14 ms·

Why should he not make money off fairy tales? By making money he built a company which has brought joy to millions of people over a near century, employed thous

Why should he not make money off fairy tales? By making money he built a company which has brought joy to millions of people over a near century, employed thousands and created value all without doing any real damage to the fairy tales which inspired him. It's a classic win-win.

rangibaby 8y ago
> real damage to the fairy tales which inspired him What about the next Walt Disney? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
- ardent_uno 8y ago
  I'd say that's more an issue with current copyright law than Disney.
  - jonreem 8y ago
    Current copyright law is the law in large part due to Disney’s political influence.
- hahla 8y ago
  What does this have to do with the next Walt Disney? The next "Walt Disney" is not going to be copying Mickey Mouse they will be creating something new... Inspiration != copying.
  - snaily 8y ago
    Except that at least of the source material for Disney classics was based on public domain sources that was younger than Mickey Mouse is today. Pinocchio (the book) was released in 1883,and thus only 73 years at the time of the Disney movie (source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/derekkhanna/2014/02/03/50-disney-movies-based-on-the-public-domain/#1e69a2f4329c https://www.forbes.com/sites/derekkhanna/2014/02/03/50-disne...) It is somewhat hypocritical to lobby for removal of the same protections that enabled your own success.
    - Johnny555 8y ago
      It is somewhat hypocritical to lobby for removal of the same protections that enabled your own success. I don't think "hypocritical" is the right word to use, I think it's completely reasonable for a company to want to lock out its competitors (even unborn competitors) even if it means shutting the same door that company used to achieve success. It's up to elected lawmakers to uphold the interests of common citizens, and we all know how that goes.
      - Lio 8y ago
        I think a good deal of the world’s troubles can be attributed to people saying “It's up to elected lawmakers to uphold the interests of common citizens”. Corporations solely relying on legislators is not a reasonable thing to do at all. I think acting immorally to turn a profit for your shareholders just because something is legal is, well,... immoral.
      - jimjimjim 8y ago
        this is what is wrong with the world today. Thinking that if something isn't illegal there is nothing wrong with it. So if you managed to lobby and bribe politicians to make killing someone legal, it would be ok to kill people?
    - dotancohen 8y ago
      > It is somewhat hypocritical to lobby for removal of the same protections that enabled your own success. In some older interviews Bill Gates describes how he would fish the source code of programs from the trash to learn how they work. I probably do not need to describe his company's attitude towards open source on HN.
  - Horrible 8y ago
    The point is that Disney by and large wasn't "creating something new" - he was reusing and re-purposing existing stories that were in the public domain, something that extending copyrights severely limits.
  - andrepd 8y ago
    Dude, what is Disney known for? Retellings of old stories and fairy-tales... Star Wars is a fairytale of our days, yet no artist can retell the story or expand the universe.
user982 8y ago
> all without doing any real damage to the fairy tales which inspired him I agree with the rest of that sentence, but this really isn't true. Disney's bowdlerized versions actually do harm and even displace the source material in public consciousness.
- pphysch 8y ago
  To be fair though, once you undermine this clause, the rest of the comment can be applied to almost any enterprise: illegal drugs, weapons, or almost any other harmful industry.
  - user982 8y ago
    "Bringing joy to millions" might be a bit more of a stretch for some of those.
    - pphysch 8y ago
      Proponents of recreational firearms or cannabis certainly use arguments like this.
    - Vindicis 8y ago
      Probably more accurate as hundreds of millions.
    - lovich 8y ago
      It'd be difficult to argue that most drugs do not bring extreme joy to their users, it's just coupled with equally or even more severe lows after. If you could take heroin without getting addicted or dealing with withdrawal, why wouldn't you?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - ardent_uno 8y ago
    That you compare Disney and children's stories to narcotics and "harmful industry" is laughable. Sure guns/drugs etc bring joy to some people but their harmful side effects - both to society and the individual - are much much much worse and widespread compared to Disney which really has very little to no harmful side effects.
godzillabrennus 8y ago
Let us not forget the Song of the South movie: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_the_South https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_the_South
- jjeaff 8y ago
