When Disney Rejects a Dying Child's last Wish....

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Lets run down the news companies that have covered this.


Orlando Sentinal
The Mirror
The Sun
NY Post
Metro News


Yes there have been tons of comic and youtubers who have jumped on this as the story grew. In fact that is how news media works . The Sun and the UK press 1st picked this up , it spread to our country and so forth because of the internet. Youtubers themselves (many I agree and disagree with) soon picked up on it.

Its how media works today . The news covered it there , more picked up on it and it exploded.

[Güicho]

Perhaps the monument maker pays a licensing fee?

I doubt Disney would approve such a creepy looking Miny Mouse.
And again if they asked, Disney would be under the obligation to say no.
That's how it works.
This is non news by a click-baiter sites, and the tools who spread it, to give themselves something to virtue signal about, and (like the tools they are) direct them back to their sites.

Actually, I agree with the Disney stance of not wanting their characters' images on gravestones.

Once you let one person do it, you then have hundreds of people DEMANDING the right to do so, even taking Disney to court due to the precedent of one kid's gravestone.

Exactly, and once everyone does, it becomes genericized so anyone can use it on anything and it loses it's value.
They legally have to defend in every case they can, so that won't happen. No mater what it's on. No exceptions.

The title appears to be misleading.

.

Exactly, that thread title is the OP's (and others who spread it) virtue signal, which is much stronger if they make it about the child's wishes, and not the parent's wishes.
The title of the thread shows the OP milking it for everything it's worth, and feeding in to the click-bait sites.

WHEN DISNEY REJECTS A DYING CHILD'S LAST WISH....

OP: Look I'm defending a child's dying wish OMG Aren't I special! Click bait gives the OP a story to signal how virtuous they think they are, OP feeds their click-bait story. ...ad nauseam.

Meanwhile in non-news a corporation owns and defends the right to their character brand, which is liked (so much that parents want it on their kids tombstones) and has value because how well they've defended it's use.
That's a non story.
Buy a friking Spider-Man balloon and tie it there, or an action figure, don't ask them to officially sanction your kids tomb stone.
Ridiculous!
They also don't let you name your daycare center after their characters, or use their brand for your non-profit dog rescue foundation, all wonderful causes. So what!

The only thing awry here is those milking this for a story.

[Iron Maiden]

Does a child really care that much about a headstone? I don't think I would even discuss that with the child if I were the parent. I think that would be morbid. I would have just buried the little angel with a plush toy of their favorite character.

I take little tokens to my parents gravesite. My sisters usually leave a dime there. Or sometimes just a single rose or small bouquet on the birthdays, Mother's day etc.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Does a child really care that much about a headstone? I don't think I would even discuss that with the child if I were the parent. I think that would be morbid. I would have just buried the little angel with a plush toy of their favorite character.

I take little tokens to my parents gravesite. My sisters usually leave a dime there. Or sometimes just a single rose or small bouquet on the birthdays, Mother's day etc.

I doubt they discussed his funeral plans with him . He was 4 years old after all. They saw he had this emotional attachment to the character and as posted pages back children have that with things. From pets to sports heroes to this. As a sick child the parents saw him have an attachment to the character who he likely saw as a hero. So they went ahead with that.

Which to me helped them handle their grief in a way. They saw how their dying child's favorite moments was Spider-Man and wanted him to have that even when gone. It also helped them to handle that grief. To some its silly and like , well we wouldn't react this way. Which maybe the case , but some when they lose a young child they need something themselves to get past it.

Many folks can identify with the parents . Its why the story went from main news sites (which the guy above ignored completely) and spread quick online. In fact I discovered this from a youtuber who posted an angry video about it. I followed it back to where it began where the Sun and Daily Mirror broke the story originally. Because its a human interest story at its heart. A tale of grieving parents who had a child who they wanted a gravestone for and the major corporation saying , "Uhh no , can't do that and here is a silly reason why !"

But what do I know...I virtue signal lol...

