Disney requests destruction of 25,000 teddy bears in Sweden (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020604/ap_wo_en_ge/sweden_winnie_the_pooh_1)- AP, 6/4/02

QuikQuote: Disney Enterprises Inc. has sued a Swedish import company for copyright infringement and requested the destruction of 25,000 teddy bears it says are illegal replicas of Winnie the Pooh.

Anyone find this a little ironic? I think it's funny that Disney is in a law suit over the bear and royalties and then turns around and works to keep out everyone else. I know they have to protect the rights but it's just funny.

Isn't it more ironic that the "cute and cuddly" folks at Disney are overseeing the destruction of thousands of teddy bears that might bring joy to many thousands of children?

I find Techie7's post ironic. I didn't think of it that way.:p

But coronamouseman, a rip off is a rip off. The bears are not winne the pooh and they are infringing on copyright. It is not like Winne the Pooh is banned in Sweden and now children can't even have a bear that even looks like him. This product is meant to target consumers who would have otherwise bought a real winne the pooh.

As a side note I have seen a lot of merchandise elsewhere that is sold to look like Winne the Pooh. His psudo-image often appears on backpacks and clothing with "teddy bear" or "honey bear" instead of "pooh bear." Maybe these images are not similar enough for Disney to get after them or maybe they are just small beans and Disney doesn’t care.

Mouse:

You are absolutely correct from a legal perspective - if the courts agree that the bears are meant to be sold in lieu of the Disney licensed version, then Disney can certainly see the bears are destroyed .........

I think the more interesting side of the problem is, as you have pointed out, whether Disney's interest only is aroused if it is a larger competitor as opposed to "small beans" ........

My first guess is probably more accurate. The article about the Swedish bears says, "They also have the same eyes, ears, nose and tongue and project 'the same attitude and facial expression as Winnie the Pooh,' the lawsuit said," in addition to a red shirt.

The bear image I see around here does not seem to resemble Pooh so intensely. For starters, the replica bear image had this big bug eyes, and they have not captured Pooh’s facial expression. It could be true that this pirate image was created with consideration to what the company felt like were enough differences so Disney would have no case against them.

As far as my second guess. So, you know all the Disney fan sites online that illegally post copyrighted images. What keeps Disney from going after them? Small beans. If there is no harm done, it does not make sense to pursue from a business standpoint.

Why should it be so troubling that Disney is only protection its business interest, anyway? That's what a copyright is for.

Mouse:

I find it "troubling" as you put it only from the standpoint that it is a well-known fact that corporations with large resources and large legal departments can bully smaller companies who cannot afford a defense or cannot afford the time delays and/or risk of loss in such a situation ..........

As you point out, there are some features which were either purposely or unintentionally different from the Disney version so who knows what the intent might have been ...........

Besides, Disney is still involved with their case regarding rights to Pooh so it will be interesting to see if the tables get turned on them here in the future .......

Originally posted by coronamouseman
I find it "troubling" as you put it only from the standpoint that it is a well-known fact that corporations with large resources and large legal departments can bully smaller companies who cannot afford a defense or cannot afford the time delays and/or risk of loss in such a situation ..........

It's true that such a situation can happen and has happened and probably will continue to happen. Not knowing the merits of this particular situation, but understanding that it's Disney trying to protect their copyright, I don't see how your supposed situation applies in this case. Yes, large corporations can abuse their privilege, but I've also seen many cases where people claim that it's ok to break the law or to steal from a large corporation because after all, the large corporation has a lot of money and really won't be affected by it. Lots of small entities break copyrights because of this or that reason, and they rationalize it by taking the "little people" defense. That's just a cop-out, imo.