Disney and Copyrights/Public Domain

Margos · Post by **Margos** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:30 pm

...Yeah, those are all really good points.

Disney's just special to me. Really, it's the characters, I think. If they go into the public domain.... I shudder to think of the kinds of things we could see involving them. They won't be as special, as magical... as real.

And, I will say, one more time, that technological inventions are different from artistic works.

But you did make a lot of good points, there, Netty, and I guess it wouldn't be as bad as I thought. But still... I wouldn't want it to happen. Not in my lifetime, anyway.

Neal · Post by **Neal** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:59 pm

Disney can't stop other adaptations of the original story.

For example,

"The Frog Prince" is this year's cheaply made version of the story hoping to cash-in on the success of "The Princess and the Frog" - it's a 2D animated film with a frog prince and African American girl who comes upon him. The cover even has her in a green lily pad dress, and at my Wal-Mart, is shelved with the Disney DVDs.

Just like "Ratatooing" and "What's Up: Balloon to the Rescue" - these cheap versions are not illegal and Disney can't stop them (in the case of the above two, those are knock-offs of original ideas of Disney - so they could pursue it, but don't).

Any company can make a version of these stories and try to trick consumers - visit a GoodWill or Dollar General/Dollar Tree and you'll find these DVDs in thin cases that try to imitate Disney by being 2D cartoons with the same title, only character names are changed.

That's all legal - Disney is more than likely aware that overseas studios make these knock-offs in an attempt to fool consumers (i.e. parents who rush into stores and don't pay attention to their purchase). Disney can't do anything about it except hope they promote their movies enough that people are aware of the difference between their version and the knock-off.

However, if someone were to use the Disney version of these characters/worlds - Disney SHOULD have the right to fight it. If "Ariel" from "Atlantica" is used in a knock-off rather than say "Saria" from "Wateropia" - then yes, Disney should sue.

They have a right to protect their versions of their stories - i.e. the names/likenesses of the characters and worlds in their shorts and features.

Not to sue over the source material itself.

my chicken is infected · Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:10 am

I wouldn't be too upset if Disney films were in the public domain. For one I'd be able to get some I don't have fairly cheaply - well, the ones I don't care about having the most stellar transfers of and bonus materials - and as others pointed out, it would also motivate Disney to make damn sure that the DVD releases are as outstanding as the Blu Ray releases.

Little Red Henski · Post by **Little Red Henski** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 1:11 am

Thanks to public domain I can enjoy Alice Comedy shorts and other rarities that there owners would never release on DVD. I wish all the Fleischer shorts were.

Does Disney Pay royalties to the children hospital for using Peter Pan and Tinker bell.

milojthatch · Post by **milojthatch** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 1:50 am

Escapay wrote: In essence, when something is in the public domain, it means anyone can use it, provided they have access to it. That's why there are a million crappy-looking public domain movies on DVD that are derived from nth-generation film prints. Look at the movie McLintock!: the official release by Paramount (even called "Official Authorized Edition") looks much better and comes with studio-produced extras as opposed to the various PD releases that just look like sh!te.

Hypothetically, if Cinderella were in the public domain, anyone can make their own DVD-R's and sell them. But that doesn't mean they can go to the Disney Vault, ask Disney for the film reels, make new prints, and transfer them digitally themselves. Disney may not own the copyright, but they still own the physical property. And they sure as hell won't let any Joe Bob Greenberg come in and make a copy so he can sell DVDs himself. If they did, they can charge whatever they want and ensure the price is so high that no man-off-the-street would be able to pay for it.

albert

Exactly! Disney would still make things with these characters and sell movies they lost the copy right too, and they would still own the original prints. It would just mean others could make money off of the films in question and Disney would have to come out with one heck of a DVD to sell their "official" version. Actually it could be good for us fans! We could see a lot of stuff Disney may never release finally on DVD.

Little Red Henski wrote:Does Disney Pay royalties to the children hospital for using Peter Pan and Tinker bell.

