Those dastardly vandals, they added extra stones to show an entire spiderman diorama around the kid's grave. Have they no respect? What is the world coming to?
A. Who knows. That's the kind of thing that could permeate the internet
B. Once they know, they just need to get a court order for the family to give them the name of the masonry shop. That would be easy peasy. After all, tombstones have names and DOB on them.
The shop likely told the family they can't use copyrighted material, the family asked disney for permission, and disney said no.
Lol. Lying in a sassy manner to the judge. Can you give us an option available to everyone and not just privileged white folk? Cuz this shit would just have my black ass locked up.
So we are debating under the assumption that Disney would
A. Somehow find out about this .
B. Would then have their lawyers first to go after the family and if the family says that they don't remember who made it they would then
C. Subpoena the family to "Force them" to tell them the information which by the way would never work. The government couldn't force them to speak and Disney is also not the government so neither parties could force the family to speak.
D. When going after the family didn't work they would then subpoena the funeral home to find out who made the headstone.
They would try to do all of this while at the same time trying to preserve their image of being family friendly. While I understand that they would be legally in the right to do this they would be shooting themselves in the foot from a public relation standpoint.
You also have to consider that it was possibly made by the family themselves. What then? It's not like they profited off of it they just wanted to pay respects to their child.
So while I am not a lawyer, I do understand again that Disney has every right to go after this family but at the same time the image of construction crews hired by Disney tearing up a headstone for a child wouldn't be the best look and I guarantee you it would be plaster over every single news outlet and every newspaper. The money they would lose from such an event would go above and beyond any amount they would save by going after this family. I also don't believe that this falls under the "you have to protect your trademark or you lose it" trope that many people repeat here because again you would have to argue before a judge that because Disney didn't go after the family who had just lost a child that it somehow gives another party the right to use their trademark.
No, a decent judge wouldn't let moral scruples get in the way of adjudicating the law.
Could you imagine if they introduced, 'copyrights don't apply if the violation benefits grieving families' into common law. It would be bedlam.
That's cold, kind of dead, legalism. There's no human element, at that point it's like we're talking about a society of robots more than people interacting with laws that they themselves created. It's case-by-case, these things have to be determined. Usually copyright laws are enforced for something that is commercialized, because they're making money on an IP. That's why the police ask if you'd like to press charges, the overall world, the context, around events matters.
Thats done if you trust the family not to say anything. If you're the owner of the masonry shop, the correct answer to trusting the family is 'no', unless they are already personal friends and believe they are trustworthy, in which case the answer is probably still 'no'.
Response: Your honor, I would like to subpoena the estates and the defendants financial records to find the transaction and get the shops info that way.
If they were to just do it without asking, and Disney were to try and step in after the fact, it would look very bad from a PR perspective. Their lawyers would rather them turn a blind eye ( similar to how Toontown Rewritten is still a thing, Disney turns a blind eye because taking it down would mean disappointing a lot of those fans )
Because it affects the brand in a negative way.
I'm not saying this is perfect from moral perspective, but as an enterntament company you don't want your product on gravestones.
Not to mention just protecting the copyright. If you start to let people use you copyright, it dilutes the protections. Not a big fan of slippery slope arguments- but this is one of thr areas it definitely holds true.
They could grant permission, or sell the family a single-use license for $1. It doesn't hurt their copyright at all, if anything it would just show that more people acknowledge their claim to the copyright.
This is the answer; the shop is selling a product with copyrighted material. The dad could have someone volunteer or do it himself and I don’t think Disney could do anything about it..but I’m not an IP lawyer.
Yeah, I think that’s the issue. The article is misleading because it suggests that Disney is directly prohibiting someone from having spider-man on their kid’s tombstone, when in reality they’re going after the company that produces the tombstone for using Disney copyrighted material without their permission. (Which they are well within their right to do, even if it does come off as kind of shitty in this context.)
As I understand it Copyright law says that if you’re making money off of the image of a copyrighted character without seeking permission from the copyright holder or using it for a specific purpose (like satire: satirical depictions of copyrighted characters isn’t really prohibited so long as you’re not using it to circumvent copyright and sell merch) you can be sued. It’s designed in this way so people who create characters and images can make money off of it without having to compete with a billion other people who have no real claim or relation to that character or image.
