Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Pixar/Disney in "Monsters Inc" Ownership Scuffle 289

Posted by chrisd from the is-this-thing-on dept.
blamanj writes "According to a SF Chronicle story this morning, Pixar has been sued by artist Stanley Mouse. Mouse created a movie treatment titled "Excuse My Dust", which was set in "Monster City," where the animated monster characters worked for the "Monster Corporation of America." One of the characters was a a green, wisecracking, ambulatory eyeball. Furthermore, the lawsuit claims that a story artist from Pixar visited Mouse in 2000, and discussed Mouse's work."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pixar/Disney in "Monsters Inc" Ownership Scuffle More

Pixar/Disney in "Monsters Inc" Ownership Scuffle

Comments Filter:

  • Don't Mess with Disney... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Angry White Guy ( 521337 ) <CaptainBurly[AT]goodbadmovies.com> on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:20PM (#4638503)
    They're the real monsters out there
  • anyone remember that great simposons parody of this? The one with the hobo?

  • In other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by zyqqh ( 137965 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:23PM (#4638519)
    Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse have discovered their real father, Stanley Mouse...
  • If the above article is indeed factual, the irony presented is simply amazing. Here Disney is, along with the big movie buisness, lobbying for laws that stop consumers from performing the same act performed here.Does anyone else see somethign wrong with this?
    Please stop it before I laugh myself into a heart attack, please stop it!

    • Re:The irony here is amazing (Score:5, Informative)

      by Temsi ( 452609 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:34PM (#4638596) Journal
      Nothing new here. Disney has been stealing stories for years. For example, both The Lion King and Atlantis were ripped off from Japanese Anime. In fact both were ripped off from the same Japanese studio, which pretty much said "we can't sue, Disney has enough money to keep us in court until we're dead".
      Now they rip off this guy without even acknowledging his work. It's pitiful. It's just awful what greed can do to people.

      The saddest thing is that Disney hasn't had an original idea since before Walt was iced.

      • Atlantis was pretty much blatently ripped by Nadia, but what did Studio Gainix put out that was ripped for The Lion King?
        • SIMBA! The White Lion...

        • Re:The irony here is amazing (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Gaijin42 ( 317411 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:56PM (#4638702)
          Lion King was ripped from a Manga called Jungle Taitei. (Jungle Prince?)

          Lead character : kimba. (To be fair, kimba/simba/timba and some others are african words for "cub" so its not like they ripped off a made up word)

          However, some of the scenes were taken too, notable the cliff outcroping scene that is on all the lion king posters.

          This was a huge controversy when lion king came out, Disney totally denied, said they had never even heard of the guys. Japanese guys said "We don't care, we take it as an hommage, and we ripped off bambi for our first picture anyway". Later, disney admited that several of the main animators were big fans, and had copies of the manga at their desks while making lion king.

          This was also parodied in a great simpsons episode, with Lisa's mentor, (forget the first word) gums.

          Gums was played by J.E. Jones, and after he died, they did this great thing where his ghost said a few words, then Darth vader said a few words, then mufasa said "Take care kimba.. I mean simba", and then JEJ said "This is CNN".

          It was hilarious, and the number of people that would get the joke is really small.

      • Re:The irony here is amazing (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jeremiah Cornelius ( 137 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:52PM (#4638677) Homepage Journal
        The saddest thing is that Disney hasn't had an original idea since before Walt was iced.

        They weren't too chock-full of originalideas before this, either:

        Snow White (tm)

        Pinnochio (tm)

        Cinderella (tm)

        Sleeping Beauty (tm)

        "Alice in Wonderland" (tm)

        Jungle Book (tm)

        The Parent Trap (tm)

        Old Yeller (tm)

        Winnie (he's NOT American, and DOES NOT SKATEBOARD) the Pooh (tm)

        Disney has produced BEAUTIFUL work, in the craft - the art - of film animation. They have also always been a real hack-farm in terms of almost exclusively derivative content.

        I think that originality in the "classic" Disney features can be relegated to Dumbo - and perhaps to Jungle Book, because they couldn't figure out what to do with the Kipling's story and ditched it for their own.