[Iron Maiden]

I doubt they discussed his funeral plans with him . He was 4 years old after all. They saw he had this emotional attachment to the character and as posted pages back children have that with things. From pets to sports heroes to this. As a sick child the parents saw him have an attachment to the character who he likely saw as a hero. So they went ahead with that.

Which to me helped them handle their grief in a way. They saw how their dying child's favorite moments was Spider-Man and wanted him to have that even when gone. It also helped them to handle that grief. To some its silly and like , well we wouldn't react this way. Which maybe the case , but some when they lose a young child they need something themselves to get past it.

Many folks can identify with the parents . Its why the story went from main news sites (which the guy above ignored completely) and spread quick online. In fact I discovered this from a youtuber who posted an angry video about it. I followed it back to where it began where the Sun and Daily Mirror broke the story originally. Because its a human interest story at its heart. A tale of grieving parents who had a child who they wanted a gravestone for and the major corporation saying , "Uhh no , can't do that and here is a silly reason why !"

But what do I know...I virtue signal lol...

I don't know about you but as I mentioned, I do visit the cemetary several times a year. I also wanted to get my future planning done and have already purchased my spot near my parents. When you do that, they give you a book of styles for your headstone and then they have images that can be added to the usual stuff. They're pretty generic unless you're a veteran. Since I like gardens and flowers I can pick something with that theme. You can get images that represent the branch of service you were in. I don't know if many of the monument making companies have artists that can do a custom image on the fly.

I think it is more meaningful to place something there when you visit the gravesite but that's me. Buy a little Spider-Man action figure and put it there.

[kjn]

I'm no expert, hopefully someone can explain this better:
It is Disney's obligation to DEFEND their copy right and trademarks, weather on a cake, or a tombstone, or a friking hat.
IT Doesn't MATTER, THEY ALWAYS HAVE TO DEFEND IT, or it becomes worthless.

I'm not going to touch this particular specific case, but you are flat out wrong on your understanding of copyright and trademark laws.

For a start, I can recommend reading IP-rimer: A Basic Explanation of Intellectual Property. Note I'm not a lawyer, but the guy who wrote that article is one.

But to start with, copyrights (under the Berne convention, that the US currently is a signatory of; things were more complex before then) are granted automatically to creative works and stay in effect continously until they expire due to time.

If you draw a picture of Spiderman, it is yours. Not Disney's. You can sell it, no sweat, because the actual physical picture is yours to do what you want with, just as any copy of a magazine you bought. Individual works of art are copyrighted, not designs or characters.

In this particular case, my non-lawyerly take is that Disney has nothing at all they can do from a copyright standpoint (except possibly the designer swiping a specific Spiderman image), instead what applies is trademark.

Unlike copyright, trademarks must be defended and be used in order to stay in effect. But defend is defined very loosely. Here is a famous case of a successful defense of a trademark: Jack Daniel's Sends the Most Polite Cease-and-Desist Letter Ever. Basically, the trademark holder must react to any known trademark infringement. In a lot of cases, all it might entail is some correspondence.

But note that trademarks apply to business fields ("classes" in trademark parlance). I just checked the most recent Spiderman trademark filing, and I couldn't see anything about tombstones there…

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I don't know about you but as I mentioned, I do visit the cemetary several times a year. I also wanted to get my future planning done and have already purchased my spot near them. When you do that, they give you a book of styles for your headstone and then they have images that can be added to the usual stuff. They're pretty generic unless you're a veteran. Since I like gardens and flowers I can pick something with that theme. You can get images that represent the branch of service you were in. I don't know if many of the monument making companies have artists that can do a custom image on the fly.

I think it is more meaningful to place something there when you visit the gravesite but that's me. Buy a little Spider-Man action figure and put it there.

I have had family do their gravestones with designs and images placed in as you pointed out. You can even make the gravestones into a bench type. So they can do this and we have seen people do more elaborate designs.

