Poll of the Day > Disney denies 4 year old boy's final wish to have Spiderman on gravestone.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://nypost.com/2019/07/06/disney-denies-dads-request-to-put-spider-man-on-4-year-old-sons-grave/

"Disney reportedly refused to allow a grieving father in England to place an etching of Spider-Man on the grave of his 4-year-old son because, the media giant said, it wants to preserve the innocence and magic of the companys characters."

"Ollie Jones, whose family lives outside London in the county of Kent, died of a rare genetic disease "

"A company rep wrote, We follow a policy that began with Walt Disney himself that does not permit the use of characters on headstones, cemetery or other memorial markers or funeral urns."
---

I don't see a problem with this.


---

Bugmeat posted...

I don't see a problem with this.

This, but spider-man wasn't originally a Disney character, so it would've been nice if he was allowed to be used.

Also, why didn't/couldn't the fam just do it in secret. I doubt Disney would catch wind of the family descretely putting a character on a random tombstone
---

green dragon posted...

Bugmeat posted...

I don't see a problem with this.

This, but spider-man wasn't originally a Disney character, so it would've been nice if he was allowed to be used.

Also, why didn't/couldn't the fam just do it in secret. I doubt Disney would catch wind of the family descretely putting a character on a random tombstone

Yeah, I don't know with Disney though you might get a court order demanding the removal of the stone.

green dragon posted...

Bugmeat posted...

I don't see a problem with this.

This, but spider-man wasn't originally a Disney character, so it would've been nice if he was allowed to be used.

Also, why didn't/couldn't the fam just do it in secret. I doubt Disney would catch wind of the family descretely putting a character on a random tombstone

In this day and age everything ends up on the internet. Someone would have photographed it and shared it because they thought it was cute and Disney lawyers would have gotten wind of it. They almost certainly would have ordered it be removed. If they don't actively enforce their copyrights, even over the little stuff, it makes it harder to enforce them when something big comes along.
---

I don't understand how this is something they even have a say in denying. So long as it's an original bit of artwork, how do they have any legal rights as to what someone does with something they own?
---

Why did he ask Disney? Tbh, I didn't know it would have been illegal to do it. And would have probably just had it done. Plus, I don't think Disney is sending people to multiple cemeteries to look at all the gravestones to make sure no Disney Characters are on them. I also don't know how this would destroy the innocence or magic of the characters. It would probably help the characters. It would be like they were watching over the children that passed away...
---

Stan Lee would have let it happen!!!
---

So theyre following a long standing policy and even offered to pay to have a memorial plaque for the family featuring the character

Fair, next
---

Disney also offered to make a specialized celluloid of spider-man for the little guy in replacement to having him on the tombstone.

I see nothing wrong with Disney denying it.
---

Bugmeat posted...

I don't see a problem with this.

Mead posted...

So theyre following a long standing policy and even offered to pay to have a memorial plaque for the family featuring the character

Fair, next

Too late, Im already outraged.
---

Bugmeat posted...

In this day and age everything ends up on the internet. Someone would have photographed it and shared it because they thought it was cute and Disney lawyers would have gotten wind of it. They almost certainly would have ordered it be removed. If they don't actively enforce their copyrights, even over the little stuff, it makes it harder to enforce them when something big comes along.

With that same internet and social media nowadays, what company would want to fight a grieving family in court, over something so small as this?
---

I'm surprised that something like this could even be blocked.
---

dragon504 posted...

I don't understand how this is something they even have a say in denying. So long as it's an original bit of artwork, how do they have any legal rights as to what someone does with something they own?

Yeah. Warner Bros. should stick it to Disney and make their own Spider-Man animated movie. After all, it would all be original artwork.
---

Should have just gone for it, especially since places like this exist

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/p/AF1QipNFO6b8jh91OZ5_n31MepA8MxXBifyNuyckqq4Z=s579-k-no
---

It's sad, but I completely understand the decision to block this.
---

Blaqthourne posted...

dragon504 posted...

I don't understand how this is something they even have a say in denying. So long as it's an original bit of artwork, how do they have any legal rights as to what someone does with something they own?

Yeah. Warner Bros. should stick it to Disney and make their own Spider-Man animated movie. After all, it would all be original artwork.

That would be someone profiting off of Disney's work. This family isn't trying to sell Spiderman headstones... This would be like denying someone a Spiderman tattoo.
---

dragon504 posted...

This family isn't trying to sell Spiderman headstones...

The one carving the stone would be.

dragon504 posted...

This would be like denying someone a Spiderman tattoo.

If the tattoo artist in question asked Disney for permission before doing said tattoo, the answer would probably also be no.
---

Why do you have to ask a corporation permission to create artwork?
---

Judgmenl posted...

Why do you have to ask a corporation permission to create artwork?

You don't. You do, however, have to ask a corporation permission to replicate their intellectual property. That's how intellectual property works. Without those protections, the creation of art couldn't exist as a commercially viable industry. Copyright law has plenty of problems, but its fundamental existence isn't one of them.
---

adjl posted...

dragon504 posted...

This family isn't trying to sell Spiderman headstones...

The one carving the stone would be.

