5 ms·

The whole "this version of willie is protected" is just silly. I give it a few years and the courts will stop putting up with Disney's bullshit.

gwbas1c 3y ago
"Steamboat Silly" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThU7_06h0fQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThU7_06h0fQ is obviously different than "Steamboat Willy." You only need to watch a few seconds of both to see the difference. They are clearly different cartoons, and the kind of usage that "silly" makes of source material from "willy" is what others are doing now that "willy" is in the public domain.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Silly looks like a colorized version of Steamboat. Not that different. Or at least I can't tell that it is, enough to say it is 'obvious'. So, for me, joe blow off the street, they don't look different. Is colorizing enough to say they are different? Then why can't I colorize Steamboat? Isn't that allowed.
  - mminer237 3y ago
    It doesn't look anything a colorized version of Steamboat Willie. It's a completely different story with the newest character design of Mickey & friends used throughout just with the "Steamboat Willy" character showing up. You are free to colorize Steamboat Willie as long as you aren't doing so to copy a protected character. You just can't use later versions of Mickey just because they include Steamboat Willie as a character. Similarly, if someone legally releases a Steamboat Willie sequel today, you aren't allowed to copy that sequel just because it uses a public domain character. Its unique creative expressions have their own copyright that vest for that author's life + 70.
    - behringer 3y ago
      You can't make a modern looking car! You have to make a car based on the Model T that's the only one in the public domain!
      - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        Yeah, but am I allowed to use 4 wheels? Where does the platonic 'form' of a model-T reside? Can I make re-interpretations of boot-leg era souped-up muscle model-T's? Where is the cut-off on Model-T's.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      Guess maybe that is at the heart of the problem with subjective interpretations. You say Tomato, I say Potato. They look same to me, as a non-graphic artist, only taking a glance. Steam Boat is open to be re-interpreted. How much can it be re-interpreted, given they look almost the same already, before you can say it is same. But it is a strange world, didn't Apple and Samsung just have a billon dollar judgement over "how rounded the corners are on a phone"?
      - gwbas1c 3y ago
        > You say Tomato, I say Potato. No, "Steamboat Willie" and "Steamboat Silly" are obviously different cartoons. Specifically, the plot of "Steamboat Silly" involves Mickey pulling out old movies and playing back "Steamboat Willy" to other Disney characters. After a few seconds of clips from "Steamboat Willy," "Steamboat Silly" is a cartoon where a modern-style Mickey chases a 1920s-style Mickey through a completely different setting, with different characters as well. You clearly haven't looked at the cartoons or trailers, and aren't basing your comments on any factual knowledge whatsoever. > subjective interpretations. You are arguing with fact, not making a subjective interpretation. Maybe you looked at the wrong video? Maybe you're just one of those people who likes to argue for the sake of arguing?

gwbas1c 3y ago

"Steamboat Silly" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThU7_06h0fQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThU7_06h0fQ is obviously different than "Steamboat Willy." You only need to watch a few seconds of both to see the difference. They are clearly different cartoons, and the kind of usage that "silly" makes of source material from "willy" is what others are doing now that "willy" is in the public domain.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Silly looks like a colorized version of Steamboat. Not that different. Or at least I can't tell that it is, enough to say it is 'obvious'. So, for me, joe blow off the street, they don't look different. Is colorizing enough to say they are different? Then why can't I colorize Steamboat? Isn't that allowed.
- mminer237 3y ago
  It doesn't look anything a colorized version of Steamboat Willie. It's a completely different story with the newest character design of Mickey & friends used throughout just with the "Steamboat Willy" character showing up. You are free to colorize Steamboat Willie as long as you aren't doing so to copy a protected character. You just can't use later versions of Mickey just because they include Steamboat Willie as a character. Similarly, if someone legally releases a Steamboat Willie sequel today, you aren't allowed to copy that sequel just because it uses a public domain character. Its unique creative expressions have their own copyright that vest for that author's life + 70.
  - behringer 3y ago
    You can't make a modern looking car! You have to make a car based on the Model T that's the only one in the public domain!
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      Yeah, but am I allowed to use 4 wheels? Where does the platonic 'form' of a model-T reside? Can I make re-interpretations of boot-leg era souped-up muscle model-T's? Where is the cut-off on Model-T's.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    Guess maybe that is at the heart of the problem with subjective interpretations. You say Tomato, I say Potato. They look same to me, as a non-graphic artist, only taking a glance. Steam Boat is open to be re-interpreted. How much can it be re-interpreted, given they look almost the same already, before you can say it is same. But it is a strange world, didn't Apple and Samsung just have a billon dollar judgement over "how rounded the corners are on a phone"?
    - gwbas1c 3y ago
      > You say Tomato, I say Potato. No, "Steamboat Willie" and "Steamboat Silly" are obviously different cartoons. Specifically, the plot of "Steamboat Silly" involves Mickey pulling out old movies and playing back "Steamboat Willy" to other Disney characters. After a few seconds of clips from "Steamboat Willy," "Steamboat Silly" is a cartoon where a modern-style Mickey chases a 1920s-style Mickey through a completely different setting, with different characters as well. You clearly haven't looked at the cartoons or trailers, and aren't basing your comments on any factual knowledge whatsoever. > subjective interpretations. You are arguing with fact, not making a subjective interpretation. Maybe you looked at the wrong video? Maybe you're just one of those people who likes to argue for the sake of arguing?