Slashdot Mirror
Deadmau5 Accuses Disney of Pirating His Music
An anonymous reader writes After Disney objected to musician Joel Zimmerman [aka Deadmau5]'s trademark application in the U.S. (his logo is already properly trademarked in many other countries), a battle of trademarks and copyrights ensued. Apparently, Disney was (URL has since been disabled, as per DMCA law requires) hosting a video containing a remix of music which Zimmerman claims ownership of. Not only that, but the Deadmau5 logo was prominently displayed next to said video. The mouse fight was on and a few hours ago Deadmau5 retaliated with a rather surprising counter attack. As it turns out, Disney is hosting a Deadmau5 video on their website, without permission. "Disney prominently features the deadmau5 Mark next to the Infringing Video. implying a non-existent endorsement by Zimmerman," the letter reads. "Again. we are unaware of any license allowing you the right to reproduce, distribute or otherwise exploit the deadmau5 Mark or to exploit Zimmerman's name and likeness in connection with same." At the time of writing Disney hasn't complied with the request, but it seems that they have no other option than to comply. Whether it will change anything in their stance towards the DJ's mouse ear trademark application is doubtful though.
what a couple of baby faggots
on the one hand, we have a guy who wears a mouse head, dances, and hits "play" and gets paid major for using other peoples music
than, there is disney
what side am I supposed to be on here???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Disney's going to rape him up the ass. Stupid kid doesn't know what he's messing with.
He's a DJ, not a musician.
Thanks, Disney!
Let's all fight and sue each other giving all the money to lawyers that then ship it off shore lol. To fight Disney on anything mouse related is just dumb not to mention as they aquire even more that's a pretty big bridge to burn in entertainment...
typical jobs/disney attitude.
I can screw you but you can't.
http://video.disney.com/watch/ghosts-n-stuff-re-micks-4cc34ca4636bec7bd7bd38a3
the link
So, Disney (and Jim Henson Productions) made a movie called Muppet Treasure Island, in which the pirate Long John Silver (played by Tim Curry) sings a song about the life of a "professional pirate", and in the beginning of the song says that his father mentioned becoming a doctor as a possible career choice (before recommending piracy). Is this what the editors had in mind when they picked the department name? If so, nicely chosen!
(Meanwhile, another pirate mentions that he could have been a politician, because "[he's] always been a big spender.")
http://video.disney.com/watch/...
Although it may be soon slashdotted.
Why is this modded up? DJ's play other people's music. Deadmau5 just plays his own pre-recorded crappy music. He might be a "press play" musician, but he's not a DJ.
That's the first thing you think of when you see it, it's clearly leveraging people's familiarity with MM. What, this guy's an artist, why doesn't he come up with something different? It's like what John Lennon said (somewhat snippishly) when asked about George Harrison losing the plagiarism suit over the melody of "My Sweet Lord". Lennon said that Harrison could easily have tweaked the melody enough so the similarity to the old hit "He's So Fine" wouldn't be an issue, but he was either lazy or stubborn.
Now, whether Disney still deserves to be reaping royalties so many years after the introduction of the character is another question. I don't have a problem with it, but I can see how there could be debate between reasonable non-interested parties.
Apparently, Disney was [...] hosting a video containing a remix of music which Zimmerman claims ownership of. Not only that, but the Deadmau5 logo was prominently displayed next to said video. [...] As it turns out, Disney is hosting a Deadmau5 video on their website, without permission.
So is there one video, or two?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Normally I would side with anyone but Disney. From criminal copyright extension acts, to aggressive MPAA, RIAA support, to supporting trash like DMCA and even bribing the US police state to craft up illegal monopolistic oligarchical collectivist trash like the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension act which crafted an illegal unconstitutional law (by equal protection of laws) to extend the copyright of Mickey Mouse and Disney related trash which incidentally was initially STOLEN by Walt from Ub Iwerks.
I've been listening to electronic music forever. Never have I seen the worst of the worst rise to the top like deadmouse - whose idiot name I will refuse to spell with a "5". He is an unoriginal repetitive uncreative monotonous loser hack. He steals he stupid mickey mouse image from Prisney (Prison-Disney) - he steals his riffs and rhythms and beats from decades of those who come before him and honestly I would rather listen to the likes of Boney-M and Dschinghis Khan who in my opinion are more relevant to Music than this puke Deadmouse.
