Deseret News | Disney puts a crimp in BYU tour

Reader comments
Disney puts a crimp in BYU tour

Page:
< Previous
1
2

Anonymous | 4:41 p.m. May 12, 2008

This is such a silly argument -- these kind of legal disputes happen all the time. And they are no big deal. Just because a legal dispute arises, it does not mean that anyone did anything "wrong" in a moral sense. Two parties who may think they have everything worked out sometimes learn that they need to negotiate a little further. That's about as far as this is likely to go -- more like a business discussion than anything else.

Shelby | 4:44 p.m. May 12, 2008

Copyrights (and thus performance rights) are currently granted for the life of the author plus another 70 years (at which point his/her estate receives the royalties). Works of corporate authorship have 120 years after their creation or 95 years after publication, whichever comes first. These terms were established by the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998.

The Disney corporation paid no royalties to the Grimm Brothers because the Grimms held no modern copyrights. Their works are in the public domain and available to anyone (even you!) to adapt as you see fit. Given enough time, Disney's works will eventually fall into the public domain as well. Well, maybe, because...

The irony is that the copyright terms used to be much shorter. Disney was such a proponent of extending the length of copyrights via the above act, that it is sometimes referred to as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.

And for the above commenter who mentioned the Young Ambassadors singing from Mary Poppins and Fiddler on the Roof: age has nothing to do with it. The only difference is that rights to perform selections from Fiddler were covered under their ASCAP agreement.

Thomas | 4:47 p.m. May 12, 2008

The problem is not with Disney seeking a profit, or protecting its intellectual property. The problem is with the Disney suits squeezing out every last dollar of profit and pushing the limits of what they contend their intellectual property rights cover absolutely as far as they can.

There's a passage in Leviticus that forbids Israel to reap all the way to the edges of the fields, or go over the fields again to catch what the first cutting missed. There's something to that -- and something unseemly about a bunch of soulless MBAs who Walt would make walk Captain Hook's plank grabbing at every penny in sight.

Don't get me started on $3.00 sodas in Tomorrowland.

And as for the apparent plan to put Disney characters in "it's a small world" -- dude, someone really ought to go Porter Rockwell on whoever thought up that idea.

Comments continue below

to Disney Pro. | 5:16 p.m. May 12, 2008

So your anti-LDS comment is enough to show your opinion means nothing.

Your comment is offensive and should be removed from the Deseret News site.

I don't see much difference in a song just because a costume is on....but I can understand the point. But BYU's charities for the world getting attacked now?

How can the company state that they are pro children when they are more pro profit.

Happy children and money are two different worlds.

This is a sad day for the mouse.

These | 5:36 p.m. May 12, 2008

Utard's never post my comments even when they are more respectful than most Utards.

That is why | 5:37 p.m. May 12, 2008

I am sick of this paper and never use unless absolutely necessary

Utard not taher | 5:42 p.m. May 12, 2008

Ok, here it is again:

I'm a lover, and I'm a sinner, but not a hater.

THIS IS A FAIR USE

Dean | 6:14 p.m. May 12, 2008

BYU made a mistake, Disney is protecting those people who actually pay to use their songs. There is no dispute besides the fact that BYU should have been a little more careful in their "understandings" of copyright issues and what "intellectual property" is. Just a mistake that happens all the time. But don't make Disney out to be some corporation that is evil, because it obviously is not.

And again, Disney doesn't need free publicity, they are Disney. What they DO need is to protect those thousands of people that do pay to use Disney IP that other's don't get a free ride. BYU just needs to do their homework beforehand to avoid future problems.

C! | 6:33 p.m. May 12, 2008

To the "Dude" who replied to my earlier post...

"So do you grow your own produce? Farm your own meat? Not watch ANY TV? Build your own car? Sew your own clothes? Own your own bank? Build your own toys for your kids? etc., etc...Dude, they're already hooked on those evil corperations. But good stand on Disney"

Don't be ridiculous, just get real. Aren't you a little over the top? I didn't say anything about an "evil" corporation... I think "evil" was your word. If you know much about marketing and publicly owned companies you'll know that the primary goal of a corporation is to bring a return on investment to the shareholders. Perhaps I didn't articulate it well, but that is basically what I'm saying... make no mistake about it, they're there first and foremost to make a profit.

By the way, I'm not one of those who feels Disney should give away its intellectual property for free to BYU or anyone else. On the contrary, BYU should have to pay just like everyone else. That's how it works.

U Alum | 6:38 p.m. May 12, 2008

Everybody knows that BYU is the Disneyland of Universities... M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E. Most of the comments here suggest that BYU is above it all. That's exactly why us Utes think: "tough Luck!"

DDD | 7:27 p.m. May 12, 2008

Thomas,

I'm sorry, I guess someone must have given you the impression that Disney was a Christian Church and therefore the laws of Leviticus apply? Hopefully you are smart enough to figure out that it is not. Even for modern Churches Leviticus is obsolete. Not reaping your fields all the way to the edges? C'mon, what century are you from anyway?

