Stop the Chinese Theater Myth!

[tjevans]

Sorry, but urban legends and misinformation are a pet peeve of mine. I can't believe the podcasters spread the myth that the hat was put up at the studios to block the view of the Chinese theater because of contractual reasons.

Here are just two sites that bust that myth.

It may be true that Disney wanted to block the view of the theater, but it was, as is mentioned in my second link, not due to contract reasons, as it was to wanting photos to feature a distinctly Disney icon as opposed to one copied from a real world location.

 

[Unearned Happiness]

Can you fix the second link? Doesn't work.

I agree the whole "contract dispute" thing has a ring of urban legend to it. The first link is interesting, but doesn't cite any actual sources :-/

 

[DisneyKevin]

http://mynews13.com/content/news/cf...cles/cfn/2014/10/24/disney_sorcerers_hat.html

Not saying it's fact. Not saying it's not.

Seems as good as any other info.

 

[tjevans]

Ultimately, I doubt we'll ever know since I doubt Disney will ever release any agreement. Doing a little bit more research, I think my opinion is now "I don't know."

My understanding of architectural copyright law, which, while I'm a lawyer, iI'm not an intellectual property lawyer, is limited to what I found on NOLO. From that, it appears the chinese theater's design cannot be copyrighted because it was built before 1990. However, it may be trademarked. From the linked article:

Building owners have claimed building appearances as a trademark when used in connection with the sale of goods and services -- think White Castle and the Sears Tower. But in order for a trademark owner to stop you, the following would have to be true: (1) the building would have to have an identifiable, distinctive appearance; (2) the building would have to be publicly associated with certain goods or services; (3) your use would have to be commercial (not editorial); and (4) your use would have to be linked to an offer or endorsement of similar goods or services.

So, examining these elements:
(1) Does the original Chinese theater have an identifiable, distinctive appearance? YES.
(2) Is it publicly associated with certain goods or services? YES (more about this in a moment).
(3) Would Disney's use be commercial? YES
(4) Would Disney's use be linked to an offer or endorsement of similar goods or services?

That fourth element is probably what we lawyers would fight over. I would argue that no, it would not be an endorsement of similar goods or services. After all, in the studios, it houses a ride—The Great Movie Ride—but a ride, nonetheless. The original theater is just that, a theater.

But a good lawyer for the other side would argue that the original theater is more than just a theater, it is a tourist attraction unto itself. It is well known for the handprints and footprints in front of it. And, in the early days of the studios, events were held where celebrities did this, just as at the real Chinese theater.

I think the ultimate question would come down to something I don't know about the real Chinese theater. If it obtains any income from tourists coming to see its exterior or the handprints/footprints, then it can be said that it is associated with those goods and services, which Disney was attempting to recreate. Then, we have a case of trademark infringement.

 

[jcb]

There is still a live trademark registration for Grauman's Chinese Theater. The interesting thing about this registration is that it was filed in June of 2000 and the registration was renewed in September 2013. I'm not a big fan of post hoc ergo propter hoc type arguments but the June 2000 filing lends some credence to the idea that there was a trademark assertion made to Disney around this time. There is probably an element of truth to both theories.

If you look at the trademark registration filings, Grauman's wanted to use the mark to sell all sorts of souvenirs (crayons, pencils etc.) and Disney probably didn't want to be associated with that mark for its own branding reasons. Even before the hat, I've never thought the theater was the MGM symbol. That said, to be clear, I doubt Disney has to pay a royalty whenever someone takes a photo of the theater but if it were to use the theater in its marketing of DHS or on the souvenirs it sells (i.e., something more than the despised "Disney Parks" logo) it might have a trademark fight on its hands. Equally so, with Disney's tradition of owning (or trying to own) the IP in its parks, I just think Disney decided between it made no sense to brand MGM with IP they might not own. (Disney takes this stuff pretty serious. Remember that when Disney made the last Oz movie, it reportedly had lawyers on set to make sure it didn't get into an IP fight by using elements that were created for the Judy Garland movie.)

What will be interesting is whether, once the hat is removed, Disney starts selling photos, trinkets etc. that include the theater. Of course, for all I know, they may have bought a license to use the facade.

Also, the docket for the trademark filing (or a related filing) is rather long and appears to include several quite interesting filings (requests to cancel the mark) but I can't look at them right now. When I get more time, I think I might look more into the filings to see if there is any substance to my speculation.

