Originally Posted By Rebekah This topic is for discussion of the 6/27/2003 news item <b><a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030627/tv_nm/television_lizzie_dc_1" target="_blank">HR: Disney Hit with 'Lizzie McGuire' Lawsuit</a></b> Representatives of late cartoonist Alfred "Al" Capp have sued Disney over the use of Sadie Hawkins Day in an episode of <I>Lizzie Mc Guire</I>.
Originally Posted By kennect Why does this story remind me of awful high school memories....I wish the company would sue the high school I went to instead of Disney....But here again, once more, we see Disney looking at litigation that is absurd....
Originally Posted By terwyn "I wish the company would sue the high school I went to instead of Disney" What's wrong, didn't like your high school? The reason Disney was targeted was because Disney is a for profit enterprize, most school are not. Disney made money by producing and airing Lizzie. Schools aren't profit motivated. Besides, MY high school called their sadie hawkins day dances--"backwards dances", thus avoiding any copyright infringment lawsuits. Disney should have been so smart. Hey do you know that a movie, TV, etc. could get sued by Michael Jackson for showing actors singing the song: Happy Birthday"? Have you noticed that in restaurants, the wait staff doesn't sing that song anymore? Restaurants are in the business of making money. I seriously doubt that MJ Enterprizes will use helicopters with sensitive microphones trying to catch outdoor birthday parties infringing on their copyrighted songs.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut <<Hey do you know that a movie, TV, etc. could get sued by Michael Jackson for showing actors singing the song: Happy Birthday"? >> not quite accurate.....
Originally Posted By meowthew Michael Jackson has never owned the rights to the Happy Birthday song. That belongs to Summy-Birchard Music (a division of AOL Time Warner). It's technically copyright infringement to sing the song in a public setting without permission, but prosecution for it is rare. And as for the "Sadie Hawkins" dispute, I can't count the number of shows I've seen over the years that have featured that name in episodes, including "Even Stevens", "Kim Possible" and "The Jersey". This is as frivolous a suit as it gets. What's really eye-rolling is the company suing Disney says the Lizzie McGuire series has "a cheap, lackluster appearance in contrast to the first-class type of usage which Capp has created, authorized others to do, and is interested in seeing done in the future." "Saved By the Bell" had a Sadie Hawkins episode. Need I say more?
Originally Posted By narkspud >>That belongs to Summy-Birchard Music (a division of AOL Time Warner). It's technically copyright infringement to sing the song in a public setting without permission, but prosecution for it is rare.<< True. The issue in the past was that the song was NOT licensed by ASCAP or BMI, the performance rights organizations, making it about the only significant song that wasn't. This meant that it could not legally be performed AT ALL in public or on the radio or TV without negotiating royalty fees directly with the copyright holders, which at the time were the descendants of the composer. Very hard to enforce, naturally, but there were plenty of prosecutions, which the descendants invariably won. Now that Warners owns the song (which they purchased in 1989) and it has been placed with ASCAP, any restaurant with an ASCAP license is allowed to sing it. If they don't have an ASCAP or BMI license, they aren't allowed to sing much of anything. Yeah, I think the Sadie Hawkins Day lawsuit is stupid. The term is part of American culture, and has been for over 50 years. I don't see Al Capp's estate pervailing on this one. That "Saved by the Bell" episode was one with Tori Spelling in it, wasn't it. I always got a kick out of those.