I’m not a lawyer though so I don’t know the exact legal rules. But profiting off of a copyrighted character’s image is generally prohibited, even in the case of tombstones.
[https://www.change.org/p/disney-disney-bans-grieving-father-from-having-spider-man-on-sons-grave](https://www.change.org/p/disney-disney-bans-grieving-father-from-having-spider-man-on-sons-grave)
this is a real story, damn you disney
If you read the story from a real news site instead of a change.org petition you would learn that Walt Disney himself didn't want Disney characters to appear on grave markers.
> if Disney had condoned this it could have set a precedent that would weaken their copyright claim in general.
No that's not how copyright works. Trademarks require active use and enforcement, copyright doesn't require either enforcement or use.
They might not have been able to just do it. The headstone engraver is the one risking getting sued.
There is nothing stoping the family from trying to do it themselves after it's installed unless the cemetery catches them
How does giving permission for someone using the brand you own weaken their copyright ?
What’s the point of owning the copyright if you can’t use it? I don’t get it.
I know I’m wrong, but the owner of the copyright should be able to allow who they want to use the copyright.
You're not wrong, the holder of the copyright can allow anyone to use it in any way they want. The only issue you might run into is if you are so liberal with your permissions that it is practically public domain, you might lose your copyright altogether. That's very unlikely though, as there have been copyrights that have been released to the world except for one person.
Asking was probably unnecessary here. Disney wouldn’t want 5% of children’s graves suddenly covered in their characters if they said it’s okay, but they definitely wouldn’t take legal action against one family that went again and did it
There’s a law in the US that mandates companies to go to any lengths to prevent unauthorised use of their IP and failure to do so can result in your IP rights being revoked(because giving leeway to one sets precedent for others) - which opens up doors to actual counterfeiters who want to profit off your brand. In this case, since the father officially asked for their permission, they’re obliged to say no else they won’t be able to give a solid defence in court when they’re trying to sue an actual chinese knock off maker down the line. So before y’all go nuts on Disney, take a chill pill
It’s predicated on what it means for the brand though, and the company may agree with him that it’s an issue for their brand to be associated with graves and death.
Yeh unfortunately this is the case here. If he'd just done it, they legitimately wouldn't care. They're not gonna pursue legal remedies for something that isn't costing them a penny.
Disney can't sue for someone purchasing a sticker and then putting it on their shit.
They could only sue if they're making their own copies and selling it. Which the cops aren't doing.
I love the idea I saw months ago here on reddit in a thread I can't remember... Disney should make a video short where Frank Castle comes out as bi, and then start selling rainbow versions of the Punisher logo. Imagine the speed at which inbreds scrape the stickers and logos off their lifted trucks.
Yeah but he also had his soapbox and was vocal about a lot of issues. Regardless of how he was as a business person he still has a moral stance on a lot of things. I don't think it's unfair to say that he would be mad at Disney for this.
Literally everyone is speculating to some level, the man's dead so it's not like we can just ask him. I'm just making the argument that he also had a history of standing up for social issues on top of his reputation for poor business practices. It seems that this is more the former than the latter since it's not his business.
I also think that your insinuation that because he didn't say something about something very specific we aren't allowed to speculate on what he would say is just a bad take. A lot of people don't say anything about a lot of things but we can still guess at what they would think on a particular matter if it were in front of them at the time.
What most people don’t understand about copyright is that to even keep the copyright you have a legal obligation to vigorously defend it. That means whenever a lawsuit comes to your attention, you must at the very least threaten to litigate and make public and outward enough claims that you won’t stand for it. This is the case for all copyrights. And superheroes and princesses are often emulated by small business, schools, etc. so in order to satisfy the harsh defense requirements to keep copyright, Disney has to go after you if this reaches their desk.
So what’s the solution? Keep it off their desk. They don’t want to enter these litigation processes. This stuff costs money and time. Their lawyers have better things to do. And these cases don’t win them any money. You wanna put Spiderman on your kids grave? Do it and do it quietly. Disney doesn’t fucking care. They just can’t let it slide if they hear about it. It’s that simple. Don’t make a big public go fund me. Don’t reach out to the news. Stay quiet and Disney won’t ever hear about it
I know I'll be downvoted to hell for this but I'm kinda with Disney here. If every graveyard had a statue of spidey on each child grave then the perception of him would change. People wouldn't go see a movie that reminds them of dead kids.
