Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates

Last updated
Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates
Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Full case nameWalt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates
DecidedSeptember 5, 1978
Citation581 F.2d 751
Case history
Procedural historyAffirmed decision for the plaintiffs from 345 F.Supp. 108 (N. Ca. 1972)
Holding
Air Pirates had infringed on copyrights owned by Disney when using the Mickey Mouse character in a satirical publication.
Court membership
Judges sitting Richard Harvey Chambers, Walter J. Cummings, J. Blaine Anderson
Case opinions
MajorityCummings
Laws applied
United States copyright law

Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates, 581 F.2d 751 (1978), was a copyright law case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, [1] and an important precedent on the use of copyrighted characters for purposes of parody or satire.

Contents

Background

The Air Pirates were a group of cartoonists who published two issues of an underground comic called Air Pirates Funnies in 1971. [2] The comic featured a satirical version of Mickey Mouse (never referred to by his full name) who was positioned as a symbol of conformist hypocrisy in American culture. The comic also depicted other well-known Disney characters engaging in adult behaviors such as sex and drug consumption. [3]

Air Pirates founder Dan O'Neill wanted the comic to be noticed by the Disney company and arranged for copies to be smuggled into board meetings. [4] Disney executives became aware of the comic and sued the Air Pirates for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. [2]

District court proceedings

The case was first heard at the United States District Court for Northern California in 1972. Disney sought an injunction against further publication and sale of the Air Pirates Funnies comic books featuring depictions of its characters, and for existing copies of the comic books to be destroyed. The Air Pirates claimed that the characters could be used for satirical purposes per the fair use doctrine of American copyright law. [5] To raise funds for their defense, the Air Pirates continued to sell copies of the comics plus custom-made artwork satirizing Disney characters at comic book conventions. [2]

The District Court ruled in favor of Disney, O'Neill, the lead artist in the Air Pirates Funnies comics, admitted to drawing the satirical versions of Mickey Mouse and other characters almost exactly like Disney's versions so readers would understand the satire, and to co-opt Disney's claim that the characters represented "an image of innocent delightfulness". [5] The company argued that the characters were beloved by children, and depicting those characters engaged in objectionable adult pursuits could damage the company's reputation. [6]

Despite noting the satirical value of the Air Pirates Funnies depictions of several well-known Disney characters, the court held that the depictions were sufficiently similar to the originals to cause confusion among potential readers about the source of the comics. Per the Copyright Act of 1909, this was found to be copyright infringement. The court held that Disney's further claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition were moot. [5]

Tens of thousands of copies of Air Pirates Funnies, and an associated comic called The Tortoise and the Hare that featured the same characters, were seized under a court order in 1972. [2] O'Neill appealed the District Court ruling, and while the case slowly worked its way through the courts, continued to defiantly draw and sell parodies of Disney characters. In 1975, Disney won a $200,000 judgement and a restraining order against Air Pirates for distributing the parodies, which O'Neill continued to ignore. [2] O'Neill maintained that he hoped to lose in court and continually appeal, and perhaps even go to jail, as a statement on Disney's corporate power over popular culture. He gained some sympathetic supporters within the Disney organization and even delivered some of his drawings directly to the corporate offices as part of his campaign against the company. [7]

Circuit Court opinion

The cover of the second issue of Air Pirates Funnies, featuring depictions of Mickey and Minnie Mouse, 1971 AirPiratesFunnies1971.jpg
The cover of the second issue of Air Pirates Funnies, featuring depictions of Mickey and Minnie Mouse, 1971

The case finally reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1978. The court unanimously upheld the District Court's ruling on copyright infringement, and remanded the concurrent trademark infringement and unfair competition claims back to the lower court for further discovery (though Disney did not pursue those claims any further). [2] The court rejected the Air Pirates' claim of fair use for satirical purposes, because the depictions of the characters at issue were indistinguishable from Disney's originals. [1]

