Context please.

Disney is a money machine. They sell, not give .

And?...

My disney banjo

Guess all those Star Wars theme banjo covers on youtube gotta come down?

?

Sounds more like Disney's and Lucasfilms' stance on their intellectual properties, copyrights, and trademarks, not on banjos.

Also, note the very last sentence from Disney......"not to make any commercial use".....

Does drawing / painting a picture of Chewbaca on your banjo head or resonator constitute a "commercial use" ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by RioStat

Sounds more like Disney's and Lucasfilms' stance on their intellectual properties, copyrights, and trademarks, not on banjos.

Also, note the very last sentence from Disney......"not to make any commercial use".....

Does drawing / painting a picture of Chewbaca on your banjo head or resonator constitute a "commercial use" ?

---

If you don't sell artwork (commercial use) that you make on your banjo, reproducing images from Star Wars or other Disney products, this will fall under the fair use clause of trademarks and copyright.  Just don't turn it into a money making machine, as Disney and Lucas Films are referred to, and they won't get upset.

By this logic of not selling or making money on theft, does that mean that I can rob a jewelry store but as long as I give away all the stolen jewelry (making no money) then it is okay?

Regarding fair use in music. YouTube has licensing agreements in place. If you monetize you might get a copyright claim where the owner gets the money.

Commercial, according to Disney via lucasarts means "added value" (from placing Disney owned propery on the banjo). Very subjective.

Paradies that make clear its not a Disney licensed product are excluded. So an ewok playing a banjo on the resonator might be excluded. Think spaceballs (which did have lucas permission) but didnt need to. Spaceballs toys were not allowed though. Go figure.

There is one heck of a lot of legal history about "fair use."  It is not limited to commercial versus non-commercial use.  Here is a like to an index of court cases, from the U.S. copyright site.  Can read a few and get an idea of the issues involved.  It's not "theft" unless and until it is illegal.  

https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/index.html

A need to ask Disney if it's OK to draw a picture of Yoda on your personal banjo can be a sign of what ministers call an "overactive conscience."  

Ill draw whatevet I want on my banjo. This thread came about after 4 banjer builders declined to do a custom for me unless I took it upon myself to get the rights.

Before Disney, I had 3 officially lucas licensed starwars custom products. Two of them my wife sold on etsy. I knew the process and lucasarts used to license 1 off customs with a simple web form and a reasonable check.

They still have that process even though Disney owns lucas. However, instead of getting a document to sign and a check amount to write I got a rejection. So with lucas I was 3 of 3. With Disney 0 of 1.

I wasnt looking to buy a banjo and put vader stickers on. It was all going to be custom inlays, custon head, custom resonator (maybe even one that looks like the M. Falcon...lol)
But seriously, I wanted a quality banjo with my ideas implemented. Not cheesy looks.

But now Id have to do all that myself, which I cant do for many reasons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NotABanjoYoda

Ill draw whatevet I want on my banjo. This thread came about after 4 banjer builders declined to do a custom for me unless I took it upon myself to get the rights.

Before Disney, I had 3 officially lucas licensed starwars custom products. Two of them my wife sold on etsy. I knew the process and lucasarts used to license 1 off customs with a simple web form and a reasonable check.

They still have that process even though Disney owns lucas. However, instead of getting a document to sign and a check amount to write I got a rejection. So with lucas I was 3 of 3. With Disney 0 of 1.

I wasnt looking to buy a banjo and put vader stickers on. It was all going to be custom inlays, custon head, custom resonator (maybe even one that looks like the M. Falcon...lol)
But seriously, I wanted a quality banjo with my ideas implemented. Not cheesy looks.

But now Id have to do all that myself, which I cant do for many reasons.

---

I don't blame the builders for turning you down - they would have been using the images without obtaining the clearances, and making money doing so.

IP is IP.

"I don't blame the builders for turning you down - they would have been using the images without obtaining the clearances, and making money doing so.

IP is IP."

I certainly dont blame anyone and we never discussed doing the project under the table. It was more discussions on time involved in obtaining the rights that turned them off. So i said Id obtain the rights, since I have obtained starwars ip rights 3 times in the past. I didnt succeed so project wont happen. And Im fine not having a starwars banjo, not a must have.

I posted the letter because Ive seen starwars licensed toilet paper, but a banjo is below them...lol

Just because builders turned it down doesn't mean that they are right.

