14 ms·

Disney have stolen my artwork

darxius 13y ago
I wonder what license the image was released under. While this could have been deliberate by Disney, I doubt they would use a (seemingly) very popular design on production material. Then again, things like this have happened.
- speeder 13y ago
  Many times that I knew some sort of stuff like this happened, it was because one specific worker, KNEW that he was doing wrong, but did it wrong anyway to take the credit, and hope his bosses would not find out. This also apply when the "worker" is a boss, but working for a client, he do it in a lazy manner hoping his client won't notice... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbaland_plagiarism_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbaland_plagiarism_controvers...
  - tibbon 13y ago
    Whoa, I'm really shocked that the case essentially lost there several times. That's.... terrible. One of them because they "failed to register copyright in the US" according to the Wikipedia. I was under the impression that there was no real need to register under US copyright law as its an automatic right.
- _chrismccreadie 13y ago
  I was under the impression that this would be covered under copyright and not a particular licence. As soon as the artwork was created by the artist it belongs to the artist, they don't even need to put a copyright symbol next to it. My advice would be get in touch with Disney, it seems the artist has support on tumblr already. I suspect a public spectacle of Disney's mistake (assuming it was a mistake) is probably the artist's best bet. DKNY were caught up in something similar and ended up paying and apologising for their mistake [1]. [1]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323884304578326733358153680.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732388430457832... Edit: Sorry, silly formatting
  - dangrossman 13y ago
    Copyright is the law from which licenses get their power. It's because the author has the exclusive rights granted by copyright protection that they can dictate the terms under which others may use their work (that is, offer licenses). When no license is offered, the author retains exclusive rights. The parent comment was implying that the author may have offered some kind of license (for example, by uploading his artwork to Flickr and ticking off one of the Creative Commons boxes in the license selection).
    - _chrismccreadie 13y ago
      Thanks for the clarification :)
    - mark-r 13y ago
      It's also quite possible that someone unauthorized put the picture on a site with a permissive license. That's an easy explanation for how this came about. I really do doubt that Disney or anyone representing them intended to steal this image.
xsmasher 13y ago
The cosmetics bag looks like a straightforward copyright violation. The second example, where no artwork was copied but there may have been some influence, is more complicated. How do you prove the inspiration came from the "stolen" art, and not Disney's own film or the original story? http://www.cornel1801.com/disney/Alice-Wonderland-Painting-Roses-Red/videosong.jpg http://www.cornel1801.com/disney/Alice-Wonderland-Painting-R...
- potatolicious 13y ago
  > "How do you prove the inspiration came from the "stolen" art, and not Disney's own film or the original story?" And even if you did prove it, is it illegal, and should it be illegal? All art is a derivation of something that came before it. Can someone reasonably claim ownership to "girl painting roses with paint brush as viewed from behind"?
  - xsmasher 13y ago
    The entire idea? No. But under US law, someone can claim ownership to derivative works. I think we agree that the artist has an uphill battle proving that the second drawing is a derivative work.
  - weareconvo 13y ago
    And didn't she, in turn, steal the idea of Alice from Lewis Carroll?
    - xsmasher 13y ago
      The Alice stories are long out of copyright, So you're comparing apples to oranges.
    - jerf 13y ago
      Doesn't matter; all works of Lewis Carroll's are in the public domain. As far as I know, this is true in all jurisdictions. The traditional Tennyson illustrations are also public domain. Compare with https://www.google.com/search?q=tennyson+illustrations+alice+in+wonderland https://www.google.com/search?q=tennyson+illustrations+alice... .
cjbprime 13y ago
> I’m so mad because I have no chance at getting Disney to do anything about it. For such a straightforward violation, I don't see why there's any call for pessimism. Send them an invoice for a worldwide license, follow it up with a lawyer letter (find someone willing to do no-win-no-fee if you want) once the invoice is overdue.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  I wonder how one prices out a worldwide license like this. Obviously if she put the prices at $1000/use, neither would Disney pay it nor would she recover that much from a court. But it's worth more than $0.01/use as well.
  - cjbprime 13y ago
    It's not my field, but by "worldwide license" I meant a single lump sum that covers everything they might want to do or already have done -- i.e. "this is the amount that you can pay to make this go away and avoid bringing in your expensive legal team". My naive guess would be that somewhere USD $5k-$10k is that amount: small enough to be within budgetary authority, large enough to make it worth the artist's time to chase up. In reality, I'd suspect and hope that the artist already has an e-mail from Disney's brand protection team, or whatever they call it, with an apology and an offer to pay immediately. Disney's surely one of the most brand-conscious companies in the world.
    - sk5t 13y ago
      IMHO this looks like a substantial infringement, and $5-10K is peanuts. The signing authority of a middle manager would not factor into a settlement demand whatsoever, if it were me.
    - robryan 13y ago
      If there was any kind of ballpark figure on how many bags they have sold, that would be a good starting point.
  - stevewilhelm 13y ago
segmondy 13y ago
There has never been a better time to say HIRE A LAWYER!
darkchasma 13y ago
Only the bag could possibly be, the cartoon on the shirt simply isn't.
- dangrossman 13y ago
  You don't know that. The right to create derivative works is one of the exclusive rights granted to the original creator by the copyright act. If the same designer that put his image on the bag is the one that designed the shirt, it would be very hard for him to claim the second image isn't a derivative work of the unlicensed original.
