So what do you think about Disney reply denying the use of spiderman in a gravestone?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

No it isn’t. It’s a simple statement of fact. They choose not to profit from dead children, and other fans. Their reasoning is it would damage their IP. It doesn’t change the fact that they don’t want to do it. It hit you as a judgement because I said dead children. Which is what the topic is about. If you can’t take that term as neutral in this thread you may want to back out slowly.

It isn't about profit at all. Disney isn't being asked to sell anything. They're being asked to allow the family to put a Spider-Man tombstone on a grave. If you haven't bothered to even learn that much about this case...maybe you should be the one to back out.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

They’re being asked to license their IP to an artist to put on a tombstone. To protect their IP that would typically involve fees.

And none of that has anything to do with profiting off of dead kids. If you or I asked for a Spider-Man Tombstone for ourselves...the response from Disney would be the same. It's strictly about the IP and the Disney Brand and the policy to not allow funeral markers of any kind. They've got no issue with the family using Spider-Man to memorialize their kid in other ways. They even offered to send the the family a personalized and hand painted Spider-Man cell.

[Nefastus]

Not everybody makes their private tragedy a public spectacle.

Still I think if it was something that happened more often we would hear about it. Denying it hurts more the brand than quietly allowing it.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Which is their reason for not wanting to profit from kid’s deaths. See, if they didn’t have some kind of reason, as any for profit operation, they’d do the easy thing and license their characters for this kind of shit. There’s no real overhead and nothing but profit to be made.

I've given you what the reason is...you just continue to ignore it. They don't want their characters to be associated with death. "We have striven to preserve the same innocence and magic around our characters that brought him such joy". It's a policy that goes all the way back to Walt Disney himself. It has literally nothing to do with kid deaths. As I said...if you or I made the same request for ourselves...they would still deny it.

- - - Updated - - -

Still I think if it was something that happened more often we would hear about it. Denying it hurts more the brand than quietly allowing it.

You don't know how often they have had to deny these requests. But it has been a standard policy for decades so it's obviously something that has happened before and you never heard about it.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Again, I get what their reason is. Bottom line is they don’t want to profit from deaths. Your reason is why they don’t wish to. Which, again, means the bottom line is they don’t want to profit from death. If they wanted to they could. As per the basis of this thread. No moral implications in said statement.

And now you suddenly drop the "kid's deaths"

But it's still not about not wanting profiting from death.

It's about preserving the characters.

You just seem to be trying very hard to be right in a situation where you have been demonstrably proven to be wrong.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Go back and check. I have swapped between simply kids and any fan multiple times. Your inability to grasp what I’m saying and keep up isn’t on me. Their reason for not wanting to profit from fan deaths is it would harm their IP, in their eyes. It doesn’t change the fact that if they wanted to profit from those deaths they could. They don’t want to, so they don’t.

Now it's just getting sad.

You just need to find some way that you can be technically correct in the face of all the evidence that shows that you're wrong.

[Shadowferal]

I see the whole of this as a non-issue. Especially in light of the fact that they did kinda play nice with the funeral and all.
If dad wanted Spiderman on the gravestone he should have just had it done quietly.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I see the whole of this as a non-issue. Especially in light of the fact that they did kinda play nice with the funeral and all.
If dad wanted Spiderman on the gravestone he should have just had it done quietly.

He can't do it quietly.

The local council has to approve the tombstone.

They couldn't approve the tombstone without authorization from Disney.

- - - Updated - - -

Roflmao. You’re the one ascribing hidden meaning to a neutral statement.

I'm not ascribing hidden meaning. I'm ascribing the actual meaning. You said they didn't want to profit from Death....but that's not the reason they rejected the father's request.

[Ahovv]

As long as it is not super harsh or toxic chemicals the ash will help things grow. It is something humans have know as long as we have had agriculture.

Ah yes, it's such common knowledge that when you google it, nothing comes up.

[Shadowferal]

It's called Slash and burn agriculture

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The reason they gave is the reasoning behind them not wanting to profit from death... this is real basic shit.

Funny, you were just accusing me of ascribing hidden meanings...yet that's exactly what you're doing.

I'm running out of ways to tell you that the reasoning is they don't want people to associate their IP's with death. It's not that they're afraid that selling Spider-Man themed Tombstones will make them look like they're trying to profit from death. They're worried that just the very image of Spider-Man on a Tombstone hurts the brand.

If you want to look at it from a purely financial perspective...they think that Spider-Man being associated with Death is actually going to hurt his marketability which will cost them money. It's not profiting from the dead that concerns them....it's the prospect of not profiting from the living.

[Cosmic Janitor]

I don't know if I'd say that. I think it shows that the Local council doesn't want to fuck with copyright laws.

I very much doubt the local council has any reason to care about copy right laws. They are not the ones copying something, at best the stone mason would have to care or the person that ordered the stone. Unless graveyards are completely public property (like some kind of lawn owned next to a street) in the UK and they order someone to display something there, I simply see no reason why they could be touched here. I would at least assume that the plot with your grave on is at least partially rented out to the owner of the grave, that is at least how it is here in germany (and the graveyards themselves usually belong to churches).

Also wasn't the UK one of the countries where you can burry people on private property anyway? If the whole thing is oh-so-important they could always do it that way, as no one can touch you for doing so.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I very much doubt the local council has any reason to care about copy right laws. They are not the ones copying something, at best the stone mason would have to care or the person that ordered the stone. Unless graveyards are completely public property (like some kind of lawn owned next to a street) in the UK and they order someone to display something there, I simply see no reason why they could be touched here. I would at least assume that the plot with your grave on is at least partially rented out to the owner of the grave, that is at least how it is here in germany (and the graveyards themselves usually belong to churches).

Also wasn't the UK one of the countries where you can burry people on private property anyway? If the whole thing is oh-so-important they could always do it that way, as no one can touch you for doing so.

If he needs the approval of the local council then it stands to reason that it's public property.

[Cosmic Janitor]

If he needs the approval of the local council then it stands to reason that it's public property.

You need the permission of local councils for all kinds of things, most of them relating to building codes (paint your house pink for example), despite it relating to private property. This could relate to any number of regulations in place.

Would be interesting if anyone from the UK with knowledge could elaborate.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

You need the permission of local councils for all kinds of things, most of them relating to building codes (paint your house pink for example), despite it relating to private property. This could relate to any number of regulations in place.

Would be interesting if anyone from the UK with knowledge could elaborate.

Sure, could be..doesn't really matter though because, for whatever reason, it was the local council that told him he needed to contact Disney to get permission. They weren't going to allow him to put it up without their go ahead.

[Nefastus]

You don't know how often they have had to deny these requests. But it has been a standard policy for decades so it's obviously something that has happened before and you never heard about it.

Well I really don't know but considering everything end up in the news in places such as USA and Europe I belive if something like that would happen once in a while it would end up being discussed.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Well I really don't know but considering everything end up in the news in places such as USA and Europe I belive if something like that would happen once in a while it would end up being discussed.

The only reason you'd ever hear about it is if the parents decided to make a fuss about it.

[InTheEnd]

I don't get why the father is asking for this? Does he not realize his dead son cannot see his own tombstone? Grief is a strong emotion and it's better we have people making these weird requests as opposed to somebody losing it and shooting up a mall.

[Kreo]

Sometimes it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission and this would be the case.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Sometimes it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission and this would be the case.

No, it isn't. The local council won't approve the tombstone without Disney's Ok.