Using real places in a novel

neandermagnon said:

is there any reason why the theme park has to be Disneyland? I honestly can't see a reason for it to be, unless you're making some kind of point about Disney as a company, in which case I'd see why they'd be likely to get annoyed about it.

Click to expand...

An argument they will certainly include in any action that they may file: even if you only use the park as a setting or background.

Again...any behavior/lifestyle/social issue...whatever, that they do not think is consistent with the theme of Disney (anywhere in the novel) to their way of thinking, is reason enough to bring action.

But then, if you don’t think you’ll sell more than a hundred or so copies, then perhaps you won’t need to worry about any of this.

I would say, write the story however you want. If you get picked up by a trade publisher, their lawyers will deal with the whole Disneyland thing. If you decide to self-publish, find a good trademark lawyer to consult about it.

(Could they stop at a gas station on the way home?)

Dragonwriter said:

Why Disneyland? Because it has to be someplace in the LA area where a little ten-year-old girl from Germany would be so excited about going that she cajoles her mother into taking her along when she goes to LA for a conference, and cajoles her dad (estranged from her mom) into going along to take her there while Mom's busy. It can't just be some random amusement park--I can't think of any other one in the area that a German kid in pre-internet era would have heard of. If I can't use Disneyland, my only other option is to use another name that instantly tells the reader "wink wink, this is really Disneyland, even though I'm calling it Fizzneeland or something."

No illegal drugs in my story--I think that was someone else's upthread. Mine involves an untraceable murder inside a bathroom stall and a possession of a person by a spirit that hops from the murdered person into the new one. Other than that, everybody has a great time at Disneyland.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought the one referenced earlier in the thread was yours. Yeah I can see how it would need to be Disneyland or something equally as exciting (maybe Hollywood?) in this case.

Maybe the murder could happen at the hotel rather than actual Disneyland? If it's included because a little girl is really excited to go there, then I can't see what they'd have to object to. And I agree with shadowwalker - get legal advice or a publisher who's going to sort out the legal stuff.

Dragonwriter said:

No illegal drugs in my story--I think that was someone else's upthread. Mine involves an untraceable murder inside a bathroom stall and a possession of a person by a spirit that hops from the murdered person into the new one. Other than that, everybody has a great time at Disneyland.

Click to expand...

I don't feel comfortable with this. Can they have a fun time at Disneyland, then go to Super Dragon Meat Restaurant for dinner and the untraceable murder and spirit possession happen there? Or you can keep them and finish the book and sell it to a trade publisher. If they take it, happy happy. (They'll deal with all legal problems.) If their editors/lawyers say don't mess with Disney, you change to Super Dragon Meat Restaurant. Something like that.

Neegh said:

But then, if you don’t think you’ll sell more than a hundred or so copies, then perhaps you won’t need to worry about any of this.

Click to expand...

While not in the loop, I believe it will be the other way round. If you sell the book with potential sensitive issues to a trade publisher, you're cool. Any lawsuits coming, they'll have their lawyers deal with it, fight it all the way to the Supreme Court or whatever. If you self-publish it and it sells 99 copies and one of the buyers tips Disney and their lawyers sue you for ten million dollars damage and half million bucks legal costs, what do you do?

The "bored of the rings" thing probably evaded copyright infringement because it's a parody. There's a loophole in copyright law that protects people that do parodies, although even for that it's worth getting legal advice, because there's a fine line between a parody and a rip-off.

Why name it at all? As a reader I'd be put off from reading a book where an obvious, well known place like Disneyland was given a silly name that would fit fine in a comedy but sound highly weird in a serious novel. Why not just say "she wanted to go to a popular theme park that was just down the road from the conference" or something, and refer to people in cartoon character costumes.

Bing Z said:

If you sell the book with potential sensitive issues to a trade publisher, you're cool. Any lawsuits coming, they'll have their lawyers deal with it, fight it all the way to the Supreme Court or whatever.

