Marvel Comics, a comic book company originally founded in 1939 under the name Timely Comics, became most famous for characters such as Spider-Man, X-Men, the Fantastic Four, Iron Man and Hulk. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were two prominent members of the company responsible for creating some of its most successful characters. In 2009 Disney bought Marvel Comics and now owns the rights to its characters, which caused immense uproar amongst Marvel creators, namely Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.
By October 2012, Stan Lee and his media group sued Disney for billions over the rights to the Marvel characters. Lee claimed that he gave the rights of his characters to Marvel and that Disney did not publicly revealed or documented Marvel’s agreement with himself at the United States Copyright Office. Lee and others had tried multiple times to gain ownership of the characters. Lee is often regarded as the creator for several famous Marvel Comics, and is thus very adamant about acquiring rights to their images.
According to a federal judge, the Walt Disney Company does indeed own the rights to the Marvel characters created by Stan Lee. United States District Judge William J. Martinez granted with prejudice Disney’s dismissal of Stan Lee Media’s multibillion dollar lawsuit. Martinez expressed almost annoyance at the case. He wrote, “Plaintiff has tried time and again to claim ownership of those copyrights; the litigation history arising out of the 1998 agreement stretches over more than a decade and at least six courts” (Martinez 2012). He further supported his decision because Lee in fact assigned Disney the copyrights to his characters and those he would create in the future.
Works Cited
Official Transcript of Stan Lee Media, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company. http://www-deadline-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/disney-stan-lee-media-motion-to-dismiss__130906000300.pdf
“About Us.” The Official Marvel Website. http://marvel.com/
This is an image of O’Neill at work on “Air Pirates.”
In 1979 O’Neill gathered a group of various artists to form a secret organization known as the Mouse Liberation Front. The Mouse Liberation Front put on an art show in New York, Philadelphia and San Diego. O’Neill helped compose and deliver The Mouse Liberation Front Communiqué #2 to Disney Studios, which he in fact delivered in person. In it, Mickey Mouse was sitting at an animation table smoking a joint in Walt Disney’s office. Disney finally had enough. Disney finally settled the very expensive and ongoing case against the Air Pirates. Disney dropped the contempt charges and did not enforce any other measures as long as the Pirates no longer infringed copyright laws. The case remains one of the most controversial among comics and first amendment right protectors. O’Neill purposely continued to aggravate Disney in a way idiotic to most, yet showed zeal to counterculture enthusiasts. Was O’Neil out of line, or simply the only one speaking out about Disney’s practices?
Works Cited
Air Pirates Funnies Vol. 1, No. 1, July 1971.
Levin, Bob. The Pirates and the Mouse: Disney’s War Against the Counterculture. (2003) Fantagraphics Books.
This is a panel from “Air Pirates,” depicting Mickey and Minnie Mouse.
“Air Pirates,” featured a lot of cursing and adult situations with Disney characters.
There were strong sexual undertones throughout the series.
In 1971 a group of cartoonists created two editions of underground comics entitled Air Pirates. Founder Dan O’Neill regarded Mickey Mouse as, “a symbol of conformist hypocrisy in American culture” (Levin 2004). The comics focused on Disney characters and included depictions of Goofy, Donald Duck, Minnie and Mickey Mouse doing drugs, performing lewd sexual acts and cursing. He kept the original names of all Disney characters so as to not, “dilute the parody” (Levin 2004).
O’Neill aimed to attack Disney’s consumerism and adoption of dozens of European and American folklore and tales. Just months after Air Pirates released, Disney sued for copyright infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition. O’Neill was very defiant throughout the suit because he had strong distaste for Disney’s control of the media. All of the other creators and distributors settled with Disney on O’Neill’s advice. The irony of the situation is O’Neill and others began selling original artwork, mostly of Disney characters, to pay for their lawyers and defense. O’Neill and company violated restraining orders set against them by Disney by continuing to create inappropriate Disney looking characters. The court, through appeals and all surrounding the case, continued to support Disney.