  What about it? I watched Song of the South recently. And I have to say that aside from some racial stereotypes, that were not necessarily negative stereotypes, the movie seemed like an earnest effort to portray the black character (Uncle Remus) in a very positive light. The movie did receive condemnation from the NAACP and others. But much of that was based on the erroneous assumption that the movie took place in the antebellum south and thus assumed Uncle Remus was a slave that was just cheerful and happy. The movie does not explicitly identify the time period but the clothing and Disney themselves make it clear that it is post-civil war. The only real controversy was that of a movie that portrayed rosy racial relations and some cliches in a time when racism was rampant and racial relations were poor. But to me there are two schools of thought in regards to Hollywood portrayals like Song of the South. Some think you should tell only the truth and show how awful everything is so people will hopefully change. And others think you should show an idealic fiction that shows how things should be. I tend to think the latter is more effective.
  - Stratoscope 8y ago
    Be sure to watch So Dear to My Heart if you get a chance. Made two years later, it's kind of a sister film to Song of the South: similar animation + live action techniques, some of the same actors, and a bit (but not so much) of the same racial controversy. There are certainly things to be criticized about both movies, but I think much of the criticism came from people who never saw them. Walter Francis White's NAACP statement (quoted in the Wikipedia article linked above) is a good example. White didn't see the movie himself, but commented on it based on reports from staff members. As you mentioned, he mistakenly assumed that the film was set during the era of slavery. The thing that sticks in my mind about Song of the South is that Uncle Remus is the hero of the movie. To me, the real tragedy of this film - which portrayed people of different races as friends and companions - was that James Baskett, who played Uncle Remus and voiced a couple of the animated characters, couldn't attend the premiere festivities in Atlanta because it was a segregated city. But how could Disney be to blame for that? And right now I'm regretting having given away my old laserdiscs of Song of the South and So Dear to My Heart. :-(
wyclif 8y ago
Note that JRRT's argument isn't based on dislike of profit motive, though he did think it could be taken to extremes. In any case, he could hardly argue that way convincingly since his estate has made quite a lot of money from his fairy tales.
ajross 8y ago
> Why should he not make money off fairy tales? Obviously he should have. Disney's work is at least as objectively important to an understanding of modern western society as Tolkien's or Lewis's is. Still, if your life's love labor was to have crafted a history and arc detailing in great precision the tales of the seven houses of the children of Aulë, "Hi Ho!" might have been a bit much to take.
andrepd 8y ago
That popularity of bastardised versions can be said to do harm to the original tales. Also the whole thing about copyright, the famous "eternity + 1 day", so there's that.
- icebraining 8y ago
  eternity + 1 day That wasn't Disney, it was Jack Valenti, and it was less one day, as to "comply" with the restriction in the Constitution that the term must be limited.
oldcynic 8y ago
For the same reason that we now understand Santa Claus as the shitty Coca Cola character invented as an early 20th century ad. The original is lost to all except historical scholars and all we're left with is the pastiche dripping in sickly sweetness. About as far from "without doing any real damage" as it's possible to get.
- ekianjo 8y ago
  Saint Nicholas is still alive and well in Belgium and the Netherlands.
  - Asooka 8y ago
    Saint Nicholas is not Santa Claus, at least in Orthodox parts of Europe. St. Nick day is in November and celebrated apart from Christmas.
    - ekianjo 8y ago
      > Saint Nicholas is not Santa Claus You are wrong. It's very same character that just got a distorted spelling over time. And one became a pagan version thru the process, but they are very much the same character. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus > Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Kris Kringle, Father Christmas, or simply Santa, is a legendary figure originating in Western Christian culture who is said to bring gifts to the homes of well-behaved ("good" or "nice") children on Christmas Eve (24 December) and the early morning hours of Christmas Day (25 December).[1] The modern Santa Claus grew out of traditions surrounding the historical Saint Nicholas (a fourth-century Greek bishop and gift-giver of Myra), the British figure of Father Christmas and the Dutch figure of Sinterklaas (himself also based on Saint Nicholas). Some maintain Santa Claus also absorbed elements of the Germanic god Wodan, who was associated with the pagan midwinter event of Yule and led the Wild Hunt, a ghostly procession through the sky. Now, the fact that people know think it's two different characters is beyond the point: they just don't realize where it is coming from.
      - deleted 8y ago