Click to expand...

Oh God no.

No no no...

You are on your own.

And lawyers are expensive.

Dragonwriter said:

I'll have to take a look at the chapter again (it's been a while) but I know there's a lot more to it than that. I refer to everything at the park being "mouse-shaped," and mention several of the rides by name as well as the characters (she doesn't encounter them in the story, but she thinks about meeting them and getting their autographs). I might be able to just genericize it enough that it's obvious what I'm talking about. I guess if I never use the words "Disneyland" or "Mickey," then having everything be mouse-shaped would not be a problem, right? Disney doesn't have a monopoly on mice, just their particular mouse characters.

Click to expand...

AFAIK they have copyright on particular images, but not of the word mouse. I don't know about the legal issues of making it so it's obvious it's Disneyland without mentioning the name. It's in LA and everything's mouse shaped. So still get legal advice on that.

In my mind, "mouse shaped" does not make me think of mickey mouse, it makes me think of an actual mouse. (Mickey mouse doesn't look very mouse-like to me, never seen a mouse with ears like that anywhere else). It makes me think of a church (I think it's in Yorkshire but I could be wrong) where there are lots of little mice carved into the pews because they once had a plague of mice in the church who damaged all the pews so they were remade with mice carved into them. Or something. I visited this church as a small child. Anyway, that's what "mouse shaped" made me think of... but for an American it could be more obviously linked to Disney/Mickey...?

There are hotels (not owned by Disney) that are like, across the street, down the block. Easy enough for them to be followed back to their hotel on foot, and you wouldn't have to name the hotel at all ...

Dragonwriter said:

Obviously I'm not a lawyer, but here's where I start calling a bit of BS. Disney might be able to get me on "Disneyland" or "Mickey Mouse" or "Donald Duck," but if they're gonna go after me for saying things are "mouse-shaped" then they really need to get a hobby. For that matter, I should be able to use things like "Cinderella" and "Sleeping Beauty," since Disney doesn't own those, either (just the images of their own characters, which I don't use).

Click to expand...

You ought to be right, but the law is a tricky business and Disney are lawsuit happy, hence the advice to check.

I think copywrite laws should be changed. It seems that corporations and the rich have more rights than ordinary people just because of how much money they have to spend on lawyers. If an actual event were to happen at Disneyland where people got killed or like the recent case of children contracting measles from Disneyland, a person should be able to write about it.

All the time I see reviews for certain restaurants. They have a brand name as well, but people all the time will rate their experience at such a place, Disneyland should not be any different. Just because they have more money shouldn't mean they should have the right to limit freedom of speech if a person decides to write about them.

If I were to take a trip to Disneyland and lets say one of the characters scared the crap out of some kid or I notice someone getting food poisoning while there, I should be able to write about such a negative experience without fear of being sued, especially if I had payed all that money just to get into the place.

Underdawg47 said:

If an actual event were to happen at Disneyland where people got killed or like the recent case of children contracting measles from Disneyland, a person should be able to write about it.

Click to expand...

The thing is, we're not talking about actual events. Nobody can prevent one from writing about things that actually happened as long as you stick to the facts. There's no connection to copyright or trademark violations there.

Underdawg47 said:

I think copywrite laws should be changed. It seems that corporations and the rich have more rights than ordinary people just because of how much money they have to spend on lawyers. If an actual event were to happen at Disneyland where people got killed or like the recent case of children contracting measles from Disneyland, a person should be able to write about it.

We're not talking about copyright, we're talking mostly really about trademark.

Of course people can write about actual events - the problem is making up bad events, or using trademarked characters.

All the time I see reviews for certain restaurants. They have a brand name as well, but people all the time will rate their experience at such a place, Disneyland should not be any different. Just because they have more money shouldn't mean they should have the right to limit freedom of speech if a person decides to write about them.

Two things here - first, they're talking about their actual experience. Truth is always a defense.

