'points to Code Geass' Those MFS were giving Pizza Hut free advertising in over 70% of the show, and Pizza Hut cried about it and told them to remove their logo from all the Pizza boxes and billboards in the show. Pizza Hut was dumb as F***k! All logos were removed and replaced with nothing, just blank boxes. That show was huge when it first aired, Pizza Hut lost out on millions. TL;DR Not every company is going to be smart.
@@MizuMing that's not the reason, it's because in some countries they can't legally air shows with too much advertising, even if it's just a simple pizza logo on a pizza box. Laws are dumb, but dumb or not, laws are laws
@@RFMMEntertainment Pizza Hut, Anime series doing free advertising, threats to sue, logos removed, profits down. What could have been was amazing. I still have the uncensored Pizza Hut logo encrusted series and it is glorious. 🤩
Another story of corporate greed, a local kid died of cancer. He wanted spider-man on his grave stone, Disney refused to let the parents put spidey on it.
Bro that extremely depressing, Disney was so good back in the days but now is just a corporation trying to fill their pockets as fat as they can with zero morals.
In my opinion, Universal studios didn't just gave the three daycare centers a chance to have better murals, but gave themselves a serious chance to upstage Disney in a way that they never thought possible in the long run, good for them.
I actually remember this... This backfired on Disney BIG TIME...Universal even ran commercials and Newspaper ads about the incident....it was great for Universal.
The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto had cartoon characters on the walls of the ER in order to make the sick children more comfortable in a hospital environment. Disney told them to get rid of them or they'd be sued. The hospital removed them.
@@BlackBlade2938 there is no worse Both of them treat their people that use the icon like hell But at least Nintendo doesn’t sue you for having Mario painted on a child’s bed
Bro what??? Disney be mad at the most littlest things. I SERIOUSLY DONT UNDERSTAND THEM😭 WHY WOULD THEY SUE SOMEONE FOR HAVING SPIDERMAN ON THEY'RE GRAVE💀
I used to work for a very small kids entertainment company in nj. We had all the characters. I played all of them and did booking and office work. We used characters from all kids pop culture and it was listed on our website. Disney sent us a cease and desist letter due to the names of characters - cindarella had to be changed to blue princess, aurora -pink princess...etc. i learned disney has a team that searches online all day for companies that use their trademarked material. We were not a huge company and if anything the lower quality version. Loved that job.
A lot of Disney’s princesses aren’t even their original characters 💀 Cinderella’s tale is literally ancient Edit: I originally said Cinderella was from the Grimm brothers, but checked the source of Cinderella and apparently it’s got no clear origin 👍
@@mortenpettersen52333 daycares of ~ a dozen children each. But anyways, you didn't really have to tell us nobody cared about you for the entirety of your life, you have a micropenis, and have daddy issues all at once.
Walt literally OWNED his artists work whether it was Disneys or not. Meaning. If an artist were to work at Disney, any artwork they created outside of Disney is still property of Disney. How do I know? My grandfather refused to work for Disney when he was offered a job there. I don't think Walt gave a 💩
Since Disney has the rights to marvel, they disrespected a dying child's wish to have spiderman on his tombstone, as if you thought Disney couldn't be anymore heartless.
what? disney is a heartless and gross consumer oriented wildly leftist and capitalist company but your accusation is so dumb. Disney has no obligation to do anything anyone asks. It is an independent company, that child doesn't owe disney anything.
nvm I read about it, apparently Disney said they would take legal action against the dad if spider-man was painted on the dead 4 yr old boy's tombstone. Weird thing to do for what is basically a penny of worth to Disney. I misunderstood what you said cuz of the wording.
@@RamVenka yes I know. I just thinks that it would be stupid to put spiderman on the grave. If it's not a Stan Lee grave or of an actor who played him on the screen. Yeah little kid wanted it. But so what? He is already dead.
@@A_walking_contradiction Disney is suing for Nintendo?? I doubt either Nintendo or Disney would want to sue for the rights of their characters being used in that content, because that would mean that the content is now cannon to the company. 😂
No, that never happened. Disney refused permission. There have been plenty of bootlegged Disney gravestones put up and Disney never came after any of them but they do not give permission for them to be created.