I'm sure the family likely has been placing a figure there on his stone but sadly if you know a lot of graves usually have people within days/weeks remove the flowers or whatever you place there. Last year I had a relative get a nice cross placed in the ground in front of his grave . It was pulled out a week or two later and smashed up sadly. So even if the family did place a figure on their child's grave someone may come along and remove it sadly.

[Iron Maiden]

I have had family do their gravestones with designs and images placed in as you pointed out. You can even make the gravestones into a bench type. So they can do this and we have seen people do more elaborate designs.

I'm sure the family likely has been placing a figure there on his stone but sadly if you know a lot of graves usually have people within days/weeks remove the flowers or whatever you place there. Last year I had a relative get a nice cross placed in the ground in front of his grave . It was pulled out a week or two later and smashed up sadly. So even if the family did place a figure on their child's grave someone may come along and remove it sadly.

The ground maintenance crews do that or the place will look pretty messy after a while. I've seen some markers that have a small urn as a permanent attachment. You could put flowers there or whatever. I could get wrapped in a Latverian flag if I wanted to but my family would probably put me in a rest home once I made that known

[AdventureBliss]

I doubt they discussed his funeral plans with him . .

Then what is your reason for using the thread title of "Disney rejects dying childs last wish"?

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Then what is your reason for using the thread title of "Disney rejects dying childs last wish"?

Attention grabber perhaps. Maybe i should have went with my original title..."Disney pisses all over Grieving Parents.". But that would have likely had a Mod delete it.

The old me would have used that one.

[Güicho]

First of all this is about protecting the use and image of a corporate brand here, the original creators are dead.

I'm no expert, hopefully someone can explain this better:
It is Disney's obligation to DEFEND their copy right and trademarks, weather on a cake, or a tombstone, or a friking hat.
IT Doesn't MATTER, THEY ALWAYS HAVE TO DEFEND IT, or it becomes worthless.

I say ^

You say ...

I'm not going to touch this particular specific case, but you are flat out wrong on your understanding of copyright and trademark laws.

Then quote ...

Basically, the trademark holder must react to any known trademark infringement. In a lot of cases, all it might entail is some correspondence.

Which is what I said.
And is apparently what has happened here.

And again look up...

If you didn't, you can eventually lose that exclusive right, because if enough people and cases start using it, it becomes genericized (look it up)
In case you missed it the key is whenever possible to ALWAYS defend it.

If they don't defend it, and allow others to use it, it does become genericized.

They don't pursue every case, see the terrifying mini tombstone above.
But if they are asked, they are under obligation to say no, to protect the value of their brand.
You know that's the only way they can show they defended it in court, by actually defending it.
Which is exactly the image the parent "values", because of how well they keep and protect it. (I love how everyone just ignores that part)
The "Maidstone Council" knew this was copyrighted/trademarked material, and knew to ask.
Disney needs to say no, to protect it.
NOBODY is against any child wishes here, and everyone feels for the parents.
That the click-bait sites, the OP (who is their personal mindless parrot and tool spreading their garbage) and others here, are trying to milk this into their own personal look how I care about "a dying child's last wishes" drama, to make themselves feel good, is shameful, and quite disgusting actually.


Once the OP and others are finished with the emotional grandstanding about how they care, and making this about their personal emotional war and hate against a corporation, and can move on and admit they now know and understand why they are obliged to defend their brand, and asking them to officially sanction a personal tombstone which "Maidstone Council" was obliged to check, was sadly misguided.

Breath..... and try not to make this about you anymore.

Suggestion; kid loved Spider-Man, he probably had (owned) or even drew something Spidey related himself, that better than anything sanctioned by a corporation, expresses his love and what the parent shared with them, and have that weather-proofed, and personally placed there.

[CliffHanger2]

I agree the title is misleading. It's doubtful this was the child's last wish and something more the parent's wanted. Just seems like a clickbait crusade.

[kjn]

Güicho, you are reading my post as the Devil reads scripture.

