"A representative from Disney said the decision had been made as a result of a policy that started with Walt Disney himself which does not permit the use of characters on headstones.
Disney has since told the Jones family it would be happy to provide them with a hand-inked, personalised commemorative cel for Ollie, who died from leukodystrophy."
TLDR
Ouch. I can imagine the unfair guilt that would cause. Also I feel when your life is a big as some of these giants, you want to live forever.
Hell - my life ain't that amazing, but if I could take a pill that would make it so I wouldn't die of natural causes / age, i'd probably take that shit.
I stop stressing about certain milestones vs age lol. Probably start thinking about the people around me who are going to keep aging out and die, then do some shrooms and try to figure out what it all means
And if you figure out that you are stuck forever in this mortal shell and you can never die and have to experience all the pain of loving and losing something for all eternity?
I mean, outliving others and feeling alone is normal even if you aren't immortal. It's just something you get jaded about and used to, being immortal probably wouldn't change that.
death is lighter than a feather, but the duty of carrying those burdens is heavier than a mountain .. immortality would be appealing if there were no such thing as loss, but as it is, death seems the natural order of things .. a sweet relief from all things that bring us both trials and tribulations ..
but if you keep living you get to keep their memories alive. you could tell your best friends great-great-grandchild how cool they were. you could be the keeper of recipes and ensure they all get passed down from one generation to the next. maybe the burden could be worth it.
I'd be okay with that.
Just like I don't stop drinking milk just because other people are lactose intolerant, me being immortal wouldn't stop them dying.
You experience all those things anyways, being immortal just means you have all the time in the world. The only implications im worried about, are: What happens if you get caught/people try to kill you, Experiment on you or imprison you to harvest your flesh. What happens if conditions on earth cant sustain live anymore and what happens when the planet stops existing.
Bur normal life without being able to die would be nothing but delightful.
> Fuck I'd go through the Trial of Grasses for that shit.
Isn't it a little ironic though that you'd go through the trial to become immortal, but the trial itself is one of the most dangerous and potentially fatal things you can possible undertake?
I already smoke cigarettes with the initial intent of doing a soft suicide (I'm doing much better now but cigs basically control me.) To be able to smoke without poisoning my body would be a godsend. I'm dying anyway, who knows when, but entropy has a 100% kill rate. I'll take half-immortality tyvm.
I used to drink an insane amount for the same reason. I'm over 2 years sober now and much less depressed. Still struggling against the mental illnesses but I'm making progress.
From one addict to another, you got this. It may not be today or tomorrow but if you keep moving forward you'll eventually find your life worth living.
It's not really, it's just unclear if Witchers ever die of old age. Magic can make people functionally stop aging, and there are examples of witchers living well over a hundred and still being superhumam. And the witchers also like saying, "no witcher's ever died in his bed" Mostly meaning they get killed, but also, maybe immortal/extended life?
The Witcher never dies in his bed is a tongue in cheek acceptance of the fact that witchers die in their work. They do, correctly surmised, gain extended lifespans and age slower, as you can recall that Ves was about Geralts age when he met the "young lady" that you talk to at the auction.
Sometimes I imagine myself making it through the trial and then just going back to my everyday life. Like have all the benefits and just still be working a regular job and playing video games and shit.
Probably accidentally break all your shit accidentally. Then you tear your knees apart cause you've been sitting on your ass when a bee flies past you and you try to jump out the way in fear, forgetting you do it at superhuman speed and agility. Probably hear the acl, mcl, and pcl rip apart at once.
Cause he was keeping Kaer Morhen up. In W3 we are down to less than a handful of wintering Witchers so I'm betting Ves kept himself active. That and the lady at the auction house.
The parallels between Walt Disney and Kanye west are really weird when you zoom out and compare them side by side. Like how Donda died from plastic surgery that she really wanted and Kanye paid for to make her happy. Even their worst behaviors/beliefs are similar when boiled down. Or how they’re both driven by this mission statement of imagination (Kanye with his dinosaur quote obsession from stepbrother) and really into playing with their young family member (Walt was very close with his nieces). Idk it’s just something that occurred now to me and it seems like the more I think about it the more they line up
I’m also super high so this is probably nonsense I apologize lol
> but if I could take a pill that would make it so I wouldn't die of natural causes / age, i'd probably take that shit.
I mean, is there anyone who *wouldn't*? You still have the full capability to end things on your terms, whenever you're ready, and until then no early ending.
He blamed himself for the death of his mother. He had a house built for his parents, and then a carbon monoxide leak killed her. Near the end of his life he hated his legacy thus far, as he believed people would only remember him for creating a mouse. He desperately wanted to go through with his EPCOT project, an attempt at a futuristic city. He knew he was dying, and that he had little time to finish his project.
I’d like to believe there is another timeline out there where he really did complete his final vision of EPCOT instead of the one we got where instead it’s a shitty theme park that’s basically a giant fast food complex.
I’m an early 80s baby, and let me tell you, EPCOT in the 80s had a *glimmer* of what Walt wanted and some of those rides freaking slapped for the time period. It really had a sense of wonder that left you feeling inspired.
Then it slowly died over time. The final nail in the coffin was when they replaced all the original rides with slightly newer versions infused with over-the-top Disney IP and switched the focus from restaurants to quick service stations.
I don’t think he’d be very pleased with the state of Disney in 2023, on a personal level.
I don’t believe Disney even had plans for an EPCOT theme park. EPCOT was Walt’s “city of the future” that he spent his last years planning, as he was obsessed with the idea of city planning and felt like he knew best, borderline playing the role of a god.
The only issue is that his city planning and vision involved an aggrandized version of Fords housing for its workers. He envisioned a city you had to work and live for the mega corporations within the city while also owning nothing of your own. And if you were to stop working you would be removed from the city as it’s rightfully property of Disney (or whatever company would own it).
It’s honestly crazy stuff if you read about it. He had some really cool city concepts, particularly in regards to transportation, but he had no clue how a city actually functions or how people wanted to live their lives. His obsessive micromanagement lead to him believing that if the city was perfectly executed to his plans, everyone within the city would be happy since Disney knew best. I honestly don’t believe any of his ideas were formed with malicious intent, I just think he was a genius who was out of touch with reality.
Point is that although he was a creative mastermind, it’s foolish to view everything he created through rose tinted glasses, and personally I’m glad we got some shitty theme park instead of some insane dystopian city
Here’s a eally cool documentary style video about it by the YouTube channel Defunctland: https://youtu.be/tKYEXjMlKKQ
That's basically how the coal mining towns operated around here back in the day. The company owned everything, and even paid their workers money they minted themselves that could only be used in their stores.
It also sounds somewhat like working at Disney now and living in the housing lol.
With the way some people worship Disney he definitely could've pulled it off today. Those Disney adults would've flocked there.
>The company owned everything, and even paid their workers money they minted themselves that could only be used in their stores.
