5 ms·

It has never occurred to me before how odd it is for Disney to take public-domain stories, rework them into blockbusters, then lock them up with copyright indef

• Vivtek 15y ago
  Well, but doesn't Disney's copyright just apply to Disney's own instance? They can't claim copyright on other adaptations of Rapunzel, just their own and the specific style of character drawings and so on, right?
  • swombat 15y ago
    I believe you're correct. The accusation of hypocrisy is based on the fact that Disney has vigorously lobbied to keep characters like Mickey Mouse out of the public domain, while happily plundering the fairy tales and characters of earlier centuries.
    • ssp 15y ago
      while happily plundering the fairy tales and characters of earlier centuries. It's even more striking if you consider that those fairy tales and characters are the products of many, many retellings and adaptations throughout history. The Grimm brothers didn't write them; they just wrote down one version of a lot of them. In a real sense, Disney's modern retellings are just the latest iteration on this process.
• replicatorblog 15y ago
  Yes, but anyone else who is interested could make their own version of Rapunzel now to, provided they didn't call it "Tangled" or directly take dialog, visual designs, etc.
• tzs 15y ago
  That would be odd, if it happened. But it does not happen. You are free to take the same public domain stories, and rework them into blockbusters, as long as you don't copy the changes Disney makes to the stories. The article was basically bullshit.