Second, Disney is unable to limit anyone's freedom of speech, because you don't have freedom of speech in Disneyland. Only the government can do that, as the guarantee of freedom of speech is against government censorship. Private entities are able to limit your speech on their property - hence Disney can tell you you cannot wear an obscene shirt on their property, or stand around Disneyland cursing. You can stand on a public sidewalk cursing, in an obscene shirt.

If I were to take a trip to Disneyland and lets say one of the characters scared the crap out of some kid or I notice someone getting food poisoning while there, I should be able to write about such a negative experience without fear of being sued, especially if I had payed all that money just to get into the place.

Click to expand...

You can - as long as it's true, you shouldn't have any problem. If you make stuff up, you face libel claims, among other issues.

This is an extremely interesting thread, but under what legal theory is Disney suing about a little girl going to Disneyland and having a good time?

You're not using their trademark and trying to pawn off some amusement park as your own (which is trademark infringement and just about impossible to do while writing a book). You're not infringing on their copyright because Disneyland is a place and people write about going there ALL THE TIME so you can say "I went to Disneyland." But lastly, what are the DAMAGES from something like that? You have to have harmed them in some way. And you didn't.

You can say Disneyland. You can even have a character say, "I went to Disneyland and I thought it sucked because the lines were way too long." (Which, if I had some way to work that into my novel, I would). It's that character's opinion and the lines are, indeed long.

Now I'm itching to have one of my characters suggest going to Disneyland and another saying, "F Disneyland."

I swear I'm going to find a way to work that in.

We live in a world where lawsuits seem to appear out of thin air, and where Disney is extremely powerful. So yeah, be aware and even concerned.

However, given what you've described about the plot, it doesn't sound like you need to worry all that much. Problem is, you can't be sure, which is why you were instructed to just avoid going there altogether.

New precedents get set all the time in our courts. Lawyers achieve absurd settlements. And Disney certainly gets sue-crazy, but probably only when someone's really making a profit off of their stories/characters/music (like how they sued deadmau5 for having a similar mouse ears trademark).

This reminded me of my favorite South Park episode where they not only portrayed Mickey Mouse as a primary character, but represented him as an evil, violent control freak who dropped a lot of F-bombs... It was totally scathing to Disney, but apparently there's a loophole for satire.

susangpyp said:

This is an extremely interesting thread, but under what legal theory is Disney suing about a little girl going to Disneyland and having a good time?

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone's suggesting that's a bad idea. As I said very early on in this thread,

Old Hack said:

Maryn's right (and note that I am also not a lawyer). You can mention trademarked names, real locations, and so on. But what you can't do is portray them in a negative light as that's what will get you into trouble.

Click to expand...

Now I'm itching to have one of my characters suggest going to Disneyland and another saying, "F Disneyland."

I swear I'm going to find a way to work that in.

Click to expand...

Good luck with that....
http://absolutewrite.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/

NaeimGiladisLegacy said:

Really? I see their characters all the time all over the place with no consequence. And I don't get this obsession anyway. It's good publicity, what harm could the depiction of their jointless black mouse possibly do?

Protecting the brand I understand, but when I say "victimless" I am saying that I don't see how it hurts Disney for some daycare to paint a Donald on its window.

Click to expand...

Because it denies them profit. Disney sells posters. Businesses creating their own artwork of Disney characters AND using them for their own business promotion is a copyright/trademark violation.

Another example: I started my graphics career working at a quick-print shop. We could not allow people to use the copy machines to, say, copy Disney characters to make their own birthday invitations. Again, Disney sells birthday invitations, and they have the right to profit from their own trademarked characters.

It doesn't matter how much or how little a business is worth, their legal rights are the same. To say it's okay to violate Disney's trademarks because they're wealthy is akin to saying it's okay to steal from someone's house because they've got more stuff than you do.

