question... Princess Fraud

[ilovepcot]

I'm not sure on the percentage with something like this but a pattern only needs to be changed 20% to be called ones own. So slight variations may be all it takes to go from illegal to legal.

Do you, by chance, do stained glass? I do and this is discussed on glass boards from time to time. Changing patterns 20% is what glassers are always told to do to avoid legal issues.

 

[Granny square]

Well phooey! Triple post!

 

[Granny square]

Do you, by chance, do stained glass? I do and this is discussed on glass boards from time to time. Changing patterns 20% is what glassers are always told to do to avoid legal issues.

I sew fabric/leather bags and prefer to write my own patterns. As well as see those. . I love glass I admire talent in working with it. It seems like magic to get it to break just right!

 

[Granny square]

Double post

 

[Burnedout]

I see fabric/leather bags and prefer to write my own patterns. As well as see those. . I love glass I admire talent in working with it. It seems like magic to get it to break just right!

HA! I agree! I write quilt patterns. I grew up in Amish country where there are a
Million established patterns. I love adding A modern twist to them after actually learning to quilt when I loved in California in the 80's.

 

[georgina]

There was an article in the local newspaper last weekend about a Snow Queen and Ice Princess party business. Sure they are capitalizing on the movie, but Disney doesn't have exclusive rights to the fairy tales so if their costumes aren't exactly the same they may be OK from a copyright standpoint. A quick Google turns up a lot of them!

 

[EMom]

Are you aware that said princesses were around long before Disney? Disney did not invent Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Little Mermaid, etc. Is this company advertising DISNEY PRINCESS parties or just princess parties? Because Disney does not have a monopoly on princesses.

 

[bcla]

Are you aware that said princesses were around long before Disney? Disney did not invent Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Little Mermaid, etc. Is this company advertising DISNEY PRINCESS parties or just princess parties? Because Disney does not have a monopoly on princesses.

Like I said previously, my kid attended a mermaid themed party where there was a hired "mermaid" performer.

However, a lot of these performers are specifically going for the Disney look down to the last detail. That includes hairstyle and even specific hair coloring to match the details in Disney movies. I heard of a couple of sisters literally going around for hospital visits as Anna and Elsa from Frozen. They're not getting paid though, but there's no indication that they're doing this with Disney's permission. Look up the names Anna Faith Carlson and her sister Lexie. The latter has the Anna look down to the freckles.

 

[tinker&belle]

I went to a very nice restaurant the other night. The band played a Dave Matthews song. Did I think I was really seeing Dave Matthews Band? No, of course not. Did the band say the were DMB? No. I would think this is the same sort of thing. If it said Featuring , from Frozen, Elsa and Anna Disney Princesses then maybe.

Disney Legal might care if it gets big but it is probably not worth their time. Plus in a way it is 'advertising' those princesses to children who will want the toys, clothes, shoes, movies etc and will ask their parents to take them to WDW.

 

[bcla]

Well - my kid's preschool recently had a group camping trip, and there was a sing-around that involved some Disney songs. I mean - everyone seemed to know the lyrics to Let It Go.

 

[WILDERNESS FAN 55]

And speeding is breaking the law. Any speeding. Do you call in every speeder you see? Do you ever speed?

There are laws being broken all around us all the time. So the question is do you ONLY care if it is a corporation esp disney? Or do you reports all laws you see broken.

Chances are you don't and you have a rationalization of why it is ok not to. No different than those here who believe that this is not worth reporting.

I don't have Bluetooth and in my state I can't dial a cell phone unless I'm stopped on side of road.....otherwise ....
Most I'm sure are not worth reporting and my guess is there are a 1000 folks out there trying to profit off of Disneys Frozen characters/movie/songs.
If someone were trying to profit and making a mockery of these characters for children to see then yes , give me the phone .
By the way I do speed ........occasionally

 

[WILDERNESS FAN 55]

I am not seeing where anybody said because it is a big corporation, it is perfectly fine. And walking out of a store with a coat that was meant for profit is different.

