WIPR survey: Disney has no grounds to sue ‘Dismaland’, say readers
An exhibition created by street artist Banksy that alludes to Disney themes and characters is clearly satirical and Disney does not have grounds to sue over it, readers have claimed.
Following WIPR’s most recent survey, nearly 77% of respondents said the multinational would be unlikely to have grounds to file an intellectual property lawsuit against the “Dismaland” exhibition.
The exhibition, which opened last month, is housed in an old swimming pool in the English town of Weston-super-Mare.
Among the exhibits are a dilapidated Disney-style castle and several other installations, some of which are plays on Disney characters.
But a majority of readers, who were asked whether Disney had grounds to sue for IP infringement, said it would not.
One respondent, referencing UK copyright provisions passed last October that enabled the use of parody and satire as a defence to copyright infringement, said: “Satire and parody are protected free speech, and using third-party copyrighted/trademarked materials for satire or parody constitutes fair use.
“There’s no solid case to be made for Disney suing for IP infringement.”
Another said: “Nothing is a direct copy from what I’ve seen. It merely borrows ideas and themes.”
Despite most respondents saying a claim would be unlikely, some readers did suggest that Disney may have better luck with opposing a Community trademark (CTM) filed for ‘Dismaland’.
It is not known if the application, filed by a UK-based company called Dismaland Limited, is connected to Banksy, but the application covers goods and services including art exhibitions.
“Disney should be able to successfully oppose the CTM application. In fact the artist’s application for the mark casts a shadow over whether their ‘art’ is true parody,” another respondent said.
Not everyone was in agreement overall, however. One respondent suggested that Disney does have grounds to sue, but added that it is not in its best interests to do so.
For this week’s survey we ask: The US-based International Trade Commission has terminated an investigation into InterDigital’s claim that Nokia mobile phones infringed two of its patents. Do you agree with InterDigital that the decision’s impact is limited given the “decline of the Nokia mobile device business under Microsoft’s control and its limited market position”?