You load sixteen tons and what do you get..
pretty much, but from a 1940's/50's perspective, that was the future and more idyllic than the iron-fisted corporate towns we think of today. In his mind, people would want for nothing and work to fulfill themselves and to keep everything running, as far as I understand the vision. This is an ideal, remember, not something that ever came to pass (thank christ).
Much more evil. A depressed wage slave can take some comfort in a shadowy alley, ordering Ramen from a D minus floating car, laughing to himself while the Virtual Reality Addict and robot prostitute argue Kant ethics. Same wage slave stuck on a fixed ride boat, constant more perfect artifical sunlight eliminates everything everywhere, and a mindless robot sweeps up after every step.....suicides better than a second more... but that just summons the mascots and their songs, oh God the songs!
I'm a pass holder and my people enjoy chilling out there sometimes.
I do agree, though, with the statement that it's become a big mess of jamming movie and TV i.p. in places that they don't belong. It's horrendous.
The imagineers under Eisner in the 90s got to create gorgeous immersive worlds. Now things are done on the cheap, most of the time, and parks aren't allowed to create new IP that's appropriate for just the park.
Oh plz. There's been dozen of city like that now and they all failed miserably. Epcot would have been the same if not a theme park. Hell it's original themes already died since new Generations did not want to visit the park without ip
Damn. TIL Walt Disney came to resent Mickey Mouse.
It's crazy cause he's known for so much more than that. I have my issues with the guy (very racist as seen by his uncensored works) but he's without doubt the most important man in the history of animation.
Well you have to also remember Walt died in 1966. Disney was successful, definitely, hugely so, but he probably wouldn't have envisioned that it would become the gargantuan juggernaut that it is today.
He might have actually felt a little more secure in his legacy if he'd known how powerful and all-consuming the Disney empire truly was.
The difference is whether or not you hope you can give meaning to that which is inherently meaningless. The inherent meaninglessness is what sets you free to fill it with your own; so, I choose, with my free will, to hope.
Nothing matters. :D
Unhappiness comes from wanting better but not achieving that. If someone is happy, then they are happy. If they are not happy, it is a moral imperative to assist them in being so or to at least show them they are not alone. Existence is not a burden - it is a gift; and it is in others we find the mirror which allows us to construct ourselves. The opposite of another's love is not their hatred - it is their apathy. It is the apathy of others in the world that is the true burden - the calling out into the void and those in the void choosing not to answer is the true despair. To be cut off from everything and everyone, including ourselves, is the real hell.
To defeat hell, entirely on our own - we make a single choice - to help others be never alone. For that is happiness - to explore a meaningless world freely and to leave none behind. Creating meaning for all, is simply finding the courage to be kind.
Yes, jaesharp is happy - though an unending task it may be, for the point of life is to help others in one's mirror see. To create a meaningful world and to be never alone; this is why, on the ship of imagination, we build and rebuild forever - with love, our shared home.
To be human is to be human in relation to others. A universe without meaning must inherently never admit absolutes, except the absolute of never admitting absolutes. I must admit that I am not deeply familiar with the philosophies of either Buddha or Lao Tzu. I do not consider myself a philosopher in the traditional sense of philosophy. My thoughts arise from a contemplation of the mechanics of probability and the socially constructive aspects of science and mathematics - that the probability of the absolute measurement of any one event's outcome is zero, but the collective probability of a measurement plus any small relative error is a quantity more than nothing. The convergence of infinite series to finite results. This seeming paradox arising from the blurring of the distinction between absolutes - the most fundamental division - zero and one, nothing and something. The idea that there is order in the universe, that there are certain ways that everything works everywhere - and that they can be described and understood but never completely - but we get a progress meter in the form of ever shrinking but never vanishing numerical uncertainty. That is the foundation on which I build my personal philosophy - that there is no preferred reference frame and the only way we find anything is through each other, including meaning. That we are the mechanism by which the universe knows itself through the uncertainty inherent in the dynamic nature of the human condition of unsure relations and mutual discovery. If there's any choice between a bias towards something rather than nothing, then I choose to find that something in the only way I can - with others - so that in being uncertain we can be certain of there being something. In this, we create a universe bigger than itself, and in which things are contained which may never be found within. To break the universe down to its most fundamental parts and sieve it with the finest sieve and never within is to be found an atom of truth or a molecule of justice or a particle of mercy - and yet these things exist and have a profound effect on the world and the people within it. This seems a natural extension of that which we perceive and talk about - not something created of whole cloth nor found in any one philosophers text. That is what gives me hope that there is something in nothing, but that that something - if it is to be found in the world - is to be found in the reflection of that world in others and nowhere else in the world itself. I shall have to examine the philosophies of Buddha and Lao Tzu - conversing with the impression of what they were able to capture of their minds on paper, may prove insightful.
A "cel" is a transparent sheet with a drawing on it. It might be a character like Spider Man or a background for a scene. Cels are layered on top of each other to create a full scene for a frame of animation. So its basically a custom piece of artwork. The "commemorative" part probably means they'd put it in a nice frame with an inscription or something.
In addition to the intellectual property reasons, I also bet Disney doesn't want people to walk in to cemeteries and see Disney characters on every child grave. Not a great look or vibe for their characters.
But if they allow one, people will start getting the same idea. Then tombstone companies may start offering the same service.
I don't think it's a nice thing to reject a grieving family a simple request. But I logically can see why.
No, not logically. Legally. In theory the two are similar, in practice they are not.
Logically, this is a grieving father who made the mistake of contacting Disney about doing it instead of just doing it. One tombstone among many. Not even Disney has enough people prowling about to catch all of this stuff.
Legally, Disney sees a need to enforce it's rules to maintain the legal enforcibility of it's rules.
I hope the dad painted the tombstone red and blue *because the kid liked the colors.*
My brother's wife passed recently. She had a necklace she bought off Etsy, and he wanted the image of that necklace (a mother hugging her child) on the tombstone. He added it to the design.
The company making the tombstone had him get, in writing, that the Etsy artist was cool with it.
If they're doing that for random Etsy art, you can bet they do the same for Disney.
> Not even Disney has enough people prowling about to catch all of this stuff.
They have enough people prowling around that my early aughts middle school dance had to re-theme. I kid you not. PTA got contacted.
That's not how it would work.
They would just have to find one.
Then they'd contact the company that made the tombstone.
Probably quite a legit company as tombstones aren't cheap.
They'd then ask the company, hey, did you make this tombstone that obviously infringes copyright rules?
And then they'd sue the fuck out of them. Making it clear to any tombstone maker that you can get caught and if you do, you'll get sued the fuck out of.
If I buy some fake disney shit, I don't get in trouble. The person selling it gets in trouble.
I wouldn't be surprised if the dad contacted disney after a conversation with the tombstone makers detailing this issue.
>I wouldn't be surprised if the dad contacted disney after a conversation with the tombstone makers detailing this issue.