        Fantasia has vividly original treatment of material exclusively derived from other sources.

        Worse, in their derivation, Disney takes bagguette and makes WonderBread (tm).

        Lessig is good at pointing out how Disney has raided the trove of publicly owned works, and seeks to keep that same body from enlarging for the benefit of others.

        • Re:The irony here is amazing (Score:5, Insightful)

          by orulz ( 98036 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @06:18PM (#4639114)
          OK, what are you doing here? If you're accusing Disney of plagarizing these stories, you're completely wrong to do so. Why, you even state yourself that they are "publicly owned works."

          So that's not it. What is it, then?

          I understand that you can be frustrated and dislike the Disney company, and I hold many negative sentiments towards the company myself. Their overly blatant commercialism and in my opinion often shoddy work of late is disappointing to say the least, coming from a company with such a prestigious history. The way they compromise the integrity of both their original and non-original stories by writing insipid sequels is saddening. Then, there's their often predatory defense of their near monopolistic grasp on the animated film market. (Miyazaki, anyone?) These practices should anger everyone.

          However, you are wrong to criticize Disney for a lack of original stories in each of these cases. Disney was not attempting to pass the stories off as original, nor did the company try to seize control of them in any way. Rather, Disney adapted and produced these often age-old tales--many that he had read and loved as a child--as animated films. While the Disney adaptations may stray more from the original stories than some may prefer, there is nothing wrong with the concept morally or legally. Disney has not "raided the trove of publicly owned works," but rather, retold the stories in a way meant to be enjoyed by those who have read the original stories and those who haven't alike.

          The Lion King? I don't know. Atlantis? I don't know either. Those might be plagarism to some extent, I haven't seen the works they were supposedly derived from myself so I won't claim to know anything about the subject. But the examples that you point out are just plain wrong.

          And, by the way, when on earth does Winnie the Pooh ever ride a skateboard? I've seen quite a few Pooh cartoons and to the best of my recollection there weren't any skateboards, certainly not as a running theme. And while I'm at it, when did Disney ever claim that the story was American? Once again- they're just producing a cartoon out of an age old children's story, and something which they certainly have the right to do and frequently do very well.

          When I rant about Disney, (the company or the man) I don't rant about the masterful films that they have made from familiar fairy tales and children's stories. Instead, I rant about their faults.

          • Re:The irony here is amazing (Score:5, Insightful)

            by puppet10 ( 84610 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @06:48PM (#4639275)
            The point is that Disney has been spearheading repeated extentions to the terms copyrighted materials enjoy to keep their material from falling into the public domain, while largely benefiting and deriving their profits from works which were allowed to pass into the public domain.

            This doesn't include outright dervitives of others currently copyrighted works, which if someone else had done anything remotely like this to a Disney story they would come down on them like a ton of bricks since they are very active in protecting their copyrights and have immense capital with which to persue lawsuits.

          • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

            by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @06:50PM (#4639292)
            Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re:The irony here is amazing (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Jeremiah Cornelius ( 137 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @08:02PM (#4639628) Homepage Journal
            Hey!

            I'm not accusing Disney of anything...

            I am illustrating that imaginitive and substantive content has never been a Disney/Buena Vista trait. This was in the context of a poster who bemoaned the lack of creative story work since Walt got Cryo-ed.

            Pooh and friends are dubbed in American English- every Saturday morning on U.S. television. Doing all kinds of distressingly un-Pooh like things, and telling maudlin, pseudo-theraputic stories. Really awful!

            Pooh dates from the 'Twenties, and has an author that still--living people can remember in conversation and deed. I hope that doesn't qualify as "age-old"!

            I'm just sorry - a little - that my own kids will probably never be able to know Milne's Pooh as I did. It will be, instead, co-mingled with "Extreme Sports" and commercial fruit-flavored drinks, etc. Therefore, more like most of the other things they encounter - rather than less. It is representative of the cultural and intellectual entropy where all culture acheives a uniform lukewarm temperature...