No, they don't have to any more, the children's hospital lost the copy right as it went in active. From things I have read, Disney had something to do with that, which was my point in the first place.

BelleGirl · Post by **BelleGirl** » Sun Dec 20, 2009 7:02 am

Neal wrote:Disney can't stop other adaptations of the original story.

For example,

"The Frog Prince" is this year's cheaply made version of the story hoping to cash-in on the success of "The Princess and the Frog" - it's a 2D animated film with a frog prince and African American girl who comes upon him. The cover even has her in a green lily pad dress, and at my Wal-Mart, is shelved with the Disney DVDs.

Just like "Ratatooing" and "What's Up: Balloon to the Rescue" - these cheap versions are not illegal and Disney can't stop them (in the case of the above two, those are knock-offs of original ideas of Disney - so they could pursue it, but don't).

Nothing new here of course. In the 90's it was exactly the same with 'Goodtimes' video's trying to cash in on Disney successes by bringing out cartoon features based on the same story as the Disney film running in cinema at the same time. So next to "Lion king" there was "Leo the Lion"and suddently there were all kind of cartoon versions of "Pocahontas", "Hunchback of Notre Dame" and "Mulan" to coincide with the release of the Disney film of the same name.

The_Iceflash · Post by **The_Iceflash** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:58 am

2099net wrote: I'll tell you this, if Snow White was Public Domain, you'd have gotten most of the Blu-ray bonus feartures on this years 2 disc DVD release...

Maybe. Who knows.

@Discussion: In reference to whether Disney is hypocritical or not towards public domain, some of the sources Disney has used for stories have no "author" so to speak. They were created and developed after years and years of passing down stories as folklore, etc. Others stories have authors with no estate and no descendants and no one to have a copyright of that author's stories. The rights to those stories most likely will never owned by anyone for those reasons. Disney to want to use that type of material and at the same time, fight to keep copyright of their output isn't hypocritical. They want to prevent bastardized and mediocre releases of their products from being made. Sure we like to think that if a Disney film would become public domain that we would get deluxe releases to compete with that but we're forgetting one thing. Disney eased up on bonus features because they determined that most movie purchasers don't care about them. Do we really think that we're going to get a release overstuffed with bonus features as a buying incentive over a public domain release when they know most don't care about them?

MK Sharp · Post by **MK Sharp** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:18 pm

2099net wrote:If Snow White was in the public domain Disney would have to work hard to ensure their copy was the copy everyone wanted. It would only benefit the consumer.

I'll tell you this, if Snow White was Public Domain, you'd have gotten most of the Blu-ray bonus feartures on this years 2 disc DVD release...

Well, it's a scheme that's ensured we've got excellent DVD releases of the two Fleischer features mastered from the original elements and bundled with loads of high quality extras.

Oh, wait a minute...

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Thu Dec 24, 2009 3:06 am

MK Sharp wrote:
2099net wrote:If Snow White was in the public domain Disney would have to work hard to ensure their copy was the copy everyone wanted. It would only benefit the consumer.

I'll tell you this, if Snow White was Public Domain, you'd have gotten most of the Blu-ray bonus feartures on this years 2 disc DVD release...
Well, it's a scheme that's ensured we've got excellent DVD releases of the two Fleischer features mastered from the original elements and bundled with loads of high quality extras.

Oh, wait a minute...

That's not a valid comparison though. The original owners of the movies in question have no interest in putting them out. But if they did, they would make sure their versions would be better.

A more valid comparison is the Fleischer Popeye and animated Superman cartoons, which have long been available on PD, but Warners did go back to the original elements and did release them with high quality extras.

musicradio77 · Post by **musicradio77** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:06 am

Here are a few Disney cartoons that are in the PD:

1. "The Spirit of '43" (with Donald Duck)
2. "Hooked Bear"
3. "Susie the Little Blue Coupe"
4. "The Mad Doctor" (with Mickey Mouse)
5. "Minnie's Yoo-Hoo" (Sing-Along from the "Mickey Mouse Club" film)

Siren · Post by **Siren** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 11:52 am

This discussion reminds me of this gem...It explains fair use within the copyright law. As a fan vid maker, I worship this video

pap64 · Post by **pap64** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 1:56 pm

Forgive me if I go off topic a bit, but the video says that you can't copyright an idea.

