5 ms·

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

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 14y 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 14y 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 14y ago
  And didn't she, in turn, steal the idea of Alice from Lewis Carroll?
  - xsmasher 14y ago
    The Alice stories are long out of copyright, So you're comparing apples to oranges.
  - jerf 14y 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... .
    - jnazario 14y ago
      if you're citing lewis carroll's (well, Tennyson's graphics) work as the artist's inspiration then why not a line from LC to Disney, bypassing the artist entirely?
      - jerf 14y ago
        I'm not 100% sure I can parse your question, but the answer is that the handbag appears to be an exact copy on the inside, with some Disney graphics on the outside. The Disney painting is, as others have observed, much more ambiguous and would be harder to prove (although perhaps not impossible, given the presence of the handbag, if for instance the same "artist" did both). (In fact, the handbag is quite bad as a result of this mixture, if I say so myself as a rather poor judge of design. The tone of Katie Woodger's work and the tone of the original Disney animated piece are at odds with each other, and the juxtaposition is rather less than the sum of the parts.)
        jnazario 14y ago
        thanks for the clarification. didn't like the downvotes for a question but whatever. i by no means want to see artists ripped off, i was just asking about an alternative explanation and its plausibility.
      - xsmasher 14y ago
        That's exactly the question: was the t-shirt was inspired by the artist in question, or not. And I'm starting to come around. The dress of T-shirt Alice bears more resemblance to the artist's original than it does to the Disney version: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnarc6bdBm1qfkdyso1_500.gif http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnarc6bdBm1qfkdyso1_500.gi... The arm/hand position seems nearly identical as well. http://25.media.tumblr.com/0266dadc485f9ffa5a1fee696fd8a32c/tumblr_mkxuapgLYF1qapkx7o1_1280.jpg http://25.media.tumblr.com/0266dadc485f9ffa5a1fee696fd8a32c/... Before you say "that could be a coincidence" - of course it could. The question at hand is "is it coincidence, or did Disney copy the artist's work?"
    - weareconvo 14y ago
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - mbetter 14y ago
    Sure, if by "barely modified a tiny little bit" you mean "completely redrawn."
swalsh 14y ago
If the "painting" idea is stolen, then it would seem the "Alice" idea is stolen as well. The bag though, that is straight up theft.
__david__ 14y ago
I don't think the second one is more complicated at all. It's straight up non-infringement. But I agree, the bag is straightforward copyright infringement.
warfangle 14y ago
Cosmetic bag looks like someone re-sketched it and added characters. It might actually fall under the "significantly modified" arena. Same with the tshirt - while it's the same pose, it's clearly a different drawing. Besides which, she may have actually been the one infringing Disney's trademark. These kinds of ambiguities outline how fucking important it is to reform our copyright system.
astrodust 14y ago
Alice in Wonderland the story is in the public domain. Specific renditions may be copyrighted.
gillianseed 14y ago
Yes, the first one is without doubt a copyright violation, the second however I can't agree with. If so then we'd have an insane amount of art that is stolen. The pose is the same, but this is totally different art in a totally different style with ha different dress etc. I personally don't think that should constitute as a copied/derived work, but that's just my opinion. The first one however, clear cut copyright infringement, it IS the same artwork. Will be interesting to see how Disney spins this given how they forced daycare centers to paint over murals with Disney characters over trademark infringement.

potatolicious 14y 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 14y 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 14y ago
And didn't she, in turn, steal the idea of Alice from Lewis Carroll?
- xsmasher 14y ago
  The Alice stories are long out of copyright, So you're comparing apples to oranges.
- jerf 14y 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... .
  - jnazario 14y ago
    if you're citing lewis carroll's (well, Tennyson's graphics) work as the artist's inspiration then why not a line from LC to Disney, bypassing the artist entirely?
    - jerf 14y ago
      I'm not 100% sure I can parse your question, but the answer is that the handbag appears to be an exact copy on the inside, with some Disney graphics on the outside. The Disney painting is, as others have observed, much more ambiguous and would be harder to prove (although perhaps not impossible, given the presence of the handbag, if for instance the same "artist" did both). (In fact, the handbag is quite bad as a result of this mixture, if I say so myself as a rather poor judge of design. The tone of Katie Woodger's work and the tone of the original Disney animated piece are at odds with each other, and the juxtaposition is rather less than the sum of the parts.)
      - jnazario 14y ago
        thanks for the clarification. didn't like the downvotes for a question but whatever. i by no means want to see artists ripped off, i was just asking about an alternative explanation and its plausibility.
    - xsmasher 14y ago
      That's exactly the question: was the t-shirt was inspired by the artist in question, or not. And I'm starting to come around. The dress of T-shirt Alice bears more resemblance to the artist's original than it does to the Disney version: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnarc6bdBm1qfkdyso1_500.gif http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnarc6bdBm1qfkdyso1_500.gi... The arm/hand position seems nearly identical as well. http://25.media.tumblr.com/0266dadc485f9ffa5a1fee696fd8a32c/tumblr_mkxuapgLYF1qapkx7o1_1280.jpg http://25.media.tumblr.com/0266dadc485f9ffa5a1fee696fd8a32c/... Before you say "that could be a coincidence" - of course it could. The question at hand is "is it coincidence, or did Disney copy the artist's work?"
  - weareconvo 14y ago
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- mbetter 14y ago
  Sure, if by "barely modified a tiny little bit" you mean "completely redrawn."

swalsh 14y ago

If the "painting" idea is stolen, then it would seem the "Alice" idea is stolen as well. The bag though, that is straight up theft.

__david__ 14y ago

I don't think the second one is more complicated at all. It's straight up non-infringement. But I agree, the bag is straightforward copyright infringement.

warfangle 14y ago

Cosmetic bag looks like someone re-sketched it and added characters. It might actually fall under the "significantly modified" arena. Same with the tshirt - while it's the same pose, it's clearly a different drawing. Besides which, she may have actually been the one infringing Disney's trademark. These kinds of ambiguities outline how fucking important it is to reform our copyright system.

astrodust 14y ago

Alice in Wonderland the story is in the public domain. Specific renditions may be copyrighted.

gillianseed 14y ago

Yes, the first one is without doubt a copyright violation, the second however I can't agree with. If so then we'd have an insane amount of art that is stolen. The pose is the same, but this is totally different art in a totally different style with ha different dress etc. I personally don't think that should constitute as a copied/derived work, but that's just my opinion. The first one however, clear cut copyright infringement, it IS the same artwork. Will be interesting to see how Disney spins this given how they forced daycare centers to paint over murals with Disney characters over trademark infringement.