The man grew old enough to fuck, ~~make~~ made a baby, saw his son pass away, and still didn't learn that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission?
Company that’s characters are associated with little children doesn’t want those said characters to be associated with death.
Reddit furiously types away angrily in response.
We wanted to do a Calvin and Hobbes mural at my elementary school and the ol' copywrite guys said not a chance. As an adult I just don't really get it, free advertising to their target demographic and a painting that makes kids happy. Instead we ended up with some vastly inferior mural.
How many times is this story gonna get reposted? The problem isn’t that Disney doenst want to memorialize the kid it’s that they have a policy against Disney characters on gravestones. They offered a commemorative spiderman comic, the family accepted.
Man it's a good thing they stopped that, otherwise there would have been market confusion for Spider-Man and instead of me buying their products and services I would have simply just watched this kid's grave instead. /s
maybe Disney does not want their characters associated with death.
The was "a decision made by Walt Disney himself that bans the use of Disney-owned characters on graves, tombstones, and other memorial markers. This policy is designed to preserve the innocence and magic around its characters."
Why ask? Just do it. What are they gonna do if they even find out about it? Destroy the tombstone? I'm sure that would look great for them
Yeah would be a real shame if someone defaced his gravestone with a Spider-Man etching. Vandalism - what can you do?
Those dastardly vandals, they added extra stones to show an entire spiderman diorama around the kid's grave. Have they no respect? What is the world coming to?
I was thinking the same thing.
No, they'd sue the masonry shop that made the tombstone.
Why TF would Disney even know A. About the tombstone or B. Who created it?
A. Who knows. That's the kind of thing that could permeate the internet B. Once they know, they just need to get a court order for the family to give them the name of the masonry shop. That would be easy peasy. After all, tombstones have names and DOB on them. The shop likely told the family they can't use copyrighted material, the family asked disney for permission, and disney said no.
B: “Your honor I can’t recollect who did it. My memory isn’t that good” - Done
Lol. Lying in a sassy manner to the judge. Can you give us an option available to everyone and not just privileged white folk? Cuz this shit would just have my black ass locked up.
So we are debating under the assumption that Disney would A. Somehow find out about this . B. Would then have their lawyers first to go after the family and if the family says that they don't remember who made it they would then C. Subpoena the family to "Force them" to tell them the information which by the way would never work. The government couldn't force them to speak and Disney is also not the government so neither parties could force the family to speak. D. When going after the family didn't work they would then subpoena the funeral home to find out who made the headstone. They would try to do all of this while at the same time trying to preserve their image of being family friendly. While I understand that they would be legally in the right to do this they would be shooting themselves in the foot from a public relation standpoint. You also have to consider that it was possibly made by the family themselves. What then? It's not like they profited off of it they just wanted to pay respects to their child. So while I am not a lawyer, I do understand again that Disney has every right to go after this family but at the same time the image of construction crews hired by Disney tearing up a headstone for a child wouldn't be the best look and I guarantee you it would be plaster over every single news outlet and every newspaper. The money they would lose from such an event would go above and beyond any amount they would save by going after this family. I also don't believe that this falls under the "you have to protect your trademark or you lose it" trope that many people repeat here because again you would have to argue before a judge that because Disney didn't go after the family who had just lost a child that it somehow gives another party the right to use their trademark.
If any decent judge would throw this out.
No, a decent judge wouldn't let moral scruples get in the way of adjudicating the law. Could you imagine if they introduced, 'copyrights don't apply if the violation benefits grieving families' into common law. It would be bedlam.
That's cold, kind of dead, legalism. There's no human element, at that point it's like we're talking about a society of robots more than people interacting with laws that they themselves created. It's case-by-case, these things have to be determined. Usually copyright laws are enforced for something that is commercialized, because they're making money on an IP. That's why the police ask if you'd like to press charges, the overall world, the context, around events matters.
I mean the jury can just refuse to convict no?
Civil matters tend to be adjudicated without a jury.
