Can i use 'Disneyland' in the title of my art piece?

[destinationsoun]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I have taken a picture of a dead mouse I saw on the grounds of disneyland while i was there. I then did my artistic Photoshop work to it, and am planning on selling it as an art piece. The title of my picture is "A Mouse at Disneyland"

Is this ok to do since i payed to be at that location? or is it against the trademark law since they have a TM on the name? I was thinking that since i payed to be at that location and it's a location that the public is allowed to be, i could freely use the name under fair use.

Any thoughts?

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I have taken a picture of a dead mouse I saw on the grounds of disneyland while i was there. I then did my artistic Photoshop work to it, and am planning on selling it as an art piece. The title of my picture is "A Mouse at Disneyland"

Is this ok to do since i payed to be at that location? or is it against the trademark law since they have a TM on the name? I was thinking that since i payed to be at that location and it's a location that the public is allowed to be, i could freely use the name under fair use.

Any thoughts?

Nope:

https://disneyland.disney.go.com/park-rules/

PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES
...
f. Photography, videotaping, or recording of any kind for commercial purposes.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I have taken a picture of a dead mouse I saw on the grounds of disneyland while i was there. I then did my artistic Photoshop work to it, and am planning on selling it as an art piece. The title of my picture is "A Mouse at Disneyland"

Is this ok to do since i payed to be at that location? or is it against the trademark law since they have a TM on the name? I was thinking that since i payed to be at that location and it's a location that the public is allowed to be, i could freely use the name under fair use.

Any thoughts?

First, "fair use" is an affirmative defense to a lawsuit. It is not permission to use rights-protected material, nor does fair use prevent a copyright holder or a trademark holder from suing you over an unauthorized use.

Disney is aggressive when it comes to defending their rights. For that reason alone, I think that it would be risky for you to sell your photograph with the Disneyland name connected to it.

Your use could potentially be defended in court as a fair use of the trademark, and consumer confusion would be unlikely. However your use could also be seen as a dilution or tarnishment of Disney's famous mark. If you need a defense, it means you have been sued over your use - and Disney has an experienced team of lawyers who could easily bankrupt in court you should you find yourself sued.

That said, here is a link to "A Fair Use Tale," a video published by Stanford, that is worth your review. The use of Disney characters in the video was done with good purpose: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2007/03/fairy-use-tale

Good luck.

 

[destinationsoun]

ok fair enough.

What about in the marketing of something? For example. Changing the title to "mouse's happiest place on earth"

and in a newsletter headline to my fans say, "Found a cute mouse at Disneyland?"

So the title of the product doesn't use it but the marketing material does.

 

[quincy]

ok fair enough.

What about in the marketing of something? For example. Changing the title to "mouse's happiest place on earth"

and in a newsletter headline to my fans say, "Found a cute mouse at Disneyland?"

So the title of the product doesn't use it but the marketing material does.

Using any of Disney's trademarks (which include Disney slogans like "happiest place on earth") is a legal risk.

By using Disney's trademarks, it appears that you are simply trying to attract attention to what you are selling by trading off their reputation. Don't do that.

Why don't you change your title and your marketing material to something that doesn't infringe on a famous name? If you are a good photographer and your work is unique, that is what you should be marketing.

Here for your reading enjoyment is a link to a Disney legal notice: http://help.disney.com/articles/en_US/FAQ/Legal-Notices

 

[justalayman]

Using any of Disney's trademarks (which include Disney slogans like "happiest place on earth") is a legal risk.

By using Disney's trademarks, it appears that you are simply trying to attract attention to what you are selling by trading off their reputation. Don't do that.

Why don't you change your title and your marketing material to something that doesn't infringe on a famous name? If you are a good photographer and your work is unique, that is what you should be marketing.

Here for your reading enjoyment is a link to a Disney legal notice: http://help.disney.com/articles/en_US/FAQ/Legal-Notices

The problem is without the connection between the subject and Disney, it's just another dead mouse. No marketable value in that.


But op needs to refer back to zigner's referral to the rules regarding photography in the park.

 

[tranquility]

Using any of Disney's trademarks (which include Disney slogans like "happiest place on earth") is a legal risk.

By using Disney's trademarks, it appears that you are simply trying to attract attention to what you are selling by trading off their reputation. Don't do that.

Why don't you change your title and your marketing material to something that doesn't infringe on a famous name? If you are a good photographer and your work is unique, that is what you should be marketing.

Here for your reading enjoyment is a link to a Disney legal notice: http://help.disney.com/articles/en_US/FAQ/Legal-Notices

I've got to agree practically and realistically. Do what quincy says. It is safer. The marketing might be good too. Might.

For some reason, some of my posts were eaten earlier. Theoretically? What is opinion? What is the purpose of satire?

Yet, we still have the reality you will be putting up "art" and how a multi-billion dollar corporation that is based on intellectual property will respond to a person who even sends a whiff of something that could hurt the property. How would they respond? To support what quincy said earlier, at the very least they have a very smart person that fits a Disney profile they will train who graduated from law school send a letter to you to knock it off. What do you do then?

The real situation is "The Man" (Disney or whatever the specific owner of the right claims.) will find out about your "art". They will disagree with the representation that has not passed through the marketing, legal, and other sections of approval required to say anything about the Mouse, mammal, rodent or whatever wanted by the mid-level bureaucrat that makes much more money than the OP. When that highly paid ridiculous person finds a mismatch between what has been approved and what has been said that can tangentially be argued to be related to the brand, he signs a sheet that allows for a next step. The next step will be already paid people..I'd go on, but the point is the law allows for legal stomping even if there are potentially legitimate defenses.

Should an artist be able to put a dead mouse in front of Mickey Mouse's house? (Or in, or whatever.) Yes. There really isn't an argument other than the money that will stomp you into the ground. (There, I think they will. Disney fights police logs of deaths at the park. The defenses there are way better. For opinion or satire? Good luck.)

 

[quincy]

The problem is without the connection between the subject and Disney, it's just another dead mouse. No marketable value in that.


But op needs to refer back to zigner's referral to the rules regarding photography in the park.

There can be a market for almost anything.

A picture of a dead mouse probably would have little to no value to an average consumer. The photographer with a dead mouse photo to sell, therefore, has to recognize another market for his photo. For example, a picture of a dead mouse could potentially have value to someone wanting to illustrate a science article or a story about mouse poisons, or even to someone writing an editorial piece critical of Disney.

The problem I see is not so much with selling the dead mouse photo, in other words (unless there is something "Disneyland-specific" in the photo) but rather I see the problem coming with using the Disney trademark to market the photo. The connection between the dead mouse and Disney could attract the attention of Disney attorneys.