rangibaby 8y ago

> real damage to the fairy tales which inspired him What about the next Walt Disney? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

ardent_uno 8y ago
I'd say that's more an issue with current copyright law than Disney.
- jonreem 8y ago
  Current copyright law is the law in large part due to Disney’s political influence.
hahla 8y ago
What does this have to do with the next Walt Disney? The next "Walt Disney" is not going to be copying Mickey Mouse they will be creating something new... Inspiration != copying.
- snaily 8y ago
  Except that at least of the source material for Disney classics was based on public domain sources that was younger than Mickey Mouse is today. Pinocchio (the book) was released in 1883,and thus only 73 years at the time of the Disney movie (source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/derekkhanna/2014/02/03/50-disney-movies-based-on-the-public-domain/#1e69a2f4329c https://www.forbes.com/sites/derekkhanna/2014/02/03/50-disne...) It is somewhat hypocritical to lobby for removal of the same protections that enabled your own success.
  - Johnny555 8y ago
    It is somewhat hypocritical to lobby for removal of the same protections that enabled your own success. I don't think "hypocritical" is the right word to use, I think it's completely reasonable for a company to want to lock out its competitors (even unborn competitors) even if it means shutting the same door that company used to achieve success. It's up to elected lawmakers to uphold the interests of common citizens, and we all know how that goes.
    - Lio 8y ago
      I think a good deal of the world’s troubles can be attributed to people saying “It's up to elected lawmakers to uphold the interests of common citizens”. Corporations solely relying on legislators is not a reasonable thing to do at all. I think acting immorally to turn a profit for your shareholders just because something is legal is, well,... immoral.
    - jimjimjim 8y ago
      this is what is wrong with the world today. Thinking that if something isn't illegal there is nothing wrong with it. So if you managed to lobby and bribe politicians to make killing someone legal, it would be ok to kill people?
  - dotancohen 8y ago
    > It is somewhat hypocritical to lobby for removal of the same protections that enabled your own success. In some older interviews Bill Gates describes how he would fish the source code of programs from the trash to learn how they work. I probably do not need to describe his company's attitude towards open source on HN.
- Horrible 8y ago
  The point is that Disney by and large wasn't "creating something new" - he was reusing and re-purposing existing stories that were in the public domain, something that extending copyrights severely limits.
- andrepd 8y ago
  Dude, what is Disney known for? Retellings of old stories and fairy-tales... Star Wars is a fairytale of our days, yet no artist can retell the story or expand the universe.

user982 8y ago

> all without doing any real damage to the fairy tales which inspired him I agree with the rest of that sentence, but this really isn't true. Disney's bowdlerized versions actually do harm and even displace the source material in public consciousness.

pphysch 8y ago
To be fair though, once you undermine this clause, the rest of the comment can be applied to almost any enterprise: illegal drugs, weapons, or almost any other harmful industry.
- user982 8y ago
  "Bringing joy to millions" might be a bit more of a stretch for some of those.
  - pphysch 8y ago
    Proponents of recreational firearms or cannabis certainly use arguments like this.
  - Vindicis 8y ago
    Probably more accurate as hundreds of millions.
  - lovich 8y ago
    It'd be difficult to argue that most drugs do not bring extreme joy to their users, it's just coupled with equally or even more severe lows after. If you could take heroin without getting addicted or dealing with withdrawal, why wouldn't you?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- ardent_uno 8y ago
  That you compare Disney and children's stories to narcotics and "harmful industry" is laughable. Sure guns/drugs etc bring joy to some people but their harmful side effects - both to society and the individual - are much much much worse and widespread compared to Disney which really has very little to no harmful side effects.

