5 ms·

So, anyone that had a personal attachment to that music is dead. The current goal of copyright is to let companies own the culture you grew with. All the movie

So, anyone that had a personal attachment to that music is dead. The current goal of copyright is to let companies own the culture you grew with. All the movies, music, books and games that defined who you are will not enter the public domain until you are dead or very old. Companies like Disney were founded on well known stories. They will not allow anybody else too accomplish the same.

chrisco255 5y ago
Disney was founded on Mickey Mouse. Yes, they made major motion pictures out of old myths and legends, like Cinderella and Robin Hood, but those stories have always been public domain and you can write a book or movie about them with no problem.
- cool_dude85 5y ago
  Not sure about their finances back then, but I have to guess that their feature films were the money makers and the shorts less so. And I think the grandparent's point is that Mickey Mouse today is in some sense analogous to your Cinderellas and Robin Hoods in the 30s... only you can't make your own movie about him.
  - Someone 5y ago
    Back then, their feature films weren’t money makers, as they didn’t make them. Their first feature film was very profitable, but it was from about 15 years later (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White_and_the_Seven_Dwarfs_(1937_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White_and_the_Seven_Dwarf...). However, their next two movies (Pinocchio, Fantasia) cost them money because they were released during World War Two, when they couldn’t show them in large parts of the world. They needed Dumbo to make up for that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumbo#Box_office https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumbo#Box_office), then Bambi wasn’t a huge success, either (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bambi#Box_office https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bambi#Box_office) So, I guess it wasn’t till after World War Two that their feature films became profitable. They survived, so chances are the shorts brought in money.
    - 9000 5y ago
      > So, I guess it wasn’t till after World War Two that their feature films became profitable. They survived, so chances are the shorts brought in money. According to Wikipedia [0], "The U.S. and Canadian governments commissioned the studio to produce training and propaganda films. By 1942, 90 percent of its 550 employees were working on war-related films." So, it seems they primarily survived by taking government contracts, not producing shorts. In fact, the next paragraph goes on to say, "With limited staff and little operating capital during and after the war, Disney's feature films during much of the 1940s were 'package films', or collections of shorts, [...] which performed poorly at the box office." So I wouldn't say their shorts were particular moneymakers during that time. After the war, they started releasing feature films again (Song of the South, etc). Although it does seem that in the 20s and early 30s, prior to Snow White, animated shorts and comics (and potentially related merchandising?) were most of the company's revenue. So, I think it's probably fair to say shorts financed the company through the release of Snow White, but not really any further. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company#1934%E2%80%931950:_Snow_White_and_the_Seven_Dwarfs,_World_War_II,_and_package_films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company#1934%E...
- Natsu 5y ago
  Sort of, you have to be careful to stick to the originals and not accidentally insert any Disney-derived elements, which just creates a lot of extra risk for those who want to make use of their cultural heritages.
- asdff 5y ago
  Disney does not own the stories but it owns its films and all associated IP. If you sell a Cinderella T shirt that looks like their Cinderella, you will probably get something in writing from a lawyer before long.
- lapetitejort 5y ago
  > those stories have always been public domain and you can write a book or movie about them with no problem. Those stories were retelling of stories which were retelling of stories which were... Disney made it law that no one is allowed to retell their stories but them. Approaching or alluding to their retelling can carry stiff penalties. It's antithetical to a universal human institution that has existed since before recorded history.