            • Re:The irony here is amazing (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Pogue Mahone ( 265053 ) on Monday November 11, 2002 @02:15AM (#4641020) Homepage
              I'm just sorry - a little - that my own kids will probably never be able to know Milne's Pooh as I did.

              Then read to them! My children have always enjoyed listening to stories, especially A.A. Milne's.

              And the paper editions don't have any pesky DRM to stop you from reading them aloud ;-)

              I have to say my Eeyore voice sounds a little like Marvin (the paranoid android).

        • Re:The irony here is amazing (Score:5, Insightful)

          by hawkestein ( 41151 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @11:54PM (#4640527)
          Winnie (he's NOT American, and DOES NOT SKATEBOARD) the Pooh (tm)

          Just to swerve way off topic here, but as a Canadian, I think it's worth mentioning that the actual bear that inspired A.A. Milne to write Winne the Pooh was a Canadian bear that he saw in a zoo. In fact, that bear's name was indeed "Winnie", short for Winnipeg.

          I don't think Milne was Canadian, though. British, right?
      • The story in Atlantis doesn't have much to do with Nadia. The technology does, but both are blatantly inspired from Jules Verne, hence the common points. Atlantis is more inspired from Jules Verne in practice, including "A journey to the center of the earth" and "Twenty thousand leages under the sea".

        OG.
      • The saddest thing is that Disney hasn't had an original idea since before Walt was iced.

        So you're saying that icing ol' Walt was their last original idea?

      • Re:The irony here is amazing (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Gumber ( 17306 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @05:54PM (#4639000) Homepage
        The real irony is that most of Disney's hits have been based on public-domain stories
        (robin hood, snow white, sleeping beauty, etc), and yet Disney, by buying legislation to extend copyright terms indefinitely, are starving the public domain.

        It is particularly Ironic, because the works that Disney based their works by people like Hans Christian Andersen and The Brothers Grim, were themselves derivitives of public domain works. They were tellings of folklore.

      • Nah (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Greyfox ( 87712 )
        They ripped off Hamlet right down to the two fools, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Disney just didn't have the guts to kill everyone in the end. That doesn't bring in the kiddie crowd Disney plays to. Oh and one scene in the Lion King reminded me a lot of a scene from Pink Floyd the Wall.

        Personally I think Disney should do more dark animation. They need to expose their Evil side in a more constructive fashion.

    • White Lion has already been mentioned. Also, the famous "Steamboat Willie," Mickey Mouse's first "talkie," lifts its ideas from the Buster Keaton film "Steamboat Bill." The hypocrisy is quite overwhelming, isn't it?

    • Disney != Pixar (Score:4, Informative)

      by mblase ( 200735 ) on Monday November 11, 2002 @01:27PM (#4643987)
      If the above article is indeed factual, the irony presented is simply amazing. Here Disney is, along with the big movie buisness, lobbying for laws that stop consumers from performing the same act performed here.

      Pixar is being sued, not Disney. Disney is and always has been little more than a distributor for Pixar's movies. They offer minimal creative input on the stories and take a chunk of the money from the resultant toy market, but that's about the limit of Disney's involvement in things.

      The difference is easy to remember if you adhere to the following formula: 100% of Pixar's current output is great, while 95% of Disney's current output is crap.*

      (* "Lilo & Stitch" is the notable exception, which is funny because the more I watch it, the more it reminds me of a Pixar film instead of a Disney one.)

  • Mouse bites Disney... (Score:5, Funny)

    by EnlightenmentFan ( 617608 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:25PM (#4638534) Homepage Journal
    ...it had to happen.

  • Disney should hire Lessig (Score:4, Insightful)

    by prostoalex ( 308614 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:27PM (#4638547) Homepage Journal
    It's ironic, but the best man to defend Disney/Pixar might be Lawrence Lessig. It looks like Disney animators just built on the material available to them following the "Rip.Mix.Burn." mantra that they oppose so violently.

    Ideas are not worth anything. Can I sue Disney if my grandfather had an idea a 100 years ago about creating a cartoon on mischievous mouse?

  • A green eyeball? (Score:5, Funny)

    by SexyKellyOsbourne ( 606860 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:28PM (#4638556) Journal
    Disney's version wasn't an eyeball -- it was a talking testicle [landoverbaptist.org]!