Here's the deal, I have MANY short stories and novels written and hope to one day publish them. But that's going to be a lengthy process that will take a lot of time, patience and money to complete. So how do I protect those stories while I am in the process of publishing them?

Can I copyright those stories until then, even if they never get published? I have tons of documents that detail the story, the characters, the themes, the origins, details about the writer (me) etc. Is this enough to copyright my stuff?

Siren · Post by **Siren** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 2:22 pm

I think what it means by copyrighting an idea is that a lot of things are based on previous things. There is a saying...that nothing is original, everything is based on fairy tales, Shakespeare, history, or the Bible. So though Disney may have a story they make into a movie, elements of that story (idea) can be adopted by other stories.

milojthatch · Post by **milojthatch** » Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:01 am

The_Iceflash wrote:
2099net wrote: I'll tell you this, if Snow White was Public Domain, you'd have gotten most of the Blu-ray bonus feartures on this years 2 disc DVD release...
Maybe. Who knows.

@Discussion: In reference to whether Disney is hypocritical or not towards public domain, some of the sources Disney has used for stories have no "author" so to speak. They were created and developed after years and years of passing down stories as folklore, etc. Others stories have authors with no estate and no descendants and no one to have a copyright of that author's stories. The rights to those stories most likely will never owned by anyone for those reasons. Disney to want to use that type of material and at the same time, fight to keep copyright of their output isn't hypocritical. They want to prevent bastardized and mediocre releases of their products from being made. Sure we like to think that if a Disney film would become public domain that we would get deluxe releases to compete with that but we're forgetting one thing. Disney eased up on bonus features because they determined that most movie purchasers don't care about them. Do we really think that we're going to get a release overstuffed with bonus features as a buying incentive over a public domain release when they know most don't care about them?

For many of the fairy tales, that is true. But not everything Disney makes films on is based on fairy tales. Here is some stuff of on the copy right for Bambi:

http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/paschons/ ... alten.html

I further my belief that copy rights should not be granted to corporations, only individuals. In the original bases for that law, it was designed to protect the rights of creative individuals and their works. The whole notion of having the copy right lapse is to allow that copy right to exist while he person is ALIVE and then some time after so that their children or relative can maintain it for a small time period.

With corporations getting into it, it belongs to no one, certainly not the creator, and so long as Congress keeps giving in to them, we could never see anything hit public domain. I wonder how Chris Sanders feels knowing that his beloved Stitch is owned by Disney and that he has no rights to his own creation, or Jim Jenkins now that Disney owns Doug.

In modern times, copy right law no longer protects the individual the way it was intended. Further, it detracts from the basic principles of story telling in society. Can you imagine if copy right law had always existed, certainly like it does today? How many fables and legends may not exist, or the way we think of them today, if this has been the case?

I am not opposed to some form of copy right law, but feel it needs work.

blackcauldron85 · Post by **blackcauldron85** » Sat Sep 07, 2019 10:39 pm

This is a topic that I'll read an article about periodically, but I've never fully understood the full extent of the topic (I guess fair use vs. copyright vs. trademark vs. intellectual property).

I came across this article:
Characters That Should Be Public Domain (If It Wasn't For Disney)
https://screenrant.com/characters-publi ... ght-lobby/

There's some discussion on whether Warner Bros. will attempt to claim Bugs is their "intellectual property," which may give them a way to keep the bunny to themselves for a little longer. It would, no doubt, be contested.

D23.com wrote:This first synchronized sound cartoon is actually a parody, loosely based on Steamboat Bill, Jr., a silent movie starring Buster Keaton that was released that same year.

While I don't fully understand Fair Use, I understand that things such as the "Stoned On Sesame Street" and "Prostitute Mickey" videos on YouTube fall under Fair Use. (My husband and I don't use drugs, yet years ago he showed me those!!)