  - adolph 5y ago
    This is interesting to think about. The Disney retellings in some ways are evolutionary winners that are also dead ends. Outside of Disney they can’t evolve unlike pre-Disney. The Disney retellings are so popular that other retellings are almost extinct. When Disney goes away, does the story lineages disappear? Do copies of older retellings resurge? Do totally different story lineages take the place of the Disney stories?
    - lapetitejort 5y ago
      It would be interesting to do a study on popular myths/fairy tales that have and have not been adapted by huge media companies. For example, if I search "Beowulf" in Amazon, the first link is for 2007 movie, the second for the book, and the third for a TV show. If I search for "The Little Mermaid", the whole page is dominated by the Disney franchise or some off-brand adaptations. Hans Christian Andersen's book is nowhere to be seen.
    - datavirtue 5y ago
      Those stories are dead. Most people think Disney came up with all of their ideas and have no idea that most of them stem from ancient stories--some existed before writing as we know it. They will probably dig up these stories from Sumeria (tablets in UK) or other yet un-studied texts some day and rehash them completely anew...starting the cycle again. Heck, the bible has a lot of good stuff if you can shed the religious/Christian connotations.
      - adolph 5y ago
- cma 5y ago
  Original style Mickey himself is mostly just a traceover of Oswald with different ears.
  - chrisco255 5y ago
    Right, but Oswald was created by Walt. He did it under contract for Universal.
- VictorPath 5y ago
  Disney was actually founded on Alice in Wonderland, Mickey Mouse was created years later. At the time, Alice in Wonderland would have still been copyrighted if it were under the copyright regime Disney etc. instituted since. The corporation pulled the ladder up after it. Incidentally, Mickey Mouse was in many ways a ripoff of Universal's Oswald the Rabbit.
  - not2b 5y ago
    Incorrect: Mickey Mouse was created in the 20s, Disney's Alice in Wonderland was released in 1951. You're right that the book would still have been copyrighted. Oswald the Rabbit was also created by Walt Disney, in 1927, and sold to Universal. He then created Mickey Mouse as a replacement character for his own movie.
    - 9000 5y ago
      They aren't referencing the 1951 movie, but instead the 1920s shorts series called Alice Comedies, the first of which is literally called Alice's Wonderland. These weren't really retellings of the original stories, but it would nevertheless not be hard to imagine they would count as a derivative work under modern law and would thus have been illegal to produce without a licensing deal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Comedies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Comedies
  - Tagbert 5y ago
    "Mickey Mouse was in many ways a ripoff of Universal's Oswald the Rabbit" Considering that Walt Disney created Oswald the Rabbit for Universal, it is no surprise that some elements carried over to Mickey. When Universal took Oswald away from Disney's control, he responded by creating the mouse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_the_Lucky_Rabbit#Universal_takes_direct_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_the_Lucky_Rabbit#Univer...
    - yesenadam 5y ago
      Apparently Mickey and Oswald were both created by Ub Iwerks. I don't know why it's still repeated that Disney created them personally. "Disney asked Iwerks to design a character that became Oswald the Lucky Rabbit. The first cartoon Oswald starred in was animated entirely by Iwerks." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ub_Iwerks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ub_Iwerks Sounds a bit like a Jobs + Wozniak situation!
- not2b 5y ago
  Alice in Wonderland was based on a book that was 86 years old when Disney's film was released. It was public domain. But Disney fought hard to prevent Mickey Mouse from going into the public domain, and got Congress to extend the copyright term to 95 years. Under such a rule Disney couldn't have made Alice in Wonderland without permission from the heirs of Charles Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll).
- sneak 5y ago
  May the force be with you.
Bayart 5y ago
>So, anyone that had a personal attachment to that music is dead. 1923 is right around the first few recordings of country blues, and I've got a few of them in my regular playlist. We're not dead, there are dozens of us !

