Homemade items confiscated?

[AngiTN]

If they confiscated homemade items there'd be a whole lot of naked kids and topless adults wandering around Disney.

 

[marcyleecorgan]

You'll be fine. I have no idea why a former CM wanted to gain an upset reaction from your crafter friend, but totally unnecessary!

 

[mab2012]

Legally, they can't just take your stuff. That would be theft. Hypothetically, they could ask you not to wear the hats in the parks, or even not allow the hats into the parks or elsewhere on their property (though the latter would be very difficult to enforce in practice), but they can't just take them.

It's been a long while since I studied intellectual property law, and what I did study was Canadian law, so there's probably some variation in the details. But as far as I remember, possession or even purchase of an item that violates copyright law is not in itself a legal violation. Unauthorized creation or distribution of those items generally is (with some exceptions). So even if they had the authority to confiscate any of your belongings (and they don't), they wouldn't be able to do it on the basis of copyright violation, because just wearing something doesn't violate copyright.

That said, I'm not 100% certain that copyright is applicable here. Copyright generally applies to specific creative works (eg. book, movie, piece of art). Possibly characters could be considered a derivative of those works, in which case they would be covered by copyright, but I'm not sure of that. More likely the characters are covered by registered trademarks. I'm pretty sure a trademark holder can force you to stop using/displaying a trademark (in this case, wearing the hat), on their property or otherwise, but it would have to be done through the courts, which is obviously not practical on an individual basis.

So while Disney would probably prefer that you didn't come up with your own renditions of their characters, and the law is likely mostly on their side, enforcing those rights against thousands or millions of individuals is simply not viable. So they let it go, because they don't really have any choice.

 

[RustManFan]

a number of individuals have stolen designs that people have done for free and placed them on Etsy and Ebay for sale. (see Creative DISigns forum for what we create and give away!) So immoral.

we have never heard of anyone having something taken away. Just don't BUY anything of this nature! DIY (with a little free help from Creative DISigners if needed)

 

[smiths02]

Legally, they can't just take your stuff. That would be theft. Hypothetically, they could ask you not to wear the hats in the parks, or even not allow the hats into the parks or elsewhere on their property (though the latter would be very difficult to enforce in practice), but they can't just take them.

It's been a long while since I studied intellectual property law, and what I did study was Canadian law, so there's probably some variation in the details. But as far as I remember, possession or even purchase of an item that violates copyright law is not in itself a legal violation. Unauthorized creation or distribution of those items generally is (with some exceptions). So even if they had the authority to confiscate any of your belongings (and they don't), they wouldn't be able to do it on the basis of copyright violation, because just wearing something doesn't violate copyright.

That said, I'm not 100% certain that copyright is applicable here. Copyright generally applies to specific creative works (eg. book, movie, piece of art). Possibly characters could be considered a derivative of those works, in which case they would be covered by copyright, but I'm not sure of that. More likely the characters are covered by registered trademarks. I'm pretty sure a trademark holder can force you to stop using/displaying a trademark (in this case, wearing the hat), on their property or otherwise, but it would have to be done through the courts, which is obviously not practical on an individual basis.

So while Disney would probably prefer that you didn't come up with your own renditions of their characters, and the law is likely mostly on their side, enforcing those rights against thousands or millions of individuals is simply not viable. So they let it go, because they don't really have any choice.

The article presented here is specifically handmade and not for profit...I think it would fall under her personal freedom of speech.
Disney even encourages and makes books with cross stitch patters, knitting patterns, "how to draw Mickey Mouse," recipes and cake decorating materials, etc.

 

[Magpie]

There's an artist called Karen Hallion who draws Disney characters in Doctor Who settings. I have quite a few of her shirts, and really enjoy wearing them around the parks. I get lots of comments and compliments and "Where can I buy one?" queries. A security guard stopped me once, pulled out his wallet, and showed me a card he'd had signed by Ms. Hallion. She'd visited just the day before me!

And heck, I've personally crocheted and sewn Disney characters for sale at a local con. I've turned Disney-printed fabric into doggie dresses. Never had any reason to worry about copyright, nor have any of the many, many other vendors selling similar things at fan cons.