And FYI, Mann's also filed for a trademark in 1994 but it was abandoned in 1996.

 

[tjevans]

Thanks, Jack. I knew if there was anyone here who would understand the law side of it, it would be you.

 

[jcb]

Apparently Disney isn't all that intimidated. It already uses the mark on its DHS website:

Experience Hollywood's Golden Age at this replica of Grauman's Chinese Theatre, compete with a courtyard with handprints, footprints and signatures of some of Disney's stars preserved in cement. Inside, find a blockbuster of movie memorabilia.
https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/d...studios-gallery18#detailsMediaPlayer=0/0/0/13

 

[Kristina4109]

I was honestly getting ready to post "Let's ask Jack" and voila! The answer appeared before I got a chance to!

 

[jcb]

I was honestly getting ready to post "Let's ask Jack" and voila! The answer appeared before I got a chance to!

careful - I can get pretty

 

[dalt01]

i cannot imagine that facade as anything other than public domain. there has been no attempt at branding or moving it forward, as in franchising, or if you will a string of chinese theatres. it would seem to be no more of an Intellectual Property than say the Empire State building or the Eiffel Tower, likenesses of both can be seen on Disney Property. On the other hand those things can be tricky. George Lucus for example tied up just about everything Star Wars in lieu of salary way back at the beginning. so much so that Carrie Fisher has stated "every time i look in the mirror i owe George a couple of bucks"

 

[YellowMickeyPonchos]

I just found the timing of the two announcements (TCA purchasing the Mann's Chinese Theater and the hat removal) interesting and very telling, since they were less than a couple months apart.

Sometimes the silent art of timing reveals more secrets than all the media reports in the world....

 

[101disneyfan]

Personally, I think something that adds to the myth is that in the early years of Disney-MGM park maps, the Chinese Theatre and Great Movie Ride are two separate attractions until just a few years before the hat came in front of the theatre.

See florida-project.com for guidemaps of the parks.

 

[OKW Lover]

Personally, I think something that adds to the myth is that in the early years of Disney-MGM park maps, the Chinese Theatre and Great Movie Ride are two separate attractions until just a few years before the hat came in front of the theatre.

See florida-project.com for guidemaps of the parks.

I don't ever recall the Chinese Theater being an attraction. I went to the park just a couple of months after it opened and the only thing the theater was used for was the Great Movie Ride. Yes, there were handprints in the foyer and yes there was memorabilia in the "lobby" but it was really just the queue for the GMR.

 

[101disneyfan]

I don't ever recall the Chinese Theater being an attraction. I went to the park just a couple of months after it opened and the only thing the theater was used for was the Great Movie Ride. Yes, there were handprints in the foyer and yes there was memorabilia in the "lobby" but it was really just the queue for the GMR.

You are right. I had remembered incorrectly. What I meant was, for example, here is an MGM map from mid-1989, referring to the attraction as "Chinese Theatre, home of the Great Movie Ride."

Thanks to Florida-project.com for making these available.

 

[OKW Lover]

Thanks for going back to find the old park map! I loved that map when held upside down.

 

[doconeill]

I just found the timing of the two announcements (TCA purchasing the Mann's Chinese Theater and the hat removal) interesting and very telling, since they were less than a couple months apart.

Sometimes the silent art of timing reveals more secrets than all the media reports in the world....

I thought TCA purchased the theater almost two years ago, actually...

 

[Reddog1134]

I thought TCA purchased the theater almost two years ago, actually...

TCL only purchased the naming rights to the theater. The last time the theater was actually sold was May 27, 2011.

 

[doconeill]

TCL only purchased the naming rights to the theater. The last time the theater was actually sold was May 27, 2011.

Yes, that's what I meant actually...but it was still not within a couple months of the hat announcement...

 

[YellowMickeyPonchos]

Okay, Brian. I stand completely corrected, as I spoke without looking up the details. No biscuit for me....

Maybe what felt like short months was actually an eon of intercorporate political progress....

Either way, we will never truly know until someone publishes a juicy tell-all or sells their morals to Jim Hill!

 

[DisneyDetective]

I wonder what could replace the theatre as a suitable facade for the movie ride, are there other buildings out there that are famous in relation to film?