What I have seen said is that Disney has a huge legal team that explores copyright infringements. They prioritize what is important to go after.

Speeding 5 miles over the limit is against the law. But police don't usually pull you over for going 5 miles over the speed limit.

Reporting a Disney Princess infraction to Disney, while technically illegal, is about the same as sitting on the street corner and calling the cops when somebody goes 5 mph over the speed limit. Not a priority.

Stealing a coat is a whole 'nuther ball game.

Yeah the 5 mile an hour thing is "a whole nuther ball game "
Using someone else's intellectual property without permission to MAKE A PROFIT is Stealing.

 

[EMode]

I definetly think using the exact likeness of a Disney character for profit is wrong but its not high on my list to make right.

 

[ford family]

I went to a very nice restaurant the other night. The band played a Dave Matthews song. Did I think I was really seeing Dave Matthews Band? No, of course not. Did the band say the were DMB? No. I would think this is the same sort of thing. If it said Featuring , from Frozen, Elsa and Anna Disney Princesses then maybe.

Disney Legal might care if it gets big but it is probably not worth their time. Plus in a way it is 'advertising' those princesses to children who will want the toys, clothes, shoes, movies etc and will ask their parents to take them to WDW.

But as the music is copyrighted then the restaurant or the band or both have to pay to use that song through an organisation such as ASCAP which then goes to the owner of said copyright.

ford family

 

[Wendy31]

I don't generally go about my day looking for ways to get other people in trouble.

And, like others have said, Disney does not provide princesses for birthday parties, so it's not like anyone who does this is "stealing" from Disney. In fact, Disney, in a roundabout way, is profiting from it - more so than the people who are dressing up as princesses.

I'm having a princess party for my little girl - so I buy invitations (or get crafty & make my own) & purchase licensed plates & napkins & balloons & goody bags & various other trinkets. Also, the guests assume, since my DD is having a princess party, she likes Disney princesses, so they purchase Disney princess stuff to give to my DD for her birthday presents.

And so someone dressed up as Cinderella comes to the party too & takes pictures w/ my daughter & the guests. So? Who cares? I'm paying her for her time. It's not like we're even at Disney World. And I don't think anyone is going to say, "Well, since some woman came dressed up as Ariel to our birthday party, we don't have to go to Disney World any more!"

You are aware that Disney sells adult-sized princess costumes, aren't you? Have you looked at a Halloween catalog lately?

And, as others have pointed out, Cinderella was a princess before she was a Disney princess. So were the Little Mermaid & Rapunzel. I think Sleeping Beauty was as well. "Frozen" was loosely based on a Hans Christian Anderson story, I believe.

Regardless, Disney has multiple lawyers to handle anything they determine is a copyright infringement. I don't think they need some random person calling them up on the phone & tattling.

Our local Chick-Fil-A recently had an "Elsa" & "Anna" night. I'm sure, as public as Chick-Fil-A is, if Disney found that to be any kind of infringement of their rights, they wouldn't have permitted it.

And, no, I don't think a random singer at a restaurant has paid any sort of license to sing the songs he/she is singing. Recently, we dined at a restaurant in Florida. A woman w/ a guitar was singing to entertain the patrons. While there, among others, she sang a Carly Simon song, a Jimmy Buffet song, a Beatles song, & a James Brown song. She was also taking requests. I don't think she paid a license to sing every one of those songs. If we are paying expressly to hear this particular entertainer, maybe. But we weren't. We were paying to eat the restaurant; the entertainment was free. The restaurant was paying the singer to entertain its patrons.

 

[ford family]

And, no, I don't think a random singer at a restaurant has paid any sort of license to sing the songs he/she is singing. Recently, we dined at a restaurant in Florida. A woman w/ a guitar was singing to entertain the patrons. While there, among others, she sang a Carly Simon song, a Jimmy Buffet song, a Beatles song, & a James Brown song. She was also taking requests. I don't think she paid a license to sing every one of those songs. If we are paying expressly to hear this particular entertainer, maybe. But we weren't. We were paying to eat the restaurant; the entertainment was free. The restaurant was paying the singer to entertain its patrons.