aashaykumar92 13y ago
FIND/HIRE A LAWYER ASAP!! You definitely have grounds for this case. If you think it may be too expensive, I suggest using Lawdingo (https://www.lawdingo.com/lawyers https://www.lawdingo.com/lawyers) as you can cold-message/chat with lawyers for free. I am positive that if everything you have presented is true, someone or another will be more than willing to represent you and help you take the appropriate action. Really sorry to hear about this but best of luck, its unfortunate this happens with such large companies. Nonetheless, hope it gets resolved soon--good luck!
mieubrisse 13y ago
While I sympathize with the author and wish her the best, I don't really see how this article belongs on HN.
- voidlogic 13y ago
  Intellectual property rights and freedoms are important issues to people here.
- lancefisher 13y ago
  Many people here are concerned about copyright related issues. Especially when a large corporation that regularly asserts copyright claims is caught doing the infringement. I'm glad this story ended up here, and I hope the press causes royalties to be paid to the original artist for the bag which is a direct copy.
- thinker 13y ago
  There's quite a lot of discussion on copyright issues around here so its somewhat appropriate, even if this is about art vs digital content.
  - mieubrisse 13y ago
    That's a valid point.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  The 'flag' function exists for a reason.
  - dangrossman 13y ago
    If you flag articles like this, you'll soon lose the flagging privilege on your account. Submissions which aren't spammy/low quality, but which you simply aren't interested in, are supposed to be ignored, not flagged.
  - mieubrisse 13y ago
    I was under the impression that the 'flag' feature is for content that is grossly inappropriate (e.g. a Reddit-esque asinine post), not for posts whose content I believe doesn't fit?
hornbaker 13y ago
This seems to be one of the rare occasions when you should, in fact, f* with The Mouse.
austenallred 13y ago
I have worked with Disney's intellectual property teams in the past, and I'm blown away that this slipped under the radar. They are very up-tight about protecting their own IP and the brand of their princesses. If this were somebody selling a T-Shirt on eBay I would say, "Don't worry about it," but this is Disney. They know better. Their entire business model is based on intellectual property. Time to lawyer up.
- jconley 13y ago
  I have had similar experiences with the Disney IP teams. They mean serious business in all directions, from protecting IP to ensuring they are not infringing. They make sure everyone in the company or affiliated is very aware of IP issues. If the painting is indeed the original work and it somehow found its way onto some merchandise, I'm sure Disney will be amicable.
  - madaxe 13y ago
    Amicable like they were over simba the white lion? Disney rip-off left, right and centre. Yes, they aggressively protect their IP, but that doesn't mean they won't trample all over everyone else's. they have a history of this behaviour.
    - jayfuerstenberg 13y ago
      Yes KIMBA, err.. I mean SIMBA.
    - aidenn0 13y ago
      I've heard the kimba/simba thing before, but don't see it myself. Simba is the swahili word for lion, the plots are not at all similar and they don't look anything alike: http://theafictionado.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/lionking460.jpg http://theafictionado.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/lionking46... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bd/ReallyKimbaTheWhiteLion.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bd/ReallyKimbaThe...
      - 13y ago
DanBC 13y ago
As people suggest - hire a lawyer. And see this blog (http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/ http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/) where people post other rip offs of their work.
yaddayadda 13y ago
"...I created at University and I was proud of it in many ways. Disney have used it..." If she passed any English classes or graduated from the mentioned university, then she deserves a tuition refund.
- infoman 13y ago
  why the heck did you write this? It doesn't help anyone ...
- xsmasher 13y ago
  "Disney have used it" is correct here, in British English. "It’s one of my favourite images I created at University" could use a [while] to my ear, but it's not so bad. The world is a big place.
  - jahabrewer 13y ago
    > "Disney have used it" is correct here, in British English. Is it even a matter of US vs. British English? I thought collective nouns could be treated as either singular or plural when conjugating the verb.
    - thedufer 13y ago
      I think it is. I don't know the rules, but I've never heard a US English speaker use an entity like "Disney" as plural. That said, "the police" is always plural, and I have no idea why that's different.
    - xsmasher 13y ago
      In the US, I would never say "The government have shut down" or "The team have lost." I would treat them as singular entities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_noun#Metonymic_merging_of_grammatical_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_noun#Metonymic_mergi...
    - IvyMike 13y ago
      In the US, a corporation is a person in matters both legal and grammatical.
laumars 13y ago
Given Disney made their fortune from reselling public domain stories then suing anyone who infringed on their IP, this story comes as no surprise. Though that doesn't stop me feeling wound up that they consider themselves above the law, and sorry for the injustice against the author.
davemel37 13y ago
Disney has a reputation for doing everything in their power to deliver exceptional customer service and epic experiences. They even run a company that teaches other companies how to treat customers right. http://disneyinstitute.com/ http://disneyinstitute.com/ Personally, I think this is a perfect opportunity for Disney to make a HUGE PR WIN, by apologizing, and paying out a nice and fair royalty without a fight. I would be very disappointed if they miss this opportunity.
- mark-r 13y ago