Remember that all these same laws protect your work as well. Instead of begrudging copyright law, you might appreciate that you'll be able to stop someone when they steal your characters or work.

JJ Litke said:

It doesn't matter how much or how little a business is worth, their legal rights are the same. To say it's okay to violate Disney's trademarks because they're wealthy is akin to saying it's okay to steal from someone's house because they've got more stuff than you do.

Remember that all these same laws protect your work as well. Instead of begrudging copyright law, you might appreciate that you'll be able to stop someone when they steal your characters or work.

Click to expand...

It's true that the laws apply equally to everyone. But that's not the reason people begrudge Disney - it's because Disney is a bully. It takes legal ownership of long-established cultural icons and uses its power and legal clout to sue helpless theaters and day cares and artists for the sole purpose of getting all the money it can get. I mean are you really concerned about Disney losing profit, considering it is the most powerful media company in the WORLD?

Disney actually sued the Academy of Motion Pictures because someone appeared on stage dressed like Snow White and sang a song. Yes, this violates copyright law. But think about: Did Disney invent Snow White? Nope. Sure, they invented the Disneyfied version of her, but it's actually a story that dates back hundreds of years.

That's Disney's method: Take long-established stories and characters from folk tales and fairy tales - or from lesser known media companies - and put a patent on them. Which, if you really think about, is akin to colonizing our cultural icons so that only Disney can make any money from them.

The point is, Disney doesn't pay its dues. For example, it's blatantly obvious that the Lion King was stolen from a Japanese story - Kimba the White Lion - but the creators of that story never bothered to sue Disney, explaining "But we’re a small, weak, company... Disney’s lawyers are among the top twenty in the world!”

So you're right, the law is the law, but some people don't find Disney's ethics and bullying appropriate, given their position.

And don't get me started on the way they treat their workers.

I'm not defending Disney, I'm defending copyright and trademark law. The Oscars Snow White deal was clearly the Disney version of Snow White. You don't have to like it, but they own that image. If you don't like Bill Gates or what he's done with Windows (the original concept came from Xerox) you still can't pirate software or rob his house and say it's okay because he's a bully.

This is really very straightforward.

JJ Litke said:

I'm not defending Disney, I'm defending copyright and trademark law. The Oscars Snow White deal was clearly the Disney version of Snow White. You don't have to like it, but they own that image. If you don't like Bill Gates or what he's done with Windows (the original concept came from Xerox) you still can't pirate software or rob his house and say it's okay because he's a bully.

This is really very straightforward.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. You're right; the law is the law. I just get PO'd about Disney so I went off on a tangent. I'm done, heh.

dreamergirl said:

It's true that the laws apply equally to everyone. But that's not the reason people begrudge Disney - it's because Disney is a bully. It takes legal ownership of long-established cultural icons and uses its power and legal clout to sue helpless theaters and day cares and artists for the sole purpose of getting all the money it can get. I mean are you really concerned about Disney losing profit, considering it is the most powerful media company in the WORLD?

Click to expand...

Disney protects its own work. It does not grab cultural icons and then prevent others from using them.

Disney actually sued the Academy of Motion Pictures because someone appeared on stage dressed like Snow White and sang a song. Yes, this violates copyright law. But think about: Did Disney invent Snow White? Nope. Sure, they invented the Disneyfied version of her, but it's actually a story that dates back hundreds of years.

Click to expand...

Disney wasn't suing because the actor was portraying Snow White: it sued because the actor performed in a dress which was an exact copy of the dress the animated Snow White wore in Disney's movie--it was protecting its own work. And the lawsuit was dropped after the Academy apologised to Disney for its unlicensed use of their work, which was a reasonable response, I think.

dreamergirl said:

Fair enough. You're right; the law is the law. I just get PO'd about Disney so I went off on a tangent. I'm done, heh.

Click to expand...

Heh, I'm not wild about Disney, either. I use them as an example of litigious companies when talking about copyright in class.