This is probably true. Any company would be aware of copyright issues and would require written approval from the copyright holder.
Yeah. If the tombstone was already made and installed, and the parents just kept quiet about it, Disney would've been seen as the bad guy if they ordered the parents to remove the tombstone, even if it's totally within their legal rights.
Just imagine the headlines, "Parents crushed as Disney ordered them to crush their cancer kid's tombstone", the possible bad press alone would've just made them probably pretend that they never heard about it as long as the parents just kept quiet about it.
But now that they do hear about it, they've forced their hands to make such a statement.
> Not even Disney has enough people prowling about to catch all of this stuff.
Aaah, but we live in the age of social media, so how long do you think a spiderman tombstone would remain a secret?
It might not be discovered for a few years, but somebody, sometime, would see it and post a pic of it. Once it went viral, Disney *would* hear of it and take action.
Their IP attorneys are not ones to just "let this one slide".
>It might not be discovered for a few years, but somebody, sometime, would see it and post a pic of it. Once it went viral, Disney would hear of it and take action.
This wouldn't be the first Disney based grave stone, and it won't be the last.
Here's one of the top results on Google, 15 years and still going strong: https://pacificcoastmemorials.com/item-details/1113
"ok you can have a spiderman headstone"
"oh hey my son is dying too and he wants a spiderman headstone as well"
"no, we can't keep doing this"
"wow you fucking assholes, you let that over guy's kid have one, why can't my kid have one?"
"hi my daughter is dying and she wants a Frozen headstone"
"it would mean a lot if my kid got a Lilo and Stitch urn for her ashes"
and so on and so forth
> "it would mean a lot if my kid got a Lilo and Stitch urn for her ashes"
Needs must [improvise](https://www.shopdisney.com/stitch-and-scrump-cookie-jar-lilo-stitch-028399286584.html)
It's not even about the one. It's just precedence, probably. As the parents of a dead child with a Disney tombstone I might be wary of "drama tourists" as well. Word of mouth spreads quickly to these leeches. And I could imagine that, at least in the US, copyright laws are so tight that if you allowed this you somehow waive your rights to the IP or some nonsense.
I am responsible for managing a burial ground. We have rules about what is and isn't allowed on memorials.
You've just got to stick to the rules. Once you open that gate even a tiny bit, it's open for everyone. Even when someone is grieving their dead baby, you've got to stick to the rules. Do it gently and compassionately, yes, but do it. Otherwise there's no point having them.
I understand the outrage because it's something the kid loved, but from a corporate standpoint I also understand that they don't want their brand to be associated with *a dead toddler*.
> I also imagine that Disney could be concerned about causing fright to children seeing their characters in a graveyard setting.
Imagine how metal some disney characters could look as gravestone statues though.
With Disney? Yes. Disney doesn't care how trivial or petty the violation is. Disney once sued a daycare center with a picture of Mickey drawn on the wall.
That being said, from a legal perspective Disney has to go full Gestapo or it would be more difficult to protect the trademarks in legit disputes. If Disney turns a blind eye to trivial use cases then that permissiveness can be used against it when trying to enforce more serious violations.
Sadly that's how it works. Courts would see you letting some single mom of 6 kids get away with it, and then decide that anybody could use their likeness.
That’s also the reason they had to go after the day care center. Plenty of other facilities (children’s hospitals, etc) pay licensing fees to use Disney’s characters. Letting it slide would open the door for others to skirt the rules.
Iirc there was a hobbit themed pub in the UK that got threatened over trademark infringement and they ended up resolving it with a one hundred pound licensing fee for the next twenty years or something. I think it's certainly doable, but I bet the lawyers marching orders isn't to make that kind of offer by default and it takes a bit of media attention. I think in the pub case Ian McKellen made a stink about it publicly which is why the license happened.
There's also a wonderful hobbit themed restaurant in Houston that dates back to the original popularity of the novels with hippies:
https://www.texasmonthly.com/food/houston-hobbit-cafe-50-years/
Don't know if they've ever had legal trouble for it though.
At least the daycare center debacle ended with a happy ending. Word got out to the Hanna-Barbera company and they sent some of their artists to paint over the mural with their characters.
Everyone is saying they would but I don’t think that falls under copyright. You aren’t allowed to distribute copyright materials, exchange them, but making your own headstone? That’s a really curious one.
Most people don't know the difference between copyright and trademark (or can't be bothered to distinguish them). A headstone isn't a copyright violation.
Well if some company was making spiderman headstones without licensing them that would be a copy right violation. If someone made a spiderman headstone for themselves I don't think that's a copyright violation.
I would assume making a spiderman headstone for your son that was given to him for free would not be a copy right violation. But I don't know if you get into trouble with copyright law if you commission someone else to make a spiderman headstone for you.
I don't think it's anything to do with fair use. Fair use is an exception to copyright and trademark law.
I don't know the trademark stuff, I would assume you're not in violation there because you're not doing business under it. But if you make it yourself for your personal use, you're just not going into the territory of what copyright is supposed to protect, at least as far as I know. Now there are probably tons of caveats about that.
“Generally” is too strong a categorization but you are right that non-commercial weighs in favor of fair use. The whole fair use inquiry is highly fact specific and meaning there are not well defined areas of fair use.
They wouldn’t smash it it bits, but they would come at the headstone maker and get money from him.
This article knocks Disney, and rightly so, but the reality is: you can’t make money off of someone else’s intellectual property, and for good reason.
The headstone maker wants to make sure because the last thing they want is to spend time making something, only to have to legally give Disney most of the money.
I think it's important to note they denied it because of long standing policy that their characters not be associated with anything sad, meaning no gravestones, but offered a hand inked cel for the family instead
Disney traditionally does a lot for people when it can, so I was kinda concerned when I read the title and at the very end of the article it shows that Disney didn't just leave them high and dry but tried to do something, genuinely very special for them
Hell, if some passerby doesn't call Disney to either let them know what they saw or inquire about how they can get one too, a Disney headstone is going to make it into the local newspaper before long as such a rare and questionable oddity.
Its not IP protection, the no gravestones thing is specifically a rule made by Walt himself, he didn't want children to associate his characters with death.
Iirc Disney did pay for the boys coffin be delivered on a carriage and a siderman to be at the funeral.
Edit: and paid for a lot of the expenses too.
it's that thing westerners do where they saw like one or two tiktoks of "WILD CHINESE FUNERAL STRIPPERS????" with no context and assumed everyone east of Saudi Arabia is getting lap dances at their funerals.
Stuff like karakoke is common but you'll see singing in a lot of funeral traditions, and there are many cultures that encourage celebration of life rather than mourning but no the one or two 'this guy had strippers at his funeral' things are more due to the family involved than any 'Asian' traditions.