    This suit is frivolous!

    • Re:A green eyeball? (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "Monsters is just secular hip-lingo for 'demons,'" announced Pastor Deacon Fred, "and you can always count on the homos at Disney to unleash a slew of them on the bible-believing public as we get closer to the Lord's big birthday bash."
      At least the pastor is on our side. I think?

    • Re:A green eyeball? (Score:5, Funny)

      by mrpuffypants ( 444598 ) <mrpuffypants @ g m a i l . com> on Sunday November 10, 2002 @05:27PM (#4638862)
      the worst part about that story is that in my hometown we have a church that actually talks that way

      they have half the city going there, so if you're one of the other 50,000 then you're with.....oh, who could it be....

      oh yes!

      SATAN
    • Oh crap.

      I can't decide if this Landover Baptist thing is a severe (and perhaps tasteless) joke or for real.

      -sid

  • This just in... (Score:4, Funny)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:28PM (#4638558) Homepage Journal
    ...Disney has sued Universal Pictures Limited and Amblin Entertainment, Inc. over An American Tail [americantail.com], an animated cartoon featuring a talking mouse. "This is a clear infringement on our intellectual property", said the dead frozen animatronic head of Walt Disney. "Steamboat Willie contained a talking mouse and was released on July 29, 1928."

  • Not likely (Score:3, Interesting)

    by datsclark ( 46380 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:30PM (#4638567)
    I read this article in the paper yesterday, where they had several picture of the various monsters. I would have to say that they is more than a 10% difference, which is what i understand to be what it takes to not be copywright infrigement. The Mouse's drawings, while having one eye, and looking similar, does not exactally seem to be the same character. In some drawings he has hair, in others no hair, like M.I.'s Mike. I think this guy is just hoping to get some cash out of Disney, who will no doubt settle out of court.

    • I would have to say that they is more than a 10% difference, which is what i understand to be what it takes to not be copywright infrigement.

      You seem to misunderstand. If you copied 90 minutes of a 100 minute movie, added 10 minutes of original material, and sold copies of the result, would you stand a chance in court?

      If anything, the standard is closer to 90 percent difference. The standard for copying in United States federal courts is the combination of "access" and "substantial similarity". Songs have been found "substantially similar" by sharing only four notes [everything2.com]. It's possible to prove "access" even if the defendant did not consciously copy [vwh.net] the original work; a big corporation suing an individual might even be able to argue along the lines: "Because we published it, the defendant had access to it."

  • It's BS (Score:5, Interesting)

    by geek ( 5680 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:30PM (#4638568)
    Come on, this is just now happening, what 2 or 3 years after the initial announcement of the movie? You can't tell me this guy waited all this time to just now file suit. I mean the movie is on DVD already.

    You have to remember studios and artists get hit with these false claims EVERY day. Hardly any prove true, no matter how convincing they are.

    • Re:It's BS (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Some Dumbass... ( 192298 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:45PM (#4638643)
      Come on, this is just now happening, what 2 or 3 years after the initial announcement of the movie?

      You don't suppose he tried negotiating with them first, and that it has just recently gotten to the point where the negotiations stopped and the lawsuits started, do you?

      Besides, just the initial announcement of the movie might not have given the plaintiff reason to believe that some copying was going on. He certainly wouldn't have been able to prove in court that his movie was similar to "this movie that Pixar/Disney is making that they haven't actually made yet." :)

      You have to remember studios and artists get hit with these false claims EVERY day. Hardly any prove true, no matter how convincing they are.

      Of course, the more convincing they are, the more likely they are to be proven true. That is logical, yes? The article mentions a few reasons why this particular suit is more plausible than some others (i.e. the plaintiff is an established artist, not some random hack).

    • Re:It's BS (Score:4, Interesting)

      by shepd ( 155729 ) <slashdot.orgNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday November 10, 2002 @05:02PM (#4638738) Homepage Journal
      >I mean the movie is on DVD already.