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
"slashdotted."
2007 called. They want their verb back ASAP.
Wait until California's Congressmen hear about this outrage. I predict that in 2 days, we'll see a bill in front of Obama which puts all copyrights and trademarks owned by non-corporations directly into the public domain.
Look at Pirates of the Caribbean and Jake and the Never Land Pirates. Why is Disney trying to make pirates look sympathetic?
On the other hand, there was Muppet Treasure Island, and only six years later Disney went ahead and rebooted it as Treasure Planet. Would Disney have done so if it had to pay royalties to the estate of Robert Louis Stevenson?
Lennon said that Harrison could easily have tweaked the melody enough so the similarity to the old hit "He's So Fine" wouldn't be an issue, but he was either lazy or stubborn.
But if Harrison had really forgotten about "He's So Fine" between when he wrote "My Sweet Lord" and the release of All Things Must Pass, then how could he have changed it? What are songwriters supposed to do to prevent accidental infringement from happening?
So in a world where musicians are supposed to make money touring and treat CDs as promotional materials, what is a producer supposed to do to put a roof over his head?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
linking to TF = Shit (it's a troll place)
Disney and Deadmau5 should join forces and sue these guys. Blatant infringement!
At any rate, he rarely goes TOO the parks, but was taking family visiting one time and what does he hear playing in Epcot, but one of his -unpurchased- songs. To my knowledge he is still fighting them. While not as big as Deadmau5, it makes it blatantly obvious that as a corporation Disney wants copyright control and DRM to protect itself but cares nothing for anyone else they drop a mouse turd on.
Silence is a state of mime.
The usurpator, revisionist, extremist (hey!).
My advice to Zimmermann: call your uncle Bob, and threaten some serious protest songs.
.
How does he think Deadmou zero through four feel about him taking their namesake! They should all file DMCA claims against his music works for stealing their names.
Deadmau5 is clearly taking very strong inspiration from Disney and Takashi Murakami.
"Ladies and gentlemen we are floating in space..."
I was the one that submitted the article. Looks like the editor really worked it over pretty good (as they are wont to do). I don't mind him rewording what I wrote, but I don't much agree with the way he moved things around, messed with the formatting, and merged my own writing with the quotes of the original piece.
What you're seeing is a result of that.
The mouse fight was on and a few days ago Deadmau5 retaliated with a rather surprising counter attack.
FTFY! The letter was sent September 4th. That's a few days ago, not just a few hours ago.
At any rate, he rarely goes TOO the parks
Does he go to the parks?
While I understand the similarity to the Mickey ears, people are highly unlikely to confuse this guy with Mickey Mouse or with Disney.
That being said, Mickey Mouse should be in the public domain by now. Disney keeps "donating" to enough politicians that every time their copyright is about to expire they extend it. Copyright law was originally designed to give a company the opportunity to earn a profit on their creation but the tradeoff was that the works would become public. It was balanced such that companies were forced to innovate. Now we have lifetime monopolies that can last several generations....
(in thundering voice) Brittney, Aguilera, Timberlake, Deadmou5! Do I have to say more?
A quick google search reveals I'm not the first to note the similarity.
(The 1981 release of Heavy Metal, lest there be confusion)
FWIW I remember that the gummi bears was actually a decent show for being a cartoon based on a candy. And I remember the music was particularly good.
Yep, that's typical behavior for Disney. A friend of mine does contract work for Disney. One of his projects was specifically for a mural on one of their theme park rides, and the contract limited Disney's rights to use it to only that ride. Some time later, my friend went to see Disney on Ice... and there's his mural being used as a backdrop. His agent sends them a letter informing them of their infringement. First they claim the artwork is not the one my friend did. Agent sends photographic evidence. They then claim the contract gave them the rights to use it for Disney on Ice. Agent sends contract with appropriate sections highlighted. They then ignore the agent's communications until legal action is threatened. They then finally send a huge check and a contract amendment. This process takes months. It's happened more than once, too. He basically has to periodically visit all Disney's parks and view all their output to keep an eye out for infringement. He gets to write it off, but still, he shouldn't have to. Standard operating procedure for Disney, wilfully misusing the work of others and stonewalling their inquiries. Like they say, you don't get rich writing checks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Mickey Mouse was stolen to begin with. Fuck em.