chrisco255 5y ago

Disney was founded on Mickey Mouse. Yes, they made major motion pictures out of old myths and legends, like Cinderella and Robin Hood, but those stories have always been public domain and you can write a book or movie about them with no problem.

cool_dude85 5y ago
Not sure about their finances back then, but I have to guess that their feature films were the money makers and the shorts less so. And I think the grandparent's point is that Mickey Mouse today is in some sense analogous to your Cinderellas and Robin Hoods in the 30s... only you can't make your own movie about him.
- Someone 5y ago
  Back then, their feature films weren’t money makers, as they didn’t make them. Their first feature film was very profitable, but it was from about 15 years later (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White_and_the_Seven_Dwarfs_(1937_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White_and_the_Seven_Dwarf...). However, their next two movies (Pinocchio, Fantasia) cost them money because they were released during World War Two, when they couldn’t show them in large parts of the world. They needed Dumbo to make up for that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumbo#Box_office https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumbo#Box_office), then Bambi wasn’t a huge success, either (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bambi#Box_office https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bambi#Box_office) So, I guess it wasn’t till after World War Two that their feature films became profitable. They survived, so chances are the shorts brought in money.
  - 9000 5y ago
    > So, I guess it wasn’t till after World War Two that their feature films became profitable. They survived, so chances are the shorts brought in money. According to Wikipedia [0], "The U.S. and Canadian governments commissioned the studio to produce training and propaganda films. By 1942, 90 percent of its 550 employees were working on war-related films." So, it seems they primarily survived by taking government contracts, not producing shorts. In fact, the next paragraph goes on to say, "With limited staff and little operating capital during and after the war, Disney's feature films during much of the 1940s were 'package films', or collections of shorts, [...] which performed poorly at the box office." So I wouldn't say their shorts were particular moneymakers during that time. After the war, they started releasing feature films again (Song of the South, etc). Although it does seem that in the 20s and early 30s, prior to Snow White, animated shorts and comics (and potentially related merchandising?) were most of the company's revenue. So, I think it's probably fair to say shorts financed the company through the release of Snow White, but not really any further. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company#1934%E2%80%931950:_Snow_White_and_the_Seven_Dwarfs,_World_War_II,_and_package_films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company#1934%E...
Natsu 5y ago
Sort of, you have to be careful to stick to the originals and not accidentally insert any Disney-derived elements, which just creates a lot of extra risk for those who want to make use of their cultural heritages.
asdff 5y ago
Disney does not own the stories but it owns its films and all associated IP. If you sell a Cinderella T shirt that looks like their Cinderella, you will probably get something in writing from a lawyer before long.
lapetitejort 5y ago
> those stories have always been public domain and you can write a book or movie about them with no problem. Those stories were retelling of stories which were retelling of stories which were... Disney made it law that no one is allowed to retell their stories but them. Approaching or alluding to their retelling can carry stiff penalties. It's antithetical to a universal human institution that has existed since before recorded history.
- adolph 5y ago
  This is interesting to think about. The Disney retellings in some ways are evolutionary winners that are also dead ends. Outside of Disney they can’t evolve unlike pre-Disney. The Disney retellings are so popular that other retellings are almost extinct. When Disney goes away, does the story lineages disappear? Do copies of older retellings resurge? Do totally different story lineages take the place of the Disney stories?
  - lapetitejort 5y ago
    It would be interesting to do a study on popular myths/fairy tales that have and have not been adapted by huge media companies. For example, if I search "Beowulf" in Amazon, the first link is for 2007 movie, the second for the book, and the third for a TV show. If I search for "The Little Mermaid", the whole page is dominated by the Disney franchise or some off-brand adaptations. Hans Christian Andersen's book is nowhere to be seen.
  - datavirtue 5y ago
    Those stories are dead. Most people think Disney came up with all of their ideas and have no idea that most of them stem from ancient stories--some existed before writing as we know it. They will probably dig up these stories from Sumeria (tablets in UK) or other yet un-studied texts some day and rehash them completely anew...starting the cycle again. Heck, the bible has a lot of good stuff if you can shed the religious/Christian connotations.
    - adolph 5y ago
cma 5y ago
Original style Mickey himself is mostly just a traceover of Oswald with different ears.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  Right, but Oswald was created by Walt. He did it under contract for Universal.
VictorPath 5y ago
Disney was actually founded on Alice in Wonderland, Mickey Mouse was created years later. At the time, Alice in Wonderland would have still been copyrighted if it were under the copyright regime Disney etc. instituted since. The corporation pulled the ladder up after it. Incidentally, Mickey Mouse was in many ways a ripoff of Universal's Oswald the Rabbit.
- not2b 5y ago
  Incorrect: Mickey Mouse was created in the 20s, Disney's Alice in Wonderland was released in 1951. You're right that the book would still have been copyrighted. Oswald the Rabbit was also created by Walt Disney, in 1927, and sold to Universal. He then created Mickey Mouse as a replacement character for his own movie.
  - 9000 5y ago
    They aren't referencing the 1951 movie, but instead the 1920s shorts series called Alice Comedies, the first of which is literally called Alice's Wonderland. These weren't really retellings of the original stories, but it would nevertheless not be hard to imagine they would count as a derivative work under modern law and would thus have been illegal to produce without a licensing deal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Comedies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Comedies
- Tagbert 5y ago
  "Mickey Mouse was in many ways a ripoff of Universal's Oswald the Rabbit" Considering that Walt Disney created Oswald the Rabbit for Universal, it is no surprise that some elements carried over to Mickey. When Universal took Oswald away from Disney's control, he responded by creating the mouse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_the_Lucky_Rabbit#Universal_takes_direct_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_the_Lucky_Rabbit#Univer...
  - yesenadam 5y ago
    Apparently Mickey and Oswald were both created by Ub Iwerks. I don't know why it's still repeated that Disney created them personally. "Disney asked Iwerks to design a character that became Oswald the Lucky Rabbit. The first cartoon Oswald starred in was animated entirely by Iwerks." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ub_Iwerks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ub_Iwerks Sounds a bit like a Jobs + Wozniak situation!
not2b 5y ago
Alice in Wonderland was based on a book that was 86 years old when Disney's film was released. It was public domain. But Disney fought hard to prevent Mickey Mouse from going into the public domain, and got Congress to extend the copyright term to 95 years. Under such a rule Disney couldn't have made Alice in Wonderland without permission from the heirs of Charles Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll).
sneak 5y ago
May the force be with you.

Bayart 5y ago

>So, anyone that had a personal attachment to that music is dead. 1923 is right around the first few recordings of country blues, and I've got a few of them in my regular playlist. We're not dead, there are dozens of us !