  I can vouch for their service. I once lost my rental car keys while at one of the Disneyworld hotels, and I got no help from the rental company aside from the key code. The Disney folks sent one of their locksmiths to help me and he tried about half a day to make a key that would start the car. His dedication and attitude were remarkable.
  - alanfalcon 13y ago
    Wow. Lost my keys at Universal Studios once and it was just a very long, very expensive night (given my budgetary realities at the time).
jcampbell1 13y ago
Does anyone know what these things typically settle for? My guess is she is going to see something like $30k within the next few months. Here is a link to the bag in their store: http://www.disneystore.com/alice-in-wonderland-cosmetic-bag/mp/1328029/1000291/ http://www.disneystore.com/alice-in-wonderland-cosmetic-bag/...
losethos 13y ago
God is just, turn the other cheek. Maybe You get love. Zynga got too many people... now, they're screwed. Making payroll must suck. Marriage between equals is best or one will dominate. If you get paid too little, you will dominate your boss. If you cheat, you will get in over your head. God is just. God says... 15:9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. 15:11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. ----- God sucks at tic-tack-toe. God says... 23:1 When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee: 23:2 And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. 23:3 Be not desirous of his dainties: for they are deceitful meat. 23:4 Labour not to be rich: cease from thine own wisdom. 23:5 Wilt thou set thine eyes upon that which is not? for riches certainly make themselves wings; they fly away as an eagle toward heaven. 23:6 Eat thou not the bread of him that hath an evil eye, neither desire thou his dainty meats: 23:7 For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee. 23:8 The morsel which thou hast eaten shalt thou vomit up, and lose thy sweet words. ---- The peperoni was good. I had to choke-down the cookie-dough ice cream. I eat a lot of ice cream and lots of the flavors I'm really sick of... understatement. Mmmmm.... peperoni. God says... August, 1989 [Etext #10] The Project Gutenberg Etext of The King James Bible This file should be named kjv10.txt or kjv10.zip* Copyright laws are changing all over the world, be sure to check the copyright laws for your country before posting these files!! Please take a look at the important information in this header. We encourage you to keep this file on your own disk, keeping an electronic path open for the next readers. Do not remove this. Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts Etexts Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971
SoftwareMaven 13y ago
Further proof that large media companies don't actually care about intellectual property. They care about their property. Whether it is Disney stealing lions[1] or Fox stealing songs[2], their concern for your property is non-existent, but they are willing to throw you in jail if you think about using theirs. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimba_the_White_Lion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimba_the_White_Lion 2. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jonathan-coulton-glee-controversy-baby-415443 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jonathan-coulton-glee-...
- jerf 13y ago
  Let's give Disney qua Disney (as opposed to one artist somewhere, which is all we know for sure at this point) some time to respond before we unleash the mob. Past history certainly gives a non-zero probability that Disney will just try to throw their weight around, but let's give them the chance to do the right thing before we bury them. It makes the moral outrage that much more moral.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    > Let's give Disney [...] some time to respond Why should anyone give Disney more leeway than Disney gives natural persons they accuse of copyright infringement?
    - jerf 13y ago
      Because letting loose the Great Internet Mob is always something that should be done with a bit of due consideration, despite the fact that it is essentially impossible to do so. Mobs aren't made more intelligent by being on the Internet, and while they are physically defanged (well... mostly, anyhow) they can make up for the destructiveness in their scope.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Yup, here is a more thorough comparison: http://robwrite.hubpages.com/hub/THE-LION-KING-Controversy-Did-Disney-Rip-off-Kimba-the-White-Lion http://robwrite.hubpages.com/hub/THE-LION-KING-Controversy-D...
danso 13y ago
Before they take down the cosmetic bag entry at http://www.disneystore.com/alice-in-wonderland-cosmetic-bag/mp/1328029/1000291/ http://www.disneystore.com/alice-in-wonderland-cosmetic-bag/... Screenshot here: http://i.imgur.com/tr2FZ3c.png http://i.imgur.com/tr2FZ3c.png
- trevorcreech 13y ago
  They already changed it: http://i.imgur.com/NzCo3ns.png http://i.imgur.com/NzCo3ns.png
  - jmharvey 13y ago
    That's the image from the front of the bag, the image in question is on the back.
  - jld 13y ago
    You screen-capped the front of the bag. Check out the back of the bag.
  - pkamb 13y ago
    That is the front view, you have to click the thumbnail to see the relevant back of the bag.
- gorrillamcd 13y ago
  It's apparently "Sold Out" now, but the image is still the same.
Trufa 13y ago
I'm of course just guessing but this seams more like the result of a lazy (unscrupulous) designers hired by Disney rather than a corporate decision to ignore copyright. This doesn't make the situation of the author any better, the author should at least talk to a copyright layer IMO.
urbanturbanguy 13y ago
Would like to know from someone more knowledgeble about copyrights: Wouldn't Disney claim a copyright on the Snow-white character itself?
- jcl 13y ago
  It's Alice in Wonderland, which was written in 1865, so it's in the public domain. The artist's illustration is inspired by the original Tenniel illustrations, so it's not a derivative of the 1951 Disney adaptation.
leephillips 13y ago
So far "the internet" seems to be on this artist's side, apparently because her work was stolen by a corporation. Recent history suggests, however, that if Andy Baio[0] or Shepard Fairey[1] had ripped her off, she would be excoriated for asserting her rights and lectured about the wonders of remix culture. [0]http://lee-phillips.org/music/whoIsTheDick/ http://lee-phillips.org/music/whoIsTheDick/ [1]http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/08/entertainment/la-et-cm-shepard-fairey-20120908 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/08/entertainment/la-et-...
