While we're on the topic of Bambi, here's an excerpt from its wikipedia article: > The copyrights for Bambi, a Life in the Woods were inherited by Anna Wyler,

While we're on the topic of Bambi, here's an excerpt from its wikipedia article: > The copyrights for Bambi, a Life in the Woods were inherited by Anna Wyler, Salten's daughter, who renewed them in 1954. After her death, Wyler's husband sold the rights to Twin Books, a publishing company which subsequently filed a lawsuit against Disney, claiming Disney owed it money for the continued licensing for the use of the book. Disney countered by claiming that Salten had published the story in 1923 without a copyright notice, thus it immediately entered into the public domain. Disney also argued that if the claimed 1923 publication date was accurate, then the copyright renewal filed in 1954 had been registered after the deadline and was thus invalid. The courts initially upheld Disney's view; however, in 1996, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed the decision on appeal in Twin Books Corp. v. Walt Disney Co., 83 F.3d 1162 (1996).[76][77] I find the juxtaposition of Disney's highly zealous defense of this supposed intellectual property, and active destruction of the public domain, vs. its own questionable claims in the first place, and recourse to the public domain when suits its purposes, quite deeply ironic and hypocritical. If anything, specifying those deer to be Bambi-related only deepens my antipathy towards Disney, and sympathy for OP's parents.