Nintendo will REMOVE any game that has the word "Pokemon" Seriously most of the fanmade (or roblox) pokemon games Are now down Theres still some ones standing but with an different story but same idea
Why the hell is a company MADE FOR KIDS ENTERTAINMENT suing a day care that did that for the kids entertainment, shame on Disney, W for universal Studios
And don't forget how a lot of Disney child star are messed up when they grew up. They don't really care about kids. It's business and their market are kids.
I think its deeper than that. I think the money is just an added bonus to them. The entire company's goal is just to make everyone's day *that* much worse. As consistently as they can.
Well unlike this preschool (which by the way is really dumb for Disney to get pissed at) certain stores are allowed use characters of certain companies like Target can make cakes off of Disney characters bc the company was allowed rights to use their characters but they can’t use DC characters bc they don’t have the rights for that
I remember they sued a parent because it had spiderman on their kid's grave even tho the child adored spiderman. Disney lawyers are the most dumbest pieces of shits ive ever seen
Disneyland gives off the vibe 'be super happy or you won't have fun at all', while the Universal Studios parks feel more like 'we hope we make you happy', which is one of the main reasons I like going to Universal parks instead
I hate Universal. Universal sucks. After my accident and I was paraplegic Universal cares less at least I can go on rides at Disney and ride mini rides and bring my wheelchair. At Universal to go on a ride that you can bring a wheelchair they make you transfer into their wheelchair and if you can’t, you can’t go on the ride at Disney they make all effort to get people on the ride, but you don’t see that I threw my passes right at Universal‘s face and my Halloween horror nights pass in Universal‘s face and said that they could keep it and go to hell I will never be back
@@helloyou6465Pretty sure that hamanimations you meantioned was referencing "2008 Batman The Dark Knight" when they said. Referencing when Joker says that exact phrase in the movie
Not quite. The Grimm characters were in the public domain, so Disney could use them freely. The Mickey Mouse gang are _not_ in the public domain, and therefore legally belong to Disney. They are in fact within their legal right to request a takedown. That being said, Disney is also responsible for the statute of limitations on copyright being so long, specifically because of those very characters (they didn't want to ever lose exclusive rights to them so they lobbied the government several times to extend the age of copyright as long as they could), so it's mostly the large corporation going "hey we don't make the rules even tho we literally did lmao". Plus it's just scummy to go after preschools that didn't do anything objectionable with those characters, and was a bad look all around.
@@swishfish8858just to add to what you said, you can now use the Mickey from Steamboat Willie. It won't be long until other versions are in the public domain.
To go further into it, the characters that disney made ARE copywritten. The story isn't Disney's, but the characters are, for now. You can't animate your own cartoon with an evil fairy with a black gown and horns and call them Maleficent. Mickey Mouse has NOW entered the public domain, BUT there are rules to using him. You can't just slap him on something and say it's Disney. I don't even think you can use his color scheme.
I can understand Nintendo's case.. people making money directly from their work from one software to another. Like who gave them permission? But Disney's cases are just petty af.
@The76532 Here is the context: DragonBall is insanely popular in Mexico, and a common tradition among Mexican business owners is putting popular fictional characters on the walls of their shops. In other words, you can see Goku pretty much everywhere you visit a taco shop or a small business of such in Mexico.
@The76532 Second thing: The topic at hand here is copyright, and Toei, the anime studio behind One Piece, DragonBall, Sailor Moon, and many others, is infamous for its strict copyrights policy. You are mistaking the topic at hand for the treatment of employees, in which case Mappa is infamous for and is much worse than Toei.
How is that greedy? Yeah they did it to make Disney look bad but that’s good, bringing awareness to what Disney did isn’t bad, making them look bad if it’s true isnt greedy, plus they made the kids happy
If that someone is selling those paintings of Mickey Mouse on Notebooks for profit, yes Disney would be in their right to threaten legal action. Which is the same case here. Daycares are a FOR PROFIT business, they’re not a charity. It’s no different than any other for profit business using Disney characters without permission to advertise their products or services. 🤷🏼♀️
@@Musiclover19yeah but the daycares are selling their service of education and the characters were just to make the kids be happier. They werent using the characters to advertise😭
@@yesidek First off, while some daycares might offer something “educational “ they’re not usually known for teaching children more than social skills. Daycares are not required to be educational. And 2) Like I said in my original comment, by painting those Disney characters on their wall, they can give the impression that they are associated with Disney. Doesn’t even matter if no one truly did think they were associated with Disney, it’s just enough that people MIGHT make that assumption. I’m sorry to play Devil’s Advocate and side with the billion dollar corporation, but facts are facts and the fact is daycares are a FOR PROFIT business. Disney has every right to decide what businesses they do and do not want their copyrighted owned characters to be associated with, period. It’s the same thing with that father who made a big fuss because Disney won’t allow Spider-Man on his dead child’s grave. I’m sorry that his son passed, that’s something I can’t imagine how painful it must be and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. But Disney as a company doesn’t want their characters to be associated with sad thoughts of dead children? Well, again that’s their right as a company.
