Lewisc said:Actually the rumor should be easy to prove. Ask a Disney photographer to take a picture of you with the theater behind you. Specifically ask for that shot. If the rumor is true the photographers would have been told not to take such a picture.
I reject that one...
Disney "photographers" are plucked off the street like people who clean the benches at typhoon.
The have little training in photography...let alone corporate tort law in regards to IP and copyright infringement.
They'll take the pictures and think nothing or it...but that isn't enough evidence to make a judgement:
AnnaNonamus said:One would think if it was against licensing agreement, then the photo pass people would be well versed NOT to take photos they are not allowed to take. It isn't a matter of them being versed in corporate tort laws, as much as having a written list of rules to follow on the job.
I reject that one...
Disney "photographers" are plucked off the street like people who clean the benches at typhoon.
The have little training in photography...let alone corporate tort law in regards to IP and copyright infringement.
They'll take the pictures and think nothing or it...but that isn't enough evidence to make a judgement:
The rumor I heard is slightly different. The issue wasn't with guests taking pictures but with professional photographers (Disney) taking pictures with guests.
If you are indeed not actually leaning toward the contract side, we are on the same page.
I'm guessing we agree that there's very little Disney does which isn't financially motivated. And I find it hard to believe that the hat somehow generates more revenue than either Earful Tower or Chinese Theater would as a park icon for DHS. Heck, the Tower is even getting some play as a park icon these days:
The Epcot wand came down 6 years ago but Disney has stood firm on the hat despite similar fan rejection / outcry. I think the reasons for its existence go deeper than simple aesthetics.
Grauman's Chinese Theatre was sold to Paramount and Warner Bros as part of the bankruptcy of Mann's. I've heard the bankruptcy court decided the agreement didn't include permission for professional photography, the agreement was up for renewal and finally Disney wouldn't agree to whatever terms Paramount and Warner Bros wanted.
JMO but given the "decoration" of Spaceship Earth at around the same time the most likely explanation may be Disney thought the hat was an improvement. This was done when Disney was pushing pin sales and pin trading.
I've been keeping up with this thread but I have one question mildly off topic that I don't understand ... Why does everyone dislike the hat? I like it! It's an iconic peice...
Lewisc said:It was originally Disney-MGM studios. The park was about movies in general, not just Disney.
The theater represented that vision of the park. The issue isn't just the hat but the fact that the hat blocked much of the view of something we liked. I'd have less of an issue if the HAT was always there and didn't block something attractive. I might even have less of an issue if the HAT part of some kind of attraction. To ruin the view for a pin stand. A negative impact without a real positive impact.
Almost all of the back lot tour is gone but we have the Stunt Show, Toy Story Mania....
Trademarks are another matter. Disney might have a problem if it used the name Graumans Chinese Theatre without permission from its ownersbut Disney doesnt do so.
Step back in time as you behold a full-scale reproduction of Graumans Chinese Theatre.
One could make the case that the hat is representative of fantasmic. It'd be a weak point but a point none the less
Even if they do reference Grauman's, That's a separate issue.
as was mentioned, the building itself is uncopyrightable and Disney had every right to build there own. The law didn't go into effect until 1990 and the building was built prior to 1989.
So Grauman's has no copyright to hold over Disney and therefore there is no picture taking limitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_the_United_States
Congressional recognition of
building photographs in the public domain comes from the legislative
history; where Congress noted the prevalence of vacation mementos
consisting of photos of famous works of architecture created by a
large number of originators.
It's just a mega-decoration, like those at the All Stars and Pop Century resorts. Such decorations are fine for the value resorts because they provide some sense of fun that differentiates them from Motel 6 and Comfort Inn.I've been keeping up with this thread but I have one question mildly off topic that I don't understand ... Why does everyone dislike the hat? I like it! It's an iconic peice...