4 ms·

> Disney took public domain stories, and made billions by creating their own versions, and now seek to prevent others from doing the same. Could you please giv

by effie 11y ago

> Disney took public domain stories, and made billions by creating their own versions, and now seek to prevent others from doing the same. Could you please give an example? Is Sherlock Holmes a character groundlessly appropriated by Disney?

linksbro 11y ago
This article outlines 50 movies inspired/pulled from public domain works. After the list, it also outlines Disney's involvement in the extension of the copyright term. http://www.forbes.com/sites/derekkhanna/2014/02/03/50-disney-movies-based-on-the-public-domain/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/derekkhanna/2014/02/03/50-disney... For more details, see the CTEA (aka "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
briholt 11y ago
Snow White
jdmichal 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_animated_films_based_on_fairy_tales#Feature_films_based_on_fairy_tales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_animated_films_...
cl4rk3 11y ago
Please read this (with tongue firmly planted in cheek) for all the example you need: http://www.gulawweekly.org/features/2012/4/3/congress-takes-grimm-fairy-tales-out-of-the-public-domain.html http://www.gulawweekly.org/features/2012/4/3/congress-takes-...
flexie 11y ago
The Little Mermaid, Sleeping Beauty, Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella, The Ugly Duckling, Three Little Pigs, Snow White, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Beauty and the Beast, Alladin, The Princess and the Frog, Frozen. And many, many more.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Very few of those would be copyright infringement were the stories not in the public domain.
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    Try writing and selling your own Mickey Mouse story.
officemonkey 11y ago
Disney says their trademark on Snow White precludes ANY other films based on the story. Even if the source of the new film is the public domain tale.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  No it doesn't, such a claim would be laughed out of court. Where did you hear this? Are you not aware that there have been other non-Disney versions of Snow White? Here's a list, you'll note there were 3 feature films released in 2012 alone taking different perspectives on the original story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White#Modern_uses_and_adaptations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White#Modern_uses_and_ada...
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    I t is worth noting that only one of those three 2012 works uses the term "snow white" (in the title) and they prefix it with "Grimm's [Snow White]" which automatically counters any claim by Disney that Disney's trademark is being appropriated. Note that the "registration date" for the RTM [which I'm assuming is the date at which the registration becomes active, please correct if wrong] is 2013 - how the hell did Disney get a RTM on "Snow White" it doesn't indicate origin, it's a traditional story character. The only way it could genuinely be a trademark would be if it were used in a way completely unrelated to the character or story. http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77618057&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77618057&caseType=SERIAL_N...
    - anigbrowl 11y ago
      Because trademarks are different from copyright, in law and in practice. 'Google' is a trade mark even though it's just a homonym of 'googol,' a word from the dictionary. You can trade mark almost anything and if you can show you have been using the mark in commerce in a meaningful way then you can stop other people from using it in an infringing way - and you have to make an attempt to do so, or face possible future claims of trademark abandonment. Registration of a trade mark is prima facie proof of ownership and also allows you to collect statutory rather than just economic damages. The only way it could genuinely be a trademark would be if it were used in a way completely unrelated to the character or story. Who told you that? It's wrong, wrong, wrong. Trade marks and copyright are totally separate beasts and bringing up TM issues in a discussion of copyright only confuses people.
burnte 11y ago
I didn't mean to infer that Disney stole Sherlock, but instead to demonstrate how ridiculously long copyright terms are still encumbering stories 85 years after the death of the author and up to 92 years after their creation.
obrero 11y ago
Alice in Wonderland was published in 1865. In 1923, 58 years later, one of the first cartoons produced by Disney was Alice's Wonderland. In 1924 - 91 years ago - he made another Alice movie. That second movie is still under copyright, due to Disney lobbying, and will continue to be so until 2019. Disney made his money ripping off Lewis Carroll, but taxpayers have to pay to enforce the rights on the works he ripped off 95 years after the fact.
- sbuk 11y ago
  There is absolutely nothing stopping you or anyone else making a film, animated or otherwise, of Alice in Wonderland. Disney categorically do not own copyright to the original work. There have been over 30 non-Disney adaptations of Alice in Wonderland since the 1951 Disney version, as well as 2 more works by Disney. Since Lewis Carroll's original work had gone into the public domain, it is a misnomer to say that Disney "ripped it off". Anyone can take a public domain work and monetise it. That derivative work may be copyrighted, much like the performance of a Beethoven symphony (are the orchestra ripping off Beethoven?) or the performance of a Shakespeare play (again, are the actors, producers and directors ripping off Shakespeare?). You seem to find the money side distasteful, which is a different argument. The issue here is that the Walt Disney Company, who ultimately own the copyright to the derivative work, maintain their copyright. Yes, copyright laws need re-examining in a world where corporations own copyright, but it's far more nuanced than you are making out.