- GuiA 13y ago
  Well, while Alice from "Alice in Wonderland" is now a "public domain" character, the depiction of her with a blue dress, white belt, and blonde hair with a black bow in it was very much created by Disney. In this case, the artist herself is remixing a visual design elaborated by Disney. So, yeah. It's murky, and the remix argument goes both ways.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Her depiction of Alice seems like more of a potential trademark issue, while Disney lifting the design seems like a clear-cut copyright issue.
    - ukandy 13y ago
      Tenniel illustrations are in the public domain. The original work is about 150 years old. As you say, very a clear-cut copyright issue with Disney lifting the design. I'll be interested to hear the outcome of this.
  - cromulent 13y ago
    The similarities are much more than "blue dress, white belt, and blonde hair with a black bow in it". In any case, Disney did not "very much create" that image. Here's Tenniels from 1866. http://www.goldmarkart.com/it-can-t-go-straight-you-know-if-you-pin-it-all-on-one-side-alice-said-as-she-gently-put-it-right-for-her.html http://www.goldmarkart.com/it-can-t-go-straight-you-know-if-... Blonde hair, white belt, black bow? Looks that way to me. Blue apron? Not very derivative.
spullara 13y ago
Wow, this is everywhere. Google Image search: http://bit.ly/14ShFNZ http://bit.ly/14ShFNZ
- jcl 13y ago
  It's likely a lazy designer did a Google Image search, saw an illustration that looked like the original Alice in Wonderland illustrations by Tenniel, and assumed it was in the public domain.
barking 13y ago
If this is all handled positively it could be a win win. Having Disney license your artwork is something most designers would be glad of reputation wise. I think she needs to lose the angry tone pronto and at least 'appear' more phlegmatic about it. And there isn't any particular need for panic I'd have thought as it looks like an open and shut case in terms of infringement. The person who is in deep trouble is whoever knowingly infringed, they could be out the door.
throughnothing 13y ago
If your artwork was stolen, you should file a police report to get your stolen property back. It seems what has happened, however, may be a copyright infringement, which is not theft. If that is the case, you should talk to a lawyer about filing a copyright claim against Disney.
bby 13y ago
has* ?
unreal37 13y ago
If it was me, I would just contact Disney directly. I don't understand why everyone thinks she needs a lawyer from the get-go.
nano111 13y ago
Isn't Disney a big reason why copyright is always being extended before it would expire?
noonespecial 13y ago
My advice is to do something. Disney doesn't know they infringed, some sub-sub contractor did this. But eventually, they will find the image and assume that the original author is the infringer, and they're sticklers about this. If the author does nothing, she may find herself in the unfortunate position of spending lots of money in court to prove that she didn't "steal" her own picture.
warfangle 13y ago
Maybe she should file a DMCA notice against their store.
deckar01 13y ago
The bag is definitely an infringement, but it gets complicated, because she ripped the background from a website. The t-shirt seems different enough to be legal.
beedogs 13y ago
Copyright infringement is totally fine when you're a massive corporation. These laws only seem to work in one direction.
largesse 13y ago
I'm not buying it. Both paintings are of Alice from behind with the same pose. That's about it. Are we really copyrighting poses now?
xbryanx 13y ago
I wish Tumblr had some sort of attribution engine that helped hunt down the original sources for images and text posted to its site. I know people would probably object to force attribution being injected into their posts, but there ought to be some easier way to track down original material in this network.
eliekh 13y ago
Katie, consult with an IP attorney to see if you have a case in the first place. They may be very costly especially if you're suing Disney! Then, if you want to proceed, try to hire them on contingency. You have nothing to loose, if you win, they will earn a share (probably a third) of the settlement/award.
DigitalSea 13y ago
I would honestly lawyer up in this instance. Disney from what I've seen are usually very thorough with their IP, I'm surprised something like this has happened and I am sure it's an honest mistake they will rectify. There is definitely a case here, but it doesn't seem as straightforward as some might think it is.
ed2417 13y ago
Perhaps she should leave a comment to this effect on the store page: http://www.disneystore.com/alice-in-wonderland-cosmetic-bag/mp/1328029/1000291/ http://www.disneystore.com/alice-in-wonderland-cosmetic-bag/...
anigbrowl 13y ago
The bag, absolutely - take them to the cleaners. The t-shirt image, you have no claim - it's a lot more similar to the depiction in their own film of Alice in Wonderland, from the stripey socks to the shape of the roses. No reasonable jury would find for a plaintiff on that claim.
EGreg 13y ago
http://www.cracked.com/article_17299_6-famous-characters-you-didnt-know-were-shameless-rip-offs.html http://www.cracked.com/article_17299_6-famous-characters-you...
yoster 13y ago
As long as your artwork is an original piece, I would contact a lawyer that is well versed in this type of situation.
eqyiel 13y ago
I can't believe that in 2013 people still think they can get away with things like this.
workbench 13y ago
> I had so much respect for the company Why? It's an awful company
jamesmcbennett 13y ago
I presume everyone knows the birthday cake story. A small bakery allowed kids draw digitally that the bakery could print on the cake. As kids like to draw things they have seen or things they know, many drew characters of Disney. Disney made a legal move and shut down the bakery as the kids were stealing their IP.
waterflame 13y ago
I'm sorry I didn't read all the comments, but couldn't it be that the artist was inspired by Alice in Wonderland (1951) movie? The silhouette resembles to that of Alice: http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110816104841/disney/images/a/ae/Alice_KHREC.png http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110816104841/disney/... ...just saying.