The notebook cover is a bad example, since if they'd be selling those it would constitute merch, which is what most companies live off of. But just painting it on daycare walls is not a big deal, and bad fricking publicity for them
@@Musiclover19who in their right mind would assume a day care is associated with Disney? Oh, right, no one. Only the clinically insane. Oh yeah, that’s Disney
@@YaGirlZero He wouldn't, considering the fact that he employed many Jewish people. In fact, the Sherman brothers (People of Jewish decent) worked for him from 1960-1966 (Walt's death, yet they didn't shit on him. He wasn't even racist either
Nice! The Universal people were smart enough to know that in specific circumstances, allowing free use of their characters, especially in conditions that are certainly not going to lose them money, will be better in the long-term. By contrast, Disney was the dog that had a bone in his mouth, and saw his reflection in the water, dropping the bone to get the reflection of the bone. Literally, the only argument to be made, is that sick kids seeing those characters everyday in a hospital, or similar environment, might not like those characters in the future, because it reminds them of the unpleasant environment they once were in. That argument, is a long-shot.
My dad was an artist. He did a huge mural of all of the disney characters in an old model T,in Orebank elementary school,back in the 70s! Glad Disney, didnt find out,even though, he was in an article about it in the newspapers. Miss you dad!
Mashallah your father was amazing. Also it's crazy how Disney would find out about a schools artwork and ask them to take it out. They were acting like there weren't copies of the same stuff in different school.
Disney: We want money, so we'll ruin these kid's favourite mural Universal: We want kids to be happy, so were going to piss off Disney, and make the mural ourselves
@@lollikabosso.w.n7153 actually i’d say Universal mainly just wanted to do it for publicity, but even if it was just for money at least they still had the moral-high-ground.
That show of spite is brilliant, graceful and elegant while not missing out on being spiteful and showing their competitors how to make a better world while also endorsing themselves without bragging
@@TeamDurocPig Wait didn't Universal Studios sue Nintendo because of donkey Kong? Btw The lawyer Was named Jack Kirby For the thanks for Helping Nintendo win the law suit they named Kirby well Kirby
I say Disney is too petty... That's just a preschool. Thet don't even make any money for that painting, just entertainment for kids. Disney seems to like picking stupid quarrels.
Incorrect. It wasn’t a preschool, it was daycares, which charge for the service of watching kids. They don’t do it for free. By them using the copyright and trademark Disney characters, it can give the impression that they are a Disney associate business, which they are not. You might find it petty and that’s understandable. And Universal Studios was definitely smart to use the situation to give themselves some good PR. But legally, Disney wasn’t wrong to threaten legal action.
Sue them for what? There are no damages. The murals are not causing Disney any harm, and any sensible judge would have thrown out the lawsuit. They aren't losing sales, the characters are not being used commercially, and they aren't assailing Disney's reputation. This is the definition of a frivolous lawsuit.
@@drunkenboss6549There must be proof that the enrollment of students increased due to that fact tho. Otherwise, that sounds like a baseless accusation
@@tomatotom984 So if I were to slap some Instagram artist's original characters in my store to attract new customers, the artist cannot sue me until they got proof that my number of customers increased?
@@drunkenboss6549correct... That is actually literally how that works, same with defamation cases, it needs to be provable that the slander/defamation was A. A lie and B. Actually had damaging effects such as loss of income etc. Now in your example of a store, that would 100% be easily proven but with Disney characters which are known the world over and bring joy to kids, not so much.
Prince sued a woman who was recording her daughter and the movie Purple Rain just happened to be playing in the background. These people don't care lol.
Prince was also petty, even in the music industry. I remember hearing that he wanted help from Van Halen's producer Ted Templeman for help to upstage MJ because EVH did the guitar solo on Beat It. The producer just asked him why he didn't swallow his pride and ask MJ's producer Quincy Jones, and Prince just stormed off as a result. There was also the JJBA deal where Prince got mad Araki asked him for permission to use his music for Part 4.
