eugene@pioneer.UUCP (12/08/87)
In article <1246@vaxb.calgary.UUCP> chmilar@calgary.UUCP (Michael Chmilar) writes: >techniques developed at Disney for character animation. He was >very complementary of John Lassiter in this regard. John just spoke for us locally (ACM/SIGGRAPH), but a friend who worked on Oilspot (also at John's talk) pointed out that Disney has invested heavily in Univac hardware: 1100s, CCI boxes, and PC clones. Other projects and daily operations involves all types of hardware: Data General for real-time-land operations, Crays on TRON, PIC and Wavefront for Oilspot, etc.
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (12/28/87)
In article <3590@ames.arpa>, eugene@pioneer.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) writes: > John just spoke for us locally (ACM/SIGGRAPH), but a friend who > worked on Oilspot (also at John's talk) pointed out that Disney has > invested heavily in Univac hardware: 1100s, CCI boxes, and PC clones. We use 1100s at work. Boy, for a 2 MIPS machine it seems awfully slow. Anyway, one of the guys had a mug that said something like RAT PATROL on it. When I asked him about it, he said that he got it when he was working for Sperry at Disney. I presume this was either after Uncle Walt died or that he never found out about it. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
alex@cup.portal.com (Alex D Seiden) (08/31/89)
Disney will --definately-- sue your b*** right off if you try to use their very much copyrighted and defended characters in any way shape or form. The story about them suing a nursery school in Florida is true. The may even try to stop you from naming your machines after the characters. Very sensitive people. The reason for all of this litigation is that disney reels in the big bucks off these characters, and the want to hold onto all of this tightly. There may well be people from Disney reading this newsgroup; I wouldn't be surprised if you here from their lawyers. Let us know what happens.
staatsvr@asdcds.cds.wpafb.af.mil (Vern Staats; ASD/SCED;) (09/01/89)
In article <21726@cup.portal.com> alex@cup.portal.com (Alex D Seiden) writes: >Disney will --definately-- sue your b*** right off if you try to >use their very much copyrighted and defended characters in any >way shape or form. The story about them suing a nursery school >in Florida is true. The may even try to stop you from naming your >machines after the characters. Very sensitive people. Doesn't the story of Snow White predate Disney? If the dwarves were named Sneezy, Dopey, Doc, etc before Disney came along I would think one could use the names for their machines. You ought to be able to draw pictures of them too, so long as they don't look like Disney's copyrighted representations of them. Of course if Disney created the story or bought it from its creator you're sunk. Maybe you could name your machines after Disney's lawyers: [names deleted to prevent getting *my* b*** sued off] ---- INET: staatsvr@asd.wpafb.af.mil Vern Staats (513) 255-2714 /// Save UUCP: nap1!asd!staatsvr ASD/SCED \\\/// The Opinions: my!own! WPAFB OH 45433 \XX/ Guru
hallett@shoreland.uucp (Jeff Hallett x4-6328) (09/01/89)
In article <21726@cup.portal.com> alex@cup.portal.com (Alex D Seiden) writes: >way shape or form. The story about them suing a nursery school >in Florida is true. The may even try to stop you from naming your >machines after the characters. Very sensitive people. They can't. Copyright is only valid within industry. That means that the images of the Seven Dwarves are copyrighted, but not the names unless you try to create another cartoon character with the name Grumpy or something. Then, Disney reserves the right to push for copyright violation. The only way they could stop someone from naming their machines after the dwarves would be to trademark the names and even then proving violation of trademark would be difficult unless you tried to release a new computer named "Bashful" or something. Given the private nature of naming your Sun cluster, they would have a difficult time doing anything about it. Copyright is really a difficult thing to litigate. Almost every case that is decided sets precedence in some way. Most copyright cases are won by the company with the most money - they threaten to sue and intimidate the smaller company which would have a more difficult time lasting through a long copyright suit. Disney is definitely too tight, but, I guess when your livelihood is derived from cartoon characters, you have to be careful. Go ahead and name your machines after the Dwarves. As far as the pictures go, if you were to buy a composite photo of the Dwarves, cut them out and pasted them to the console, there is nothing Disney can do about it since you legitimately purchased the picture and it is your right to dispose of it as you wish (so long as you don't try to publish it again). -- Jeffrey A. Hallett, PET Software Engineering GE Medical Systems, W641, PO Box 414 Milwaukee, WI 53201 (414) 548-5163 : EMAIL - hallett@positron.gemed.ge.com
rhbartels@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Richard Bartels) (09/01/89)
It is written: } }Go ahead and name your machines after the Dwarves. As far as the }pictures go, if you were to buy a composite photo of the Dwarves, cut }them out and pasted them to the console, there is nothing Disney can }do about it since you legitimately purchased the picture and it is }your right to dispose of it as you wish (so long as you don't try to }publish it again). } What if you scan that same picture and display the bitmap in the upper left hand corner of the screen in a 2 by 3 inch box with a grey border bottomed by a label with the dwarf's name? (Not that we would ever have thought of doing precisely that two years ago when we named our workstations :-) -Richard
spl@mcnc.org (Steve Lamont) (09/02/89)
In article <21726@cup.portal.com> alex@cup.portal.com (Alex D Seiden) writes:
<Disney will --definately-- sue your b*** right off if you try to
<use their very much copyrighted and defended characters in any
<way shape or form. The story about them suing a nursery school
<in Florida is true. The may even try to stop you from naming your
<machines after the characters. Very sensitive people.