At the Circuit Court, the Air Pirates added a free speech claim with an argument that copyright infringement lawsuits against satires and parodies would chill public discussion. The court rejected this argument under the rationale that the Air Pirates could have expressed their opinions about the Disney company without confusingly similar depictions of its characters. [1] O'Neill was also ordered to pay more that $2 million in damages and legal fees to Disney, though the company decided that O'Neill would be unable to pay and settled this matter in 1980, as long as O'Neill promised to no longer infringe on the company's copyrights. [7] Air Pirates appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court, but their writ of certioari was denied and the Circuit Court ruling on copyright infringement stood. [8]

Impact

While the Air Pirates case worked its way through the courts, it attracted interest from free speech activists and critics of popular culture. Law professor Edward Samuels was skeptical of O'Neill's defiant strategy and later concluded that the saga "set parody back twenty years". [7] The dispute has been acknowledged as an important matter in the history of underground comics, and was detailed in the 1988 documentary film Comic Book Confidential . [9] [10] The case also resulted in the Disney company gaining a possibly unfair reputation for excessive use of copyright law, though the saga raised awareness of the need for a balance between the interests of rights holders and the creative impulses of satirists. [11]

The case is often cited as a formative precedent in copyright law, holding that individual characters can be copyrighted outside of the books or movies in which they appear, [12] while those characters have physical and conceptual qualities that themselves qualify for copyright protection. [13] Meanwhile, simply copying such characters with little alteration for satirical purposes is copyright infringement and does not qualify as fair use. [14] More fundamentally, the case formed a settled precedent on the copyrightability of cartoon characters, [15] while production companies should receive the benefits from their long-term stewardship of such characters. [16]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mickey Mouse</span> Disney cartoon character and mascot

Mickey Mouse is an American cartoon character co-created in 1928 by Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks. The longtime icon and mascot of the Walt Disney Company, Mickey is an anthropomorphic mouse who typically wears red shorts, large shoes, and white gloves. He is often depicted alongside his girlfriend Minnie Mouse, his pet dog Pluto, his friends Donald Duck and Goofy and his nemesis Pete among others.

<i>Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.</i> 1994 copyright infringement lawsuit

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435, was a copyright infringement lawsuit in which Apple Computer, Inc. sought to prevent Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements that were similar to those in Apple's Lisa and Macintosh operating systems. The court ruled that, "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]...". In the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, Xerox also sued Apple alleging that Mac's GUI was heavily based on Xerox's. The district court dismissed Xerox's claims without addressing whether Apple's GUI infringed Xerox's. Apple lost all claims in the Microsoft suit except for the ruling that the trash can icon and folder icons from Hewlett-Packard's NewWave windows application were infringing. The lawsuit was filed in 1988 and lasted four years; the decision was affirmed on appeal in 1994, and Apple's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dan O'Neill</span> American cartoonist

Dan O'Neill is an American underground cartoonist, creator of the syndicated comic strip Odd Bodkins and founder of the underground comics collective the Air Pirates.

<i>A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.</i> US legal case

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 was a landmark intellectual property case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that the defendant, peer-to-peer file sharing service Napster, could be held liable for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement of copyright. This was the first major case to address the application of copyright laws to peer-to-peer file sharing.

<i>National Comics Publications, Inc. v. Fawcett Publications, Inc.</i> American legal case

National Comics Publications v. Fawcett Publications, 191 F.2d 594. was a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a twelve-year legal battle between National Comics and the Fawcett Comics division of Fawcett Publications, concerning Fawcett's Captain Marvel character being an infringement on the copyright of National's Superman comic book character. The litigation is notable as one of the longest-running legal battles in comic book publication history.

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court copyright law case that established that a commercial parody can qualify as fair use. This case established that the fact that money is made by a work does not make it impossible for fair use to apply; it is merely one of the components of a fair use analysis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gary Hallgren</span> American illustrator and underground cartoonist

Gary Hallgren is an American illustrator and underground cartoonist. Illustrations by Hallgren have been "commissioned by publications such as The New York Times, Men's Health, The Wall Street Journal, Mad, and Entertainment Weekly, among others."