Let's say Steamboat Willie becomes public domain. Having read through this thread, I understand that that would mean that anyone could make a DVD including the short. Disney would get no money from it. No different than if Disney were to make a movie based on a public domain book; the original author or their estate would make no money off of the Disney version. Could anyone make Steamboat Willie merchandise, and again, Disney would get no money? Now, a)could someone right now make a parody of Steamboat Willie which includes Mickey Mouse? b)What is the line when it comes to parody/fair use vs. copyright infringement? And, if Steamboat Willie becomes public domain, would it just be Steamboat Willie in the public domain, or Mickey Mouse? (And I'd assume the other Mickey shorts from this time period would also fall under public domain.) And if Mickey Mouse is trademarked, how can anyone use him (except for fair use) except Disney? Can Disney just trademark all their characters?

I think a big issue for me is that the Disney versions are Disney's versions. Anyone can make a Cinderella movie, but only Disney can include the elements that make it DISNEY. Using Cinderella now, once Disney's version becomes public domain, can people only just release Disney's actual film on DVD? Or can they add elements (like adding new scenes, editing it, etc.)? And people could also remake it, making their own film/TV shows, using those Disney elements (the songs, Jaq/Drizella/etc)?

Some fairy tales were passed down from generation/cultures, etc. Wikipedia just told me that "The Snow Queen" was an original fairy tale by Hans Christian Anderson. So that's another argument right there. Frozen is obviously based on this story, but Disney put their own spin on it, created new characters, songs, story elements. If Hans Christian Anderson "pulled a Disney," and kept extending the story's copyright, Disney's Frozen wouldn't exist (I know it's just loosely based on the tale, but it still is based on it). (Side note: During the movie's credits, is there a credit for Hans Christian Anderson? #Too lazy to put Movies Anywhere/the DVD on.) So if we are okay with Hans Christian Anderson's work being public domain, we should be okay with Disney's version someday being public domain, and other studios making movies about Elsa, Olaf, etc.? It's one thing to make *your* version of a story (in this case, Hans Christian Anderson's), but then remaking someone else's version of the story (in this case, Disney's Frozen...?

Protection of Graphic Characters
https://corporate.findlaw.com/intellect ... cters.html

Another way to protect the graphic character, even if the character is protected by copyright, is to protect it under trademark and unfair competition law. Federal, state and common law protection will protect the character from being used by another party without authorization when the character functions as a form of identification and commands public acceptance and recognition. This protection could prevent the exact duplication of the trademark owner's character or the imitation of that character where the likely result is to cause public confusion, mistake or deception with regard to source of the products or services that carry the indicia of the character...Many commentators are of the opinion that trademark and unfair competition protection for a character is weaker than the protection provided under copyright law, but in actuality trademark and unfair competition protection may be stronger because they could provide the trademark owner with a perpetual monopoly in the use of the trademarked character. A perpetual monopoly could exist because the term of protection might last indefinitely if the use of trademarked character is properly protected and maintained. This differs from protection under the Copyright Act which will only last for a finite time as set by statute, e.g., currently if the character is owned by the individual creator the duration of copyright protection will be the creator's life plus an additional fifty years, but if the character was created as a "work made for hire" protection would only last for seventy-five years. Furthermore, the stronger the trademark for a character becomes, the less willing the owner of the character is allowing uses of the character, such as fair use, that may be permitted under copyright law...Finally, the longer term of protection -- potentially perpetual just as long as the registration requirements are fulfilled, the mark is not abandoned, or the mark loses its status as a trademark -- especially for successful and highly marketable graphic characters, such as many of the Disney and Warner Brothers characters, is extremely valuable and profitable.

Again, can't Disney just trademark all their characters? Or could someone still, once Cinderella, Frozen, etc., become public domain, even if Disney were to trademark every single character of their's, make movies including Jack the rat/Droozoola the stepsister/Oolsa the queen/Oolaff the snowman?