I am no fan of Disney, but it has to be said - Zimmerman is toast. Disney has an army of undead lawyers that is outnumbered only by Apple, and even if the case is legally sound those lawyers will crush him. Unless a miracle occurs Zimmerman will end up being owned by Disney when this is all done with. Not all lost causes can be won. He is doomed.
if your music is being lifted by the likes of disney, your doing it wrong.
of Osamu Tezuka's Kimba the White Lion en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimba_the_White_Lion
That guy permanently puts ink into his skin in the form of old video games? That's the coolest thing I've ever heard of.
If he goes to the tanning salon regularly I'll turn gay right now and melt in his dreamy man/DJ arms.
As long as the guy was fairly compensated that doesn't sound so bad to me. Yes, it sucks that he had to go through that drawn-out process but after working for a few large companies, I can absolutely understand them not knowing their ass from applesauce.
Doesn't this kind of whiny, entitled BS just piss you off?
DM, on one hand, has performed publicly, at least hundreds of times, around the world, and those performances have been reproduced and distributed electronically millions of times, wearing a costume that only an idiot would believe was not deliberately modeled upon Disney's ubiquitous, presumably trademarked, Mickey ears. Not only is this usage infringement, but a strong case could be made for wilful infringement. The resemblance of DM's headgear to Disney's famous trademark could not possibly have been coincidental.
Nor do any of the fair use exceptions seem to apply. DM is not parodying any Disney work, not using the ears for academic purposes, and is using them in a field in which the Disney character has long been associated (public performances and music performances). Firthermore, obtaining such a TM that could allow him, in some scenarios, to prevent Disney from using its own mouse-ears in new ways in the future.
The threshold standard for trademark infringement is whether using the allegedly infringing mark creates a likelihood of confusion. That is, might a lay person assume that a DM performance had been sanctioned by Disney because DM is wearing what is essentially a Mickey Mouse costume? This is especially true when DM is backlighted, as he frequently is in performance, when any differences between his headgear & the Mickey silhouette may not be visible. Based on decades of case law, I doubt if DM has a prayer of registering his headgear as a trademark.
To this point, I still remember, way back when, the first time I saw a DM video, initially thinking that it was a recording of some lame "multimedia experience" at a Disneyworld theater. I'm deep in the middle of electronica (actually, a big DM fan), but even I was confused about who this guy was until I Googled the performer. Remember that Disney has continually expanded the scope of the content it offers (even budgeting a # of decidely non-kiddie films), so it's not unreasonable to assume that at some point, Disney may want to use its mouse-ears in conjunction with some kind of electronic (albeit likely sanitized) dance parties at its parks. I don't see DM being able to disprove a likelihood of confusion.
OK, now on the other hand, Disney posted one DM video, most likely without the knowledge or consent of upper-level management, and as soon as it received a takedown notice, seems to have complied. Big shit. Why is this news? Probably thousands of similar postings & takedowns happen every day and the fact that the posted content depicts a potentially infringing use of a Disney trademark is not germane.
Both parties seem to be infringing. The difference is that DM's infringement is most likely wilful, blatant, repeated many times, and has produced for him large sums of money. But Disney's infringement is likely inadvertent, very restricted in scope, and a single occurrence. Who looks more like an IP scumbag here?
The sad thing is that DM has taken it upon himself to demonstrate just how much of a manipulative, fucking idiot he is. Twitter feeds, cease & desist letters, etc. Only an idiot would instruct a "legal team" to C&D draft a strongly worded letter for a case like this -- and then brag about it all over the Internet. All that's required to take down the infringing video is a boilerplate DMCA takedown request -- with which Disney has a history of quickly complying.
Bottom line is that, and I hate to say it, it appears that DM is trying to abuse the trademark system. First he, blatantly copies an extremely valuable, well-known trademark for his own use. Worse, he starts trademarking the pilfered mark all over the world, giving Disney has no choice but to act to protect its property. (Just imagine the shareholder suits if it didn't!) Then DM uses abusive RIAA / MPAA tactics to (legally) force Disney to take down a single posting of his work, and claims to be some sort of Everyman hero for doing so.
No,