[h3][font style="font-family: Verdana;" size="2"]F*cking Disney scumbags want to now own stuff they didn't even make. Talk about co-opting history. Screw Disney, the thieving BASTARDS. They DON'T own "Snow White", "Peter Pan", "Pinnochio", etc etc.
[/font][/h3]
[hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;"][h3] [/h3][h3]Disney hijacking Alice, Snow White, et al in New Zealand [/h3]This month, Disney filed sweeping trademark applications with the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand. They cover works that Disney has adapted - Snow White, Peter Pan, Pinocchio etc - [span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"]but did not create[/span]. If the 'word marks' were to be granted they would give Disney exclusive use of those works in this territory.
[blockquote] Disney's application to IPONZ for a trade mark on Alice in Wonderland. The specification of goods and services for which trade mark protection is sought is very lengthy: from furniture to food, clothing to CDs. You may be astonished at the breadth of the application being lodged by a company that has done no more, in this case, than produce adaptations of classic works of children's literature. Ditto for Snow White, Peter Pan, Pinocchio and a list of characters from those works. [/p]This is not trivial. It would be understandable for Disney to try and protect its interpretations of existing characters, but its application for so-called "word marks" implies something much more than that: it implies exclusive rights to use all those characters. There have been at least 14 English-language films based on Carlo Collodi's 1883 novel The Adventures of Pinocchio (which itself drew on classical sources), and many more in other languages. If Disney was to obtain such trade marks (which cover "motion picture films"), would it then become impossible to make - or at least market - another one without Disney's permission? Would it be a copyright lockout via the back door? [/p][/blockquote] [a href="vny!://publicaddress.net/default,3887.sm#post3887"]Link[/a]
