Disney Pooh Case Dismissed

Financial Times ^ | 04/29/2004 | Christopher Parkes

[general_re]

A Los Angeles judge on Monday delivered the first good news Walt Disney has had this year when he dismissed a 13-year-old multimillion-dollar lawsuit over its rights to exploit Winnie the Pooh and his 100-Aker Wood associates.

"It is all over," said Disney lawyer Daniel Petrocelli.

The ruling appeared to end a colourful struggle over a group of Disney's most profitable film, merchandise and theme park characters that had stirred allegations of skullduggery on both sides.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the entertainment group warned that losing the case would have cost it hundreds of millions of dollars.

The ruling came as Disney is embroiled in a fierce public relations battle to defend Michael Eisner against efforts to oust him from his position as chief executive. In an attempt to mollify dissident investors, the company stripped him of the role of chairman he had held for 15 years.

The Winnie the Pooh case revolved around claims from SSI Inc, representing the heirs of a literary agent who licensed the merchandising rights to the characters in 1983, that it was owed large sums for exploitation of the characters in videotapes, DVDs and computer games.

Stephen Slesinger acquired the rights from A.A. Milne, Pooh's creator, in the 1930s. They passed on to the agent's family after his death in 1953, and his widow Shirley Slesinger Laswell joined battle with Disney in 1991.

The dismissal followed a demand from Mr Petrocelli earlier this month that the case should be thrown out because some of the evidence presented by the plaintiffs had been stolen from Disney offices and a "dumpster diver" who had rifled through trash on company property.

According to Disney, the suit had been dismissed "with prejudice," obliging the plaintiffs to appeal rather than simply re-file the case. Disney claimed throughout that licensing fees for the use of the characters in electronic media, which were in their infancy or did not exist in the early 1980s, were not covered in the deal signed by SSI.

The tide appeared to turn against SSI with the relatively recent accusations of evidence theft and document-tampering.

The characters are among the most profitable in the Disney cast. Group executives have asserted in the past that they generate annual revenues of $2bn or more.

A member of the family that owns merchandising rights to Winnie the Pooh on Thursday accused Disney's lawyer of creating a phony voice mail to a Disney executive in order to thwart a lawsuit.

[Arkinsaw]

[general_re]

Same guy that was the Goldmans' lawyer when they sued OJ, right?

[SedVictaCatoni]

I hope that the appeal is successful. It would really be nice to see Disney take it in the shorts on this one, after raping all the rest of childrens' literature.

[drhogan]

i thought i was the only one who remembered that show!

[drhogan]

do you remember how the hick judges in arizona (this was tv in the '70's) would always mispronounce his name as "petro-SEELY"?

[Wilhelm Tell]

Disney claimed throughout that licensing fees for the use of the characters in electronic media, which were in their infancy or did not exist in the early 1980s, were not covered in the deal signed by SSI.

If that is the case, then by the same logic the recording industry should not object to people pirating copies of music over the Internet recorded before, say, 1995. Also, by the same logic, Disney should not mind if people were to pirate classic Disney films and cartoons over the Internet. Right?

[GOPrincess]

Yes, you're correct, Daniel Petrocelli is the attorney who won the civil judgment against OJ on behalf of the Goldman family.

[general_re]

Right, but I guess I should have noted that that's not his picture ;)

[general_re]

bump

[Glenn]

Tony!

Dang, that's a while back.

[carton253]

I believe so! If you haven't already, read his book on the subject... it is a great read!

[js1138]

Nope

[js1138]

Good to see that someone is holding the high cultural ground these days, while everyone else is up to their knees in Clarke.

[general_re]

It'll be a disappointment to the Eisner deathwatchers, though. Not that I mean to disparage their cause, but a lot of people around here seem to be rooting for Disney to get belted in the chops, and for a while this looked like a stealth vehicle to accomplish that...

[js1138]

Mot being a copyright lawyer, I have no idea who to root for here.

[woofie]

"Oh Pooh!"

[general_re]

I have no idea either. It all seems to hinge on the language of the licensing agreements, which I haven't seen in any case.

[drhogan]

petrocelli was the LIBERAL new york italian-american lawyer. the writer/director (no doubt from CA)wanted to emphasize the stupidity and unsophisticatedness of his (evil, conservative) attackers in Arizona (or New Mexico--some desert place, anyway), so they could never pronounce his name right. apparently, no italian-american had ever lived out there before.
the same thing goes on in "my cousin vinnie", although the joke is more on the new york (brooklyn) dialect in that movie.

[weegee]

It would really be nice to see Disney take it in the shorts on this one, after raping all the rest of childrens' literature.

Disney Corp is doing more than just raping children's literature...

Man Dressed As Tigger Allegedly Molests Girl, Mother At Disney World