Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Disney tells Santa clone ho-ho no
- Thread starter BoyBach
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In Disney's defense, they were probably pressured by some irritating parents who were not on vacation from actual productive service to society but from their normal jobs of suing other people. So it was sort of a leisure suit.
2. They are supporting BluRay.
hehe, yeah, sorry, had to.
gB
that's definitely a geek answer
Well, Pooh was bought and paid for. So as long as the check clears, they can call him a Disney character all they want.
With a big enough check Shrek could be walking around disneyland/world signing autographs.
Just to play devil's advocate... lets say someone came to the park dressed in a Bugs Bunny costume (a Warner Brother character). Disneyland officials could ask that peron to leave, right? Probably so.
Now lets say someone came dressed as Mickey Mouse. Its a Disney Character, but the person pretending to be Mickey wouldnt actually be endorsed officially by the Disney company. So, that person could be asked to leave as well, right? Probably so.
What if someone came to the park in a totally generic costume, but still was not endorsed by the Disney company (like maybe a santa costume)? Regardless of the costume, Disney has a reputation and corporate image to uphold, so it seems to me they could ask that person to leave as well.
Besides, we dont know the whole story. If this "santa" was allowed to continue acting as this character without Disney officials stopping him, it would be implied that he was indeed a Disney endorsed character. And then what if he did something that actually was disturbing? Saying something inappropriate to a child (as Disney's Santa no less). Touching a child inappropriately? Inadvertantly tripping over a child and hurting them? Its a no win situation for Disney. And a potentially very expensive one too.
I see this more as a sign of how easily offended and sue-happy our society has become and as a result companies have to do things like this to protect themselves. Lets face it. Its Disney. People would love to find any reason at all to sue them and they have to be especially careful of every single potentially offensive thing.
But thats just me. I may be wrong.
eh I think Disney was within their rights here. I mean the park is their property, and they have the right/responsibility to offer a secure environment, and having a non-employee "performing" in the park can cause some liability issues. I mean let's just say next the kids want to sit on santa's lap and tell them what they want for christmas. Now let's say santa drops a kid or something or one of the children cries rape. Now although this guy was never an employee of the park, a family with kids may perceive him that way and bang, disney's open to a lawsuit.
However, there might be an argument that since he was not dressed as Santa, but rather is a fat white man with a beard, he was not impersonating any character, copyrighted or generic. He simply responded with a generic holiday greeting, neither affirming nor refuting his identity. If a skinny black lady had responed to the question in like manner, Disney would have no grounds for asserting that she was affirming her identity or affiliation with the park.
But, the fact that he responded to the specific query with a Santaese response may overcome any coincidence in his resemblance to Santa. Also, it doesn't help him that Disney is (as mentioned above) private property with little to no governmetn entanglement and is within its rights to restrict statements made within its control. Additionally, there his entry to the park was governed by a ticket that he purchased which granted a licence to be on the property, revocable at will. So, Santa loses.
But I could be wrong.
But, the fact that he responded to the specific query with a Santaese response may overcome any coincidence in his resemblance to Santa. Also, it doesn't help him that Disney is (as mentioned above) private property with little to no governmetn entanglement and is within its rights to restrict statements made within its control. Additionally, there his entry to the park was governed by a ticket that he purchased which granted a licence to be on the property, revocable at will. So, Santa loses.
But I could be wrong.
My dad fits that description as well, portly white beard and gets around this issue (which comes up far more than you might think) quite simply.
"Are you Santa Claus?"
"No, he's my brother. I'll let him know you said hi."
B
"Are you Santa Claus?"
"No, he's my brother. I'll let him know you said hi."
B
I remember watching the CNN video on this story last week....if my memory is correct (or perhaps someone can find the link that I can't)
1. At that park, Disney wants the kids to think that there is one Santa and one Santa only - the one in their parade.
2. The Santa clone was use to answering the "Are you Santa?" question in his regular life as "Yes" because he felt it would upset children if he told them "No"
(I like balamw's dad's answer to the "Are you Santa?" question. )
1. At that park, Disney wants the kids to think that there is one Santa and one Santa only - the one in their parade.
2. The Santa clone was use to answering the "Are you Santa?" question in his regular life as "Yes" because he felt it would upset children if he told them "No"
(I like balamw's dad's answer to the "Are you Santa?" question. )