Disney Denies Entry to Teen in Tinkerbell Costume

[Gravekeeper]

Good Lord.

So, let's see: Attention whore, entitlement whore, idiot and a crybaby. Wow, good job there mom & dad. -.-

What exactly did she expect? You don't get to dress up exactly like an employee of a particular company, go to the company and then act like you're an employee representing that company to the general public.

Thank God she wanted to be Tinkerbell and not a police officer.

[Ginger Tea]

"Mommy Tinkerbell called Peter Pan a fucking cunt, whats a fucking cunt?"

[XCashier]

I was originally thinking it was like going to a Ren Faire in garb, but many other posters brought up some very good points. Plus there's no copyright on medieval clothing, whereas Peter Pan and Tinkerbell are copyrighted characters.

Yes, their costumes were very nice and well made, keep them for Halloween. But yeah, definitely find out and read the rules before deciding to spend tons of time and money on a costume.

[Nekojin]

I was originally thinking it was like going to a Ren Faire in garb, but many other posters brought up some very good points. Plus there's no copyright on medieval clothing, whereas Peter Pan and Tinkerbell are copyrighted characters.

Nitpick: Peter Pan and Tinkerbell actually fell out of copyright recently, but Disney does still hold a trademark on the likenesses of their characters - that is, the distinctive Disney style of how they look.

All of the Princesses are long out of trademark; most were public domain before Walt Disney was even born. Likewise for many of the biggest Disney properties, not counting Pixar titles.

[SongsOfDragons]

I thought Peter Pan's copyright was held in perpetuity or something by Great Ormond Street? O.o

[bara]

As much as I dislike siding with corporations, I can see Disney's side in this and I think they were more than reasonable. They could have ejected them from the park. Instead they gave them clothes.

[powerboy]

What if they wore different color costumes? Would this still have happened?

[Andara Bledin]

I'm not sure how you can wear a fairy costume of any color and not think you'll be confused for any of the numerous fairies now part of the Disney lineup.

Any shade of the rainbow, and you're going to run afoul of their non-costume policy.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

All of the Princesses are long out of trademark; most were public domain before Walt Disney was even born. Likewise for many of the biggest Disney properties, not counting Pixar titles.

All right. The character of, say, Cinderella certainly would be public domain. Why would the specifically Disney character design for Cinderella not be trademarked, though?

(For that matter, as far as I know, Jasmine would be an exception anyway.)

[Nekojin]

[QUOTE=HYHYBT;119150]All right. The character of, say, Cinderella certainly would be public domain. Why would the specifically Disney character design for Cinderella not be trademarked, though?[quote]
It is Trademarked, which I did say in my post.

(For that matter, as far as I know, Jasmine would be an exception anyway.)

Well, that gets into nitpicky quibbling over derivative works, and so on. The tale of Aladdin is public domain. Making a new version of it with a newly-named princess character wouldn't change that the underlying story is still public domain. Characters aren't copyrighted (which is why the whole Disney argument over the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, with the hand-waving over "Mickey falling into the public domain" was so much legalistic BS), only the full story is.

IP law is confusing and obtuse to most people, and corporations like it that way.

[Silverharp]

The urban myth is that many years ago a child molester entered Disney dressed as a mascott and used the perception that he was official to attack children.
Weather or not that's true, it does limit their liability and also as pointed out above, keeps douchebags from dressing up as Mickey and acting like douchebags. Cuz that would never happen, right?

[PepperElf]

15 years old is old enough to use the internet to find out dress codes.

http://disneyworld.disney.go.com/faq.../#subCategory8

Wasn't that hard for me to find.

I agree. It's not Disney's fault she decided to flaunt the rules

Disney has a strict policy about adults and teens dressing up in costumes that mimic their characters. They don't want to confuse the kids that are there or risk anyone, regardless of age, of getting the wrong impression about their cast members. It's a simple liability issue.

And... well personally i'm thinking it's also to prevent pedophiles from dressing up to lure children away.

not that the fake-tinkerbell was a pedo, but hey... if you're going to have rules they have to apply to EVERYONE. if you make her an exception just cos she doesn't like the rules then everyone else gets to be the exception too.

[HYHYBT]

The problem isn't just pedophilia.

[Amanita]

^Yeah, I'm a cosplayer myself and I like to go out in public with my friends in costumes. Now, we are very respectful of other people, and take care to act like civilized beings- being in costume is no excuse to act like a dickweed to other people.

Sadly, not all cosplayers share that attitude- I've heard stories of grown men thinking it was funny to scare the crap out of children, teen cosplayers vandalizing property, misbehaving on purpose, and generally being pains in the butt for kicks and giggles.
I can definitely see some immature types thinking it was funny to dress up as Disney characters and do inappropriate or naughty things, in order to "freak the mundanes" or for shock value.

Unfortunately it's clowns like that who ruin it for everybody.

[Lace Neil Singer]

^ This is the issue rather than worrying about Pedobear. If say someone decided to dress up as Mickey and go and be a drunken dickwad in the park in front of children, it would hurt Disney's reputation and could even get them sued.

This girl needs to get a life, stop being such a whiny crybaby and grow the fuck up.