Business

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

“Mouse Print” Could Strip Disney of Mickey

Old Mickey, LA TimesFor a change of pace this week, we look at “mouse print”, literally — the copyright notice used by the Walt Disney company to protect its most famous cartoon character, Mickey Mouse. It seems the company may have failed to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s in the early days, and that could thrust Mickey, or at least an early version of him, into the public domain.

As reported in the LA Times, here is how the story begins:

Disney’s Rights to Young Mickey Mouse May be Wrong

Film credits from the 1920s reveal imprecision in copyright claims that some experts say could invalidate Disney’s long-held copyright.

By Joseph Menn, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
August 22, 2008
He is the world’s most famous personality, better known in this country than anyone living or dead, real or fictional. Market researchers say his 97% recognition rate in the U.S. edges out even Santa Claus.

He is the one — and, for now, only — Mickey Mouse.

As Mickey turns 80 this fall, the most beloved rodent in show business is widely regarded as a national treasure. But he is owned lock, stock and trademark ears by the corporate heirs of his genius creator, Walt Disney.

Brand experts reckon his value to today’s Walt Disney Co. empire at more than $3 billion. Acts of Congress have extended Mickey’s copyright so long that they provoked a Supreme Court challenge, making Mickey the ultimate symbol of intellectual property.

All signs pointed to a Hollywood ending with Disney and Mickey Mouse living happily ever after — at least until a grumpy former employee looked closely at fine print long forgotten in company archives.

Please visit the LA Times to read the full story, lest Mouse Print* be guilty of copyright infringement.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Kaiser Health Insurance: $3 a Day?

Everyone knows that health care costs are going through the roof, and as a result so is the price of health insurance. So when Kaiser Permanente advertised coverage for only $3 a day, it caught Mouse Print*’s attention.

kaiserlarge1.jpg

Coverage for prescriptions, doctors’ visits, hospitalization, and emergency care for only $3 a day?  Wow!

After trying zip codes in Massachusetts, New York, and Illinois with no coverage available, a Maryland zip code finally yielded some policies and prices. 

*MOUSE PRINT:  A policy for one 50-something male would cost monthly:

kaiserquotes.jpg

No policy was anywhere close to the advertised $3 a day, and the best plan was seven times higher. In fact, at least in Maryland, you would have to be in your 30s or younger to find a policy at the advertised price. And what do you get for your premium dollar even at over twice the advertised price?  You must first pay $8,000 out of your own pocket (in addition to the premiums) before you get “free” doctors’ visits and hospitalization coverage.

Kaiser’s $3 ad is a come on without adequate disclosure that it applies with severe coverage limitations and applies to a narrow segment of customers.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

LifeLock: Just Say You’re a Victim

LifeLock is a service that aims to protect your personal information from ID theft for $120 a year and they back up their claim with a $1 million guarantee (discussed last week here).

What are some of the things they do to protect you? They order a copy of your credit report annually from the major credit bureaus. They opt you out of pre-screened offers of credit. And they put a fraud alert on your credit reports.

Of course, these are all things you could do yourself for free. And to their credit, after they mention each of these things on their website, they indicate you could do these things too for free but why bother with the hassle. (It frankly is so surprising to see this level of candor, that it makes MrConsumer suspicious that some Attorney General somewhere didn’t require this of them in the past for this company or a prior company.)

Now, as to their putting a fraud alert on your credit report, depending on the circumstances, this may or may not be kosher. Under federal law, only victims of ID theft or those who believe they are about to become a victim of fraud may place such an alert into their credit report:

“Upon the direct request of a consumer, or an individual acting on behalf of or as a personal representative of a consumer, who asserts in good faith a suspicion that the consumer has been or is about to become a victim of fraud or related crime, including identity theft, a consumer reporting agency described in section 1681a (p) of this title that maintains a file on the consumer and has received appropriate proof of the identity of the requester shall— (A) include a fraud alert in the file of that consumer …”

So how in the world can this company represent to the credit bureaus that you have been victim or are about to be?

*MOUSE PRINT: Buried in LifeLock’s terms and conditions is this provision:

“18. … You additionally agree that you have a good faith suspicion that you have been or are about to become a victim of fraud or related crime, including identity theft, that you want to obtain fraud alerts under 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-1, and that you will notify LifeLock immediately if and when you no longer have such a good faith suspicion.”

Unless you read the fine print, you probably would not have known that you were being asked to attest to something that may not be true — that you are a current or imminent future victim of ID theft.

This bit of duplicity has not gone unnoticed. Just a few days ago, Experian, one of the big three credit reporting agencies filed suit against LifeLock for this very practice.