Works Cited
Disney’s War Against the Counterculture. Reason: Free Minds and Free Markets. December 2004 Issue.
This is the character “Mater” of the Disney movies “Cars” and its sequel.
This is a character created by the plaintiff Jake Mandeville-Anthony.
Mandeville-Anthony v. The Walt Disney Company is a 2012 copyright infringement case concerning Disney and Jake Mandeville-Anthony. Mandeville-Anthony claimed that his works Cookie and Co. and Cars/Autho-Excess/Cars Chaos, an animated television show and movie that he believed Disney copied in order to make the films Cars and Cars 2. He also claimed that he and Disney signed a contract barring Disney from using the ideas contained in his works, which he stated Disney breached.
Disney claims that its works were completely independent and not similar to Mandeville Anthony’s work. The group acknowledged the contract created with Mandeville-Anthony, and stated they abided by the two year wait to use ideas. In this case, the court decided in favor of Disney.
Disney was able to prove that the films were not similar enough to warrant copyright infringement. In essence they convinced Mandeville-Anthony to surrender his ideas in a contract and continued with their “innovative” film series Cars. Were they legally allowed to do so? Was the court right to support them, or was their power and influence able to financially sustain a legal team that would protect them? There are two camps clearly surrounding cases such as this. There are those who support the artist and creator of an artistic idea, and there are those who support what is legally acceptable and applicable. In this case, the court did not side with the actual creator of the “cars movie” themes.
Works Cited
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Opinion, No. 11-56441 U.S. Dist. No. 2:11-cv-02137-VBFJEM (9th Cir. Jul. 17, 2012).
The Walt Disney Company, often shortened simply to “Disney,” is currently classified as a diversified multinational mass media corporation. CNN Money accredits Disney as the largest media conglomerate in the world in terms of revenue alone (Siklos 2009). Although Disney began as an animation focused company, they now own and operate ABC broadcast television, Disney Channel, ESPN, A & E, ABC Family and now even a successful music division (Barrier 2007). With 14 amusement parks worldwide and interests spanning not only country lines but also spanning audiences, Disney entertains millions of people. Due to its overwhelming influence in the entertainment industry, Disney has in turn had a profound impact on media law. This $60 billion dollar company has faced dozens of court cases and continues to swell in revenue, power and impact.
Works Cited
Siklos, Richard. Why Disney wants DreamWorks. CNN/Money. Accessed October 1, 2013.
Barrier, Michael. The Animated Man: A Life of Walt Disney. University of California Press. Accessed October 1, 2007.
As Disney grew to the media conglomerate it is today, it appeared to have lost a sense of sincerity that was noticed by the media world. Within the last decade a term has developed to encompass this phenomenon. Author of The Disneyization of Society Alan E. Bryman defines “disneyization,” as the transformation of something, usually society at large, to resemble a Disney theme park. The term is pejorative in nature, implying a homogenization of consumption, merchandising and emotional labor (Bryman 2004).
When typically applied, “disneyization,” can be used to describe the process of stripping a place or event of original character and repackaging it in a regimented manner. Aspects of “disneyization” include:
* Theming— This aspect refers to creating an overarching, sterilized idea for an object or place.
* Hybrid Consumption— Offering many opportunities for consumption at one location.
* Merchandising— Selling and promoting goods and or services bearing a theme or logo adopted by a company.
* Performative Labor— Making employees or services have an entertaining undertone.
French philosopher Jean Baudrillard writes about this occurrence and criticizes the corporate elements of the company saying: “The whole Walt Disney philosophy eats out of your hand with these pretty little sentimental creatures in grey fur coats. For my own part, I believe that behind these smiling eyes there lurks a cold, ferocious beast fearfully stalking us” (Baudrillard). Various other amusement parks sick as Six Flags and Busch Gardens have adopted “disneyized” mentalities, and animated competitors continue to mimic the business practices of Disney because of its continually immense success.
Works Cited
Alan E. Bryman. The Disneyization of Society. Sage Publications. 2004.
Jean Baudrillard. “Disneyworld Company.” European Graduate School. 2006.
Happily Never After 