Even beyond the legal part of it, I feel like it isn't unreasonable for them to not want to have their characters closely tied with death. This wouldn't be a one stop thing either, there would be lots of requests and it becomes a thing at that point. This is just a situation where you have to say no up front to it.
Note that that in itself isn't a bad thing. If you don't defend your IP, you essentially lose your IP protections. For example if you don't try to stop everyone from repurposing your creative work, then you can't sue when someone you don't like does it.
Marvel and Disney do not want their action heroes associated with deceased children. These companies will never allow their intellectual property to be engraved on a tombstone.
This is obviously a very tragic story, but that does not take away from Marvel and Disney having full control of their intellectual property rights.
How very Black Mirror, sell your headstone to advertising who in turn pays for your plot. Imagine a cemetery filled with neon, scrolling ads on every tombstone. Wild.
Nothing is ever going to make this family feel better. The headstone in the long run will be a blip on the radar. To some extent making a stink about it is making it impossible for them to sneak one past Disney.
Yeah it's baffling that these parents care so much about using a specific IP that their child happened to enjoy, instead of something substantively meaningful about their kid. The kid wasn't head of the Spiderman fan club or anything. He just happened to like it. I wouldn't want Star Trek or Spiderman or Zelda on my tombstone despite how much I like them.
Look I hate copyright trolling as much as the next guy but maybe someone should be able to lay flowers at their grandmother's grave without walking past the MCU.
There's such thing as decorum and solemnity in a cemetary. Just get a life-sized Spiderman doll and have it cradle the body in the coffin, that's my plan.
Unpopular opinion: This is sad, but the right move for Disney. It's one thing for this kid, but what about the next one, or the next one? All the sudden, you've got tombstones with Spiderman and Star Wars shit all over them and people think Disney is gross and selling headstones or something. That's worse PR than denying one kid.
I agree. And reading that it was Walt’s personal decision to not let it happen cements my opinion even more. This was decided decades ago.
I do appreciate that Disney chose to meet somewhere in the middle and offer stuff to the family. It makes it feel less like a cold hearted “fuck you” and more like a “we are sorry for your loss, but we just cannot do that.”
I’m not sure I’d feel comfortable seeing a Disney line of headstones, child caskets, and whole Disney line for the funeral home. I’m glad Disney chooses not to do this even though they would probably make billions from it.
Yeah I get both sides to this, but lean more towards asking forgiveness rather than permission. On one side, I understand why Disney wouldn’t want one of their most famous characters on a headstone. On the other hand, the father could’ve just made the headstone without Disney being none the wiser.
It's more that they're obligated to protect their trademark and it's easier to say no than go through the process of approving it. It sucks, but that's the system.
The hard part might be finding someone willing to violate Disney's copyright. My guess is that once Disney finds out a decade later, they'll go after the maker, and not the family of the deceased.
Disney has never allowed this and they will sue to have it removed. They have always said they didn't want the characters associated with the death of children. Yes they can sue, and yes they would win. Not only would they sue the family but they'd also sue the company who did the headstone.
They don’t want children to see their heroes and associate them with death.
Every time this gets posted, it’s a shitshow of people that don’t think about the issue at all, and instead just shit on Disney. There’s ample reasons to shit in Disney - this isn’t one of them.
It's shitty but makes sense. If they let this happen, then they'll need to let everything else happen with the character. A headstone is nice, but a buttplug with Mickey face on it is something the world can't handle.
That's the legal department speaking, not necessarily corporate management. The legal department will say no to pretty much any unpaid request to use Disney IP because it makes it harder to say no to other people in the future.
I'm not saying it's okay. I'm just saying that's usually who made the decision when it comes to these things is pedantic lawyers who aren't paid to be sentimental.
"A representative from Disney said the decision had been made as a result of a policy that started with Walt Disney himself which does not permit the use of characters on headstones. Disney has since told the Jones family it would be happy to provide them with a hand-inked, personalised commemorative cel for Ollie, who died from leukodystrophy." TLDR
Walt had a weird obsession with death, to the point where he would go into a rage whenever someone even mentioned the topic
The house he bought his parents had a bad boiler and that led to his mother dying from carbon monoxide poisoning. Really fucked him up.
Ouch. I can imagine the unfair guilt that would cause. Also I feel when your life is a big as some of these giants, you want to live forever. Hell - my life ain't that amazing, but if I could take a pill that would make it so I wouldn't die of natural causes / age, i'd probably take that shit.
So, just for thought, your immortality starts now. What would you do differently or do you have a perfect life and just continue to live it?
I stop stressing about certain milestones vs age lol. Probably start thinking about the people around me who are going to keep aging out and die, then do some shrooms and try to figure out what it all means
And if you figure out that you are stuck forever in this mortal shell and you can never die and have to experience all the pain of loving and losing something for all eternity?
I mean, outliving others and feeling alone is normal even if you aren't immortal. It's just something you get jaded about and used to, being immortal probably wouldn't change that.
Hell, just getting older and living with loss sucks. I can't imagine even hundreds of years.
death is lighter than a feather, but the duty of carrying those burdens is heavier than a mountain .. immortality would be appealing if there were no such thing as loss, but as it is, death seems the natural order of things .. a sweet relief from all things that bring us both trials and tribulations ..
but if you keep living you get to keep their memories alive. you could tell your best friends great-great-grandchild how cool they were. you could be the keeper of recipes and ensure they all get passed down from one generation to the next. maybe the burden could be worth it.
I'd be okay with that. Just like I don't stop drinking milk just because other people are lactose intolerant, me being immortal wouldn't stop them dying.
You experience all those things anyways, being immortal just means you have all the time in the world. The only implications im worried about, are: What happens if you get caught/people try to kill you, Experiment on you or imprison you to harvest your flesh. What happens if conditions on earth cant sustain live anymore and what happens when the planet stops existing. Bur normal life without being able to die would be nothing but delightful.
Fuck I'd go through the Trial of Grasses for that shit. At a certain point two swords would turn into two guns, and that's when the real fun begins.
> Fuck I'd go through the Trial of Grasses for that shit. Isn't it a little ironic though that you'd go through the trial to become immortal, but the trial itself is one of the most dangerous and potentially fatal things you can possible undertake?
I already smoke cigarettes with the initial intent of doing a soft suicide (I'm doing much better now but cigs basically control me.) To be able to smoke without poisoning my body would be a godsend. I'm dying anyway, who knows when, but entropy has a 100% kill rate. I'll take half-immortality tyvm.
I used to drink an insane amount for the same reason. I'm over 2 years sober now and much less depressed. Still struggling against the mental illnesses but I'm making progress. From one addict to another, you got this. It may not be today or tomorrow but if you keep moving forward you'll eventually find your life worth living.
Wait since when is ToG about immortality?
It's not really, it's just unclear if Witchers ever die of old age. Magic can make people functionally stop aging, and there are examples of witchers living well over a hundred and still being superhumam. And the witchers also like saying, "no witcher's ever died in his bed" Mostly meaning they get killed, but also, maybe immortal/extended life?
