Here's one story:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/disney-sued-by-artist-unicorn-adorned-van-pixars-onward-1274131
From the pictures alone, the suit looks weak. The plaintiff has a unicorn, no wings, facing forward. There aren't that many different ways a white horse can be expressed on a van. It's not an EXACT copy, so there's no clear-cut case for copyright infringement. Long litigation against Pixar/Disney will almost always go badly for the little guy (or gal in this case).
HOWEVER
In her case, Pixar specifically borrowed/rented her van for an employee event, which makes her case a bit stronger in my opinion. There's a basis for breach of contract as well (even if it was an oral promise, and knowing Pixar/Disney, there was almost certainly a written contract). They promised to use her van only for that event, not copy it for their blockbuster movie.
This also makes the case for copyright infringement stronger (not legally, just in terms of what a fact-finder will believe).
It's justice.
I say that despite being a Disney/Pixar fan, because Disney has always been aggressive about suing over intellectual property. They've had Disney characters removed from preschool walls just to protect their trademarks.
In fairness, now, the law almost REQUIRES aggressive protection of trademarks - allowing one preschool to get away with it might force them to allow others to do the same.
But it's still a kind of karma.
reply
share
Costumer (1789)
4 years ago
Personally, I think her case is more than just weak, it is non-existent. A Pegasus versus a Unicorn. Regardless of whether her van was rented, both of these images are found everywhere are many other legendary creatures.
There are limits to copyright. Use of commonly available images (by which I mean the general descriptions of unicorns and pegasi, not a specific piece of art) can't be, in itself, a violation. Even the concept of a horse-related legendary creature on a van is far too generic to trigger copyright.
reply
share