I wonder what license the image was released under. While this could have been deliberate by Disney, I doubt they would use a (seemingly) very popular design on production material. Then again, things like this have happened.

speeder 13y ago
Many times that I knew some sort of stuff like this happened, it was because one specific worker, KNEW that he was doing wrong, but did it wrong anyway to take the credit, and hope his bosses would not find out. This also apply when the "worker" is a boss, but working for a client, he do it in a lazy manner hoping his client won't notice... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbaland_plagiarism_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbaland_plagiarism_controvers...
- tibbon 13y ago
  Whoa, I'm really shocked that the case essentially lost there several times. That's.... terrible. One of them because they "failed to register copyright in the US" according to the Wikipedia. I was under the impression that there was no real need to register under US copyright law as its an automatic right.
_chrismccreadie 13y ago
I was under the impression that this would be covered under copyright and not a particular licence. As soon as the artwork was created by the artist it belongs to the artist, they don't even need to put a copyright symbol next to it. My advice would be get in touch with Disney, it seems the artist has support on tumblr already. I suspect a public spectacle of Disney's mistake (assuming it was a mistake) is probably the artist's best bet. DKNY were caught up in something similar and ended up paying and apologising for their mistake [1]. [1]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323884304578326733358153680.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732388430457832... Edit: Sorry, silly formatting
- dangrossman 13y ago
  Copyright is the law from which licenses get their power. It's because the author has the exclusive rights granted by copyright protection that they can dictate the terms under which others may use their work (that is, offer licenses). When no license is offered, the author retains exclusive rights. The parent comment was implying that the author may have offered some kind of license (for example, by uploading his artwork to Flickr and ticking off one of the Creative Commons boxes in the license selection).
  - _chrismccreadie 13y ago
    Thanks for the clarification :)
  - mark-r 13y ago
    It's also quite possible that someone unauthorized put the picture on a site with a permissive license. That's an easy explanation for how this came about. I really do doubt that Disney or anyone representing them intended to steal this image.

xsmasher 13y ago

The cosmetics bag looks like a straightforward copyright violation. The second example, where no artwork was copied but there may have been some influence, is more complicated. How do you prove the inspiration came from the "stolen" art, and not Disney's own film or the original story? http://www.cornel1801.com/disney/Alice-Wonderland-Painting-Roses-Red/videosong.jpg http://www.cornel1801.com/disney/Alice-Wonderland-Painting-R...

potatolicious 13y ago
> "How do you prove the inspiration came from the "stolen" art, and not Disney's own film or the original story?" And even if you did prove it, is it illegal, and should it be illegal? All art is a derivation of something that came before it. Can someone reasonably claim ownership to "girl painting roses with paint brush as viewed from behind"?
- xsmasher 13y ago
  The entire idea? No. But under US law, someone can claim ownership to derivative works. I think we agree that the artist has an uphill battle proving that the second drawing is a derivative work.
- weareconvo 13y ago
  And didn't she, in turn, steal the idea of Alice from Lewis Carroll?
  - xsmasher 13y ago
    The Alice stories are long out of copyright, So you're comparing apples to oranges.
  - jerf 13y ago
    Doesn't matter; all works of Lewis Carroll's are in the public domain. As far as I know, this is true in all jurisdictions. The traditional Tennyson illustrations are also public domain. Compare with https://www.google.com/search?q=tennyson+illustrations+alice+in+wonderland https://www.google.com/search?q=tennyson+illustrations+alice... .

cjbprime 13y ago

> I’m so mad because I have no chance at getting Disney to do anything about it. For such a straightforward violation, I don't see why there's any call for pessimism. Send them an invoice for a worldwide license, follow it up with a lawyer letter (find someone willing to do no-win-no-fee if you want) once the invoice is overdue.

jamesaguilar 13y ago
I wonder how one prices out a worldwide license like this. Obviously if she put the prices at $1000/use, neither would Disney pay it nor would she recover that much from a court. But it's worth more than $0.01/use as well.
- cjbprime 13y ago
  It's not my field, but by "worldwide license" I meant a single lump sum that covers everything they might want to do or already have done -- i.e. "this is the amount that you can pay to make this go away and avoid bringing in your expensive legal team". My naive guess would be that somewhere USD $5k-$10k is that amount: small enough to be within budgetary authority, large enough to make it worth the artist's time to chase up. In reality, I'd suspect and hope that the artist already has an e-mail from Disney's brand protection team, or whatever they call it, with an apology and an offer to pay immediately. Disney's surely one of the most brand-conscious companies in the world.
  - sk5t 13y ago
    IMHO this looks like a substantial infringement, and $5-10K is peanuts. The signing authority of a middle manager would not factor into a settlement demand whatsoever, if it were me.
  - robryan 13y ago
    If there was any kind of ballpark figure on how many bags they have sold, that would be a good starting point.
- stevewilhelm 13y ago

segmondy 13y ago

There has never been a better time to say HIRE A LAWYER!

darkchasma 13y ago

Only the bag could possibly be, the cartoon on the shirt simply isn't.

dangrossman 13y ago
You don't know that. The right to create derivative works is one of the exclusive rights granted to the original creator by the copyright act. If the same designer that put his image on the bag is the one that designed the shirt, it would be very hard for him to claim the second image isn't a derivative work of the unlicensed original.