Just because Disney turned it down doesn't mean it is right.

     -- Decisions on fair use are from court rulings, not from what an individual thinks ought to be or not be, or from a plain reading of the laws.

     -- A number of tests are involved in a ruling on fair use.  A somewhat more recent test for "fair use" is "transformative."  It is quite possible that a film image used as a banjo fingerboard inlay could be successfully argued as being "transformative."  (I mean, how close is a 1x1.5 inch pearl mosaic of Luke Skywalker going to be to an actual photograph?)

    Check out this case.  Might be surprised at what can be ruled as fair use and why. https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/Easter-Unlimited-v-Rozier-18-cv-06637-E-D-N-Y-Sep-17-2021.pdf

Maybe the custom builders have the overactive consciences or are unfamiliar with fair use.  Years ago, a copy place refused to copy a page from a book, that I needed for research.  The local library and the university libraries didn't care, as long as you put 10 cents in the copy machine.  

When I taught in the local high school, the Latin teacher, a rather naive young thing, wanted to show the Disney video "Hercules" to her class. She was not charging admission, no one from the outside would be there, and that was as far as it would go. She contacted Disney, explained her situation, and asked for permission to show the film in her Latin class. Disney said "NO!" not under any circumstances was she to show the film and that they would prosecute if need be. I know teachers who have shown Disney films in their classes without a hitch and nothing ever happened. I guess you should be careful what you ask for.
Robert

Alex Z In addition to your argument, Disney has not been able to trademark everything starwars because Lucas stole a lot of the names and designs from other works or actual people n places. Ever wonder why starwats characters names got more specific since disney?

Nikto, Barada, Klaatu stolen from the day the earth stood still for instance

and Disney lost trademarks on common phrases like

"I am your father!" because, well its obvious why they cant own it.

Thats why I said an ewok playing a banjo on a banjo is fair use.

However, I dont blame the builders not wanting to go down this fair use road with me.

She contacted Disney, explained her situation, and asked for permission to show the film in her Latin class.   [First mistake -- expectation that all parties will play by the rules.  Not an unusual expectation for a less experience person.]

Disney said "NO!" not under any circumstances was she to show the film and that they would prosecute if need be.  

    [Second mistake -- expectation that  "Disney" would run the question through their legal department and come up with a reasonable and enlightened answer equitable for both parties given the circumstances. ]

    Third mistake -- believing that the Disney corporation would actually sue a school teacher showing a film in class.  

    Fourth mistake -- thinking that Disney can "prosecute".  They can file suit, and they will have have to show damages.]

I guess you should be careful what you ask for.  [Right.  Fifth mistake -- never ask if you're not prepared to accept the answer.  ]

I hope the teacher learned a lesson too.  Next time, just play the dad-burned video for the students.  And it won't go on the teacher's "permanent record."  

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joel Hooks

By this logic of not selling or making money on theft, does that mean that I can rob a jewelry store but as long as I give away all the stolen jewelry (making no money) then it is okay?

---

You are correct, Joel, you absolutely can rob a jewelry store without consequence whatsoever, under the circumstances you describe.

Even if you are claiming Fair Use, it does not prevent you from being sued and forcing you into court which will involve you hiring a lawyer. Using someone else's creative property without their permission is tricky. Disney is very protective of their material, which is why you don't see Zorro reruns on Hulu. If I were building a banjo for my own use I'd use any character I want on it, but for a commercial venture I'd be much more cautious. If I'm a builder and someone wants me to build them a banjo with a copyrighted theme I would likely refuse because as a small builder I cannot afford to defend my right in court.
Regarding the showing of movies in a classroom, read the copyright notice on your DVD. Every one I've seen prohibits public showing even if no money is charged. This is ignored regularly, especially by teachers. I, and virtually every teacher I know, has shown movies or TV shows in their classroom - but we never ask permission, because it will be refused. Most school districts have policies preventing teachers from showing these movies, so the teacher is totally at risk, but someone has to complain. None of my students have ever called the copyright owner and told them I was doing this. Was I wrong? Yes. Was I scared? No. Do you think Disney, or any other corporation wants the publicity of going after a young, underpaid Latin teacher?

