On 4/8/02 10:57:58 PM, Daniel Abraham wrote:

>
>Until now, this folder has been
>mercifully free of the empty blather
>which occasionally erupts in some of the
>others.
>
>You are welcome to post your experiments
>in creative writing in those other
>folders, Bob.
>
>__________________________
>Daniel Abraham, Esq.

C'mon, Daniel. That was kinda funny and even though this is "The Serious Conference," a little levity never hurt anyone.

Hope you and yours are well and looking forward to a bit more discussion on trademarked characters, satire and libel.

Regards,

Tim Teebken

http://www.timteebken.com/

[yelp]

Okay, me lords, I humbly apologize for the indiscretionary injection of my attempt of humour in these more sober realms. (Back to the stinkards and groundlings then...)

-BR

"Truth, ’t is supposed, may bear all lights; and one of those principal lights or natural mediums by which things are to be viewed in order to a thorough recognition is ridicule itself."

--Shaftesbury: Essay on the Freedom of Wit and Humour, sect. 1.

I have spoken with the client and they are willing to sign my agreement which includes an indemnity clause, so we are going ahead with the illustration. I am referencing my terms and agreement form from the Graphic Artists Guild Handbook(9th Edition).
~Andrea

On 4/9/02 2:18:12 AM, Tim Teebken wrote:

>I disagree, Jim. My piece was a guy wearing a Mickey Mouse-shaped hat/cap
>(sans logo) and they tore into us. (This is 1989) Their rationale was that my
>interpretation of Mickey seriously infringed and denigrated everything he
>(It?) stood for. (Disney never quite explained exactly WHAT Mickey "stood
>for.") They said it was libelous and caused injury (Daniel, feel free to toss
>in your two lawyer cents here) to their commodity and the damages to their
>franchise would cost them millions.
>Their argument, as far as I'm concerned, was ridiculous in and of itself. The
>term "Mickey Mouse" had become a cliche. I was merely making reference to the
>cliche. "Mickey Mouse" meant "something that wasn't done well."
>
>But, sunnuvvagun, that darn hat's profile, it seems, was copyrighted,
>trademarked, patented and my reference to it infringed upon their property. Or
>so they said. It never got beyond their attorney's first cease and desist
>missive.
>
>I thought my illo was just satire or, at the very least, a bad pun.
>
>They saw it quite differently.
>
>Be that as it may, Mickey Rat never ever figured into any of my illustrations
>again.

Inadvertently, Tim, you make Disney's case; using "Mickey Mouse" as a pejorative is precisely the sort of thing they are most anxious to prevent.  Furthermore, the profile of the ears is one of their most jealously-guarded trademarks.

I think that this situation, which involves an old toy (and in warm-nostalgic-reminiscence mode, at that) is quite different, both because it it complimentary rather than pejorative, and because unlike your use of the ears (which remain current) it refers to a toy which is probably now long out of circulation.  

__________________________
Daniel Abraham, Esq.

718-499-4006

DISCLAIMER: Material posted on the Legal Easel™ chatboard discusses general principles of law in response to issues of concern to the illustration community. Nothing in this website or the Legal Easel™ chatboard should be construed to be a substitute for advice of counsel regarding the specific facts and circumstances of an individual case. Laws and their interpretation differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Legal advice addressing a specific situation should be sought from an attorney duly licensed in the appropriate jurisdiction.

On 4/9/02 02:24 AM, Tim Teebken wrote:

>C'mon, Daniel. That was kinda funny and even though this is
>"The Serious Conference," a little levity never hurt anyone.

>Hope you and yours are well and looking forward to a bit
>more discussion on trademarked characters, satire and libel.

Tim, I enjoy watching the extended exercises in free-floating levity elsewhere on the ispot.  And I'm not by any means averse to on topic lightheartedness here in the course of discussion; it can help people absorb the points discussed.

On-topic lightheartedness is quite different from the off-topic creative writing exercise in question.  Quite frankly, it is difficult enough to get across the fine points of some of the topics raised here without would-be class clowns trying out their new material.  

__________________________
Daniel Abraham, Esq.

718-499-4006

DISCLAIMER: Material posted on the Legal Easel™ chatboard discusses general principles of law in response to issues of concern to the illustration community. Nothing in this website or the Legal Easel™ chatboard should be construed to be a substitute for advice of counsel regarding the specific facts and circumstances of an individual case. Laws and their interpretation differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Legal advice addressing a specific situation should be sought from an attorney duly licensed in the appropriate jurisdiction.

In 1996 I did an illustration for Time that depicted Mickey Mouse shot
dead through the ear.  It was in the manner of an old civil war photo.  The
issue at hand was Disney's ill advised attempt at opening a Civil War
theme park on sacred battlefield grounds in Virginia.  Public outcry ended
this effort and I highlighted their blunder with this illustration.

