Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer ^^^ Well, that, Spirit, I am interested in, especially if it develops and furthers the thematics of the land.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 ^^Just look at how Disney loves selling 'retro' merchandise to think of all the possibilities of monetizing the past MAGIC.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> Just look at how Disney loves selling 'retro' merchandise to think of all the possibilities of monetizing the past MAGIC. << Now I can see some kind of angle like that. Merchandise food, and drinks, and rooms are what drives WDW. I can definitely see them putting that in an RFID campaign. Disney classic rides of yesteryear at the Parks, not at all.
Originally Posted By andyll <<I've heard from several knowledgeable individuals that a very popular WDW-centric site has been netting six figures annually, mostly through advertising. Six figures? From one site?>> I hate to tell you but... Disboards.com is a top 10 internet forum. They have individual forum sponsors, google ads, memberships, and google ads. They are likely making six figures monthly on their forums alone. That doesn't include the main wdwinfo.com << Why wouldn't Disney want that action for themselves? Makes perfect sense, since the site is all about parks and resorts which they own and operate.>> There is an inherent difference between a fan site and a corporate site. << The small fan-based entrepreneur stuff is going to become extinct, once Disney has their own stuff for sale. >> Don't see how it's going to happen. You really can't shut down a company like jeff lange without also going after all the video on you tube, visions fantastic and all the 1000s of fan websites that have video of Disney entertainment. And what about photos? In theory there is little difference between making money off of video and making money of photos of trademarked items. Are all the Disney websites going to have to remove references to Disney trademarked items? If so it would shut them down. Hard to put the genie back in the bottle at this point.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "There is an inherent difference between a fan site and a corporate site." Sometimes I can't tell the difference.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Hey wasn't there a torrent site called Mouse Files or something like that? It had a ton of HD videos that people enjoyed sharing. There was one guy who did really incredible tribute videos that he was not shameless enough to charge for. Probably better than anything that people sell. Better than Disney's own videos to be honest. Did they shut it down or something?
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Hey wasn't there a torrent site called Mouse Files or something like that? It had a ton of HD videos that people enjoyed sharing. There was one guy who did really incredible tribute videos that he was not shameless enough to charge for. Probably better than anything that people sell. Better than Disney's own videos to be honest.<<<< Mousebits and Martin Smith> Still around, still legal, and still awesome.
Originally Posted By andyll <<Still around, still legal, and still awesome>> Sorry. Not charging for a trademarked/copyright violation does not make it legal.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> Sorry. Not charging for a trademarked/copyright violation does not make it legal. << It's perfectly legal unless the owner of the trademark wishes to challenge it in a court of law. Then the court must decide on eight points of law reguarding trademarked, copyright infridgement. related to this case. 1.Strength of the mark 2.Proximity of the goods 3.Similarity of the marks 4.Evidence of actual confusion 5.Marketing channels used 6.Type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser 7.Defendant's intent in selecting the mark 8.Likelihood of expansion of the product lines I don't think Mr. Smith has anything to worry about. Also being from Manchester there is a very good chance that he is a rabid Red Devils fan, and I wouldn't want to mess with him.
Originally Posted By Britain I don't get all the "this is making new attractions compete with old attractions" comments. Disney still sells Imagineering / History of WDW type of books at their parks. Nobody complains about how these books "accentuate" the flaws of today's attractions.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> Nobody's walking around the parks reading those books, either. << Bingo!
Originally Posted By Bolna <<It's perfectly legal unless the owner of the trademark wishes to challenge it in a court of law. Then the court must decide on eight points of law reguarding trademarked, copyright infridgement. related to this case.>> MPierce, thanks for that informative post! I had been wondering about a lot of these issues since I know quite a bit about author's rights in Europe and I know that the common law copyright is different from that.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> MPierce, thanks for that informative post! I had been wondering about a lot of these issues since I know quite a bit about author's rights in Europe and I know that the common law copyright is different from that. << I just made all that stuff up Bolna.
Originally Posted By MPierce Just kidding. I went to several law sites, and they all basicly said the same thing.
Originally Posted By Bolna Lol. I just tried to get some information from Wikipedia which wasn't helpful! And your post made way too much sense to be made up. But I forgot - your are the one whom people don't understand when he writes in English either... So perhaps it only makes sense to me??
Originally Posted By MPierce >> But I forgot - your are the one whom people don't understand when he writes in English either... So perhaps it only makes sense to me?? << In that case I'm just glad I didn't try my German translator again.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> Lol. I just tried to get some information from Wikipedia which wasn't helpful! And your post made way too much sense to be made up. << Actually Wikipedia has the condenced version, and the 8 points of law that are spread out, and hard to understand on most legal sites.