I don't think the OP has anything to be concerned about. Crafting for personal use is completely legal and even encouraged. And while crafting for sale is a grey-ish area, as long as you're not setting up a factory to churn out knock-off counterfeit Disney merch, you're still fine. Especially if your work is in some way "transformative" (ie, it's obvious you didn't buy it at the Disney Store).

Definitely, bring your handmade Disney gear to the parks - I can't think of a better place to show it off!

 

[Geoff_M]

...I believe using copyrighted images for your own personal, non-commercial use falls under fair use clauses along with education, satire, and some other uses.

It's a common myth that personal use of copyrighted works confers "fair use" protection under copyright law. One of the "tests" that the Supreme Court has laid down that should be applied when considering a "fair use" claim in a copyright case is "The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." It's pretty much understood that "Commercial use of a copyrighted work = BAD" is a pretty absolute notion. The problem is that people then assume that the negative of both sides of this equation are also true: "Non-commercial use of a copyrighted work = GOOD". That blanket statement isn't equally true. Otherwise, we could all run out and bootleg all of the software we wanted for our home PCs as long as we weren't using it for a home business, or legally borrow CDs from our friends and rip all of the MP3s we wanted. Additionally, even though the test mentions that educational use as one of the uses that is worthy of "fair use" exemption, even that use isn't absolute as schools may not do things like freely copy sheet music for music classes or copy educational texts without permission from the rights holder. This isn't to say that personal use is automatically "bad" too (it's not), just that it's not a "Get-out-of-jail-free card."

As for the OP's question... No CMs aren't going to disrobe the many hundreds of people that show up to their parks each day with articles of clothing that display unlicensed renderings of their copyrighted characters. The legal issue, if any, Disney would have is with the producer of the clothing and not the person wearing it.

 

[Micca]

So as long as I'm not in parked in my blue minivan at the TTC parking lot Pluto row 27 from 10am 4pm the first & third Thursday of every month selling my custom made Jiminy Cricket "Always Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide" line of apparel it'll be ok??????????????

 

[Geoff_M]

The article presented here is specifically handmade and not for profit...I think it would fall under her personal freedom of speech.
Disney even encourages and makes books with cross stitch patters, knitting patterns, "how to draw Mickey Mouse," recipes and cake decorating materials, etc.

I've never looked, but my guess is that when you open such "How To Draw" books or printed materials that contain cross-stitch designs that they contain language whereby Disney grants the purchaser a limited license to produce such copyrighted works for the purchaser's personal use.

The 1st Amendment doesn't provide an end-run around copyright law. US Copyright Law grants the right holder the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute any new copies of the copyrighted work. This right can also trump normally acceptable "fair use" claims. For example, in order to claim "fair use" to show a film in a classroom, the copy of the film used must have been legally produced. A school system can't just buy one copy of To Kill A Mockingbird and make copies of it without permission to show in all of their English classes.

 

[Magpie]

It's a common myth that personal use of copyrighted works confers "fair use" protection under copyright law. One of the "tests" that the Supreme Court has laid down that should be applied when considering a "fair use" claim in a copyright case is "The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." It's pretty much understood that "Commercial use of a copyrighted work = BAD" is a pretty absolute notion. The problem is that people then assume that the negative of both sides of this equation are also true: "Non-commercial use of a copyrighted work = GOOD". That blanket statement isn't equally true. Otherwise, we could all run out and bootleg all of the software we wanted for our home PCs as long as we weren't using it for a home business, or legally borrow CDs from our friends and rip all of the MP3s we wanted. Additionally, even though the test mentions that educational use as one of the uses that is worthy of "fair use" exemption, even that use isn't absolute as schools may not do things like freely copy sheet music for music classes or copy educational texts without permission from the rights holder. This isn't to say that personal use is automatically "bad" too (it's not), just that it's not a "Get-out-of-jail-free card."

As for the OP's question... No CMs aren't going to disrobe the many hundreds of people that show up to their parks each day with articles of clothing that display unlicensed renderings of their copyrighted characters. The legal issue, if any, Disney would have is with the producer of the clothing and not the person wearing it.