aashaykumar92 13y ago

FIND/HIRE A LAWYER ASAP!! You definitely have grounds for this case. If you think it may be too expensive, I suggest using Lawdingo (https://www.lawdingo.com/lawyers https://www.lawdingo.com/lawyers) as you can cold-message/chat with lawyers for free. I am positive that if everything you have presented is true, someone or another will be more than willing to represent you and help you take the appropriate action. Really sorry to hear about this but best of luck, its unfortunate this happens with such large companies. Nonetheless, hope it gets resolved soon--good luck!

mieubrisse 13y ago

While I sympathize with the author and wish her the best, I don't really see how this article belongs on HN.

voidlogic 13y ago
Intellectual property rights and freedoms are important issues to people here.
lancefisher 13y ago
Many people here are concerned about copyright related issues. Especially when a large corporation that regularly asserts copyright claims is caught doing the infringement. I'm glad this story ended up here, and I hope the press causes royalties to be paid to the original artist for the bag which is a direct copy.
thinker 13y ago
There's quite a lot of discussion on copyright issues around here so its somewhat appropriate, even if this is about art vs digital content.
- mieubrisse 13y ago
  That's a valid point.
enraged_camel 13y ago
The 'flag' function exists for a reason.
- dangrossman 13y ago
  If you flag articles like this, you'll soon lose the flagging privilege on your account. Submissions which aren't spammy/low quality, but which you simply aren't interested in, are supposed to be ignored, not flagged.
- mieubrisse 13y ago
  I was under the impression that the 'flag' feature is for content that is grossly inappropriate (e.g. a Reddit-esque asinine post), not for posts whose content I believe doesn't fit?

hornbaker 13y ago

This seems to be one of the rare occasions when you should, in fact, f* with The Mouse.

austenallred 13y ago

I have worked with Disney's intellectual property teams in the past, and I'm blown away that this slipped under the radar. They are very up-tight about protecting their own IP and the brand of their princesses. If this were somebody selling a T-Shirt on eBay I would say, "Don't worry about it," but this is Disney. They know better. Their entire business model is based on intellectual property. Time to lawyer up.

jconley 13y ago
I have had similar experiences with the Disney IP teams. They mean serious business in all directions, from protecting IP to ensuring they are not infringing. They make sure everyone in the company or affiliated is very aware of IP issues. If the painting is indeed the original work and it somehow found its way onto some merchandise, I'm sure Disney will be amicable.
- madaxe 13y ago
  Amicable like they were over simba the white lion? Disney rip-off left, right and centre. Yes, they aggressively protect their IP, but that doesn't mean they won't trample all over everyone else's. they have a history of this behaviour.
  - jayfuerstenberg 13y ago
    Yes KIMBA, err.. I mean SIMBA.
  - aidenn0 13y ago
    I've heard the kimba/simba thing before, but don't see it myself. Simba is the swahili word for lion, the plots are not at all similar and they don't look anything alike: http://theafictionado.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/lionking460.jpg http://theafictionado.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/lionking46... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bd/ReallyKimbaTheWhiteLion.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bd/ReallyKimbaThe...
    - 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago

As people suggest - hire a lawyer. And see this blog (http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/ http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/) where people post other rip offs of their work.

yaddayadda 13y ago

"...I created at University and I was proud of it in many ways. Disney have used it..." If she passed any English classes or graduated from the mentioned university, then she deserves a tuition refund.

infoman 13y ago
why the heck did you write this? It doesn't help anyone ...
xsmasher 13y ago
"Disney have used it" is correct here, in British English. "It’s one of my favourite images I created at University" could use a [while] to my ear, but it's not so bad. The world is a big place.
- jahabrewer 13y ago
  > "Disney have used it" is correct here, in British English. Is it even a matter of US vs. British English? I thought collective nouns could be treated as either singular or plural when conjugating the verb.
  - thedufer 13y ago
    I think it is. I don't know the rules, but I've never heard a US English speaker use an entity like "Disney" as plural. That said, "the police" is always plural, and I have no idea why that's different.
  - xsmasher 13y ago
    In the US, I would never say "The government have shut down" or "The team have lost." I would treat them as singular entities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_noun#Metonymic_merging_of_grammatical_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_noun#Metonymic_mergi...
  - IvyMike 13y ago
    In the US, a corporation is a person in matters both legal and grammatical.

laumars 13y ago

Given Disney made their fortune from reselling public domain stories then suing anyone who infringed on their IP, this story comes as no surprise. Though that doesn't stop me feeling wound up that they consider themselves above the law, and sorry for the injustice against the author.

davemel37 13y ago

Disney has a reputation for doing everything in their power to deliver exceptional customer service and epic experiences. They even run a company that teaches other companies how to treat customers right. http://disneyinstitute.com/ http://disneyinstitute.com/ Personally, I think this is a perfect opportunity for Disney to make a HUGE PR WIN, by apologizing, and paying out a nice and fair royalty without a fight. I would be very disappointed if they miss this opportunity.

mark-r 13y ago
I can vouch for their service. I once lost my rental car keys while at one of the Disneyworld hotels, and I got no help from the rental company aside from the key code. The Disney folks sent one of their locksmiths to help me and he tried about half a day to make a key that would start the car. His dedication and attitude were remarkable.
- alanfalcon 13y ago
  Wow. Lost my keys at Universal Studios once and it was just a very long, very expensive night (given my budgetary realities at the time).