It does not matter if you are paying anything or not. The restaurant will have a license, they cannot even play background music without one.
To perform someone's music for gain without a license is theft.
You may not consider it so but the law does and is strictly enforced.

ford family

 

[bcla]

And, no, I don't think a random singer at a restaurant has paid any sort of license to sing the songs he/she is singing. Recently, we dined at a restaurant in Florida. A woman w/ a guitar was singing to entertain the patrons. While there, among others, she sang a Carly Simon song, a Jimmy Buffet song, a Beatles song, & a James Brown song. She was also taking requests. I don't think she paid a license to sing every one of those songs. If we are paying expressly to hear this particular entertainer, maybe. But we weren't. We were paying to eat the restaurant; the entertainment was free. The restaurant was paying the singer to entertain its patrons.

They do, although the royalties go to the songwriters and not necessarily the artists if it's a recording. Those who don't have been sued and ordered to pay up.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ohio-bar-cover-songs-don-t-come-for-free.html

Last August, a small-time classic rock cover band performed at a bar called 69 Taps in Medina, outside Cleveland. By all accounts, it was a pretty typical show for Alter EGO, a quartet of middle-aged music men who’d long since come to terms with the fact that their 30-to-50-year-old audience (mostly comprised of their wives, friends and neighbors) preferred hearing hits.

“An original song can be a set killer,” drummer Rob Bisker, who works in home medical supplies, told The Daily Beast. So they played “Jesse’s Girl” and “Bad Moon Rising” and “Brown Eyed Girl” and other songs you’d expect to hear from any classic rock cover band at any dive bar in any American town. They also played “Freebird,” a song not typically included in their repertoire. They knew it was cliché, Bisker said, but he and his band mates decided to learn the Lynyrd Skynyrd classic just in case someone happened to yell out a request for it, as drunken concert goers are wont to do. As predicted, someone did, and on that August night at 69 Taps in Medina, Alter EGO performed a few minutes of “Freebird” for the first time in their cover band career.

Almost seven months later, 69 Taps and its former owners were served with a copyright infringement lawsuit from Broadcast Music, Inc and 10 music corporations that own the rights to 10 of the songs Alter EGO performed that night—”Freebird” included.

The bar never asked the band for that night’s set list, and they never posted it on their site, which led Risker to believe, “a BMI representative had to have been there.”

http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/art...g-music-licensing-lawsuits-hit-ct-restaurants

BMI's recent lawsuits come at a time when music has never been more accessible, from online offerings like Spotify, Pandora and YouTube, to megabytes worth of songs stored on tiny iPods.

But for restaurants and other businesses, the copyright laws regarding the public performance of music — live or recorded — were first established around the time of the phonograph in 1896.

An explosion in music technology since then hasn't changed the rules or loosened restrictions.

Spotify and Pandora both warn on their respective websites that business owners don't have permission to use their products for public performance.

A bar or restaurant is even liable for musicians playing live tunes on their premises. If a band plays a cover song for which the bar has no license, the bar is legally liable, according to BMI and ASCAP.

There are exceptions for radios and televisions playing in restaurants and bars, but even those are convoluted. The exception only applies to establishments under 3,750 square feet. Larger venues must seek licenses, but only if they have more than four loudspeakers in any single room, or if they charge patrons a cover.

A restaurant owner risks paying penalties even if they play music through an iPod connected to a speaker, BMI and ASCAP say.

After Vazzy's Cucina settled its suit, Vazzano said he decided to play it safe and buy a BMI license for his Shelton location. It costs him about $4,500 a year, he estimated, and allows him to play any song in BMI's vast catalog.

http://www.acbands.org/ASCAP-BMI-Blanket-License.html

I remember a restaurant that had a BMI and an ASCAP licensing sticker placed near the door. They basically paid licenses for the background music played. The current ASCAP sticker looks like this:

There are also discounted licensing for members of trade groups.