Go get a life - somewhere OUTSIDE of the Bible - and then come back for a more intelligent discussion.

Until then, Disney is doing good business, and BYU is once again trying to get away with anything they can and then whining about it when the get caught.

RTD | 7:55 p.m. May 12, 2008

I actually saw the BYU Ambassadors in China, and honestly, it was painful to sit through

Dakotah | 8:06 p.m. May 12, 2008

So PAY Disney. They have lawyers every bit as nasty as the LDS Church does. What is so hard to understand about paying for what you use?

Just Curious | 9:44 p.m. May 12, 2008

What does a license for a Disney song run? Is it a percentage of receipts?

So many on here giving intellectual property advice I thought I would just ask for the cat's sake. :)

haters | 10:42 p.m. May 12, 2008

just because someone disagrees doesn't mean they are a "hater". People who distort the truth to make others look bad are "haters". One should give others the benefit of the doubt.

JT | 2:58 a.m. May 13, 2008

Boy, the Young Ambassadors can't seem to catch a break, can they? OK, here's my read of the situation- the Ambassadors thought they had permission to perform the songs, they didn't, Disney called them on it. It happens all of the time. Not a big deal. My question is: is anyone going to be writing a check to the Summy Company, and the estate of Patty and Mildred Hill, who hold the actual copyright to "Happy Birthday,"? If it was sung in public at a fireside, as mentioned in an earlier comment, someone may need to get out a pen and a checkbook.

diligentdave | 5:21 a.m. May 13, 2008

About a dozen years ago at a trade show, I spoke with some persons at a company who had extensive experience dealing with the Disney organization, and other entertainment entities such as the Warner Brothers people ("Looney Tunes", etc). They told me then that while other entertainment entities, such as Warner Bros were relative "sweethearts" to deal with, Disney was excessively arrogant, greedy and aggressive.

Sure, Disney is and has been quite profitable. However, I would agree with many comments made here about how excessively avarice they seem to be.

As a "Utah man" myself, though LDS, I have my beefs with BYU. Often, I sense a lot of arrogance, haughtiness, etc at BYU. Many who have dealt on a business basis tell me how cheap BYU is (avarice in the other extreme).

However, I would say that I feel that Disney smells money, and wants to extract it from BYU. They have a pool of cultural songs, etc to blackmail BYU & such entities with, to give them leverage inducing royalty payments. My bet - BYU will (& should) never pay "The Mouse" on this one.

Lastly, "Go Utah! Go Utes!"

an insider | 8:15 a.m. May 13, 2008

Calm down everyone. BYU did obtain the rights to perform the music. What is being discussed between BYU and Disney is to what extent they can be performed. If BYU was wrong they were so unknowingly. Notice that they did make the necessary changes immediately while the lawyers sort things out. There's no need to hate BYU or Disney so just relax.

the real world | 10:31 a.m. May 13, 2008

I guess someone at BYU forgot to do their homework....no pun intended

Thomas | 10:36 a.m. May 13, 2008

DDD,

Who said anything about Disney being "subject" to Leviticus? I simply said there's something to the moral principle expressed in that Leviticus practice -- that grubbing for every last cent is unseemly.

And it's not necessarily "good business," either. Disney is in the business of marketing a delightful illusion -- the selling of a "magical" experience that stands outside the heartless, coldly efficient workaday world. To the extent Disney's leadership acts like the stereotypical American bottom-line-driven, stock-options-sucking executive class, it dilutes its brand and burns up valuable goodwill.

Is that enough "intelligent discussion" for your oh-so-modern sensibilities?

Lawyer with Experience | 11:28 a.m. May 13, 2008

Intellectual property law is complex and believe it or not, not always clear. The groups that sell the blanket licenses will tell you they cover anything and everything. Sometimes the companies with the underlying copyrights assert that a particular use is not covered by the blanket license. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. Usually a settlement is worked out. From this story NO ONE can say that either party is at fault in any way. Both Disney bashing and BYU bashing are simply childish and uninformed. It is quite possible, in fact, probable, that both parties are acting in complete good faith.

Tlee | 8:53 a.m. May 22, 2008

I don't see what all the fuss is about. Sure it's an annoying mixup, especially for the Young Ambassdors who have worked so hard on these fun numbers, but the Lord has a reason for this. The Young Ambassadors were able to pull some songs from previous years and the show went on. They are having an extremely successful tour. They are touching the lives of people in Australia, why should we complain? Most of us are complaining more than they are.

Steve R | 4:06 p.m. Dec. 17, 2008

BYU has been using songs for years without paying rights...heck they did it while I was there....Time to pay up!!!

Oops! Little less money now to discriminate against gays now...;-(

Page:
< Previous
1
2

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.