      And if you're bored enough to listen to the commentary for that DVD, you'll hear the directors explaining that the original title for the movie was Monster City, and that they changed it for an undisclosed reason at the last minute. I guess we know the undisclosed reason now...

    • Re:It's BS (Score:3, Interesting)

      by coene ( 554338 )
      And isnt this one of the highest selling DVD's of all time? What better time to sue than when the full worth of the product has been discovered.

  • Stolen eyeball (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Crusty Oldman ( 249835 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:30PM (#4638570)
    One of the characters was a a green, wisecracking, ambulatory eyeball.

    Which Mouse "stole" from Rick Griffin, Which Griffin "stole" from Von Dutch...

    • Re:Stolen eyeball (Score:5, Funny)

      by isorox ( 205688 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:53PM (#4638683) Homepage Journal
      Which Mouse "stole" from Rick Griffin, Which Griffin "stole" from Von Dutch...

      Which Von Dutch stole from Nader, which Nader stole from Smith, which Smith stole from Western, which Western stol....... which Terry stole from a guy down the street, which the guy stole from a time traveller, who stole it from Disney in the first place.

      The defence rests, and in adition I'd like to file a complaint against "The World" for stealing ideas from "Disney inc".
      • The point is moot since I hold the patent on the time machine and I did not authorize it's use in this case. I will therefore be using it to undo the theft from Disney and this whole problem will cease to have existed.

        And on a totally unrelated note, isn't it wierd how I just won the Florida lottery for the third time in a row?

  • "Don't do unto us as we would do unto you!"
  • Furthermore, the lawsuit claims that a story artist from Pixar visited Mouse in 2000, and discussed Mouse's work

    According to what I have experienced, the problem of deciding how to deal with people with "original ideas" is a real pain in the ass for the large corporations. And atleast in the field of software, the normal practise in use by the large corporations seems to be: "yes, you can share your secret with us, but patent it first. We don't want to see you suing us in the future." Think about it. Every time a large company releases something, it would be almost a miracle if no-one on earth would have atleast thought about it.

  • Lotsa walking eyeballs out there. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:38PM (#4638618)
    1998, for a TI Calculator [ticalc.org]

    In a "They Came From Hollywood" vidgame [theycamefr...lywood.com], which is based on Haxton's B-grade sci-fi flicks from the 50's, like the infamous "Wandering Eyes". [phobe.com]

    Not to mention, of course, the infamous The Residents [residents.com], a trio (or quartet? quintet?) of unknown artists, eyeballs with tophats.

    There's Ocula [dollsandto...tralia.com], a mobile eyeball from Dreamwork's Studios "Small Soldiers" movie.

    Walking, talking, wise-cracking eyeballs? Ain't nuttin' new.
  • Drawings attached to the complaint, dating from the early 1960s, pair a small, two-legged eyeball with a large, dull-witted monster character in a "buddy" relationship. The lawsuit claims that Disney and Pixar also appropriated the "buddy" relationship theme from Mouse's work.

    So Stanley Mouse invented the idea of buddy relationships between a smart guy and a dumb guy back in the early sixties?

    I hope he's also suing William Goldman for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969). Goldman got $400,000 grand for the screenplay, according to Christa Williams's biography [twyman-whitney.com] and some of that is clearly owed to Mouse.

    You may say, what about George and Lenny in John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men (1937)? What about Robin Hood and Little John? Irrelevant. If Edgar Allen Poe can pre-invent black holes, why couldn't Stanley Mouse post-invent the buddy relationship?

  • I know disney is a blood sucking corporation mouse. I read the article, that sucks dude! Any 5 year old could look at your Green Mike the Eyeball and Disney's Green Mike the eyeball and not tell the difference.

    Well, it looks like you have a pretty much open and shut case against them Mr. Mouse, good luck amigo!

    Just remember..

    Maybe the dark is from your eyes, Maybe the dark is from your eyes,
    Maybe the dark is from your eyes, Maybe the dark is from your eyes,
    Maybe the dark is from your eyes, Maybe the dark is from your eyes,
    You know you got such dark eyes!

  • Cheesey Case (Score:4, Funny)

    by Snork Asaurus ( 595692 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:48PM (#4638659) Journal
    Next on the docket ... House of Mouse vs. Mouse. Curiously, both have rats for lawyers.