Not soon after I was hired by Time to do an illustration of a defiant Mickey
Mouse holding back a Chinese army tank like the famous photograph of
the struggle in Tianammin (SP?) Square.

Finally I was assigned to illustration the #1 Power person of the year for
Entertainment Weekly;  Michael Eisner.  He is depicted standing astride
the world with the body and ears of Mickey Mouse.

In all three cases the uses were allowed.
The best part was that the Civil War Mickey Mouse was traded for a late
model car in '97!

I'll try to attach the image of Civil War Mickey.

On 4/9/02 10:19:55 AM, O'BRIEN ~ wrote:
>In 1996 I did an illustration for Time that depicted Mickey
>Mouse shot dead through the ear.  

>Not soon after I was hired by Time to do an illustration of
>a defiant Mickey Mouse holding back a Chinese
>army tank

>Finally I was assigned to illustration the #1 Power
>person of the year for Entertainment Weekly;  Michael
>Eisner.  He is depicted standing astride
>the world with the body and ears of Mickey Mouse.

The interesting question here, Tim, is whether Time undertook to clear its intentions with Disney prior to assigning the project to you, or whether Time is big enough to get a pass from Disney even for its less than complimentary editorial usage simply because it is what it is.  That the Entertainment Weekly drawing, which glorified both Disney and Eisner, got a pass is no surprise.

__________________________
Daniel Abraham, Esq.

718-499-4006

DISCLAIMER: Material posted on the Legal Easel™ chatboard discusses general principles of law in response to issues of concern to the illustration community. Nothing in this website or the Legal Easel™ chatboard should be construed to be a substitute for advice of counsel regarding the specific facts and circumstances of an individual case. Laws and their interpretation differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Legal advice addressing a specific situation should be sought from an attorney duly licensed in the appropriate jurisdiction.

On 4/9/02 10:37:22 AM, Daniel Abraham wrote:
>The interesting question here, Tim, is
>whether Time undertook to clear its
>intentions with Disney prior to
>assigning the project to you, or whether
>Time is big enough to get a pass from
>Disney even for its less than
>complimentary editorial usage simply
>because it is what it is.  That the
>Entertainment Weekly drawing, which
>glorified both Disney and Eisner, got a
>pass is no surprise.
>
>

As I recall it, I spoke of the myth of the daycare mural and how careful
Disney is with their image.  Time felt it was fair use since in all cases
Disney was in the news and Mickey was symbolic of the entire company.

I agree that the Entertainment Weekly use was more acceptable.



TONKA   

On 4/9/02 10:45:16 AM, O'BRIEN ~ wrote:

>As I recall it, I spoke of the myth of the daycare mural and how careful
>Disney is with their image.  Time felt it was fair use since in all cases
>Disney was in the news and Mickey was symbolic of the entire company.
>
>I agree that the Entertainment Weekly use was more acceptable.

Thanks, Tim; very enlightening.  Of course, Time is one of the few companies which can afford to back up its opinions regarding fair use, if Disney decides to get litigious.

__________________________
Daniel Abraham, Esq.

718-499-4006

DISCLAIMER: Material posted on the Legal Easel™ chatboard discusses general principles of law in response to issues of concern to the illustration community. Nothing in this website or the Legal Easel™ chatboard should be construed to be a substitute for advice of counsel regarding the specific facts and circumstances of an individual case. Laws and their interpretation differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Legal advice addressing a specific situation should be sought from an attorney duly licensed in the appropriate jurisdiction.

On 4/9/02 9:51:57 AM, Daniel Abraham
wrote:
>On 4/9/02 2:18:12 AM, Tim Teebken
wrote:

>Inadvertently, Tim, you make Disney's
>case; using "Mickey Mouse" as a
>pejorative is precisely the sort of
>thing they are most anxious to prevent.
>Furthermore, the profile of the ears is
>one of their most jealously-guarded
>trademarks.

Yeah, but how often has Disney been
successful in this sort of litigation (I'm
pleading ignorance here)? I mean is the
image of Mickey Mouse so sacrosanct
that even as the symbol of the Disney Co.
it is immune to being depicted editorially
even in the pejorative sense.

Say, for example, TV Guide wanted to
print an editorial that was critical of ABC's
sports coverage with an accompanying
illustration of Mickey at the controls. Do
you think Disney would go after TV
Guide?

Seems to me the examples of the two
Tims shows that Disney will pick and
choose where it can throw its weight
around. Intimidating those who can be
intimidated and grudgingly giving a pass
to those who have the wherewithal to
fight.

Jim