Humorous Anecdote: My first year teaching I was exhausted. It really is a very hard job and I was way behind on getting papers corrected and other paperwork. Fellow teachers told me to show a movie and correct papers in the back of the room. The school policy was that as long as the movie tied in with the state curriculum, and was rated PG13 or lower I did not need permission. I was teaching ecology and I knew about the Sean Connery movie "Medicine Man" and by it's description it fit with the curriculum, so I rented it. I did not preview the film. This school had open classrooms, so there were 4 other classes going on at the same time within view of my classroom. In one of the very early scenes in the movie a row of native women, all bare breasted, were working on a sort of assembly line. I'm figuring I'm going to be fired by the end of the day. My department head walked by, saw the half naked women and asked me what the film was rated. I showed him the VCR cover, he looked, and said "good movie" and handed it back to me. I showed the film in 4 more classes that day.

17 CFR 110

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:

(1) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction . . . 

I mean, while the plain words still would have to be interpreted by the court in a lawsuit, does anyone think Disney Corp is going to hire a $500/hr intellectual property lawyer to sue a school or teacher showing a (non-pirated copy of a ) movie in the classroom, considering the above language in the copyright statute?   The lawyer is going to tell Disney, "You don't have a case.  That will be $1,000 please."

We can't live in fear, nor in fear of threats.  Anybody can sue anybody else for anything as long as they pay the $50 filing fee.  Geez, people hear the word "sue" and expect that the next day their bank account will be seized and the sheriff will be at the door evicting them out of their home.  

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex Z

17 CFR 110

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:

(1) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction . . . 

I mean, while the plain words still would have to be interpreted by the court in a lawsuit, does anyone think Disney Corp is going to hire a $500/hr intellectual property lawyer to sue a school or teacher showing a (non-pirated copy of a ) movie in the classroom, considering the above language in the copyright statute?   The lawyer is going to tell Disney, "You don't have a case.  That will be $1,000 please."

We can't live in fear, nor in fear of threats.  Anybody can sue anybody else for anything as long as they pay the $50 filing fee.  Geez, people hear the word "sue" and expect that the next day their bank account will be seized and the sheriff will be at the door evicting them out of their home.  

---

Yes and no.  The fair use in education would mean that the work is going to be shown for educational purposes.  In other words, it would be a class using the film to study the cinamatogrphy techniques, animation techniques, editing techniques, etc. etc. Fair use is not showing the Disney Hercules to a Latin class.  There would be no educational value to the film in that setting.  It is in English. If it were in Latin, you could claim fair use gained from studying the language,  pronunciation in context, etc. 

Also, the teacher should have just shown the movie without reaching out to Disney.  Just because Disney can claim a copyright violation, doesn’t mean they will. 

"The fair use in education would mean that the work is going to be shown for educational purposes.  In other words, it would be a class using the film to study the cinamatogrphy techniques, animation techniques, editing techniques, etc. etc. Fair use is not showing the Disney Hercules to a Latin class.  There would be no educational value to the film in that setting. "

That's an argument based on speculation.  The statute doesn't contain any of that.

performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction . . .

"in the course of" are the operative words.  The plaintiff would have to prove that the exception to copyright use is absolutely limited to "using the film to study the cinamatogrphy techniques, animation techniques, editing techniques, etc" 

The defendant says, "Hey, I used in the the course of face-to-face teaching.  That's all that's needed, your honor.  Get that Disney lawyer out of my face and out of deciding the details of the curriculum in my classroom, your honor.  The Disney lawyer has not presented any facts."  

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex Z

17 CFR 110

We can't live in fear, nor in fear of threats.  Anybody can sue anybody else for anything as long as they pay the $50 filing fee.  Geez, people hear the word "sue" and expect that the next day their bank account will be seized and the sheriff will be at the door evicting them out of their home.  

---

Yeah, but there's more than money happening.  i was sued by a parent. it cost me three days in court - three days i will never get back. Two of those were school days, so I couldn't teach on those days, and had to call in for a substitute. That, plus the worry and aggravation. I won (and the board paid for the lawyer, and the parent had to pay court costs), but it wasn't fun at all. When it was obvious the parent didn't have a legal leg to stand on, I wondered, "Geez, what if he (the judge) rules out of pity?" (This person had a reputation for suing, but I was determined that the streak would end with me.)

Plenty of people have Star Wars characters tattooed on them, can't see the tattooist being that bothered, I mean how will Disney even know? What they term 'an abundance of caution' on the part of the luthiers in question.