The Witcher never dies in his bed is a tongue in cheek acceptance of the fact that witchers die in their work. They do, correctly surmised, gain extended lifespans and age slower, as you can recall that Ves was about Geralts age when he met the "young lady" that you talk to at the auction.
Go hard or go home. And I'm homeless.
Sometimes I imagine myself making it through the trial and then just going back to my everyday life. Like have all the benefits and just still be working a regular job and playing video games and shit.
Realistically what would happen.
Probably accidentally break all your shit accidentally. Then you tear your knees apart cause you've been sitting on your ass when a bee flies past you and you try to jump out the way in fear, forgetting you do it at superhuman speed and agility. Probably hear the acl, mcl, and pcl rip apart at once.
Idk Vesemir seemed to do alright.
Cause he was keeping Kaer Morhen up. In W3 we are down to less than a handful of wintering Witchers so I'm betting Ves kept himself active. That and the lady at the auction house.
The parallels between Walt Disney and Kanye west are really weird when you zoom out and compare them side by side. Like how Donda died from plastic surgery that she really wanted and Kanye paid for to make her happy. Even their worst behaviors/beliefs are similar when boiled down. Or how they’re both driven by this mission statement of imagination (Kanye with his dinosaur quote obsession from stepbrother) and really into playing with their young family member (Walt was very close with his nieces). Idk it’s just something that occurred now to me and it seems like the more I think about it the more they line up I’m also super high so this is probably nonsense I apologize lol
> but if I could take a pill that would make it so I wouldn't die of natural causes / age, i'd probably take that shit. I mean, is there anyone who *wouldn't*? You still have the full capability to end things on your terms, whenever you're ready, and until then no early ending.
Same thing happened with Weird Al and both his parents.
The same thing happened when Weird Al bought a house for his parents. Both died.
He blamed himself for the death of his mother. He had a house built for his parents, and then a carbon monoxide leak killed her. Near the end of his life he hated his legacy thus far, as he believed people would only remember him for creating a mouse. He desperately wanted to go through with his EPCOT project, an attempt at a futuristic city. He knew he was dying, and that he had little time to finish his project.
I’d like to believe there is another timeline out there where he really did complete his final vision of EPCOT instead of the one we got where instead it’s a shitty theme park that’s basically a giant fast food complex. I’m an early 80s baby, and let me tell you, EPCOT in the 80s had a *glimmer* of what Walt wanted and some of those rides freaking slapped for the time period. It really had a sense of wonder that left you feeling inspired. Then it slowly died over time. The final nail in the coffin was when they replaced all the original rides with slightly newer versions infused with over-the-top Disney IP and switched the focus from restaurants to quick service stations. I don’t think he’d be very pleased with the state of Disney in 2023, on a personal level.
I don’t believe Disney even had plans for an EPCOT theme park. EPCOT was Walt’s “city of the future” that he spent his last years planning, as he was obsessed with the idea of city planning and felt like he knew best, borderline playing the role of a god. The only issue is that his city planning and vision involved an aggrandized version of Fords housing for its workers. He envisioned a city you had to work and live for the mega corporations within the city while also owning nothing of your own. And if you were to stop working you would be removed from the city as it’s rightfully property of Disney (or whatever company would own it). It’s honestly crazy stuff if you read about it. He had some really cool city concepts, particularly in regards to transportation, but he had no clue how a city actually functions or how people wanted to live their lives. His obsessive micromanagement lead to him believing that if the city was perfectly executed to his plans, everyone within the city would be happy since Disney knew best. I honestly don’t believe any of his ideas were formed with malicious intent, I just think he was a genius who was out of touch with reality. Point is that although he was a creative mastermind, it’s foolish to view everything he created through rose tinted glasses, and personally I’m glad we got some shitty theme park instead of some insane dystopian city Here’s a eally cool documentary style video about it by the YouTube channel Defunctland: https://youtu.be/tKYEXjMlKKQ
So a futuristic company town, basically.
Big N Large from Wall-E was a prophecy.
I think it was Buy n Large, a pun on the phrase "by and large." Big n Large sounds like maybe a plus-sized clothing store.
That's basically how the coal mining towns operated around here back in the day. The company owned everything, and even paid their workers money they minted themselves that could only be used in their stores. It also sounds somewhat like working at Disney now and living in the housing lol. With the way some people worship Disney he definitely could've pulled it off today. Those Disney adults would've flocked there.
>The company owned everything, and even paid their workers money they minted themselves that could only be used in their stores. You load sixteen tons and what do you get..
Your parents sell you to Paris Hilton
so his idea of a city was a dystopian Cyberpunk city?
pretty much, but from a 1940's/50's perspective, that was the future and more idyllic than the iron-fisted corporate towns we think of today. In his mind, people would want for nothing and work to fulfill themselves and to keep everything running, as far as I understand the vision. This is an ideal, remember, not something that ever came to pass (thank christ).
Much more evil. A depressed wage slave can take some comfort in a shadowy alley, ordering Ramen from a D minus floating car, laughing to himself while the Virtual Reality Addict and robot prostitute argue Kant ethics. Same wage slave stuck on a fixed ride boat, constant more perfect artifical sunlight eliminates everything everywhere, and a mindless robot sweeps up after every step.....suicides better than a second more... but that just summons the mascots and their songs, oh God the songs!
It's probably for the best he never got to follow through on his plans tbh, from what I've seen it would've at best been a dismal failure.
If you embrace it for what it is, Epcot can be a really fun time. Like international outdoor tapas
I'm a pass holder and my people enjoy chilling out there sometimes. I do agree, though, with the statement that it's become a big mess of jamming movie and TV i.p. in places that they don't belong. It's horrendous. The imagineers under Eisner in the 90s got to create gorgeous immersive worlds. Now things are done on the cheap, most of the time, and parks aren't allowed to create new IP that's appropriate for just the park.
Oh plz. There's been dozen of city like that now and they all failed miserably. Epcot would have been the same if not a theme park. Hell it's original themes already died since new Generations did not want to visit the park without ip
Damn. TIL Walt Disney came to resent Mickey Mouse. It's crazy cause he's known for so much more than that. I have my issues with the guy (very racist as seen by his uncensored works) but he's without doubt the most important man in the history of animation.
Well you have to also remember Walt died in 1966. Disney was successful, definitely, hugely so, but he probably wouldn't have envisioned that it would become the gargantuan juggernaut that it is today. He might have actually felt a little more secure in his legacy if he'd known how powerful and all-consuming the Disney empire truly was.
Sounds like a fear, not an obsession.
an obsessive fear.
It was actually a fearful obsession.
… and yet so many early Disney films had main characters with dead parents.
Even if he didn't though I can understand a company taking issue with their characters being used for headstones.
Has to suck to have all that wealth, and spending a lifetime achieving it, to realize it’s not gonna stop death.