by effie 11y ago

linksbro 11y ago

This article outlines 50 movies inspired/pulled from public domain works. After the list, it also outlines Disney's involvement in the extension of the copyright term. http://www.forbes.com/sites/derekkhanna/2014/02/03/50-disney-movies-based-on-the-public-domain/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/derekkhanna/2014/02/03/50-disney... For more details, see the CTEA (aka "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

briholt 11y ago

Snow White

jdmichal 11y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_animated_films_based_on_fairy_tales#Feature_films_based_on_fairy_tales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_animated_films_...

cl4rk3 11y ago

Please read this (with tongue firmly planted in cheek) for all the example you need: http://www.gulawweekly.org/features/2012/4/3/congress-takes-grimm-fairy-tales-out-of-the-public-domain.html http://www.gulawweekly.org/features/2012/4/3/congress-takes-...

flexie 11y ago

The Little Mermaid, Sleeping Beauty, Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella, The Ugly Duckling, Three Little Pigs, Snow White, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Beauty and the Beast, Alladin, The Princess and the Frog, Frozen. And many, many more.

rayiner 11y ago
Very few of those would be copyright infringement were the stories not in the public domain.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  Try writing and selling your own Mickey Mouse story.

officemonkey 11y ago

Disney says their trademark on Snow White precludes ANY other films based on the story. Even if the source of the new film is the public domain tale.

anigbrowl 11y ago
No it doesn't, such a claim would be laughed out of court. Where did you hear this? Are you not aware that there have been other non-Disney versions of Snow White? Here's a list, you'll note there were 3 feature films released in 2012 alone taking different perspectives on the original story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White#Modern_uses_and_adaptations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White#Modern_uses_and_ada...
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  I t is worth noting that only one of those three 2012 works uses the term "snow white" (in the title) and they prefix it with "Grimm's [Snow White]" which automatically counters any claim by Disney that Disney's trademark is being appropriated. Note that the "registration date" for the RTM [which I'm assuming is the date at which the registration becomes active, please correct if wrong] is 2013 - how the hell did Disney get a RTM on "Snow White" it doesn't indicate origin, it's a traditional story character. The only way it could genuinely be a trademark would be if it were used in a way completely unrelated to the character or story. http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77618057&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77618057&caseType=SERIAL_N...
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    Because trademarks are different from copyright, in law and in practice. 'Google' is a trade mark even though it's just a homonym of 'googol,' a word from the dictionary. You can trade mark almost anything and if you can show you have been using the mark in commerce in a meaningful way then you can stop other people from using it in an infringing way - and you have to make an attempt to do so, or face possible future claims of trademark abandonment. Registration of a trade mark is prima facie proof of ownership and also allows you to collect statutory rather than just economic damages. The only way it could genuinely be a trademark would be if it were used in a way completely unrelated to the character or story. Who told you that? It's wrong, wrong, wrong. Trade marks and copyright are totally separate beasts and bringing up TM issues in a discussion of copyright only confuses people.

burnte 11y ago

I didn't mean to infer that Disney stole Sherlock, but instead to demonstrate how ridiculously long copyright terms are still encumbering stories 85 years after the death of the author and up to 92 years after their creation.

obrero 11y ago

Alice in Wonderland was published in 1865. In 1923, 58 years later, one of the first cartoons produced by Disney was Alice's Wonderland. In 1924 - 91 years ago - he made another Alice movie. That second movie is still under copyright, due to Disney lobbying, and will continue to be so until 2019. Disney made his money ripping off Lewis Carroll, but taxpayers have to pay to enforce the rights on the works he ripped off 95 years after the fact.

sbuk 11y ago
There is absolutely nothing stopping you or anyone else making a film, animated or otherwise, of Alice in Wonderland. Disney categorically do not own copyright to the original work. There have been over 30 non-Disney adaptations of Alice in Wonderland since the 1951 Disney version, as well as 2 more works by Disney. Since Lewis Carroll's original work had gone into the public domain, it is a misnomer to say that Disney "ripped it off". Anyone can take a public domain work and monetise it. That derivative work may be copyrighted, much like the performance of a Beethoven symphony (are the orchestra ripping off Beethoven?) or the performance of a Shakespeare play (again, are the actors, producers and directors ripping off Shakespeare?). You seem to find the money side distasteful, which is a different argument. The issue here is that the Walt Disney Company, who ultimately own the copyright to the derivative work, maintain their copyright. Yes, copyright laws need re-examining in a world where corporations own copyright, but it's far more nuanced than you are making out.