(1940) Tags: Disney
Whitman v. Walt Disney Productions
Philadelphia Orchestra Ass’n v. Walt Disney Co.
Muller v. Walt Disney Productions
Boosey & Hawkes Music Publishers v. Walt Disney Co.
Whitman v. Walt Disney Productions
Suit is brought for infringement of of United States Letters Patent No. 2,075,684, issued March 30, 1937 to plaintiff, the present owner, covering systems of composite motion picture photography. It is alleged that defendants, in producing certain motion pictures since 1937 including Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Peter Pan, Cinderella and many others, have infringed this patent.
Judgment: Plaintiff’s complaint is Dismissed.
Philadelphia Orchestra Ass’n v. Walt Disney Co.
The Philadelphia Orchestra Association contends for various reasons that it is entitled to share with Disney in the profits resulting from the sales of the home video release of the Disney classic “Fantasia.” Most of the musical score featured in “Fantasia” was performed by The Philadelphia Orchestra in April of 1939 under the baton of the Orchestra’s former principle conductor, Leopold Stokowski In January of that year, The Orchestra Association had contracted with Disney to “furnish and grant” to Disney “the right to use The Philadelphia Orchestra” to record music “for a feature picture now in preparation for the Disney Studios,” and also agreed to grant to Disney “the right … in connection with this feature, to use the name `The Philadelphia Orchestra’ on the screen and/or in all publicity and exploitation of said picture.” Disney paid the Association $2,500.00 for the rights granted to it in the 1939 Agreement.
In November of 1991, 51 years after the initial theatrical release of “Fantasia,” Disney released “Fantasia” in the new home video formats — videocassettes and laser discs. The home video of “Fantasia” includes the Orchestra’s 1939 performance, the likeness of the Orchestra (although the likeness used may be of actors hired to portray the Orchestra members), and the Orchestra’s name. The name “The Philadelphia Orchestra” is used both in the narration of the film and in the packaging and marketing of the home video. At no time did Disney seek the permission of the Orchestra to use the performance or the name and likeness of the Orchestra in the home video release of “Fantasia,” and Disney has never paid any royalties to the Orchestra on the sales of the home video.
Judgment: It is hereby ORDERED that The Philadelphia Orchestra Association’s motion for Reargument and Reconsideration is DENIED.
Muller v. Walt Disney Productions
The movie “Fantasia” was not a financial success upon its initial release in 1940. However, “Fantasia’s” fall 1991 release on video-cassette and laser disc has been profitable, purportedly to the tune of $190 million. The cases before us arose from a 1939 contract between Leopold Stokowski, then the conductor of the Philadelphia Orchestra, and Walt Disney Productions, entered into for the purpose of making “Fantasia.” Muller, the Executor under the Last Will and Testament of Leopold Stokowski, is suing Walt Disney Productions, The Walt Disney Company, and Buena Vista Home Video for a share of the profits from home video sales of “Fantasia.”
Judgment: Disney’s motion for summary judgment is granted as to all claims except for Muller’s claim for an accounting of sales of audio materials under the 1956 agreement. Muller’s cross-motion under Rule 56(f) is denied.
Boosey & Hawkes Music Publishers v. Walt Disney Co.
Boosey & Hawkes Music Publishers Ltd., an English corporation and the assignee of Igor Stravinsky’s copyrights for “The Rite of Spring,” brought this action alleging that the Walt Disney Company’s foreign distribution in video cassette and laser disc format of the film “Fantasia,” featuring Stravinsky’s work, infringed Boosey’s rights. In 1939 Stravinsky licensed Disney’s distribution of The Rite of Spring in the motion picture. Boosey, which acquired Stravinsky’s copyright in 1947, contends that the license does not authorize distribution in video format.
The district court granted partial summary judgment to Boosey, declaring that Disney’s video format release was not authorized by the license agreement. Disney appeals from that ruling. The court granted partial summary judgment to Disney, dismissing Boosey’s claims for breach of contract and violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); the court also dismissed Boosey’s foreign copyright claims under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Boosey appeals from these rulings.