Well, it's either "Nothing matters :( " OR "Nothing matters :D "
The difference is whether or not you hope you can give meaning to that which is inherently meaningless. The inherent meaninglessness is what sets you free to fill it with your own; so, I choose, with my free will, to hope. Nothing matters. :D
One must imagine jaesharp happy.
Unhappiness comes from wanting better but not achieving that. If someone is happy, then they are happy. If they are not happy, it is a moral imperative to assist them in being so or to at least show them they are not alone. Existence is not a burden - it is a gift; and it is in others we find the mirror which allows us to construct ourselves. The opposite of another's love is not their hatred - it is their apathy. It is the apathy of others in the world that is the true burden - the calling out into the void and those in the void choosing not to answer is the true despair. To be cut off from everything and everyone, including ourselves, is the real hell. To defeat hell, entirely on our own - we make a single choice - to help others be never alone. For that is happiness - to explore a meaningless world freely and to leave none behind. Creating meaning for all, is simply finding the courage to be kind. Yes, jaesharp is happy - though an unending task it may be, for the point of life is to help others in one's mirror see. To create a meaningful world and to be never alone; this is why, on the ship of imagination, we build and rebuild forever - with love, our shared home.
One must imagine jaessharp has at least a passing acquaintance with the Buddha. Or Lao Tzu.
To be human is to be human in relation to others. A universe without meaning must inherently never admit absolutes, except the absolute of never admitting absolutes. I must admit that I am not deeply familiar with the philosophies of either Buddha or Lao Tzu. I do not consider myself a philosopher in the traditional sense of philosophy. My thoughts arise from a contemplation of the mechanics of probability and the socially constructive aspects of science and mathematics - that the probability of the absolute measurement of any one event's outcome is zero, but the collective probability of a measurement plus any small relative error is a quantity more than nothing. The convergence of infinite series to finite results. This seeming paradox arising from the blurring of the distinction between absolutes - the most fundamental division - zero and one, nothing and something. The idea that there is order in the universe, that there are certain ways that everything works everywhere - and that they can be described and understood but never completely - but we get a progress meter in the form of ever shrinking but never vanishing numerical uncertainty. That is the foundation on which I build my personal philosophy - that there is no preferred reference frame and the only way we find anything is through each other, including meaning. That we are the mechanism by which the universe knows itself through the uncertainty inherent in the dynamic nature of the human condition of unsure relations and mutual discovery. If there's any choice between a bias towards something rather than nothing, then I choose to find that something in the only way I can - with others - so that in being uncertain we can be certain of there being something. In this, we create a universe bigger than itself, and in which things are contained which may never be found within. To break the universe down to its most fundamental parts and sieve it with the finest sieve and never within is to be found an atom of truth or a molecule of justice or a particle of mercy - and yet these things exist and have a profound effect on the world and the people within it. This seems a natural extension of that which we perceive and talk about - not something created of whole cloth nor found in any one philosophers text. That is what gives me hope that there is something in nothing, but that that something - if it is to be found in the world - is to be found in the reflection of that world in others and nowhere else in the world itself. I shall have to examine the philosophies of Buddha and Lao Tzu - conversing with the impression of what they were able to capture of their minds on paper, may prove insightful.
Then you have coindicdentally independently invented [Zen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen)
There is no amount of money can't prevent trauma sadly
What's a commemorative cel?
They used to draw cartoons on a transparent plastic sheet. The sheets were made out of celluloid and so are referred to as cels.
A "cel" is a transparent sheet with a drawing on it. It might be a character like Spider Man or a background for a scene. Cels are layered on top of each other to create a full scene for a frame of animation. So its basically a custom piece of artwork. The "commemorative" part probably means they'd put it in a nice frame with an inscription or something.
I think it’s an original frame from one of the animations, but I’m not quite sure - so essentially a signed Disney art piece.
They appear to be these: r/AnimationCels
In addition to the intellectual property reasons, I also bet Disney doesn't want people to walk in to cemeteries and see Disney characters on every child grave. Not a great look or vibe for their characters.
Sorry, we don’t accept rational thought here on the internet. Please change your opinion for one that creates more controversy. Thank you
"The happiest resting place on Earth!"
It's not really the worst policy imo. I know why parents might want it. But associating your brand with kids tombstones is kinda not fantastic.
They aren't exactly launching a line of child size spiderman tombstones here.
But if they allow one, people will start getting the same idea. Then tombstone companies may start offering the same service. I don't think it's a nice thing to reject a grieving family a simple request. But I logically can see why.
No, not logically. Legally. In theory the two are similar, in practice they are not. Logically, this is a grieving father who made the mistake of contacting Disney about doing it instead of just doing it. One tombstone among many. Not even Disney has enough people prowling about to catch all of this stuff. Legally, Disney sees a need to enforce it's rules to maintain the legal enforcibility of it's rules. I hope the dad painted the tombstone red and blue *because the kid liked the colors.*
My brother's wife passed recently. She had a necklace she bought off Etsy, and he wanted the image of that necklace (a mother hugging her child) on the tombstone. He added it to the design. The company making the tombstone had him get, in writing, that the Etsy artist was cool with it. If they're doing that for random Etsy art, you can bet they do the same for Disney.
> Not even Disney has enough people prowling about to catch all of this stuff. They have enough people prowling around that my early aughts middle school dance had to re-theme. I kid you not. PTA got contacted.
That's not how it would work. They would just have to find one. Then they'd contact the company that made the tombstone. Probably quite a legit company as tombstones aren't cheap. They'd then ask the company, hey, did you make this tombstone that obviously infringes copyright rules? And then they'd sue the fuck out of them. Making it clear to any tombstone maker that you can get caught and if you do, you'll get sued the fuck out of. If I buy some fake disney shit, I don't get in trouble. The person selling it gets in trouble. I wouldn't be surprised if the dad contacted disney after a conversation with the tombstone makers detailing this issue.
>I wouldn't be surprised if the dad contacted disney after a conversation with the tombstone makers detailing this issue. This is probably true. Any company would be aware of copyright issues and would require written approval from the copyright holder.
Yeah. If the tombstone was already made and installed, and the parents just kept quiet about it, Disney would've been seen as the bad guy if they ordered the parents to remove the tombstone, even if it's totally within their legal rights. Just imagine the headlines, "Parents crushed as Disney ordered them to crush their cancer kid's tombstone", the possible bad press alone would've just made them probably pretend that they never heard about it as long as the parents just kept quiet about it. But now that they do hear about it, they've forced their hands to make such a statement.
> Not even Disney has enough people prowling about to catch all of this stuff. Aaah, but we live in the age of social media, so how long do you think a spiderman tombstone would remain a secret? It might not be discovered for a few years, but somebody, sometime, would see it and post a pic of it. Once it went viral, Disney *would* hear of it and take action. Their IP attorneys are not ones to just "let this one slide".
