5 ms·
This is similar to the questions around "Blurred Lines" and whether or not it was a copy of a copyrighted work or just inspired by another work but still a crea
by Osiris 12y ago
This is similar to the questions around "Blurred Lines" and whether or not it was a copy of a copyrighted work or just inspired by another work but still a creative work of its own.
Look at industries that aren't protected by copyright, like fashion. There is a lot of progress and change in that industry because it's legal to borrow from other people's ideas while still making a unique work.
Scientific progress is another area that requires the sharing of knowledge and ideas freely in order for all of society to benefit and progress.
I'm not convinced that borrowing, even heavily, from someone else to make a new work is a bad thing as seems to be the implication in this article.
- laumars 12y agoAs mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, the issue here is the double standards used by Disney. On the one hand, they borrow ideas from other people; and on the other hand, they extend copyright law and sue anyone who is inspired by them (even people who aren't profiting from their content)
- JoeAltmaier 12y agoBut that applies to anyone who owns a copyright. If you don't attempt to enforce it, you can't then sue if someone does significantly violate it. Not a Disney thing; its a copyright thing.
- laumars 12y agoYou're thinking of trademark law where you have to be seen to protect your trademark. Copyright law works a little differently as you can pick and choose your fights to some degree (and many artists do operate this way by turning a blind eye to YouTube bootlegs but upholding their claim when their intellectual property is used commercially without permission).