4 ms·
Disney owns the 1992 production of Aladdin so who exactly are they "stealing" from?
by khuey 5mo ago
Disney owns the 1992 production of Aladdin so who exactly are they "stealing" from?
- wgjordan 5mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aladdin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aladdin The argument, as I understand it is that the "theft" is in quotes because it's not literally copyright infringement, but fair use of an old public-domain folk tale that ends up consuming the latter. Today, when kids know "Aladdin" they know the copyrighted/trademarked Disney character, not the traditional folk tale- that's the "theft" that happened.
- khuey 5mo agoIf you subscribe to any concept of the public domain this is surely in it.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- cortesoft 5mo agoDoesn't this mean that anyone can make a competing Aladdin story, though? Since they don't own the source IP?
- bigfishrunning 5mo agoIt does! but you can't use anything Disney added (the tiger, the talking bird, etc..) and your production values would have to be super high to avoid looking like a store-brand knockoff. It's hard to deny that the Disney version does damage the original story in some way
- altmanaltman 5mo agoWould most kids around the world even know Aladdin if it wasn't for the Disney copyrighted movie?
- the_af 5mo agoVery likely yes. I was very familiar with this story, and other "Arabian" tales, well before Disney made the original animated version. We also had Grimm's fairy tales, which I loved reading, and nowadays am reading to my daughter, to her delight. Yes, with beheadings and child-eating monsters and witches.
- razakel 5mo agoAladdin, Ali Baba and Sinbad the Sailor were well-known long before Disney. There's even a major Chinese company named after one!
- Zardoz84 5mo agoI know very well before the movie. It's a classic folk tale.
- inanutshellus 5mo agoI assume he's saying Disney owns the 1992 film so the 1999 film is not theft, but he wants it to be because he doesn't like the 1999 film. Thus the quotes.
- the_af 5mo agoThat's not a charitable reading of the comment, and furthermore, it's not even a reasonable assumption. Other comments clarify that the "theft" is in quotes because it's a figurative theft, not from Disney to themselves, but from Disney to the earlier, non-copyrighted folk tales it drew inspiration from. And the "theft" is that the Disney IP supplanted (via ubiquity) the public domain versions to the point lots of people aren't even aware they exist. Nobody is arguing it's literal theft, hence the quotes.
- inanutshellus 5mo agoI don't think it's "uncharitable"? Seems perfectly reasonable to not like a remake. He says: > ... this corporate remake is a worse creative "theft" than ... Context is that "this" is the 1999 film. A sibling comment makes a separate point that even the 1992 film is not original content but nowhere in falcor84's comment does he refer to the franchise as a whole being "theft". Regardless, it's clear from the post that the context is the 1999 film being `creative "theft"` which I inferred meant they changed the story in ways he didn't like but... he can weigh in if he feels like it.
- the_af 5mo ago> Seems perfectly reasonable to not like a remake That's not the uncharitable part of your comment. > [...] but he wants it to be because he doesn't like the 1999 film This is the uncharitable part.
- inanutshellus 5mo agoNothing charitable or uncharitable in the sentiment. Just interpretation. Keeping context confined to the 1999 and 1992 films... What meaning do you infer? I still can't find an alternative.