perfect sense if you're the FIRST buyer of the thing that the seller doesn't have a legal claim to. But if six hundred other people bought that same thing from the seller, and had been doing so for twenty years without anyone once making a claim against the seller, then I, as buyer #601, should be able to reasonably assume that the seller has the right to sell the product.

In the case of this song, hundreds of groups -- from school groups to groups like Rockapella to top-tier performing artists like Paul Simon and Pete Seeger -- had purchased the rights to the song and performed it on stage, on CD, and live on television. Not to mention that the song had been used both on television and in films prior to The Lion King. During all that time -- from 1962, when the rights were, according to the South African lawyer, supposed to revert back to the original songwriter, until last week -- not one claim had been brought forth against the use of the song by anyone. There was absolutely no reason for Disney, or anyone else, to think, "Gee ... I'd better check this song out to make sure that Abilene really owns the rights to it because there may be something weird here, like British colonial rights in South Africa or something." Come on. Pete Seeger got FAMOUS on this song, for goodness sake, and no one said anything! Not until Disney and Lion King make billions of dollars does this South African lawyer pop up and make a claim.

 

[KNWVIKING]

.... To buy a house in NJ, the buyer has to contract with a title company and have a title search done to verify there are no liens against the property ( it does other things also, but thy're unimportant for my purpose right now). If the title co. gives it a free and clear, then "title insurance" is issued. If somewhere down the road - say 10 years - a person shows up with a valid lien against my property I am not resposible, the title co. is. My "research" requirement was fullfilled by following the law of the land and having a title search done. IMO Disney did their research also.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by renknt So let me get this straight if you act in good faith with some one who sells you something they don't have a legal right to, you can tell the legal owner of the property that because you thought the person you purchased the property had a legal right to sell it you can keep it and not give the legal owner any compensation?

Well thats not right is it. I belive the greeks said "let the buyer beware"

Actually, the law does often allow a good faith purchaser for value to keep ownership of a thing against the claims of a prior "true" owner. To do otherwise would stifle commerce. After all, the good faith purchaser for value did nothing wrong.

For example, when you buy something at your local store, you don't have to check the UCC filings to see if a lender has a security interest against the store's inventory, and then check with the lender to make sure the store is not in default of its loan.

ITA WDSearcher's analysis. The law also embodies the concept of "laches", which says that even if you had legal claims, but you "slept on your rights" for a long period, such that others had come to rely on the status quo, etc., then you can't pop up much later and enforce your claim.

And under South Africs previous form of government how much of a voice do you think a poor black family had?

Apartheid has been gone for over 10 years, and Lion King has been out, and wildly successful, for the same period.


If I get a chance, I'll dig out the children's album which Ladysmith Black Mambazo did, which includes this song, and see if I can tell where they licensed the rights from.

 

[Sarangel]

from 1962, when the rights were, according to the South African lawyer, supposed to revert back to the original songwriter

Point of order... The man died in 1962, the rights were supposed to revert 25 years after his death, i.e. 1987.

Still, no one has filed suit since 1987 either...

Sarangel