  • 2000? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stiv ( 411055 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:54PM (#4638688)
    All I can say is that this lawsuit doesn't show much knowledge of the process involved in making a movie like Monsters inc. According to this Mouse fella, somebody from Pixar paid him a visit in 2000. Monsters inc came out in 2001. There is no way that this movie could have been done that quickly. It is a 4-5 year process. The modeling and storyboards would have been complete by late 1999 for sure. This story should have a pretty short lifespan once the facts come out although I admit it is pretty funny for Disney to be sued by a guy named mouse!
    • Ever think it's because the guy from pixar felt bad for ripping Mouse off and wanted to tell him what Disney was doing? Maybe they came up with some sort of deal, Mouse probably got mad for some reason or another (maybe there was supposed to be some reference to him in the DVD and becaus there wasn't he's suing all of a sudden.) It would explain why this lawsuit took so long (and the DVD just recently came out.

    • Re:2000? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by yoink! ( 196362 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @11:02PM (#4640337) Homepage Journal
      Actually this is the most valid point I've seen so far. I think it's important that we have some perspective on matters like these. Not that arguing about a Disney movie is all that important, we all know the Disney horror stories with NDAs and confining contracts etc. Nevertheless it is wise for us to not just jumpt the gun, even though past behaviour of such companies make make such jumps the most plausible ones.

      With movies such as this the script and dialog are usually completed well before the animation so it would make this lawsuit look merely like someone trying to take advantage of similarities which may solely be due to coincidence.

      eye no eye maid sum gram are miss steaks

  • Sounds bogus. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AJWM ( 19027 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:55PM (#4638695) Homepage
    The problem with these sorts of lawsuits is that writers, artists, etc are exposed to the same sorts of ideas (memes, if you like) and so similar stuff tends to pop up at the same time. (Like two simultaneous major movies about asteroids hitting earth a couple of years ago, etc.) Sure, sometimes it's a ripoff, sometimes it's coincidence.

    The "Toy Story 2" DVD had a "sneak preview" of "Monsters, Inc" featuring Mike and Sully. The file date on the disc is Sept. 14, 2000. That clip was likely in production and preproduction for a long time before that. In time for an artist visiting Mouse to be heavily influenced by what he saw there? Maybe, but I'm doubtful.

    And regarding "[t]he lawsuit claims that Disney and Pixar also appropriated the "buddy" relationship theme from Mouse's work" -- oh, please, like there's never been a prior "buddy" movie? Abbott and Costello? Hope and Crosby? Laurel and Hardy? Hello? You want to see a rip off of that (in particular, Hope and Crosby), see Dreamworks' "The Road To El Dorado". (Actually I'd call that more a tribute to, what with the "Road To ..." title and all.)

    Not that I'm sorry to see Disney get a taste of their own medicine, but really...

    • Re:Sounds bogus. (Score:5, Informative)

      by kill-hup ( 120930 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @05:31PM (#4638879) Homepage
      The "Toy Story 2" DVD had a "sneak preview" of "Monsters, Inc" featuring Mike and Sully. The file date on the disc is Sept. 14, 2000.

      If you read the article, you'll see that some of Mouse's prior art dates back to the 1960's:

      Drawings attached to the complaint, dating from the early 1960s, pair a small, two-legged eyeball with a large, dull-witted monster character in a "buddy" relationship. The lawsuit claims that Disney and Pixar also appropriated the "buddy" relationship theme from Mouse's work.

      Unless Disney has been working on this story for 40 years, I think Stanley Mouse has a case.

  • A meeting in 2000 wouldn't mean much (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:56PM (#4638700)

    These animated movies take quite a while to write, design the characters, record the dialog tracks, and do the animation. Given that it was released in 2001, the movie was well under way in 2000.

    In fact, according to IMDB [imdb.com], the movie had a working title of Hidden City in 1999. And I'd venture to guess the project started even before that.

