Slesinger Family Press Release Link -
Slesinger Family Wins 'Pooh' Copyright Case
(http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070216/nyf082.html?.v=71)

Discuss here.

Slesinger Family Press Release

Slesinger Family Wins 'Pooh" Copyright Case



Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment Against Disney Slesinger Pursuing Damages Against Disney Including Terminating US and Canadian Television, Media and Merchandising Rights to Winnie the Pooh

LOS ANGELES, Feb. 16 -- Federal District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper, of the United States District Court, Central District, issued a major decision in the federal copyright case, granting Stephen Slesinger, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, effectively ending the Walt Disney Company's efforts to take back the Winnie the Pooh copyright.

Barry Slotnick, Slesinger's attorney from the law firm of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, said, "The Court once again has once ruled that Disney's claims against Slesinger are improper. Now that Disney's misguided claims have been dismissed, we can focus on pursuing Slesinger's claims against Disney for damages, trademark and copyright infringement, breach of contract, and fraudulently underpaying royalties, and seeking in excess of $2 billion in compensatory and general damages. We applaud the granting of our motion for summary judgment."

"In 2003, the U.S. district court in Los Angeles held there was no basis whatsoever for the first of two termination notices secured by Disney under the Copyright Act from the granddaughters of author A.A. Milne and one of the illustrators of his Winnie the Pooh stories. Now, the other shoe has dropped. The Court held there is no basis for the other termination notice instigated by Disney. The fact that the Court has now held that there is no need even for a trial concerning either termination notice shows that Disney had no business starting this lawsuit in the first place. The bottom line is that Disney's attempt to evade its royalty obligations to Slesinger has failed," said Roger Zissu, of the law firm of Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.

"It was Disney's attempt to take back the rights granted to my father over 70 years ago that led this case into federal court. Perhaps Disney might have spent their time merchandising Winnie the Pooh worldwide instead of attempting this scheme to take back what the court has thankfully ruled has been the Slesinger's all along: the rights to Winnie the Pooh," said Pati Slesinger.

In addition to the state case, Stephen Slesinger, Inc., has petitioned the United States Trademark and Patents Office seeking cancellation of a number of trademarks taken out by Disney on Winnie the Pooh based on the allegation that Disney had no legal right to do.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...c=66&type=qcna (http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2007-02-16T205802Z_01_N16273421_RTRIDST_0_DISNEY-POOH.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna)

QuikQuote: A federal judge in Los Angeles has rejected a Walt Disney Co.-backed attempt to strip rights to the "Winnie the Pooh" character from the estate of long-time Pooh licensee Stephen Slesinger, according to court documents made public on Friday.
In a written order issued on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper granted the Slesingers' motion to dismiss the case, in which the granddaughters of Pooh author A.A. Milne and illustrator E.H. Shepard, sued to terminate the Slesingers' rights to the character and reassign them to Disney. Disney was not a party to the case, but the company paid legal expenses for both women, according to Disney's attorney Daniel Petrocelli.

Wade Sampson wrote a good general look at the situation in August of 2006...

http://www.mouseplanet.com/articles.php?art=ww060823ws (http://www.mouseplanet.com/articles.php?art=ww060823ws)

So does this mean Disney would stop marketing Winnie The Pooh products and the ride would close?

It seems to me that given all the revenue that Disney gains from the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act keeping the early Mickey Mouse cartoons out of the Public Domain, they can afford to pay some royalties under that Act.

Then again, personally, I agree with those who say that the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act extends copyright duration ad absurdum, and in so doing, violates the very spirit of what it is extending.

The whole purpose of intellectual property law (as stated explicitly in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution) is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts . . . ." Extending copyright duration ad nauseum, in order to allow the owners of a few "evergreen" copyrights to rest on their proverbial laurels and derive income they did nothing to earn, from works no living person contributed to, does not in any way "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Neither does the current state of affairs in music, where there are thousands of permanently-out-of-print scores still in copyright, that deserve to be performed, and yet cannot be without securing permission (sometimes gratis, sometimes for a fee, sometimes for an exorbitant fee, and sometimes simply impossible) to make copies.

It is certainly legitimate for Disney to want to keep people from using the name and likeness of Mickey Mouse on products (or businesses) neither Walt, nor his associates, nor their successors, had anything to do with, whether they do so for fraudulent purposes, defamatory purposes, or simply to avoid coming up with their own character(s). And it is certainly legitimate for Milne's successors to want that. But those ends could have been achieved by other means than extending copyright protection ad absurdum.

Fun Factoid: In the Laurel & Hardy version of "Babes in Toyland," there is a very brief shot of what is quite recognizably a Mickey Mouse puppet. So far as I am aware, nobody gave it a second thought at the time, either at Disney, or at MGM.

So does this mean Disney would stop marketing Winnie The Pooh products and the ride would close?

No, this changes nothing regarding Disney's use of the Pooh characters. The Schlesinger family has long controlled the right to the character an Disney has been their largest and most important licensee. The two companies have been involved in a very lengthy dispute over royalty payments (the Slesinger's claim Disney owes them more than has been paid) and this particular suit was a Disney-sponsored attempt by the grand-daughter of author A.A. Milne (who created the Pooh characters) to dismiss the Slesingers claim to the copyright. Had this succeeded, Milne would have then granted Disney a long-term arrangement to control the rights on her family's behalf, which is essentially the role that the Slesinger's play now.

This was kind of a "Hail Mary pass" on Disney's part to try and end the long-running and rather bitter dispute with the Slesingers. A.A. Milne himself had granted the rights to Mr. Slesinger years ago and it was pretty unlikely that there was really any strong reason to vacate that contract. This was really just a somewhat aggressive tactic to match the generally aggressive approach that the Slesinger's have been taking in the suit.

One key development since this particular suit was filed is that the Slesingers' suit over royalties was actually dismissed by the court, primarily due to some illegal investigative tactics that had been use by the Slesingers. That decision is under appeal, but it certainly reduces the overall impact of the decision mentioned in this thread.

-Jeff