December 15, 2009
Does Disney Own the Concept of a Castle?
It is a well known axiom of U.S. intellectual property law that there is no protection afforded to mere ideas. In order to employ the force and power of our legal system to enforce your intellectual property rights, you must have something more concrete than an idea. In patent law, for example, you must have reduced your invention to practice (although constructive reduction to practice can be used to satisfy the requirement). In trademark law, you must have actually used your mark in association with goods or services. In the realm of copyrights, an author must fix her expression in a tangible form before the government will recognize any exclusive rights.
The bottom line is that you can’t sue anyone for “stealing your idea” or “taking that movie plot you thought of.” This concept is hard for some to grasp, and every so often, a big player in the IP world may take advantage of this common misunderstanding. While perusing sites that sell graphic tees (one of my favorite forms of communication – e.g., here, here, or here), I came across an example of this that I think is worth sharing.
September 30, 2009
18 Year Copyright Battle Over Winnie the Pooh Finally Over… For Now
“A day without royalties is like a pot without a single drop of honey left inside.”
A U.S. District Judge dismissed the copyright suit brought by the heirs of the licensee for the Winnie the Pooh character, Stephen Slessinger. This case has special meaning to us in Florida for a number of reasons. Of course, the mouse house is a huge source of revenue for us, and Slessinger’s widow, who originally brought the copyright suit against Disney, lived in Tampa for years. Slessinger originally acquired the rights to our beloved Pooh Bear in 1930 from author, A. A. Milne. Slessinger’s widow, who lived in Tampa for a number of years, licensed the rights to Pooh to Disney in 1961.
The Late Mr. Slessinger
Stephen Slessinger, Inc. (SSI) originally sued Disney alleging that it breached the original licensing deal by attempting to avoid paying the family more than $700 Million in royalties. SSI alleged that Disney comingled revenues generated by Pooh with Disney’s general revenues to avoid paying the royalties. That suit was dismissed in 2004 when the court ruled that the evidence relied on by SSI was improperly obtained through misconduct by a private investigator. To be exact, the dismissal of the suit was one of the sanctions issued by the court.