  • Classic Rock (Score:5, Informative)

    by DeadBugs ( 546475 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:56PM (#4638703) Homepage
    Stanley Mouse has got to be one of the best album cover artists. Back in the days of records he did covers for Journey, The Grateful Dead and Steve Miller among others.

    It's a shame now that the packaging for CD's generally is pretty boring.

  • Your honor... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Quaoar ( 614366 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:57PM (#4638714)
    ...you take away our right to steal ideas, where are they gonna come from?

  • Mouse (Score:2, Funny)

    by snoozerdss ( 303165 )
    Does anyone else find it funny that a guy named Mouse is suing Disney?

  • an oldie bu goodie (Score:4, Funny)

    by twoslice ( 457793 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @05:05PM (#4638752)
    Minnie and Mickey are in divorce court...

    Judge: Let me get this straight Mickey - you want a divorce because Minnie is crazy??

    Mickey: Wait a minute... I didn't say she was crazy. I said she was fucking Goofy!

  • Developers, developers, developers, developers (Score:5, Funny)

    by davidsansome ( 563576 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @05:05PM (#4638753)
    ...the animated monster characters worked for the "Monster Corporation of America." One of the characters was a a green, wisecracking, ambulatory eyeball.

    Anyone else see the reference to Steve Ballmer here? ;-)

  • Don't worry. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Moofie ( 22272 ) <`lee' `at' `ringofsaturn.com'> on Sunday November 10, 2002 @05:11PM (#4638783) Homepage
    Disney will just countersue the poor guy and take away his name.

    Gosh, I hope I'm joking.

  • 2000 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 90XDoubleSide ( 522791 ) <ninetyxdoublesid ... minus physicist> on Sunday November 10, 2002 @05:12PM (#4638788)
    Furthermore, the lawsuit claims that a story artist from Pixar visited Mouse in 2000

    Which would make this rather irrelevant since M.I. would have to have been pitched in 1997 to be released in 2001.

  • R. Crumb (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 10, 2002 @05:19PM (#4638824)
    The underground comix artist R. Crumb drew the SAME green 'eyeball monster' as an alien from outer space in the mid '70s. I don't know who this Mouse character thinks he is, but unless he drew his version before 1976, HE is also in violation of copyright law. Check it out.

    • Re:R. Crumb (Score:4, Informative)

      by Flamerule ( 467257 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @05:54PM (#4639001)
      I don't know who this Mouse character thinks he is, but unless he drew his version before 1976, HE is also in violation of copyright law.
      Way to read the article, buddy:
      Drawings attached to the complaint, dating from the early 1960s, pair a small, two-legged eyeball with a large, dull-witted monster character in a "buddy" relationship.
  • Isn't Disney's motto "don't fuck with the mouse"??

  • Sounds bogus (Score:3, Informative)

    by lemkebeth ( 568887 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @05:52PM (#4638987)
    Sounds bogus.

    Pixar had to have been producing the film before Sept 2000 as the sample on the Toy Story 2 DVD was on there.

    Second, why did he wait so long? So, he can grab a huge sum of cash? Judges get suspicious when people wait so long to sue and with good reason.

    FYI, Disney didn't make the move. It was all Pixar's doing.

    • Re:Sounds bogus (Score:3, Insightful)

      by aminorex ( 141494 )
      5-Informative:)))) bwahahahaha

      It's really a lark. I love the slashdot moderation
      system. It gives me endless laughter. This guy
      is randomly spouting pure bullshit that he pulls
      directly from whole cloth like Athena giving Zeus
      head. But it's okay to slander Stanley Mouse,
      who was doing this stuff in the 1960s already
      (not 2000) without ever bothering to read the
      article or get any grazing tangential familiarity
      with the facts -- in fact, its +5 Information!

      Thank you M. Lemkebeth, you trully restored my
      faith in suffering humanity. I never met a
      stranger whose kindness I did not suffer lightly.

