Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder if anyone actually saw what the event was. I did, I checked the FB page and found the flier from before the event occurred. It was a Dad’s Club rather than the actual PTA. As a PTA mom I know how desperately we want dads to get involved so I’m sure the PTA was thrilled but... most likely the dads didn’t have knowledge of the rules the PTA is familiar with. The event was billed as a Movie Night rather than the Parents Night Out it actually was. For $15.00 parents got childcare, food, and entertainment for their child while they got a night off. Had the dads sold it that way and never mentioned what movie was played they might have been okay. My kid’s school did a Frozen event but charged only for food and drinks. The PTA has bylaws in place that help guide us, former Parliamentarian here, the dads probably never even considered Disney would care.
It’s hard because it’s usually a tiny group who do everything with little thanks from the parents who benefit but don’t help. This makes me like Disney even less than I already did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WMak70
My ex GF daughter works for Disney. They are greedy ********s. While the law may have been on their side on this, the bad press they received will negate any benefits. Wonder how many people will not renew their Disney passes and cost Disney more than the $250 ? I know I would.
I doubt that many people will give up Disney passes and not go.
IMO, this move by Disney is actually good PR. They got the message out and for whatever paltry donation, they have recovered their goodwill with the affected party.
My ex GF daughter works for Disney. They are greedy ********s. While the law may have been on their side on this, the bad press they received will negate any benefits. Wonder how many people will not renew their Disney passes and cost Disney more than the $250 ? I know I would.
You would think so, but the same people fined will be the first one lining up to get tickets and hotel on site for Disney World, subscribe to the Disney Channel, etc.
This was 25+ years ago per that OP, so I doubt it was on DVD. Yes, DVD technology was available 25+ years ago (around 1996), but DVD technology really didn't start to explode and become widespread until the early 2000s. VHS was certainly the popular choice 25+ years ago, and I recall seeing way more bootleg VHS tapes than bootleg DVDs (at least in the different areas of the country where I lived). I'm not going to assume that the VHS (or unlikely DVD) was lawfully purchased. Even if it was lawfully purchased, however, Disney still had a right to go after them. The exception to the copyright laws that many think would apply to the school in this case is showing your personally, lawfully purchased copyrighted item to your normal circle of family and friends. But such an exception is really aimed at home use.
There's also an educational exception to copyright laws, but I'd hardly argue that watching the film that they were watching would fall under that exception.
Yes, this was on a VHS tape if I remember. The copyright law would allow use of the movie in the classroom only if it was for "educational purposes", like let's say somehow there was a lesson on mermaids (lol). But once it was chosen to be shown only for entertainment purposes then the copyright law was broken.
I know it's not popular, but I do understand why Disney is so vigilant about things like this. There is a "diluting of the brand" when copyright infringement is allowed to slide. Once one school does it, then it becomes common everywhere. And then that movie or character just isn't as special because it's not a sacrifice to get it. It's easy to cry "but it's a school" and yet once one exception is made, how do you stop?
IMO, this move by Disney is actually good PR. They got the message out and for whatever paltry donation, they have recovered their goodwill with the affected party.
I heard this morning on the news that Disney has backed off and their CEO apologized. So, depending on one's perspective, they either did the nice thing or gave in.
While 250 is hardly an absurd amount, when you fine schools for showing disney films it seems like disney is being a little crazy. Yes its their property but unless the school profited from the movie itself i dont see how disney can justify it.
The school did profit from it, and that is the point. The movie was shown and admission was charged. It is copyrighted material, and it cannot be shown for profit without permission of the studio. There is a warning against this in the intro of pretty much any DVD.
I'm just wondering who turned them in to Disney, because the studio found out about it somehow.
I heard this morning on the news that Disney has backed off and their CEO apologized. So, depending on one's perspective, they either did the nice thing or gave in.
IMO they caved because of the negative publicity about a big studio taking on a school just trying to raise a few bucks.
And this, right here, is why I hate Disney with a passion. Anyone who would sue a school district because a teacher showed a movie to her class -- no doubt without charging a fee or making any money off of it -- may be correct in the legal sense, but are wholly and entirely wrong in the moral sense.
And also, the father of that little girl made sure that she and her friends would never get to enjoy a Disney movie in school ever again. Gee, dad, I'll bet you're real proud of that!
I don't hate Disney, but I think they are greedy...
As a school principal, we were warned early on about Disney and showing its films.
Disney has cheapened and trivialized our culture, starting in on children from the earliest age.
What's even worse is that most of Disney's products are copied from Brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen. Whose stories were originally violent, depressing, or both; they were "sanitized" in the 20th century, even before Disney was established. If those authors hadn't been dead for centuries, Disney would have been charged with plagiarism. Even worse, Disney totally swindled Alan Alexander Milne, author of "Winnie the Pooh" books, when they wouldn't let him have the ownership of his characters back. They also added characters, like Darby the girl and Buster the dog, that weren't in the original books.
Even my favorite Disney movie "Homeward Bound: the Incredible Journey" was based on the book by Sheila Burnford. Ditto for "Lion King"; I'm sure it was copied from somewhere, possibly African folktales. In short, few or none of Disney's products are original creations. I'm questioning whether Disney paid the rightful royalties when the shoe was on the other foot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
