Subsonic Radio

Anyone catch the lawsuit involving the Hoop-Dee-Doo music and name? Here is the link to the article...
http://www.disunplugged.com/2011/03/25/ ... um=twitter
This will be interesting to see how it plays out.

I have not seen the show but if parody is not a valid defense the Weird Al is out of business!

He does get permission though when he does songs to avoid stuff like this.

If I recall, these cases suck out loud because it can come down to the ability for the judge to decide if the work is creative.

Wizzard419 wrote: If I recall, these cases suck out loud because it can come down to the ability for the judge to decide if the work is creative.

I've never taken intellectual property, so I can't tell you for sure, but I think parody plays a role here. Honestly, the fact that the suit is from the lyricist when Hoop has changed the lyrics doesn't help their case. And if anyone knows their IP law, it's Disney...

Personally, I love the Hoop song, so I hope it holds through. Hoop is such a great show. You don't want it to change. Hey, maybe I'll request it tonight.

Disney probably tries to stay above board but some things may fall through the cracks. At least they are on the side being sued since if it were the other way around they would probably pull a Sony and just keep refiling the suit over and over till they won or the guy ran out of money/gave up.

I don't see how Disney can lose this one.

By not showing up to court would be one way.

Wizzard419 wrote:By not showing up to court would be one way.

Most cases like this are settled anyway. It's a money grab. And definitely an argument could be made that the lyricist lost his opportunity by waiting 35 years to bring forward a lawsuit. (and I'm not even sure how the statute of limitations doesn't apply here..)

There is no statute issue if they are still actively using it and someone can still lay claim to the rights.

There is a gymnastics place in a nearby town that used the olympic rings in it's sign (probably worse than using mouse ears), and they had been using it for about 20 years until someone ratted them out, now they have a board on the sign because they didn't want to pay to have a new one made.

Wizzard419 wrote:There is no statute issue if they are still actively using it and someone can still lay claim to the rights.

Not so sure about that. In Canada, despite an active breach, there is an clause in the limitations regarding "aware or should have been aware." A similar clause in the US would limit the length of time for bringing suit.

Disney is responsible for getting rights extended for music and media to 75 years in order to prevent some of their possessions from falling into the public domain, so the party suing has Disney to thank for that!

And isn't there something in the copyright laws about implied/explicit consent other than contractual?

mindflipper wrote:
And isn't there something in the copyright laws about implied/explicit consent other than contractual?

Implied consent is a basic available argument in all contract law, and it's related to the issue of length of time of the breach.

Omg, I think I actually learned something over these last 4 years... (not that my contract law grade showed that at the time )

Yeah, as he said, Disney spearheaded changing rights laws heavily (and will probably keep going) so that they never have to worry about not being in full control.

With the awarness, I think here we are in the favor of claiment since it is plausable that they didn't know since it was only at one location.

In the article, it stated:

Delugg, who wrote the music, seems delighted with the Revue’s continued use of his composition

The fact the composer was aware and did not protest but expressed enjoyment could be consider an implied consent to the use. Disney could contest that such implied consent was passed along when the music exchanged hands.

Although, I do wonder: how hard would it be for Disney to come up with their own polka that they could put their own lyrics to and discontinue the use of that one song?

Depends on how much it would cost to hire a composer, coreographer (if the show is singing and dancing), rehersal time, lost sales (if they choose/have to suspend performances), and probably still have to pay out to whomever filed the suit since it would just empower them.

That's the drawback with using a consultant workforce, it's not always there at the drop of a hat, it costs more for the output, and it takes longer to get started due to all the hoops.