  • Stanley Mouse (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Skjellifetti ( 561341 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @05:52PM (#4638988) Journal
    Mouse did a lot of work for the Grateful Dead back in the day. The Europe '72 cover art was his. He also won a Grammy for the cover art for one of Steve Miller's albums. Mouse's original work goes for a pretty penny these days and I doubt he is hurting for cash. He may well believe he has a legit complaint. Bio... [si.edu]

    As to the ambulatory eyeball, variations of that (usually a flying eyeball [yahoo.com]) were a common theme in hippie art of the '60s. The motif goes back to Ancient Egypt and are a hot rod staple [wizzardscastle.com]. Maybe if you combine the eyeball with a Monsters, Inc motif, Mouse would have something, but the monster eyeball alone isn't enough.

  • Innocent Plagerism.... (Score:4, Informative)

    by 3seas ( 184403 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @05:53PM (#4638997) Homepage Journal
    It is not so uncommon for someone to look at something and think nothing of it, forget it, then sometime later remember it but in terms of it being some idea they came up with. Forgetting where they first saw it.

    It is called Innocent Plagerism. And although it is still wrong, this common human error of doing such, especially when you are probably seeing a number of such ideas and script or treatments, is taken into consideration. It may not stop restitution but can help draw the line between criminal intent and innocent error. And that can mean alot to the one in error, such as respect,...

    One of the methods of copyright takes such possibilities into consideration. Thru the writers guild you can copyright such work and it is filed away without anybody seeing the content. The only way to bring it out as proof is by court order. This helps to serve establishing ownership prior to anyone seeing the work.

    Note the apparent lack of such a mechanism in regards to the Patent office. Something about timeline of what is done and published and the amount of potential time another has to come along and claim a patent to it. Of course there is the fundamental issue of inventor/authorship of patent subject matter.

    Oh wait, the application of copyright methods can address that problem, in regards to proving inventorship/authorship/etc..
  • Who's the filer of a suit that has validity?
    S-T-A, N-L-Y, M-O-U-S-E!

    ("Hey, you spelled my name wrong! I want double the damages!")
  • Well, if we are going to talk about rip offs....MI is pretty darned similar in fundamental idea to "Aaahh!!!! Real Monsters".


    That was a great show. Ickus rules!

  • Gah! My reading skills... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by A_Non_Moose ( 413034 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @06:22PM (#4639135) Homepage Journal
    Reading from a prepared statement, a Disney spokeswoman said...

    I saw:
    Reading from a prepaid statement, a Disney spokeswoman said...

    Well, I guess it is *accurate* either way.

    And I'm suprised no one brought up the charater Orbb from Quake3.
    And you call yourselves geeks? {Error. Error.} :)
    .

  • This always cracks me up (Score:3, Funny)

    by Krueger Industrial S ( 606936 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @08:27PM (#4639715) Homepage
    Programmers show their software to Microsoft, writers show their ideas to Hollywood studios and then they are shocked when their ideas get ripped off.

    You would think people would have caught on by now.

  • What's good for the goose... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by g4dget ( 579145 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @09:22PM (#4639946)
    I think it is desirable for different creators to reuse characters and ideas from other works. Companies and individuals other than Paramound should be able to create Star Trek fiction and movies. Anybody should be able to sell Darth Vader dolls. Etc. That's the way storytelling has worked until the 20th century.

    However, the ostensible reason for the draconian copyright laws we have is to protect the creative people. Individual artists like Stanley Mouse are far and few between, but when they come up, I think companies should be prosecuted and punished to the full extent of the law when they violate the copyright laws they themselves lobbied for (and probably bribed for). If Pixar is guilty, they should have to pay a large fraction of their proceeds to Mouse as punitive damages.

  • I'm amazed here. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dai_Quat ( 619059 ) <`brcwrght' `at' `earthlink.net'> on Monday November 11, 2002 @01:02AM (#4640728)
    Can't anybody here tell the difference between Pixar and Disney?

    Two different companies. One headed by Slashdot hero Steve Jobs, the other headed by Slashdot villian Michael Eisner. One makes the films, the other releases them.

    Pixar is the one accused of stealing this idea, not Disney.

    But what the hey, let's just bash Disney, cause it's more fun!

    You think it looks dumb when Congress tries to understand the internet? I think it looks dumb when slashdotters try to understand Hollywood.

Slashdot Top Deals

Disc space -- the final frontier!

Close