godzillabrennus 8y ago

Let us not forget the Song of the South movie: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_the_South https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_the_South

jjeaff 8y ago
What about it? I watched Song of the South recently. And I have to say that aside from some racial stereotypes, that were not necessarily negative stereotypes, the movie seemed like an earnest effort to portray the black character (Uncle Remus) in a very positive light. The movie did receive condemnation from the NAACP and others. But much of that was based on the erroneous assumption that the movie took place in the antebellum south and thus assumed Uncle Remus was a slave that was just cheerful and happy. The movie does not explicitly identify the time period but the clothing and Disney themselves make it clear that it is post-civil war. The only real controversy was that of a movie that portrayed rosy racial relations and some cliches in a time when racism was rampant and racial relations were poor. But to me there are two schools of thought in regards to Hollywood portrayals like Song of the South. Some think you should tell only the truth and show how awful everything is so people will hopefully change. And others think you should show an idealic fiction that shows how things should be. I tend to think the latter is more effective.
- Stratoscope 8y ago
  Be sure to watch So Dear to My Heart if you get a chance. Made two years later, it's kind of a sister film to Song of the South: similar animation + live action techniques, some of the same actors, and a bit (but not so much) of the same racial controversy. There are certainly things to be criticized about both movies, but I think much of the criticism came from people who never saw them. Walter Francis White's NAACP statement (quoted in the Wikipedia article linked above) is a good example. White didn't see the movie himself, but commented on it based on reports from staff members. As you mentioned, he mistakenly assumed that the film was set during the era of slavery. The thing that sticks in my mind about Song of the South is that Uncle Remus is the hero of the movie. To me, the real tragedy of this film - which portrayed people of different races as friends and companions - was that James Baskett, who played Uncle Remus and voiced a couple of the animated characters, couldn't attend the premiere festivities in Atlanta because it was a segregated city. But how could Disney be to blame for that? And right now I'm regretting having given away my old laserdiscs of Song of the South and So Dear to My Heart. :-(

wyclif 8y ago

Note that JRRT's argument isn't based on dislike of profit motive, though he did think it could be taken to extremes. In any case, he could hardly argue that way convincingly since his estate has made quite a lot of money from his fairy tales.

ajross 8y ago

> Why should he not make money off fairy tales? Obviously he should have. Disney's work is at least as objectively important to an understanding of modern western society as Tolkien's or Lewis's is. Still, if your life's love labor was to have crafted a history and arc detailing in great precision the tales of the seven houses of the children of Aulë, "Hi Ho!" might have been a bit much to take.

andrepd 8y ago

That popularity of bastardised versions can be said to do harm to the original tales. Also the whole thing about copyright, the famous "eternity + 1 day", so there's that.

icebraining 8y ago
eternity + 1 day That wasn't Disney, it was Jack Valenti, and it was less one day, as to "comply" with the restriction in the Constitution that the term must be limited.

oldcynic 8y ago

For the same reason that we now understand Santa Claus as the shitty Coca Cola character invented as an early 20th century ad. The original is lost to all except historical scholars and all we're left with is the pastiche dripping in sickly sweetness. About as far from "without doing any real damage" as it's possible to get.

ekianjo 8y ago
Saint Nicholas is still alive and well in Belgium and the Netherlands.
- Asooka 8y ago
  Saint Nicholas is not Santa Claus, at least in Orthodox parts of Europe. St. Nick day is in November and celebrated apart from Christmas.
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    > Saint Nicholas is not Santa Claus You are wrong. It's very same character that just got a distorted spelling over time. And one became a pagan version thru the process, but they are very much the same character. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus > Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Kris Kringle, Father Christmas, or simply Santa, is a legendary figure originating in Western Christian culture who is said to bring gifts to the homes of well-behaved ("good" or "nice") children on Christmas Eve (24 December) and the early morning hours of Christmas Day (25 December).[1] The modern Santa Claus grew out of traditions surrounding the historical Saint Nicholas (a fourth-century Greek bishop and gift-giver of Myra), the British figure of Father Christmas and the Dutch figure of Sinterklaas (himself also based on Saint Nicholas). Some maintain Santa Claus also absorbed elements of the Germanic god Wodan, who was associated with the pagan midwinter event of Yule and led the Wild Hunt, a ghostly procession through the sky. Now, the fact that people know think it's two different characters is beyond the point: they just don't realize where it is coming from.
    - deleted 8y ago