Disney copyright scandal
p2p news / p2pnet: “Grieving parents were devastated after being barred from putting Winnie the Pooh on their baby’s gravestone by cartoon giant Disney,” said Britain’s This is Essex.
The Clochester family wanted the Pooh on a headstone for their stillborn child, “But Disney refused to grant the Clacton parents’ request, claiming it would breach their copyright,” says the story.
Now, following a flood of adverse publicity, ” “Our deepest sympathies go out to the family at this time,” says Disney on its Mickey News.
“We have been in contact with them and are in the process of fulfilling their original request.”
In another scandal, Disney tried to weasel out of giving a share of profits from its then new Peter Pan movie to the Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital in London, England, which owns the copyright.
Digg this story.
Also See:
This is Essex – Sadness at Disney headstone refusal, June 21, 2006
Mickey News – Disney lifts Pooh bear grave ban, June 24, 2006
another scandal – Disney plays Scrooge with kids, November 24, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
June 26th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
As I understand it, the Great Ormond Street Hospital has been granted an *eternal* copyright in the UK. That’s not something I find it easy to support. I think part of the issue between them and Disney had to do with the book being out of copyright in the USA, where the film was made… and I’m not happy about copyright laws being applied extra-territorially either. So although I’m no great fan of Disney, I’m not sure I’d describe them as “weaselling out” of paying royalties for Peter Pan unless they had an actual contract to do so that they were breaking… and even though they’re Disney, I’m not sure they *should* have to pay royalties for Peter Pan. Copyright extension is bad even when it inconveniences people I don’t like.
June 26th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
You raise interesting points. It’s ironic that Disney pushed to the extreme to get copyright extended in the US to protect Micky Mouse. Every sword has two edges.
If Disney had better PR skills they would have just paid the paltry amount required and used it as a warm fuzzy press release. Good PR instead of bad.
Yes sir, I’d call them greedy to a fault.
June 27th, 2006 at 2:17 am
Oh, but Scott they are in process of allowing it, why does that make them evil? Well simply put, they only agreed to “process their request” after the media and average folks like you and I called them out for what they were. A big heartless company that only views us as cash cows, period.
This is terrible loss and any person can and should understand that.
The parents were comforted in knowing that their stillborn child would have adored Pooh. Disney (in my opinion) was irritated by the fact that they wouldn’t make a dime off of it. I bet A. A. Milne (creator) is rolling over in his grave right now. He created the wonderful Pooh books for and based off of his son. A man who obviously valued children and family. To not allow such a symbol is a crime that goes beyond infringement.
This story has made me sad, even though the family is going to get what they originally wanted for child.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:03 am
I’m saddened as well. Keep this feeling in mind next time you think about taking your kids to see a Disney film. Disney doesn’t really care about them.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
WON’T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE DEAD CHILDREN!!
June 27th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
your an asshole.