First of all, you continue to bring in copyright law here, which in all likelihood has had no impact at all on this case (it would only apply if they wanted to use a specific Spiderman image, and then it would make an end-run around the entire trademark case: copyright trumps trademarks[1]). Second, as for "defend", there is a huge difference between "defend" and "react". Disney would have lost nothing about the strength of its trademark defenses if they had sent a letter giving a "one-time use license to produce a tombstone with the likeness of Spiderman", or however it would be expressed in trademarkese.

Now, if Disney were in the business of selling tombstones with Spiderman on them, then yes, they'd need to say no to other people wanting to get them from anyone not them. But as far as I can tell, the trademark on Spiderman doesn't apply to tombstones, and neither does Disney sell tombstones.

So not only is Disney sitting there with a huge moral outrage against them, they might actually loose a trademark case (since they are going outside their covered classes). And that would make far more damage to the legal strength of the Spiderman trademark than anything else they can do.

As always: IANAL.

[1] See the curious case of Conan. Conan is trademarked character, but Howard's original tales are all out of copyright and can be reproduced without a license or permit or fees by anyone.

[Güicho]

First of all, you continue to bring in copyright law here,

"Because Copy Right is what led "Maidstone Council" to suggest he "contact the Copy Right owners".
We know that because:

Mr Jones initially approached Maidstone Council about the etching but was told he would have to contact the copyright owners - which ultimately led to Disney denying his request.

And as the Copy Right owners they also own and defend the trade mark.
Hence I specifically always made sure to say both copyright and trademark,, It's you, who only then focus on copyright, cause you think it helps your argument?
It's about both.

Second, as for "defend", there is a huge difference between "defend" and "react".

Disney reacted, by defending their copyright & trademark, which they need to do to defend it.
Again it's their defense of it which is exactly the image the parent "values", because of how well they keep and protect it.
(Again you all just conveniently ignore that part)

Disney would have lost nothing about the strength of its trademark defenses if they had sent a letter giving a "one-time use license to produce a tombstone with the likeness of Spiderman", or however it would be expressed in trademarkese.

You say "Disney would have lost nothing" like you are some expert.
What about opening the door to use of their brand on personal grave stones. Cause nobody would then come and want the same, then sue because oh they allowed it on that one, so they must be discriminating against me because..... fill in the blank. And then the Sentinel(etc.) wouldn't then spin that story.
Yeah that never happens? LOL!
Fact is they protect their brand by not allowing it under any circumstance, you have no idea what allowing it here would open up and exposes them to legally.
And I love how you want to invoke how simple this is all legally for them, yet if they approach it legally, which is what they did, out of the other side of your face you cry - they have no emotions they are only looking at it legally.

And Again, I already suggested what the family can do.

Suggestion; kid loved Spider-Man, he probably had (owned) or even drew something Spidey related himself, that better than anything sanctioned by a corporation, expresses his love and what the parent shared with them, and have that weather-proofed, and personally placed there.

Having and arguing for the corporation to sanction their tombstone is MEANINGLESS!
It's probably not even what the father wanted, it was personal, just Maidstone was obliged to go legally.
And them denying it was not an emotional decision, it was a legal one.
The click-bat site spun an emotional story as us vs them to emotionally lead tools like the OP by the nose.
We all feel for the kid and parent. ...not just you, stop making this about you.
Time to be an adult and not a tool of the click-bait site, and recognize you can separate the two.

Knowing that, (see bellow) those continually milking this for the emotional story are disgusting!

When Disney Rejects a Dying Child's last Wish....

Lets run down the news companies that have covered this.

Orlando Sentinal
The Mirror
The Sun
NY Post
Metro News

Yes there have been tons of comic and youtubers who have jumped on this as the story grew. In fact that is how news media works . The Sun and the UK press 1st picked this up , it spread to our country and so forth because of the internet.

[Iron Maiden]

I agree the title is misleading. It's doubtful this was the child's last wish and something more the parent's wanted. Just seems like a clickbait crusade.

I tend to agree. We'll know how sincere this cause is if a lawsuit from the parents rears it's head.