In this particular case, the producer of the clothing IS the person wearing it (along with assorted family members).

And I think we can safely say that Disney would not have any legal issue, in this case, with either the producer of the clothing or the person wearing it.

 

[Geoff_M]

In this particular case, the producer of the clothing IS the person wearing it (along with assorted family members).

And I think we can safely say that Disney would not have any legal issue, in this case, with either the producer of the clothing or the person wearing it.

My point is that legally the wearing of such an item is different that the production of it.

I agree that Disney isn't going to care, unless the images are unseemly. Unlike trademarks, where failure to act on their abuse by others when discovered can be a grounds for losing the registration, Disney is free to pick and choose their battles when it comes to copyrights.

 

[Magpie]

So as long as I'm not in parked in my blue minivan at the TTC parking lot Pluto row 27 from 10am 4pm the first & third Thursday of every month selling my custom made Jiminy Cricket "Always Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide" line of apparel it'll be ok??????????????

Now see, there you'd be directly competing with Disney for those tourist dollars. They wouldn't like that!

But, if you wanted to wear some of your Cricket Apparel to the parks, that'd be okay.

You could even get yourself a booth, and sell your Cricket Apparel at your local Comic Con, though it's generally a good idea to make it clear on your labeling that there is no relationship between you and the Disney corporation. When you're sewing a label in, call it a "Warthog and Meercat" wooly sweater, not a "Timon and Pumbaa" sweater.

If you started a ridiculously popular online shop called CricketApparel.com, however, you might find yourself with a cease-and-desist letter from Disney. It's happened to a handful of off-brand Disney merch sellers on Etsy, apparently. But if you sell through a site like TeeFury or RedBubble, the only risk you run is of having your shirts removed from the site. And, given that RedBubble alone returns 18,097 Results for "Disney T-Shirts" that odds of even that happening are astronomical.

Licensed fabrics are even more interesting. They come printed with alarming warnings on the selvage that say, "Not for commercial use," etc. But, once you've purchased the fabric from the Disney-licensed retailer, it becomes your personal property. And you are legally allowed to sell any item you personally own, to any other individual. Even if you've since cut it up and sewn it into an article of apparel!

I think the important questions, where Disney is concerned, are...

1. Does this business compete directly with us? (ie, if people buy Cricket Apparel in the parking lot, they might not purchase our tees in the park!)

2. Does this business make us look bad? (ie, Jiminy Cricket themed... neck massagers)

3. Is this business advertising in the same sphere we operate in? (Major retailers, large online stores, etc) See #1 - direct competition.

4. Might someone reasonably mistake this business for one of ours? (Counterfeit Jiminy Crickets, stuffed with used Kleenex and knitted from the tears of child labourers.) See #2, makes them look bad!

Fandom arts and crafts SO much fun! One of the most enjoyable things to come out of the Internet Age, in my opinion, has been the explosion of creativity and love for pop culture. Some of the things people make are appalling, of course (YouTube Elsa/Spiderman, I'm looking at you!), but a great deal of it is brilliant.

 

[chartle]

I've never looked, but my guess is that when you open such "How To Draw" books or printed materials that contain cross-stitch designs that they contain language whereby Disney grants the purchaser a limited license to produce such copyrighted works for the purchaser's personal use.

Yes there is usually going to have some verbiage saying what you can and can't do with these kinds of items. I was going through the fabric section of WalMart and there were bolts of blanket cloth to make mostly blankets and printed on the edges, the part you would normally trim off, there was a very clear concise statement that said something like "this is only to be used for blankets no repurposing logos" .

 

[Magpie]

Yes there is usually going to have some verbiage saying what you can and can't do with these kinds of items. I was going through the fabric section of WalMart and there were bolts of blanket cloth to make mostly blankets and printed on the edges, the part you would normally trim off, there was a very clear concise statement that said something like "this is only to be used for blankets no repurposing logos" .

It probably also says, "For noncommercial home use only. Other uses prohibited." However, once you've purchased it, it becomes your personal property. And because it is yours, you can make it into a dress, quilt, blanket, etc, and resell it, as a private individual, to any other person. You can definitely make more than just blankets with it!