 

[Jeff in BigD]

Here's my 2¢

On the general topic of creative IP:
Intellectual Property is work, no matter how you slice it. Saying that theft of creative content isn't the same as theft of a good or service is incorrect. Some people who'd never dream of walking out on a food tab or stealing a wallet, wouldn't bat an eyelash about reneging on a website design & not paying the designer for their time. One of the big reasons that creatives have to have contracts for commissioned work is that people constantly devalue their work & dodge payment for the work.

For creative businesses one of the biggest threats is thefts of content & time. If someone decides they love my designs & starts selling them on etsy passing them off as their own (which is very common), that does hurt my work, whether I sell it on etsy myself or not. IMO, there's nothing worse than a creative being accused of theft (or plagiarism) on their own work. Disney has their own demons on IP, so they aren't blameless, either.


Specifically about this topic:
Someone mentioned that Disney sells adult princess costumes for Halloween, but they won't allow adult guests in the parks dressed as princesses for the very reason they would probably be concerned about the kids' party - there is no guarantee that the person portraying the character will do so in the manner that Disney wants.

The characters in-of-themselves aren't Disney's sole creation, but they (the businesses in question) are banking on the look & personalities that Disney created.

Do I think overall that their (the party business) motives are of malintent? Of course not. They're probably average joes, cashing in on the trend-du-jour.

Do I think there's a high likelihood of this damaging Disney's brand?
Probably not. But, I would say that of the hundreds of companies around the country that are doing the same thing, it's only a matter of time until one of the Princesses-for-Hire does something very un-Disneylike. And if that happens to be caught on video & it's a particularly slow news cycle - well, let's just say I don't think Disney would be quite so passive about the situation.

 

[Suzie13]

Why do you care? You do realise these characters are pretend and there isn't a real princess so it's not fraud...:/ At the end of the day why would you report someone for dressing up as a princess and making kids happy. If people want to pay them let them and when Disney goes after them let them deal with it maybe I am missing something..

 

[WILDERNESS FAN 55]

Here's my 2¢

On the general topic of creative IP:
Intellectual Property is work, no matter how you slice it. Saying that theft of creative content isn't the same as theft of a good or service is incorrect. Some people who'd never dream of walking out on a food tab or stealing a wallet, wouldn't bat an eyelash about reneging on a website design & not paying the designer for their time. One of the big reasons that creatives have to have contracts for commissioned work is that people constantly devalue their work & dodge payment for the work.

For creative businesses one of the biggest threats is thefts of content & time. If someone decides they love my designs & starts selling them on etsy passing them off as their own (which is very common), that does hurt my work, whether I sell it on etsy myself or not. IMO, there's nothing worse than a creative being accused of theft (or plagiarism) on their own work. Disney has their own demons on IP, so they aren't blameless, either.


Specifically about this topic:
Someone mentioned that Disney sells adult princess costumes for Halloween, but they won't allow adult guests in the parks dressed as princesses for the very reason they would probably be concerned about the kids' party - there is no guarantee that the person portraying the character will do so in the manner that Disney wants.

The characters in-of-themselves aren't Disney's sole creation, but they (the businesses in question) are banking on the look & personalities that Disney created.

Do I think overall that their (the party business) motives are of malintent? Of course not. They're probably average joes, cashing in on the trend-du-jour.

Do I think there's a high likelihood of this damaging Disney's brand?
Probably not. But, I would say that of the hundreds of companies around the country that are doing the same thing, it's only a matter of time until one of the Princesses-for-Hire does something very un-Disneylike. And if that happens to be caught on video & it's a particularly slow news cycle - well, let's just say I don't think Disney would be quite so passive about the situation.

Well said !

Why do you care? You do realise these characters are pretend and there isn't a real princess so it's not fraud...:/ At the end of the day why would you report someone for dressing up as a princess and making kids happy. If people want to pay them let them and when Disney goes after them let them deal with it maybe I am missing something..

Once again IF they are portrayed as exact replicas of DISNEYS Princesses then it IS against the law if they are trying to profit from it. As expressed above if/when someone does something stupid dressed as a DISNEY character that would hurt Disney . It does NOT matter that the characters in question are pretend. They are copyrighted.