These tickets have a “fun” font and those cool little star-sparkle things, they remind me of the cartoon beginning of Bewitched. I don’t know what the grand prize was (maybe Jason knows?) but I’m guessing it’s not a 1966 Mustang since it’s not stated on the ticket like the 1964 & 1965 Grad Nite tickets.
The usual stuff is on the back. And - HOLD YOUR OWN TICKET, what are you crazy?
The lucky holders of these tickets took advantage of the fact you had to buy a photo with each ticket purchase. The cover is extra thick stock, the type you would get from a mid priced photo gallery, not bad for a buck!
The happy couple, lets call them Ken and Peggy. While getting this scan ready to post this thought occurred to me; Should I be posting someone’s picture on the internet that I don’t even know? I guess it’s mine since I bought it off EBay, the same as many of the other vintage images we see on the other blogs. I suppose if it were “precious” to someone, I wouldn’t have it. Weird…..
Tomorrow: Yes boys and girls, that’s right, Grad Nite 1967!
10 comments:
The grand prize this year was a 1966 Pontiac GTO offered each of the five Grad Nights. No Mustang... but you could see the Mustangs perform!
I've always wondered about the laws regarding who owns and image. Just because the photo is of those people, do they have the rights to it?
Occasionally talk of a book of various blogger's Disneyland photos comes up, but one of the things that stops it is getting clearance from Disney. But I can't believe that we need it! These are photos taken by private individuals in a public place. Who knows...
I think Disney's legal claim to the exclusive rights to photos taken inside Disneyland rests on the fact that DL is private property, and guests agree to "terms and conditions" upon purchase of an admission ticket.
While Disney is not particularly interested in the billions of photos taken over the years, they are interested in photos being collected into a book and sold because that book would be similar to and in competition with their own commercial projects.
Web postings of the images do not create this problem since it's being done as a hobby with no money collected.
Hurst Castle and Notre Dame in Paris has similar rules, so it's not an unusual situation.
Oh, and I forgot to post, in the case of the grad night photos specifically, usually when a professional photographer does these shots, the copyright belongs to the photographer, not the sitter(s).
Generally, unless spelled out otherwise, the fee charged is for the service of taking the photograph and producing the print(s), but the copyright is not transfered.
I love this grad night collection!
Wow, a 1966 GTO and FIVE of them, how did they afford that???? Thanks for the info Jason, kind of thought you’d know.
Major, I have thought the same thing as you, and I am not surprised if Disney wont ok it.
Katella Gate; thank you for the great analysis. I agree that a professional photographer owns the photos they take. I wonder is Disney has ever contested someone using private photos taken in Disneyland then published for profit?
On a side note and of much more interest to me; what about the Tickets and other printer materials (like all the stuff I post)? The thought of a “Ticket” book has occurred to me. The tickets themselves are not copy written and still have a certain value that was “purchased” from Disneyland. I am sure of the answer from Disney should I ask; “No”…. Maybe I could collaborate with Tony B.? Like that’s gonna happen!
Raymond; Thanks. I love your blog too!!! ps. I've linked your blog on my blog.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the short answer is, if Disney made it, there's a copyright involved.
The copyright laws were overhauled in the late 1980's and I believe that the ordinary coupon tickets are now explicitly protected by a copyright. If by some chance that they are not under copyright protection per se you have a million trademark issues with the name "Disneyland", the castle logo, the name of each and every ride, attraction, and "land", and just for fun, you have trademark issues with the "Globe" watermark on the paper itself.
Now, could you do a book on the history of ticketing media w/o Disney's permission? ... assuming you could find a publisher that would be willing to take this gamble. I think you actually might... or at least you have a MUCH better chance than if you wanted to do a book on the history of the Haunted Mansion.
In the Corporate Mind, comprehensive + complete + serious = DULL. As long as your finished book did not put you in competition with anything that Disney did, has done, or might do, and you don't bad mouth Disney's reputation, you might not be bothered with.
"E" Ticket Magazine is the only publication I can think of off the top of my head that is in a similar legal position. I know they are not publishing anymore, but you may want to contact them and ask what how their legal council got them thru publishing all those Disneyland Photos. Because of the very high standards of the mag and its friendly tone towards the company, they may have gotten some kind of waver.
Remember, in the end, this stuff all counts as free advertising, and that is Disney's incentive.
Wow Katella Gate, your profile says your occupation is Designer/Drafter are you an attorney too? (I do mean that in a complimentary way). Thanks for detailing this issue so well. It never occurred to me about the Globe Paper trademark issue and since they still make Globe Paper I could see them being concerned.
I love your “Corporate Mind” analysis. That explains the plethora of Disneyland books that are not from Disney. And I bet you are right on with the “E” Ticket magazine, they are very Disneyland friendly. Great idea to find out how the “E” Ticket published without any hassles from Disney, I’m going to look into that.
On your last note, the blogs sure are free advertising for Disney, some of the stunning photos/slides on the other blogs have got to make people want to visit Disneyland, they do for me!
THANKS!
Sorry for the late posting on this... it's about 2 weeks late...
Thanks for the complement (?) VDT, no I'm not a copyright attorney - but I've worked as a curator, a technical book editor, and in the film industry (documentaries) so the issue of "can we use this picture?" comes up on a daily basis.
The most interesting copyright fight I ever saw was between two companies that I was working as a consultant for at the same time. Lucky for me I was not personally involved so there was no issue of copyright infringement. The case BTW involved who owns photographs taken of the wreck of the "Titanic".
When Jim Cameron went down to photograph the wreck in the late 90s for his movie, the company that owns salvage rights asserted that they also owned control of copyrights and the matter went to court.
In the end the judge sided with Cameron. First, the salvage company didn't technically own the wreck, they only had the right to salvage the wreck and the judge was not willing to expand simple salvage rights to intellectual property rights.
But more important, the judge ruled that regardless of ownership, the Titanic was in a public space, and could be photographed without compensation, just as if you left your car in the street. The car may be private property, but there is no control of images (let alone copyright) until the car is moved onto a privately owned, enclosed space.
I was there. It was a 66 yellow GTO comvertable. Some girl was screaming as they announced her ticket number.
Post a Comment