The Air Pirates were a group of cartoonists who created two issues of an underground comic called Air Pirates Funnies in 1971, leading to a famous lawsuit by Walt Disney Productions. Founded by Dan O'Neill, the group also included Bobby London, Shary Flenniken, Gary Hallgren, and Ted Richards.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Derivative work</span> Concept in copyright law

In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of a first, previously created original work. The derivative work becomes a second, separate work independent from the first. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality sufficiently to be original and thus protected by copyright. Translations, cinematic adaptations and musical arrangements are common types of derivative works.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fair dealing</span> Limitation and exception to a right granted by copyright law

Fair dealing is a limitation and exception to the exclusive rights granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. Fair dealing is found in many of the common law jurisdictions of the Commonwealth of Nations.

<i>The Uncensored Mouse</i> Unlicensed Disney comics magazine

The Uncensored Mouse is a 1989 comic book series published by Malibu Graphics' Eternity Comics line. The series reprinted Mickey Mouse comic strip stories from 1930, including the first two sequences, "Lost on a Desert Island" and "Mickey Mouse in Death Valley". Only two issues were published. While these early sequences had been reprinted in Italy in the 1970s, The Uncensored Mouse was the first English-language reprint since the strip's newspaper run.

<i>Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.</i> U.S. District Court copyright case

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126, is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that copyright owners must consider fair use defenses and good faith activities by alleged copyright infringers before issuing takedown notices for content posted on the Internet.

Theodore Richards was an American web designer and cartoonist, best known for his underground comix.

<i>Fisher v. Dees</i>

Fisher v. Dees was a 1986 case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit whose judgement refined the doctrine of fair use in American copyright law.

<i>Mandeville-Anthony v. Walt Disney Co.</i>

Mandeville-Anthony v. The Walt Disney Company, 11-56441, is a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which the Court evaluated whether defendants Pixar, The Walt Disney Company, Disney Enterprises, Inc. and Walt Disney Pictures infringed on Jake Mandeville-Anthony's copyrighted works. Plaintiff Mandeville-Anthony's claim for copyright infringement was first dismissed by the United States District Court for the Central District of California, because the court found that the parties’ works were not substantially similar. Mandeville-Anthony made copyright infringement claims with regards to his works Cookie & Co. and Cars/Auto-Excess/Cars Chaos, an animated television show and movie, that he believed Disney copied in order to make their own films, Cars and Cars 2, both of which were very successful, and the animated television show Cars Toons: Mater's Tall Tales. He also made breach of contract claims stating that he and Disney signed a contract barring Disney from using the ideas contained in his works. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

<i>Detective Comics, Inc. v. Bruns Publications, Inc.</i>

Detective Comics, Inc. v. Bruns Publications, Inc., 111 F.2d 432, the case of Superman v. Wonderman, is a 1940 decision of the Second Circuit in which the court held that the archetype of a comic book hero, in this case a cape-wearing benevolent-Hercules figure (Superman), is an idea, which the copyright in the comic strips does not protect against copying; only the specific details of the strips, their particular expression, enjoy legal protection. The author of the court's opinion was Judge Augustus N. Hand and the panel of Second Circuit judges included Judge Learned Hand.

<i>Warner Bros. Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.</i> American legal case

Warner Bros. Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 720 F.2d 231, the case of Superman v. The Greatest American Hero, is the third case in a Second Circuit trilogy of 20th century copyright infringement cases in which the proprietors of Superman copyrights sued other companies for publishing fictional exploits of a cape-wearing superhero. Although the plaintiffs were successful in the first two cases, Superman v. Wonderman and Superman v. Captain Marvel, they were completely unsuccessful in Superman v. The Greatest American Hero. The court held that "as a matter of law. .. 'The Greatest American Hero' is not sufficiently similar to the fictional character Superman, the hero of comic books, television, and more recently films, so that claims of copyright infringement and unfair competition may be dismissed without consideration by a jury."

Copyright protection is available to the creators of a range of works including literary, musical, dramatic and artistic works. Recognition of fictional characters as works eligible for copyright protection has come about with the understanding that characters can be separated from the original works they were embodied in and acquire a new life by featuring in subsequent works.