jcampbell1 13y ago

Does anyone know what these things typically settle for? My guess is she is going to see something like $30k within the next few months. Here is a link to the bag in their store: http://www.disneystore.com/alice-in-wonderland-cosmetic-bag/mp/1328029/1000291/ http://www.disneystore.com/alice-in-wonderland-cosmetic-bag/...

losethos 13y ago

God is just, turn the other cheek. Maybe You get love. Zynga got too many people... now, they're screwed. Making payroll must suck. Marriage between equals is best or one will dominate. If you get paid too little, you will dominate your boss. If you cheat, you will get in over your head. God is just. God says... 15:9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. 15:11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. ----- God sucks at tic-tack-toe. God says... 23:1 When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee: 23:2 And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. 23:3 Be not desirous of his dainties: for they are deceitful meat. 23:4 Labour not to be rich: cease from thine own wisdom. 23:5 Wilt thou set thine eyes upon that which is not? for riches certainly make themselves wings; they fly away as an eagle toward heaven. 23:6 Eat thou not the bread of him that hath an evil eye, neither desire thou his dainty meats: 23:7 For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee. 23:8 The morsel which thou hast eaten shalt thou vomit up, and lose thy sweet words. ---- The peperoni was good. I had to choke-down the cookie-dough ice cream. I eat a lot of ice cream and lots of the flavors I'm really sick of... understatement. Mmmmm.... peperoni. God says... August, 1989 [Etext #10] The Project Gutenberg Etext of The King James Bible This file should be named kjv10.txt or kjv10.zip* Copyright laws are changing all over the world, be sure to check the copyright laws for your country before posting these files!! Please take a look at the important information in this header. We encourage you to keep this file on your own disk, keeping an electronic path open for the next readers. Do not remove this. Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts Etexts Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971

SoftwareMaven 13y ago

Further proof that large media companies don't actually care about intellectual property. They care about their property. Whether it is Disney stealing lions[1] or Fox stealing songs[2], their concern for your property is non-existent, but they are willing to throw you in jail if you think about using theirs. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimba_the_White_Lion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimba_the_White_Lion 2. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jonathan-coulton-glee-controversy-baby-415443 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jonathan-coulton-glee-...

jerf 13y ago
Let's give Disney qua Disney (as opposed to one artist somewhere, which is all we know for sure at this point) some time to respond before we unleash the mob. Past history certainly gives a non-zero probability that Disney will just try to throw their weight around, but let's give them the chance to do the right thing before we bury them. It makes the moral outrage that much more moral.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  > Let's give Disney [...] some time to respond Why should anyone give Disney more leeway than Disney gives natural persons they accuse of copyright infringement?
  - jerf 13y ago
    Because letting loose the Great Internet Mob is always something that should be done with a bit of due consideration, despite the fact that it is essentially impossible to do so. Mobs aren't made more intelligent by being on the Internet, and while they are physically defanged (well... mostly, anyhow) they can make up for the destructiveness in their scope.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Yup, here is a more thorough comparison: http://robwrite.hubpages.com/hub/THE-LION-KING-Controversy-Did-Disney-Rip-off-Kimba-the-White-Lion http://robwrite.hubpages.com/hub/THE-LION-KING-Controversy-D...

danso 13y ago

Before they take down the cosmetic bag entry at http://www.disneystore.com/alice-in-wonderland-cosmetic-bag/mp/1328029/1000291/ http://www.disneystore.com/alice-in-wonderland-cosmetic-bag/... Screenshot here: http://i.imgur.com/tr2FZ3c.png http://i.imgur.com/tr2FZ3c.png

trevorcreech 13y ago
They already changed it: http://i.imgur.com/NzCo3ns.png http://i.imgur.com/NzCo3ns.png
- jmharvey 13y ago
  That's the image from the front of the bag, the image in question is on the back.
- jld 13y ago
  You screen-capped the front of the bag. Check out the back of the bag.
- pkamb 13y ago
  That is the front view, you have to click the thumbnail to see the relevant back of the bag.
gorrillamcd 13y ago
It's apparently "Sold Out" now, but the image is still the same.

Trufa 13y ago

I'm of course just guessing but this seams more like the result of a lazy (unscrupulous) designers hired by Disney rather than a corporate decision to ignore copyright. This doesn't make the situation of the author any better, the author should at least talk to a copyright layer IMO.

urbanturbanguy 13y ago

Would like to know from someone more knowledgeble about copyrights: Wouldn't Disney claim a copyright on the Snow-white character itself?

jcl 13y ago
It's Alice in Wonderland, which was written in 1865, so it's in the public domain. The artist's illustration is inspired by the original Tenniel illustrations, so it's not a derivative of the 1951 Disney adaptation.

leephillips 13y ago

So far "the internet" seems to be on this artist's side, apparently because her work was stolen by a corporation. Recent history suggests, however, that if Andy Baio[0] or Shepard Fairey[1] had ripped her off, she would be excoriated for asserting her rights and lectured about the wonders of remix culture. [0]http://lee-phillips.org/music/whoIsTheDick/ http://lee-phillips.org/music/whoIsTheDick/ [1]http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/08/entertainment/la-et-cm-shepard-fairey-20120908 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/08/entertainment/la-et-...