Apple is in deep trouble then. Hear that, Dizzyney? :-)
--
spl
Steve Lamont, sciViGuy EMail: spl@ncsc.org
North Carolina Supercomputing Center Phone: (919) 248-1120
Box 12732/RTP, NC 27709eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (09/02/89)
I find this discussion totally amusing.
Disney's computer graphics people are certainly on the net reading all this.
Their host name has been posted before and jobs have appeared in
misc.jobs.offered (I've posted for several groups on different occasions
as well as seen direct postings). I won't post, if you don't know,
search the net maps for yourself.
I figure the CG people don't want to talk to their lawyers (or even raise
the original English fellow's posting as an issue), not wanting to speak for
Disney policy (why rock the boat and give a lawyer email and news access?).
[How do I know these people? Time and growing up in Southern CA.]
We have all this speculation. (You can't send a subpoena by email 8).
Reminds me of the SNL skit with the intelligence agency party where no one
can talk to one another. I'm glad I'm in the sciences.....[oh, but....]
Another gross generalization from
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
"You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
"If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
{ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
Live free or die.sean@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Sean McLinden) (09/02/89)
In article <21726@cup.portal.com> alex@cup.portal.com (Alex D Seiden) writes:
<Disney will --definately-- sue your b*** right off if you try to
<use their very much copyrighted and defended characters in any
<way shape or form. The story about them suing a nursery school
<in Florida is true. The may even try to stop you from naming your
<machines after the characters. Very sensitive people.
Enough Disney bashing, please. The fault lies with the law not with
Disney. It is beholden on the copyright owner to protect the copyright
(there are no copyright police), and if you fail to do that you can
lose your rights to damages under copyright law. All that this requires
is that a defendent be able to demonstrate that you had, in the past,
been *aware* of other violations of copyright and did nothing to stop
them.
Such is the case with the nursery school. Disney had no choice but
to block their unlicensed use of the characters else they might have
lost, forever, their right to damages if, for example, Donald Trump
had started a Mickey Mouse airline.
You can bet that Lucasfilms, Ltd., would do the same thing if the
St. Vincent DePaul Society started making collection boxes in the
likeness of C3PO and distributing them all over Marin.roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (09/03/89)
In <1989Sep2.122906.17844@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu> sean@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Sean McLinden) writes: > Disney had no choice but to block their unlicensed use of the characters It seems they could have done this in one of two ways. The first is the way they chose, i.e. make the school paint over the dwarves. The second would have been to license them to use the dwarves for the specific purpose of decorating the wall in this one building, for, say, $1 per year (and, as they always say in these sort of contracts, "other valuable considerations"). Seems like the latter would have satisfied the requirement to defend their copyright without having to play the bad guy. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu "The connector is the network"
sean@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Sean McLinden) (09/03/89)
In article <3973@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes:
:In <1989Sep2.122906.17844@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu: I wrote:
:: Disney had no choice but to block their unlicensed use of the characters
:
: It seems they could have done this in one of two ways. The first
:is the way they chose, i.e. make the school paint over the dwarves. The
:second would have been to license them to use the dwarves for the specific
:purpose of decorating the wall in this one building, for, say, $1 per year
:(and, as they always say in these sort of contracts, "other valuable
:considerations"). Seems like the latter would have satisfied the
:requirement to defend their copyright without having to play the bad guy.
Agreed. Notice that I said "block their unlicensed use", not "sue". I
debated whether to add comments which reflect the point of view that you
have but elected not to because I had only knowledge of what was reported
in the news (*always* an unbiased and reliable source of information). The
news accounts did not mention whether Disney had actually made other
attempts prior to the lawsuit (which would not have been newsworthy). I'm
inclinded to think that they did because 1) it's a lot cheaper to send
a letter requesting that the nursery either license the characters or
remove them than it is to enbroil onesself in a lawsuit. After all, there
are probably thousands of examples of unlicensed use of Disney characters.
2) Disney is, after all, a huge public relations firm. What do they do
besides sell fantasy? It would have been pretty bad business to jump
right into the courts against a whole bunch of cute smiley kids if there
weren't some other way. But, of course, this is sheer speculation.