DC Comics v. Mark Towle was a copyright case heard in the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit in September 2015. The case concerned defendant Mark Towle, who built and sold replicas of the Batmobile in his garage named 'Garage Gotham'. DC Comics initially filed a lawsuit, in May 2011, in the federal district court alleging causes of action for copyright infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition arising out of Mark's manufacture and sale of replicas. The plaintiffs, DC Comics, claimed the infringement of their copyright as the replicas sold by Mark were similar to the ones that appeared in 1966 television show Batman and the 1989 film Batman. The issue discussed by the court was "whether a character in a comic book, television program or motion picture is entitled to copyright protection". The ninth circuit followed the precedents and came up with a three-part test to determine the protection given to such characters.

<i>Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.</i>

Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc. 109 F.3d 1394 was a copyright lawsuit where the court determined if a copy of an original work's artistic style, plot, themes, and certain key character elements qualified as fair use. Penguin Books published a book titled The Cat NOT in the Hat! A Parody by Dr. Juice that use the artistic style, themes and characteristics of Dr. Seuss books to tell the story of the O. J. Simpson murder case. Dr. Seuss Enterprises accused the publisher of copyright and trademark infringement.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates, 581 F.2d 751 (9th Cir., 1978).
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tom Sito (October 6, 2006). Drawing the Line: The Untold Story of the Animation Unions from Bosko to Bart Simpson. University Press of Kentucky. pp. 236–37. ISBN   0-8131-7148-2.
  3. ↑ Sacks, Jason; Dallas, Keith (2014). American Comic Book Chronicles: The 1970s. TwoMorrows Publishing. pp. 58–59. ISBN   978-1605490564.
  4. ↑ Ringgenberg, S.C. "Bobby London and the Air Pirates Follies," Archived 2011-07-16 at the Wayback Machine Comix Art & Graffix Gallery (5-12-98).
  5. 1 2 3 Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates, 345 F.Supp. 108 (N.D. Cal., 1972).
  6. ↑ Schug, Charles (1980). "Reading Copyright Cases: The Ad Hoc Approach". (Comm/Ent), A Journal of Communications and Entertainment Law. 2 (4): 675 – via HeinOnline.
  7. 1 2 3 Bob Levin (2003). The Pirates and the Mouse: Disney's War Against the Counterculture . Fantagraphics Books. ISBN   1-56097-530-X.
  8. ↑ Air Pirates v. Walt Disney Productions, 439 U.S. 1132 (S. Ct. 1979).
  9. ↑ Travers, Peter (1989-06-14). "Comic Book Confidential". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2024-02-04.
  10. ↑ Howe, Desson (August 18, 1989)."Comic Book Confidential". The Washington Post .
  11. ↑ Maddaus, Gene (2023-12-22). "Mickey Mouse, Long a Symbol in Copyright Wars, to Enter Public Domain: 'It's Finally Happening'". Variety. Retrieved 2024-02-08.
  12. ↑ Karjiker, S.; McCloud, L. (2019). "The Protection of Fictional Characters with Specific Reference to the Rapid Phase Case". Journal of South African Law. 2019 (4): 689 – via HeinOnline.
  13. ↑ Naessig, Eric (2021). "Independent Character Copyrightability and the Implications of DC Comics v. Towle: Formulating a Framework Based on the Realities of Character Construction". Southwestern Law Review. 51 (1): 177.
  14. ↑ Vaccaro, Judy D. (1991). "Walt Disney Co. v. Powell: Good News for the Character Infringer". Loyola Entertainment Law Journal. 11 (1): 150 – via HeinOnline.
  15. ↑ Clark, Stephen (1984). "Of Mice, Men, and Supermen: The Copyrightability of Graphic and Literary Characters". Saint Louis University Law Journal. 28 (4): 961 – via HeinOnline.
  16. ↑ Deamer, Michael (2017). "DC Comics v. Towle: Protecting Fictional Characters through Stewardship". Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 32 (annual review): 440–441 – via HeinOnline.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.