GuiA 13y ago
Well, while Alice from "Alice in Wonderland" is now a "public domain" character, the depiction of her with a blue dress, white belt, and blonde hair with a black bow in it was very much created by Disney. In this case, the artist herself is remixing a visual design elaborated by Disney. So, yeah. It's murky, and the remix argument goes both ways.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Her depiction of Alice seems like more of a potential trademark issue, while Disney lifting the design seems like a clear-cut copyright issue.
  - ukandy 13y ago
    Tenniel illustrations are in the public domain. The original work is about 150 years old. As you say, very a clear-cut copyright issue with Disney lifting the design. I'll be interested to hear the outcome of this.
- cromulent 13y ago
  The similarities are much more than "blue dress, white belt, and blonde hair with a black bow in it". In any case, Disney did not "very much create" that image. Here's Tenniels from 1866. http://www.goldmarkart.com/it-can-t-go-straight-you-know-if-you-pin-it-all-on-one-side-alice-said-as-she-gently-put-it-right-for-her.html http://www.goldmarkart.com/it-can-t-go-straight-you-know-if-... Blonde hair, white belt, black bow? Looks that way to me. Blue apron? Not very derivative.

spullara 13y ago

Wow, this is everywhere. Google Image search: http://bit.ly/14ShFNZ http://bit.ly/14ShFNZ

jcl 13y ago
It's likely a lazy designer did a Google Image search, saw an illustration that looked like the original Alice in Wonderland illustrations by Tenniel, and assumed it was in the public domain.

barking 13y ago

If this is all handled positively it could be a win win. Having Disney license your artwork is something most designers would be glad of reputation wise. I think she needs to lose the angry tone pronto and at least 'appear' more phlegmatic about it. And there isn't any particular need for panic I'd have thought as it looks like an open and shut case in terms of infringement. The person who is in deep trouble is whoever knowingly infringed, they could be out the door.

throughnothing 13y ago

If your artwork was stolen, you should file a police report to get your stolen property back. It seems what has happened, however, may be a copyright infringement, which is not theft. If that is the case, you should talk to a lawyer about filing a copyright claim against Disney.

bby 13y ago

has* ?

unreal37 13y ago

If it was me, I would just contact Disney directly. I don't understand why everyone thinks she needs a lawyer from the get-go.

nano111 13y ago

Isn't Disney a big reason why copyright is always being extended before it would expire?

noonespecial 13y ago

My advice is to do something. Disney doesn't know they infringed, some sub-sub contractor did this. But eventually, they will find the image and assume that the original author is the infringer, and they're sticklers about this. If the author does nothing, she may find herself in the unfortunate position of spending lots of money in court to prove that she didn't "steal" her own picture.

warfangle 13y ago

Maybe she should file a DMCA notice against their store.

deckar01 13y ago

The bag is definitely an infringement, but it gets complicated, because she ripped the background from a website. The t-shirt seems different enough to be legal.

beedogs 13y ago

largesse 13y ago

I'm not buying it. Both paintings are of Alice from behind with the same pose. That's about it. Are we really copyrighting poses now?

xbryanx 13y ago

I wish Tumblr had some sort of attribution engine that helped hunt down the original sources for images and text posted to its site. I know people would probably object to force attribution being injected into their posts, but there ought to be some easier way to track down original material in this network.

eliekh 13y ago

Katie, consult with an IP attorney to see if you have a case in the first place. They may be very costly especially if you're suing Disney! Then, if you want to proceed, try to hire them on contingency. You have nothing to loose, if you win, they will earn a share (probably a third) of the settlement/award.

DigitalSea 13y ago

I would honestly lawyer up in this instance. Disney from what I've seen are usually very thorough with their IP, I'm surprised something like this has happened and I am sure it's an honest mistake they will rectify. There is definitely a case here, but it doesn't seem as straightforward as some might think it is.

ed2417 13y ago

Perhaps she should leave a comment to this effect on the store page: http://www.disneystore.com/alice-in-wonderland-cosmetic-bag/mp/1328029/1000291/ http://www.disneystore.com/alice-in-wonderland-cosmetic-bag/...

anigbrowl 13y ago

The bag, absolutely - take them to the cleaners. The t-shirt image, you have no claim - it's a lot more similar to the depiction in their own film of Alice in Wonderland, from the stripey socks to the shape of the roses. No reasonable jury would find for a plaintiff on that claim.

EGreg 13y ago

http://www.cracked.com/article_17299_6-famous-characters-you-didnt-know-were-shameless-rip-offs.html http://www.cracked.com/article_17299_6-famous-characters-you...

yoster 13y ago

As long as your artwork is an original piece, I would contact a lawyer that is well versed in this type of situation.

eqyiel 13y ago

I can't believe that in 2013 people still think they can get away with things like this.

workbench 13y ago

> I had so much respect for the company Why? It's an awful company

jamesmcbennett 13y ago

I presume everyone knows the birthday cake story. A small bakery allowed kids draw digitally that the bakery could print on the cake. As kids like to draw things they have seen or things they know, many drew characters of Disney. Disney made a legal move and shut down the bakery as the kids were stealing their IP.

waterflame 13y ago

I'm sorry I didn't read all the comments, but couldn't it be that the artist was inspired by Alice in Wonderland (1951) movie? The silhouette resembles to that of Alice: http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110816104841/disney/images/a/ae/Alice_KHREC.png http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110816104841/disney/... ...just saying.