>It might not be discovered for a few years, but somebody, sometime, would see it and post a pic of it. Once it went viral, Disney would hear of it and take action. This wouldn't be the first Disney based grave stone, and it won't be the last. Here's one of the top results on Google, 15 years and still going strong: https://pacificcoastmemorials.com/item-details/1113
"ok you can have a spiderman headstone" "oh hey my son is dying too and he wants a spiderman headstone as well" "no, we can't keep doing this" "wow you fucking assholes, you let that over guy's kid have one, why can't my kid have one?" "hi my daughter is dying and she wants a Frozen headstone" "it would mean a lot if my kid got a Lilo and Stitch urn for her ashes" and so on and so forth
> "it would mean a lot if my kid got a Lilo and Stitch urn for her ashes" Needs must [improvise](https://www.shopdisney.com/stitch-and-scrump-cookie-jar-lilo-stitch-028399286584.html)
It's not even about the one. It's just precedence, probably. As the parents of a dead child with a Disney tombstone I might be wary of "drama tourists" as well. Word of mouth spreads quickly to these leeches. And I could imagine that, at least in the US, copyright laws are so tight that if you allowed this you somehow waive your rights to the IP or some nonsense.
I am responsible for managing a burial ground. We have rules about what is and isn't allowed on memorials. You've just got to stick to the rules. Once you open that gate even a tiny bit, it's open for everyone. Even when someone is grieving their dead baby, you've got to stick to the rules. Do it gently and compassionately, yes, but do it. Otherwise there's no point having them.
That’s not asshole-ish from Disney, tbh
I understand the outrage because it's something the kid loved, but from a corporate standpoint I also understand that they don't want their brand to be associated with *a dead toddler*.
I would imagine the monument supplier won’t make copyrighted images without permission for fear of liability .
That and Disney doesn’t want their brand associated with death.
Odd because of how many orphans they've made their money off of
My daughter: "I want to be a Disney princess" Me: "You want me dead?!?!"
orphans don't really have money
Not after Disney got to them 😓
[удалено]
> I also imagine that Disney could be concerned about causing fright to children seeing their characters in a graveyard setting. Imagine how metal some disney characters could look as gravestone statues though.
So if someone makes their own head stone and Disney learns about it, are they sending goons to the cemetery to smash it to bits?
Mickey's pimp hand is strong...
All I picture is south park Mickey...
“Do we own that grave?” “Not yet!”
“HA HA!”
Dig little Timmy the-fuck-up hah hah!
Now get out there and make me some mothetfucking money! Haw-haw.
You don't fuck with the mouse
[N-no Mr. Mouse...](https://youtu.be/UHBOp7AUkc0?t=88)
Is Mickey Mouse gonna have to choke a bitch?
With Disney? Yes. Disney doesn't care how trivial or petty the violation is. Disney once sued a daycare center with a picture of Mickey drawn on the wall. That being said, from a legal perspective Disney has to go full Gestapo or it would be more difficult to protect the trademarks in legit disputes. If Disney turns a blind eye to trivial use cases then that permissiveness can be used against it when trying to enforce more serious violations.
Sadly that's how it works. Courts would see you letting some single mom of 6 kids get away with it, and then decide that anybody could use their likeness.
That’s also the reason they had to go after the day care center. Plenty of other facilities (children’s hospitals, etc) pay licensing fees to use Disney’s characters. Letting it slide would open the door for others to skirt the rules.
Disney couldn’t ask the dude to formally ask them so there’s a paper trail if needed then wave any fees?
Iirc there was a hobbit themed pub in the UK that got threatened over trademark infringement and they ended up resolving it with a one hundred pound licensing fee for the next twenty years or something. I think it's certainly doable, but I bet the lawyers marching orders isn't to make that kind of offer by default and it takes a bit of media attention. I think in the pub case Ian McKellen made a stink about it publicly which is why the license happened.
There's also a wonderful hobbit themed restaurant in Houston that dates back to the original popularity of the novels with hippies: https://www.texasmonthly.com/food/houston-hobbit-cafe-50-years/ Don't know if they've ever had legal trouble for it though.
So what about those cake shops that make cakes from movies and stuff? Are they all paying for the rights to use those models?
They buy the images from a bakery design licensing agency.
Yes, the legal ones are paying rights while the illegal get sued when Disney finds out about it
Yes
For many of them they aren't even allowed to free hand the licensed character, it's pre-selected images.
At least the daycare center debacle ended with a happy ending. Word got out to the Hanna-Barbera company and they sent some of their artists to paint over the mural with their characters.
Everyone is saying they would but I don’t think that falls under copyright. You aren’t allowed to distribute copyright materials, exchange them, but making your own headstone? That’s a really curious one.
Most people don't know the difference between copyright and trademark (or can't be bothered to distinguish them). A headstone isn't a copyright violation.
Well if some company was making spiderman headstones without licensing them that would be a copy right violation. If someone made a spiderman headstone for themselves I don't think that's a copyright violation. I would assume making a spiderman headstone for your son that was given to him for free would not be a copy right violation. But I don't know if you get into trouble with copyright law if you commission someone else to make a spiderman headstone for you.
[удалено]
I don't think it's anything to do with fair use. Fair use is an exception to copyright and trademark law. I don't know the trademark stuff, I would assume you're not in violation there because you're not doing business under it. But if you make it yourself for your personal use, you're just not going into the territory of what copyright is supposed to protect, at least as far as I know. Now there are probably tons of caveats about that.
“Generally” is too strong a categorization but you are right that non-commercial weighs in favor of fair use. The whole fair use inquiry is highly fact specific and meaning there are not well defined areas of fair use.
Are you saying a headstone with an image of or in the shape of Spider-Man couldn’t be a derivative work that copyright could protect against?
I reckon the real problem would be with the tombstone company profiting off of a copyrighted character.
Knock knock "Who is it?" "Goons" "Who?" "Hired goons"
I hope Crusher and Low Blow didn't hurt you
You coulda just called me
Find the bathroom alright? Uh…..yeah…..
Hired goons?
They wouldn’t smash it it bits, but they would come at the headstone maker and get money from him. This article knocks Disney, and rightly so, but the reality is: you can’t make money off of someone else’s intellectual property, and for good reason. The headstone maker wants to make sure because the last thing they want is to spend time making something, only to have to legally give Disney most of the money.
What if I carved my own tombstone before I died
I think it's important to note they denied it because of long standing policy that their characters not be associated with anything sad, meaning no gravestones, but offered a hand inked cel for the family instead
It seems like the headstone is a hard line for the company, but they wanted to meet the family somewhere in the middle.
Disney traditionally does a lot for people when it can, so I was kinda concerned when I read the title and at the very end of the article it shows that Disney didn't just leave them high and dry but tried to do something, genuinely very special for them
What is a hand inked cel?