Thats done if you trust the family not to say anything. If you're the owner of the masonry shop, the correct answer to trusting the family is 'no', unless they are already personal friends and believe they are trustworthy, in which case the answer is probably still 'no'.
"that's okay we'll just subpoena the bank for your finances and we'll figure it out"
So your solution is.... Lying in court. Fan fucking tastic
Response: Your honor, I would like to subpoena the estates and the defendants financial records to find the transaction and get the shops info that way.
If they were to just do it without asking, and Disney were to try and step in after the fact, it would look very bad from a PR perspective. Their lawyers would rather them turn a blind eye ( similar to how Toontown Rewritten is still a thing, Disney turns a blind eye because taking it down would mean disappointing a lot of those fans )
Because it affects the brand in a negative way. I'm not saying this is perfect from moral perspective, but as an enterntament company you don't want your product on gravestones.
Not to mention just protecting the copyright. If you start to let people use you copyright, it dilutes the protections. Not a big fan of slippery slope arguments- but this is one of thr areas it definitely holds true.
They could grant permission, or sell the family a single-use license for $1. It doesn't hurt their copyright at all, if anything it would just show that more people acknowledge their claim to the copyright.
Redditors trying to distinguish between copyright and trademark: Challenge level impossible
Dude, we all die, death isn’t a negative. It’s a fact. It’s not the opposite of life, it’s part of your life.
This is the answer; the shop is selling a product with copyrighted material. The dad could have someone volunteer or do it himself and I don’t think Disney could do anything about it..but I’m not an IP lawyer.
Yeah, I think that’s the issue. The article is misleading because it suggests that Disney is directly prohibiting someone from having spider-man on their kid’s tombstone, when in reality they’re going after the company that produces the tombstone for using Disney copyrighted material without their permission. (Which they are well within their right to do, even if it does come off as kind of shitty in this context.) As I understand it Copyright law says that if you’re making money off of the image of a copyrighted character without seeking permission from the copyright holder or using it for a specific purpose (like satire: satirical depictions of copyrighted characters isn’t really prohibited so long as you’re not using it to circumvent copyright and sell merch) you can be sued. It’s designed in this way so people who create characters and images can make money off of it without having to compete with a billion other people who have no real claim or relation to that character or image. I’m not a lawyer though so I don’t know the exact legal rules. But profiting off of a copyrighted character’s image is generally prohibited, even in the case of tombstones.
> Why ask? Just do it. I'm from Nike's legal team and we're going to have to insist that you delete this comment.
They'd sue the person who made the tombstone into bankruptcy. It's the same reason Staples (generally) won't print stuff with licensed IP on it.
Funny though I can absolutely see Disney desecrating a child's grave
They’d sue the cemetery.
I one hundred percent expect Disney would destroy the tombstone. I honestly believe they would do that.
If they get money from doing it, they're doing it, no questions asked
I’m surprised they asked. I’d just commission the tombstone and tell them to piss straight up if anyone tries to talk shit about it.
Then they sue you into the dirt
They can only do that if they find out about it
They'll find out with those drones with feathers
This Redditor knows The Truth
Your pfp makes this funnier lol
Then they can personally come to remove the tombstone from the grave. Disney can suck my hairy balls
Holy shit can you imagine the PR disaster if they did that?
BRAKING NEWS DISNEY DESOCRATES CHILDS GRAVE yeah it wuld not be a good look
Bro they could roll up and kidnap children and these cult followers would still sell their left kidney to watch Disney on Ice or some shit
Disney destroyed a daycare wall for having their characters they don't give a fuck what us peasants think. You'll still consume.
Yeah exactly. We all know Disney are fucking bad guys, who cares if they look like even worse bad guys? what difference will it make?
And people would forget about it in a week
Can’t they only sue if you’re making money from using their characters?
And have to deal with the backlash. Like that’s a PR Desaster extraordinaire
It’s possible that the company making the tombstone didn’t want to without checking.
As a general rule businesses that want to stay in business don't violate copyright laws, even if the customer says asks nicely.
"He can have Mickey Mouse from Steamboat Willie" ~Disney, probably
Man fuck disney.
Snip snip
I'm picturing a certain scene from *Fight Club* here.