What if they bought the headstone and then the person who carved it did it for free?
---

dragon504 posted...

how do they have any legal rights as to what someone does with something they own?

Is this a joke question?
---

dragon504 posted...

Blaqthourne posted...

dragon504 posted...

I don't understand how this is something they even have a say in denying. So long as it's an original bit of artwork, how do they have any legal rights as to what someone does with something they own?

Yeah. Warner Bros. should stick it to Disney and make their own Spider-Man animated movie. After all, it would all be original artwork.

That would be someone profiting off of Disney's work. This family isn't trying to sell Spiderman headstones... This would be like denying someone a Spiderman tattoo.

Your original post made no mention of profiting off of it. It sounded like you thought you could do whatever you wanted with it as long as it was original artwork.
---

Blaqthourne posted...

It sounded like you thought you could do whatever you wanted with it as long as it was original artwork.

Yeah, that's what confused me too.
---

LinkPizza posted...

adjl posted...

dragon504 posted...

This family isn't trying to sell Spiderman headstones...

The one carving the stone would be.

What if they bought the headstone and then the person who carved it did it for free?

Then you're more likely to see the IP owner being lenient about it, since there won't be profit. That said, the IP is still being used to create value, so it's still potentially a violation of copyright.
---

Yeah, death and Spider-Man should never go together. Except his uncle, mom, dad, girlfriend, best friend, and that time he killed mj with radioactive semen.
---

sorry that "innocence" is going to cost you money little kid. stan lee wouldve allowed it
---

ArvTheGreat posted...

sorry that "innocence" is going to cost you money little kid.

How so? They are honoring Walt Disney's wish that their characters not appear on such things, so no amount of money would get Spidey on his headstone.

stan lee wouldve allowed it

Are there instances in the past where he was asked and gave the ok?
---

EvilMegas posted...

Yeah, death and Spider-Man should never go together. Except his uncle, mom, dad, girlfriend, best friend, and that time he killed mj with radioactive semen.

I was thinking about that myself. He sure Goes to the cemetery to visit uncle Ben a lot for someone who shouldnt go together with death...
---

dragon504 posted...

I don't understand how this is something they even have a say in denying. So long as it's an original bit of artwork, how do they have any legal rights as to what someone does with something they own?

if you're chiseling your own tombstone maybe, but if you're asking a company to make one for you it's different. also maybe different if you're putting it on public display.

but then, as it is said "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission". shouldn't have asked disney in the first place. there are "pete the plumber" trucks all over the place here that basically use The Hulk as their logo. I doubt they asked disney for permission, or that disney would say "sure it's fine as long as he's blue".

(hmmm, imgtc currently down?)

http://i.postimg.cc/6qxMp1rW/pete-the-plumber.png
---

ASlaveObeys posted...

green dragon posted...

Bugmeat posted...

I don't see a problem with this.

This, but spider-man wasn't originally a Disney character, so it would've been nice if he was allowed to be used.

Also, why didn't/couldn't the fam just do it in secret. I doubt Disney would catch wind of the family descretely putting a character on a random tombstone

Yeah, I don't know with Disney though you might get a court order demanding the removal of the stone.

A few possibilities.

The guy is doing this as a publicity stunt.

He asked the grave stone maker to put Spider-man in the gravestone but he said we won't put copyrighted images on it without permission (if caught he would be liable).

Given, Disney threatened to sue a daycare for painting Disney owned characters on their wall.

https://www.apnews.com/4d98c8dee1c72fa5ac42ce01dff143fd
---

Zangulus posted...

How much do you think the family would enjoy having to remove their sons headstone when Disney inevitably found out.

if you directly ask disney, they're probably going to say no, because saying yes basically means "sure everyone can put disney stuff on things!". the implicit rule has to be "no", and that's what anyone should expect if you ask directly.

but for disney to find out about a tombstone in some random place that happens to have something disney related on it and to reach out and go out of their way to demand it be taken down, that is a lot different. that's a pretty dickish move, regardless of the policy.

Zangulus posted...

Especially in the EU, with how they are regarding copyrights.

k that I don't know about and may make the difference. I know I've ordered custom t-shirts that said "no copyrighted material", but I still got away with getting one with (relatively obscure) copyrighted material on it anyway because who cares.
---

For people acting like this is an astonishing thing, it's worth remembering that Disney has previously forced a pre-school to repaint all of their walls because they had murals on them that contained Disney characters like Mickey Mouse.

It's also worth noting that, as other people have touched on, the way copyright and trademark laws are written, it can occasionally force corporations into absolutely insane or overprotective behavior in some cases, because if a company DOESN'T defend their ownership in pretty much every single case where they become aware of others using it, they can be deemed to forfeit their ownership entirely allowing it to lapse into public domain.

It's also worth noting that it's not like Disney acquiring Marvel is why this has become an issue, and that Marvel itself would never have done anything like this, because we're talking about a company that formed an alliance with DC in the 70s to claim trademark on the word "superhero", and have spent the last 40 years aggressively suing anyone else who even attempted to use it without their consent. Marvel was pretty keen on defending their IP long before Disney bought them.


---