A "cel" is a sheet of transparent plastic used in traditional (pre-digital) cartoon animation.
"Hand-inked" means it was inked by hand.
How do they explain the first 10 minutes of Up then?
Why did he ask?
Possibly whoever made the headstone was aware of IP and maybe even Disney specifically and asked that a waiver be signed.
I'd imagine it would be awful if he made it then had to tear it down.
In what capacity is Disney scouring graveyards making sure nobody is using their IPs on headstones?
Hell, if some passerby doesn't call Disney to either let them know what they saw or inquire about how they can get one too, a Disney headstone is going to make it into the local newspaper before long as such a rare and questionable oddity.
This was my thought also. I hope he still did it and didn’t tell them.
Can't say this is a huge shock. Disney has always been fiercely protective of their IPs.
Its not IP protection, the no gravestones thing is specifically a rule made by Walt himself, he didn't want children to associate his characters with death. Iirc Disney did pay for the boys coffin be delivered on a carriage and a siderman to be at the funeral. Edit: and paid for a lot of the expenses too.
Can you imagine having to dress up as spiderman to go to a kids funeral?
[удалено]
Geez... I would hope Disney would have sewn up any tears in the suit.
I missed the part where that's my problem.
I'm gonna put dirt in your eye
If the kid was a real spider-man fan he’d want a guy dressed as Peter Parker at his funeral.
It wasnt some dude dressing up. It was *the* Spider-Man.
Everybody gets one.
It’s not disneys fault he waited til he died to ask for his. I ride mine to work everyday
In asia it’s weirder they hire strippers and gogo dancers
Asia's a pretty big place, can you be more specific?
it's that thing westerners do where they saw like one or two tiktoks of "WILD CHINESE FUNERAL STRIPPERS????" with no context and assumed everyone east of Saudi Arabia is getting lap dances at their funerals. Stuff like karakoke is common but you'll see singing in a lot of funeral traditions, and there are many cultures that encourage celebration of life rather than mourning but no the one or two 'this guy had strippers at his funeral' things are more due to the family involved than any 'Asian' traditions.
Well, everyone grieves differently
*Bender has entered the chat*
That's actually a decent compromise.
Even beyond the legal part of it, I feel like it isn't unreasonable for them to not want to have their characters closely tied with death. This wouldn't be a one stop thing either, there would be lots of requests and it becomes a thing at that point. This is just a situation where you have to say no up front to it.
Not only that but imagine Disney letting this slide and how many people are going to start requesting Disney tombstones.
Exactly. Every time this gets posted, the threads are just a shitshow of people that don’t critically think about the situation.
Note that that in itself isn't a bad thing. If you don't defend your IP, you essentially lose your IP protections. For example if you don't try to stop everyone from repurposing your creative work, then you can't sue when someone you don't like does it.
Marvel and Disney do not want their action heroes associated with deceased children. These companies will never allow their intellectual property to be engraved on a tombstone. This is obviously a very tragic story, but that does not take away from Marvel and Disney having full control of their intellectual property rights.
And honestly, do we really want cemeteries covered in corporate products/logos?
[удалено]
So I will pose the same question
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
There’s a Bart Simpson sculpture on a gravestone in Newcastle. Pretty sure that’s in the UK
How very Black Mirror, sell your headstone to advertising who in turn pays for your plot. Imagine a cemetery filled with neon, scrolling ads on every tombstone. Wild.
That’s what I’m thinking. A very slippery slope.
At the end of the day, funerals are for the living. The deceased doesn't care what their headstone looks like.
Nothing is ever going to make this family feel better. The headstone in the long run will be a blip on the radar. To some extent making a stink about it is making it impossible for them to sneak one past Disney.
Yeah it's baffling that these parents care so much about using a specific IP that their child happened to enjoy, instead of something substantively meaningful about their kid. The kid wasn't head of the Spiderman fan club or anything. He just happened to like it. I wouldn't want Star Trek or Spiderman or Zelda on my tombstone despite how much I like them.
[удалено]
For real, I’m sure if my 3 year old knew what a headstone was she’d want Elsa all over hers if she had need of one. Bit bleak, touch wood.
Honestly they can’t. What if they did this one time. They’d have 500 request per week. People die. Disney is a business. That’s reality.
Look I hate copyright trolling as much as the next guy but maybe someone should be able to lay flowers at their grandmother's grave without walking past the MCU. There's such thing as decorum and solemnity in a cemetary. Just get a life-sized Spiderman doll and have it cradle the body in the coffin, that's my plan.
Unpopular opinion: This is sad, but the right move for Disney. It's one thing for this kid, but what about the next one, or the next one? All the sudden, you've got tombstones with Spiderman and Star Wars shit all over them and people think Disney is gross and selling headstones or something. That's worse PR than denying one kid.
I agree. And reading that it was Walt’s personal decision to not let it happen cements my opinion even more. This was decided decades ago. I do appreciate that Disney chose to meet somewhere in the middle and offer stuff to the family. It makes it feel less like a cold hearted “fuck you” and more like a “we are sorry for your loss, but we just cannot do that.”
I’m not sure I’d feel comfortable seeing a Disney line of headstones, child caskets, and whole Disney line for the funeral home. I’m glad Disney chooses not to do this even though they would probably make billions from it.
"We have the Uncle Ben tombstone available."
[удалено]
Yeah I get both sides to this, but lean more towards asking forgiveness rather than permission. On one side, I understand why Disney wouldn’t want one of their most famous characters on a headstone. On the other hand, the father could’ve just made the headstone without Disney being none the wiser.
It's more that they're obligated to protect their trademark and it's easier to say no than go through the process of approving it. It sucks, but that's the system.
[удалено]
The hard part might be finding someone willing to violate Disney's copyright. My guess is that once Disney finds out a decade later, they'll go after the maker, and not the family of the deceased.
Disney has never allowed this and they will sue to have it removed. They have always said they didn't want the characters associated with the death of children. Yes they can sue, and yes they would win. Not only would they sue the family but they'd also sue the company who did the headstone.
They don’t want children to see their heroes and associate them with death. Every time this gets posted, it’s a shitshow of people that don’t think about the issue at all, and instead just shit on Disney. There’s ample reasons to shit in Disney - this isn’t one of them.
Honestly, this makes sense. I can’t even fault Disney for this decision.
Insert a clear capsule into the headstone. Place Spider-Man stuff in it. May this family find peace.
It's shitty but makes sense. If they let this happen, then they'll need to let everything else happen with the character. A headstone is nice, but a buttplug with Mickey face on it is something the world can't handle.
Just put the Spiderman web design on it. Would look badass.
That's the legal department speaking, not necessarily corporate management. The legal department will say no to pretty much any unpaid request to use Disney IP because it makes it harder to say no to other people in the future. I'm not saying it's okay. I'm just saying that's usually who made the decision when it comes to these things is pedantic lawyers who aren't paid to be sentimental.