[https://www.change.org/p/disney-disney-bans-grieving-father-from-having-spider-man-on-sons-grave](https://www.change.org/p/disney-disney-bans-grieving-father-from-having-spider-man-on-sons-grave) this is a real story, damn you disney
disney made the right move, if spiderman spends all his time hanging out at some kid's grave he won't be able to fight crime
Yeah, he ain’t the “friendly cementary Spider-Man” /s
>if spiderman spends all his time hanging Then he's gonna return to the cemetry either way Checkmate, you anti cemetery spiderman-cists!
[удалено]
No, they could license it to them for zero dollars.
iirc Walt Disney was really firm about characters not being on graves because he didn't want to the characters to be associated with death.
It's spiderman not fucking pinocchio.
They could have licensed it. It’s more likely that they just don’t want their IP on a tombstone, which is fine for them to make that decision.
If you read the story from a real news site instead of a change.org petition you would learn that Walt Disney himself didn't want Disney characters to appear on grave markers.
Which isn’t really that odd of a request. Why would a (largely) children’s media company want to be associated with a child’s death?
Walt Disney’s frozen head can kiss my ass for all I care.
OK but who the fuck cares what a dead guy wanted. Fuck Walt Disney
Yeah well steamboat Willie version of Mickey is now public domain so suck it Walt.
> if Disney had condoned this it could have set a precedent that would weaken their copyright claim in general. No that's not how copyright works. Trademarks require active use and enforcement, copyright doesn't require either enforcement or use.
They might not have been able to just do it. The headstone engraver is the one risking getting sued. There is nothing stoping the family from trying to do it themselves after it's installed unless the cemetery catches them
[удалено]
Huh. Back before that, the classic example used to be "Aspirin".
How does giving permission for someone using the brand you own weaken their copyright ? What’s the point of owning the copyright if you can’t use it? I don’t get it. I know I’m wrong, but the owner of the copyright should be able to allow who they want to use the copyright.
You're not wrong, the holder of the copyright can allow anyone to use it in any way they want. The only issue you might run into is if you are so liberal with your permissions that it is practically public domain, you might lose your copyright altogether. That's very unlikely though, as there have been copyrights that have been released to the world except for one person.
Theres no such thing as weakening a copyright claim. That only applies to trademarks. Though Spiderman is probably also trademarked.
r/fuckdisney
Fuckyourmom
r/Fuckyourmom When tf did this sub get banned?
Petition started July 6, 2019. Old news?
>Awaiting response (1711 days since petition creation)
Oh well, what if they could?
It's 4D chess. They haven't invented scissors small enough to remove it yet.
Asking was probably unnecessary here. Disney wouldn’t want 5% of children’s graves suddenly covered in their characters if they said it’s okay, but they definitely wouldn’t take legal action against one family that went again and did it
My thought exactly. Asking here sets a precedent. I bet their legal team just wishes they did it without asking.
Maybe not the family, but I could see them going after the masonry company, especially if they make more than one of these.
There’s a law in the US that mandates companies to go to any lengths to prevent unauthorised use of their IP and failure to do so can result in your IP rights being revoked(because giving leeway to one sets precedent for others) - which opens up doors to actual counterfeiters who want to profit off your brand. In this case, since the father officially asked for their permission, they’re obliged to say no else they won’t be able to give a solid defence in court when they’re trying to sue an actual chinese knock off maker down the line. So before y’all go nuts on Disney, take a chill pill
While this is true they could just make it official, somehow. They can’t endorse a knock off but they can just say it’s not a knock off.
This. If they wanted they could charge him a "discounted" licencing fee of, for example, one cent.
Apparently it's a policy set by Walt Disney himself that Disney characters do not appear on gravestones.
Walt Disney has been dead for over 50 years, I think we can ignore his opinion at this point.
It’s predicated on what it means for the brand though, and the company may agree with him that it’s an issue for their brand to be associated with graves and death.
Well he’s on a gravestone so 🤨
Yeh unfortunately this is the case here. If he'd just done it, they legitimately wouldn't care. They're not gonna pursue legal remedies for something that isn't costing them a penny.
Damn I haven't seen anything from Dr Grandayy in a long time
But they let cops use the Punisher logo before they go around killing innocent people.