And what about original stories, like Lilo and Stitch, Home On the Range, Bolt, etc.? While anyone can currently make a Cinderella or The Snow Queen movie, no one but Disney can touch these original stories, until the copyright expires. I'm selfish and want people to leave Disney's stuff alone! But this extends to Looney Tunes, DreamWorks movies, etc. etc.

2099net wrote:...it doesn't mean the world is overrun with unauthorised Mickey or Donald merchandise, because the likeness and logo still needs to be licenced as a trademark. But the shorts in the public domain can, theoretically, be screened without paying Disney a fee.

Felix the Cat also has works in the public domain (see http://felix.goldenagecartoons.com/ ) but again, the world isn't overrun with Felix knock-off merchandise for (presumably) the same reason - the character name and likeness are still trademarked.

...Trademarks can be indefinite - the only rule is they must be manually renewed every 7 - 10 years (depending on the region of the world) and must be protected - if a trademark owner ignores unlawful use of their trademark, then the trademark can lapse.

...Well, there is something ironic about Disney capitalising on intellectual property in the public domain, but jealously guarding its own IP.

So, again with the trademark issue: As long as Disney trademarks their characters, we won't be seeing non-Disney DVDs or movie remakes of Disney movies?

Neal wrote:However, if someone were to use the Disney version of these characters/worlds - Disney SHOULD have the right to fight it. If "Ariel" from "Atlantica" is used in a knock-off rather than say "Saria" from "Wateropia" - then yes, Disney should sue.

They have a right to protect their versions of their stories - i.e. the names/likenesses of the characters and worlds in their shorts and features.

Not to sue over the source material itself.

Sigh. I'm so sorry if anything I've typed is too redundant, but I've struggled to wrap my head around this for a long time. I want Disney to protect their versions (and Warner Bros., DreamWorks, etc.). But I don't understand when/how/if others can use the Disney versions.

TL;DR: When copyright protection ends and Disney films are in the public domain, can anyone remake the films using Disney's characters, songs, etc ? Or release DVDs either with edits or new scenes? And how does trademark protection come into play in regards to copyright/public domain?

JeanGreyForever · Post by **JeanGreyForever** » Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:10 pm

blackcauldron85 wrote: TL;DR: When copyright protection ends and Disney films are in the public domain, can anyone remake the films using Disney's characters, songs, etc ? Or release DVDs either with edits or new scenes? And how does trademark protection come into play in regards to copyright/public domain?

I'd love to know this as well actually. Knowing Disney, they'll have some tricks up their sleeves to keep their characters for themselves in perpetuity.

Farerb · Post by **Farerb** » Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:51 pm

From what I know, it only means that anyone can distribute and use the film itself. However Disney does hold trademark rights to their characters and they probably can't be used, but I'm not sure.

Disney Duster · Post by **Disney Duster** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:41 am

I would hope when the copyrights expire for Cinderella, The Sword in the Stone, and Beauty and the Beast, Criterion releases them with correct restorations.

Farerb · Post by **Farerb** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:30 am

Disney Duster wrote:I would hope when the copyrights expire for Cinderella, The Sword in the Stone, and Beauty and the Beast, Criterion releases them with correct restorations.

I don't think I'll be alive to see Criterion or anyone release a proper restoration of Beauty and the Beast.

Disney's Divinity · Post by **Disney's Divinity** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:23 am

farerb wrote:
Disney Duster wrote:I would hope when the copyrights expire for Cinderella, The Sword in the Stone, and Beauty and the Beast, Criterion releases them with correct restorations.
I don't think I'll be alive to see Criterion or anyone release a proper restoration of Beauty and the Beast.

I hope VCRs come back into style soon like what’s happening with vinyl, so that I’ll still be able to watch the VHS’s for Cinderella and B&tB. The VCR I have now is about to go kaput.

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

Disney and Copyrights/Public Domain

Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Disney and Copyrights/Public Domain

Re: Disney and Copyrights/Public Domain

Re: Disney and Copyrights/Public Domain

Re: Disney and Copyrights/Public Domain