The licence agreement is between Disney and the Textile Company, not between Disney and you. Purchasing fabric containing a printed message on the selvage does not constitute any kind of agreement on your part.

What you can't do, however, is claim the fabric design is yours. You can't duplicate the fabric design elsewhere. And, when you sell your handmade goods, you can't indicate in any way that you have an actual relationship with Disney. (ie, by calling it "Disney Princess Blanket", versus just "Princess Blanket")

 

[DisneyOma]

Do they confiscate them then or just tell you that you can't wear that?

I don't think I can explain what was on the shirt without getting in DIS trouble. I believe it was not confiscated though, but the owner was asked to trade it for an offered new shirt. It could be an urban myth, but I was told the story by a former CM. (OK, so probably urban myth!)

There's an artist called Karen Hallion who draws Disney characters in Doctor Who settings. I have quite a few of her shirts, and really enjoy wearing them around the parks. I get lots of comments and compliments and "Where can I buy one?" queries. A security guard stopped me once, pulled out his wallet, and showed me a card he'd had signed by Ms. Hallion. She'd visited just the day before me!

And heck, I've personally crocheted and sewn Disney characters for sale at a local con. I've turned Disney-printed fabric into doggie dresses. Never had any reason to worry about copyright, nor have any of the many, many other vendors selling similar things at fan cons.

I don't think the OP has anything to be concerned about. Crafting for personal use is completely legal and even encouraged. And while crafting for sale is a grey-ish area, as long as you're not setting up a factory to churn out knock-off counterfeit Disney merch, you're still fine. Especially if your work is in some way "transformative" (ie, it's obvious you didn't buy it at the Disney Store).

Definitely, bring your handmade Disney gear to the parks - I can't think of a better place to show it off!

The Cinderella shown above is not Disney's Cinderella. Many fairy tale characters are not specifically owned by Disney, just the cartoon representative that Disney uses. So that design above would not be protected under any Disney copyright.

 

[Dismama2boys]

That's my point though, it's not on the buyer usually. Plus we're talking regular, often front line employees who have other concerns to worry about.



Right, my point is the front line CM isn't going to be responsible for that.

Agreed on all of this. But MY point was correcting the misinformation that they don't persue copyright issues, because they do. In case someone here is or is considering selling homemade items with Disney (or any) copyrighted material, they need to know that at some point they will hear from Disney's legal team. But no, the buyer is not in legal jeopardy - only the seller, and it's not at all enforced by anyone in the parks.

 

[mckennarose]

I make custom t-shirts all the time and we wear them in the parks with no issue. I have a cricut and they do have an "Angel policy" which gives the owner/buyer of circuit images rights to use those images. Cricut sells official Disney images. You just can't sell the products made with the Disney images.
We've had multiple cast members comment on our shirts and magic band decals (which I also make for us) in a positive way.

 

[Magpie]

The Cinderella shown above is not Disney's Cinderella. Many fairy tale characters are not specifically owned by Disney, just the cartoon representative that Disney uses. So that design above would not be protected under any Disney copyright.

Okay, but Karen has also drawn Mulan, the characters from Frozen, the Little Mermaid, Tinkerbell, and may other uniquely Disney characters.

 

[Roxyfire]

Agreed on all of this. But MY point was correcting the misinformation that they don't persue copyright issues, because they do. In case someone here is or is considering selling homemade items with Disney (or any) copyrighted material, they need to know that at some point they will hear from Disney's legal team. But no, the buyer is not in legal jeopardy - only the seller, and it's not at all enforced by anyone in the parks.

I guess next time I'll not use pronouns. I wasn't saying Disney themselves didn't have the time, the cast members do not. Also it's not their area of expertise. My intent was to assure the OP their handmade gear is good and fine to wear, that is all.

 

[SA mom]

Similar to the licensing agreements with Cricut, the pattern for the characters could licensed for personal use. If one bought the pattern then he/she could use it on anything. If the pattern is original to the crafter, that is also no problem.