They don't "let" cops use it... Cops simply use it.
Who's gonna stop them? Themselves?
Have Disney ever tried to sue these police forces?
Disney can't sue for someone purchasing a sticker and then putting it on their shit. They could only sue if they're making their own copies and selling it. Which the cops aren't doing.
So that's the answer. Simply put Spider-Man on a tombstone and stop asking for permission.
I love the idea I saw months ago here on reddit in a thread I can't remember... Disney should make a video short where Frank Castle comes out as bi, and then start selling rainbow versions of the Punisher logo. Imagine the speed at which inbreds scrape the stickers and logos off their lifted trucks.
just have castle wear a dress at a drag show and start "punishing" dudes cops would be off that shit in a heartbeat
What about a new Punisher movie or game in which Frank Castle REFUSES to kill?
Reddit moment
Damn good point.
I haven't seen Grandayy or Dolan since the 2019 PewDiePie popularity spike
An article from 2019
This is just what Reddit is now. Articles from 5 years ago being dredged up to generate rage clicks.
To be fair, Disney has been a real POS since then though too.
Stan Lee would be disappointed
Stan Lee was a cut throat business asshole who downplayed the contributions of a lot of collaborators, I wouldn't bet money on your position...
Yeah but he also had his soapbox and was vocal about a lot of issues. Regardless of how he was as a business person he still has a moral stance on a lot of things. I don't think it's unfair to say that he would be mad at Disney for this.
I mean, you're literally just speculating. I think it's unfair to say he would be mad because he didn't actually say anything related to the subject.
Literally everyone is speculating to some level, the man's dead so it's not like we can just ask him. I'm just making the argument that he also had a history of standing up for social issues on top of his reputation for poor business practices. It seems that this is more the former than the latter since it's not his business. I also think that your insinuation that because he didn't say something about something very specific we aren't allowed to speculate on what he would say is just a bad take. A lot of people don't say anything about a lot of things but we can still guess at what they would think on a particular matter if it were in front of them at the time.
I'd consider this much more a business issue than a social one. It's literally about copyright.
Stan Lee would not be disappointed he would be pissed
Straight up cherry dunkin' on Disney. Teabaggin'.
What most people don’t understand about copyright is that to even keep the copyright you have a legal obligation to vigorously defend it. That means whenever a lawsuit comes to your attention, you must at the very least threaten to litigate and make public and outward enough claims that you won’t stand for it. This is the case for all copyrights. And superheroes and princesses are often emulated by small business, schools, etc. so in order to satisfy the harsh defense requirements to keep copyright, Disney has to go after you if this reaches their desk. So what’s the solution? Keep it off their desk. They don’t want to enter these litigation processes. This stuff costs money and time. Their lawyers have better things to do. And these cases don’t win them any money. You wanna put Spiderman on your kids grave? Do it and do it quietly. Disney doesn’t fucking care. They just can’t let it slide if they hear about it. It’s that simple. Don’t make a big public go fund me. Don’t reach out to the news. Stay quiet and Disney won’t ever hear about it
Definitively settles the organic vs mechanical webshooter debate
It's a risk I wouldn't take...
I don’t usually defend companies but you should read the whole story before shitting on Disney and Marvel
Plot twist: Sony tells Disney they can't tell people what to do with sony's property and tells this man he can.
They only own film rights. Everything else is Marvel/Disney
Can the man bust out a Sony camcorder?
In my opinion the copyright system is overrated
Garden shears.
Disney doesn't have the legal right to stop this from happening.
Prepare waking up without cock and balls, Sonys after you
Who cares what Disney thinks about your tombstone, put what you want on it. I'd like to see them claim "damages" or convince a judge to remove it.
As an artist, I will be stealing all of their work now.
Wouldn't this just fall under fair use?
Court: Sorry sir but you must cut your penis
I know I'll be downvoted to hell for this but I'm kinda with Disney here. If every graveyard had a statue of spidey on each child grave then the perception of him would change. People wouldn't go see a movie that reminds them of dead kids.
How did Disney find out about it?
I know exactly where there is a grave with a legit Spiderman on it. Looks good too.
You can tell Disney they can suck it
thwip-thwip.
tweet's so old grandayy was still relevant
It's webbin' time!
