Who Owns Pooh?

As if it didn't have enough problems with a soft ad market and a sinking stock price, the Walt Disney Co. has revealed to shareholders that it may owe several hundred million dollars because of a silly old bear. In 1961 Disney licensed certain rights to the character of Winnie-the-Pooh from literary agent Stephen Slesinger, who had acquired U.S. merchandising rights from A.A. Milne, author of the books featuring Pooh and Christopher Robin. That contract made no mention of videotapes, computer games or dvds because such uses either didn't exist or weren't widespread when the deal was made.

Now, though, Disney's sales of Pooh products, including videos, dvds and interactive storybooks, bring in more than $4 billion a year, making Pooh the most popular Disney character, ahead of even Mickey, according to lawyers for the heirs of Slesinger, now deceased. Disney denies that math, but the heirs are suing for back royalties of $500 million to $1 billion and unspecified punitive damages. They even want a share of profits from theme-park rides like Pooh's Honey Hunt in Tokyo.

LATEST COVER STORY
Mind & Body Happiness
Jan. 17, 2004

SPECIAL REPORTS

Coolest Video Games 2004

Coolest Inventions

Wireless Society

Cool Tech 2004

PHOTOS AND GRAPHICS

At The Epicenter

Paths to Pleasure

Quotes of the Week

This Week's Gadget

Cartoons of the Week

More graphics >>
More photos >>

MORE STORIES
Advisor: Rove Warrior
The Bushes: Family Dynasty
Klein: Benneton Ad Presidency

More Stories >>

CNN.com: Latest News

Disney claims that it owes no royalties to Slesinger because the new uses of Pooh are included in film rights, which it licenses directly from Milne's estate. A judge and jury will decide who is right when the case comes to trial in Los Angeles next year.

Lawsuits over "digital rights" have swelled court dockets as artists and publishers disagree over who controls a new medium when an old contract is silent. Since the advent of film and then TV, each technological advance has caused a scramble to define ownership. But the issue has taken on heightened importance as new venues for copyrighted works increase the potential revenue from popular characters and stories. Characters can now be franchised from a book to a film and could eventually exist continuously on television, video, dvd and the Internet.

"As technology has blossomed, it has expanded the ways to exploit intellectual property and added greater value," says Joseph Beard, a professor at St. John's University School of Law. Yet as the new rights become more valuable, such old-media distributors of content as publishers and photo agencies are discovering a new willingness by courts to leave them out in the cold.

When Random House signed publishing contracts in the '60s with such well-known authors as Kurt Vonnegut and William Styron, it included expansive language claiming all rights to publish the works in "book form." To the company's surprise, a federal appeals court recently affirmed a ruling that this language probably did not apply to electronic versions, or e-books. The lower court reasoned that because e-books are made up of changing digital signals sent over the Internet rather than of fixed texts on printed pages, they were not "books" under a traditional definition.

The decision leaves the e-book field at least temporarily open for an upstart publisher, Rosetta Books, which has licensed electronic-publishing rights to more than 100 books directly from authors. Although consumer demand for e-books is uncertain, Rosetta hopes to become the publisher of choice by persuading consumers to download books online for less than they would have to pay in a store. Protests Linda Steinman, director of litigation for Random House: "This is a directly competitive product. It makes sense that the e-book rights should stay with the original publisher."

In Europe, such photo agencies as Corbis and Gamma assumed that their right to license work by their stable of photographers to print media extended to digital formats. After all, they were only trying to make more money for their artists. The photographers rebelled in part because they feared the ease with which their photos might be copied or altered if displayed on the Internet. French courts have sided with photographers, ruling that they retain all future distribution rights, including digital, to photographs taken under older contracts with the agencies. In the U.S., photographers successfully sued National Geographic over digital uses, with a federal appeals court ruling the magazine must pay extra to use licensed photos in CD compilations of past issues.

Such decisions, while dependent on the language in each contract, seem to mark a trend by courts to treat digital and electronic uses of existing works as entirely separate creations. "The Internet is really a new animal in terms of efficiency, speed and breadth. Courts do not easily embrace Internet uses in contracts written before its invention," says Lloyd Weinreb, a professor at Harvard who teaches intellectual-property law.

This trend runs counter to earlier decisions in which courts were more inclined to extend licenses for one format, such as film, to cover similar new formats, such as television in part to ensure wide distribution of works for public consumption. "Courts are moving away from a policy favoring the party that could provide more dissemination of a work for the public," says Bruce Keller, an intellectual-property lawyer at New York's Debevoise & Plimpton.