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

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I am woefully ignorant when it comes to copyright law. I always thought that meant you couldn't take someone else's work and use it to make money.

Obviously, no one is making money off of a grave marker, other than the company creating it, and they would be paid whether or not the Spider Man image appeared on it.

It did make me curious, and I've searched google to see if I could find any other markers like that. I did find this.

There are a ton of gravestones with images of pets and more that children had on there. I'm sure there are thousands out there if people search for them that have images of other things as well from sports stars , symbols etc .

A fact a major company feels threatened by this is beyond silly since its already happened before to them 13 years ago.

[Theleviathan]

Nah , having a common sense person there at the company works better. I mean quite honestly the company fucked up major PR wise with this. Seeing NY Post and other media literally call them to task for it has been enough.

Disney as a company can do wrong. It happens ..major companies can **** up. We can call them out when they do. The whole..."Must defend major corporation NO MATTER" is silly.

No one is doing that, your post is silly.

[wjowski]

Just another reminder that megacorps are not your friend.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

No one is doing that, your post is silly.

Scroll back through...we have seen defending this as...Disney is defending copyright etc. And yes given this its silly given again this same situation happened 13 years ago.

[Dalak]

Just another reminder that megacorps are not your friend.

Hey, when's the next meeting with Mr. Johnson eh chummer?

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Just another reminder that megacorps are not your friend.

But they make Marvel movies !

As i posted corporations have done things people can call out. Its happened for years and Disney is no different.

[Bruce Wayne]

Yet some people still think it's a worthy cause to defend the property rights of a megacorporation or think they are deserving of personhood.

[shooshoomanjoe]

They don't want Disney on a headstone because they don't want their characters associated with death but they are fine with their characters on a coffin?

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Feel bad for the family. However Disney can do whatever they want with their characters

[Theleviathan]

Scroll back through...we have seen defending this as...Disney is defending copyright etc. And yes given this its silly given again this same situation happened 13 years ago.

No one was doing it "NO MATTER!", they were just recognizing the complication of having a copyright and deciding when to allow use. In one isolated case it might be easy to determine right or wrong, but as you broaden it out that sort of thing can cause issues.

And if you think "bah, it'll be fine, just allow this!", I would say: Now whose being silly?

[JackDaw]

They don't want Disney on a headstone because they don't want their characters associated with death but they are fine with their characters on a coffin?

Like you I noticed that a Spider-man character appeared on coffin...and some one dressed as Spider-man attended funeral. My own conjecture is that family just arranged that without asking permission from Disney, and although Disney may well not be “fine” with it, they are not clueless enough to sue the grieving parents!

Reading the article..it appears that family itself did not ask for permission for engraving the memorial stone...the company responsible for creating the memorial did that. This is routine for companies doing such memorial work...copyright does operate in this area, and Disney is (of course) not alone in not wishing their trademark characters, logos, etc to be used in this way.

[Iron Maiden]

Like you I noticed that a Spider-man character appeared on coffin...and some one dressed as Spider-man attended funeral. My own conjecture is that family just arranged that without asking permission from Disney, and although Disney may well not be “fine” with it, they are not clueless enough to sue the grieving parents!

Reading the article..it appears that family itself did not ask for permission for engraving the memorial stone...the company responsible for creating the memorial did that. This is routine for companies doing such memorial work...copyright does operate in this area, and Disney is (of course) not alone in not wishing their trademark characters, logos, etc to be used in this way.

And in this case I would think it would be the company creating the memorial that would get sued had they not. I think if no one made an official request, Disney would have just looked the other way. I know some companies do hire people to scour the internet for copyright enfringements. Cemetery searching would be a bit difficult I imagine.

[Güicho]

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.
Because if the next time some asswipe trying to hone in prints it on some other crap, and they try and defend it, they use the fact that they didn't defend it in the other case, against them.
THEY ALWAYS HAVE TO DEFEND IT.
That's how copy rights and trade marks work and are kept, if it's being used for something you didn't intend, YOU DEFEND IT IN EVERY CASE.
It's how you DEFEND YOUR exclusive RIGHT to it, by ALWAYS defending it.
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.

The only reason it has value is cause they defended it.
Imagine they lost it because they didn't defend it, and anyone could use it to put on any garbage not in line with the company, used on any bootleg products or way, etc... , it would lose the value, and the parents wouldn't want it on their kids tombstone.
Yet the reason they want it, is cause it has value in the way Disney/Marvel have DEFENDED it's use and portrayal.

That a bunch of click bait news sites leap on to this like the parasites they are, so the gullible and clueless like the OP can then give themselves virtue signal point, look I argued against the big corporation who hates dying children and their wishes, look I posted about it I'm special.
No, you are not, that makes you the absolute tool of the other cooperation whom you are cluelessly feeding and spreading their click-bait garbage for them. LOL!

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Yet some people still think it's a worthy cause to defend the property rights of a megacorporation or think they are deserving of personhood.

That has to be quoted again because the response below. People can understand defending copyright if it actually impacted the company to a degree. But here as we have had examples already posted plus the situation from 2006 with Winnie the Pooh on a gravestone...its more or less something minor to nothing. Hell WB and DC itself realized how negative this would make them look and allowed it. Because at the end by getting fully behind it they looked very good by doing it.

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.
Because if the next time some asswipe trying to hone in prints it on some other crap, and they try and defend it, they use the fact that they didn't defend it in the other case, against them.
THEY ALWAYS HAVE TO DEFEND IT.
That's how copy rights and trade marks work and are kept, if you are asked to use them, YOU DEFEND THEM IN EVERY CASE.
It's how you DEFEND YOUR exclusive RIGHT to it, by ALWAYS defending it.
If you didn't, you can eventually lose that elusive right, because it becomes genericized (look it up)
In case you missed it a key is ALWAYS defend it.

The only reason it has value is cause they defended it.
Imagine they lost it because they didn't defend it, and anyone could use it to put on any garbage not in line with the company, used on any bootleg products, etc... , it would lose the value, and the parents wouldn't want it on their kids tombstone.
Yet the reason they want it, is cause it has value in the way Disney/Marvel have DEFENDED it's use and portrayal.

That a bunch of click bait news sites leap on to this like the parasites they are, so the gullible and clueless like the OP can then give themselves virtue signal point, look I argued against the big corporation who hates dying children and their wishes, look I posted about it I'm special.
No, you are not, that makes you the absolute tool of the other cooperation for whom you are cluelessly feeding and spreading their click-bait garbage for them. LOL!

Look at how cool this guy is , defending the mega corporation by proclaiming how I myself (and others who aren't happy) are tools of the mega corporation media for calling out a company. Which your never supposed to do because **** ...were virtue signaling. **** us all for saying hey , this isn't right. We should all just accept everything a corporation does and their explanation.

If only we weren't tools of the media and accepted the mega corporation response.

[Güicho]

Look at how cool this guy is , defending the mega corporation by proclaiming how I myself (and others who aren't happy) are tools of the mega corporation media for calling out a company. Which your never supposed to do because **** ...were virtue signaling. **** us all for saying hey , this isn't right. We should all just accept everything a corporation does and their explanation.

If only we weren't tools of the media and accepted the mega corporation response.

I don't care what click bait site you are a tool for.
Just that you understand what disinformation you are spreading, so you can have your little look i was righteous moment.
At last show you understand how something becomes genericized, and they are obliged to defend how it's used.