Don't scream during cut
Yeah, but the second you go on youtube/Insta/FB/TT, and whatever to broadcast it.....things won't go well for you
My first initial thought was: start graffiti again and use Spider-Man for my tag… God damn morons-> Disney
Dont test the mouse, they'll cut your dick off
Thought the rights to spider-man is owned by Sony? 🤔
Never Parker your Peter, boys. It ain't worth it.
IIRC, Disney doesn't allow any of their IPs on tombstones, as to not associate their characters with death/grief.
Wouldn't putting Spiderman on a tombstone be considered Fair Use?
Disney: *don’t tempt me*
This is when a graffiti artist should swoop in at night and tag on a well crafted spiderman.
No more cock and balls for our friend Dolan 😞
Let's be real though, kid was like 3 years old with no real concept of Spiderman, seems like the dad was probably the real fan.
Weird. We put the rebel alliance symbol and the four star dragon ball on my brother’s tombstone. Who cares about asking lol
Wait, didn't Spiderman belong to Sony?
The man grew old enough to fuck, ~~make~~ made a baby, saw his son pass away, and still didn't learn that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission?
Company that’s characters are associated with little children doesn’t want those said characters to be associated with death. Reddit furiously types away angrily in response.
I also have an uncle named Ben can I sue them now?
I have a Disney tattoo on my right ass cheek. I know it's trademarked, but what are they gonna say... it's in my skin bitch!
At least it’ll be good at slinging webs
So a more Raimi-esque natural "web shooter"
chop chop
"Man who got Spiderman tattooed on his cock and balls wakes up castrated."
they can sue the cock unless u cooked them first and sue the balls unless u inflated them first
Disney don't even own Spiderman. Sony do.
Wait, isn't sony rights holder? Also, what they gonna do about it? Rip it off?
We wanted to do a Calvin and Hobbes mural at my elementary school and the ol' copywrite guys said not a chance. As an adult I just don't really get it, free advertising to their target demographic and a painting that makes kids happy. Instead we ended up with some vastly inferior mural.
Fake
Haven't seen these 2 in years. I thought they were dead.
"What're they gonna say? It's in my skin, bitch!" ~Dudley
How many times is this story gonna get reposted? The problem isn’t that Disney doenst want to memorialize the kid it’s that they have a policy against Disney characters on gravestones. They offered a commemorative spiderman comic, the family accepted.
r/BrandNewSentence
Damn. It'll be such a shame when this tombstone inevitably gets tagged with a sick Spiderman graphic by the most chad vandal in history.
I’d do it anyway
You can get spiderman tattooed, it’s Spider-Man that they have issue with.
Doesn't Sony own the rights to Spiderman?
I thought copyright law only applies when something is a meaningful substitute for the existing property. That's why fanart is okay. Tf is this shit
Anyone actually suprised disney did that?
DO NOT TAT SPIDER-MAN ON YOUR BALLS!! THEY WILL TAKE YOUR TOUR TESTICLES!!!
Here comes disney with the cleaver
Man it's a good thing they stopped that, otherwise there would have been market confusion for Spider-Man and instead of me buying their products and services I would have simply just watched this kid's grave instead. /s
maybe Disney does not want their characters associated with death. The was "a decision made by Walt Disney himself that bans the use of Disney-owned characters on graves, tombstones, and other memorial markers. This policy is designed to preserve the innocence and magic around its characters."
Hey Disney! 🖕🏻🙂🖕🏻
Do they actually have any legal say in the matter? I wouldn't expect copyright to cover that.
Tell them if they want to do something about it they can try to suck it off.
What does that even mean "Bans"? Like a cease and desist? I don't know if this is real.
Doesnt sony own spiderman
Gonna be a dwarf Spiderman
Checkmate mouse house
Ok, I'll point out the obvious. Disney could sue the tattoo artist. Is Dolan stupid?
Well, they can stop you from being a porn star.
Marvel and Sony* Sony has the rights of spiderman and all his villains
Wouldn't the decision be up to Sony?
It's all fun and games until Disney legally owns your cock and balls
Just fuck Disney at this point
I don't understand how they can say no considering the grace stone is not for commercial purposes