Song of the South: Too Offensive to Release on DVD?

[Big Disney Fan]

^I disagree. The only reason anyone can react to anything with offense, rightfully or not, is by having little to no exposure to it.

I will repeat...anyone who wants to see it can do so. Easily. Import it, or watch it on YouTube. Problem solved.

Or you can join MouseBits.com and download it. You need to have certain software installed first, though.

[ajmrowland]

^I disagree. The only reason anyone can react to anything with offense, rightfully or not, is by having little to no exposure to it.

I will repeat...anyone who wants to see it can do so. Easily. Import it, or watch it on YouTube. Problem solved.

check a page or two ago. I actually did that. You completely missed my point on a wide release. It's not so I could see it, but so people can get over their phobia of it.

[merlinjones]

>>I will repeat...anyone who wants to see it can do so. Easily. Import it, or watch it on YouTube. Problem solved.<<

There is insufficient quality online and in bootleg form to appreciate all the film's artistic merits - - and no current imports are offered at present (title is out-of-print since the demise of VHS and LaserDisc). It's never been on DVD or Blu-Ray from the rights holder in any region (despite the fake "Disneyland Paris" DVD version claim).

The rights holders really should offer the official all-region DVD and Blu-Ray option so a legit import purchase would be possible.

[jpanimation]

>>There is no pressing need for a U.S. release.<<

Copyright abandonment? Seems like this film belongs in the public domain if the intellectual property holders have abandoned domestic commercial rights. Then it could be viewed and exchanged freely as a historic work. Though I suppose there would be music rights issues...

Yeah, that's pretty important. It's supposedly going to be public domain in 2039. At that point, every company but Disney will be releasing it. As a public domain release, there will be NO extras to put this into historical perspective (these companies just want the money and don't care about Disney's image). This will cause more damage than if Disney had just released it themselves, especially since I imagine 2039 to be an even more politically correct and racially sensitive society then it is today (since we seem to be going backwards).

Right now they can have an extra explaining Br'er Rabbit and his origins as Anansi in West African folk lore. This could also explore the origins of the tar baby, which also was a tale from West Africa that featured Anansi (also, tar baby was common Cherokee folk lore, but Joel Chandler Harris got his stories from the slaves). Then they could have a feature explaining the live action segments being post-Civil War and that the "slaves" are actually freed slaves (so they aren't happy slaves, which seems to be a comment misconception). While the portrayal of the freed slaves will still be offensive to some, I think having these extras putting it into historical context will greatly help it from being even more offensive (which will likely happen if it goes public domain).

[Big Disney Fan]

Right now they can have an extra explaining Br'er Rabbit and his origins as Anansi in West African folk lore. This could also explore the origins of the tar baby, which also was a tale from West Africa that featured Anansi (also, tar baby was common Cherokee folk lore, but Joel Chandler Harris got his stories from the slaves). Then they could have a feature explaining the live action segments being post-Civil War and that the "slaves" are actually freed slaves (so they aren't happy slaves, which seems to be a comment misconception). While the portrayal of the freed slaves will still be offensive to some, I think having these extras putting it into historical context will greatly help it from being even more offensive (which will likely happen if it goes public domain).

And maybe for good measure, some bonuses on Splash Mountain.

[Rudy Matt]

Yeah, that's pretty important. It's supposedly going to be public domain in 2039. At that point, every company but Disney will be releasing it.

Unless Disney does what they have successfully done in the past...lobby Congress to extend the copyright. Steamboat Wille is 18 years away from its 100th Birthday. Why aren't there bootlegs galore? Because Disney lobbied the U.S. legislature to have the copyright extended.

You don't need to worry about the copyright of Song of the South, if that is indeed your true concern.

[Rudy Matt]

It's not so I could see it, but so people can get over their phobia of it.

You can't control people's stilted uninformed prejudices or opinions - you can't even control people's informed opinions. People still believe Walt Disney is frozen underneath Sleeping Beauty's castle. I don't think a release of Song of the South is going to make people "get over" the idea that the film has racial stereotypes. Far from it.

[merlinjones]

>>Unless Disney does what they have successfully done in the past...lobby Congress to extend the copyright. Steamboat Wille is 18 years away from its 100th Birthday. Why aren't there bootlegs galore? Because Disney lobbied the U.S. legislature to have the copyright extended. You don't need to worry about the copyright of Song of the South, if that is indeed your true concern.<<

Yes, but in the case of "Steamboat Willie," the rights holders continue to make the film itself commercially available in the USA periodically, thus ensuring they have a case for continued exclusive use in this country -- to bar competition from commercial exploitation.

I'm no lawyer, but in the case of "Song of the South" it would seem there is the potential of abandonment of copyright from disuse (it's been almost 25 years now since the film was available in the USA) - - if Disney no longer has intent to commercially exploit the picture domestically (as execs have repeatedly inferred of late) -- Under the intent of our copyright law (which is only meant to protect commercial interests of the rights holder from unfair competition, not to suppress intellectual property in perpetuity) - - it could be argued that the film (a historic work) has been left to the public domain where it might be freely available for viewing and adaptation (especially since the underlying rights to the Harris stories are also PD -- again, there could likely be music clearance issues --- and both music and Disney version characters would likely be protected outside the film as they are still in use at the parks and in merchandising --This is the case with some vintage Mickey Mouse cartoons and Superman cartoons where individual copyrights have inadvertently lapsed allowing the shorts into PD, while the characters themselves are still protected).

It would seem any argument from the company that the film could harm Disney's brand commercially to make it available in the public domain (thus creating competition for themselves) would be way subjective to argue in court (company history certainly does not support that view) and likely create more bad publicity than the movie ever could (the impression that would create is worse than any content in the actual film -- an impression they are already dealing with).

Just a lot of conjecture, of course, but at some point - particularly at the point of expiration/renewal - the copyright could become a case of use it or lose it. Though I imagine they'd outspend anyone willing to put up the argument.

[Rudy Matt]

I'm no lawyer, but in the case of "Song of the South" it would seem there is the potential of abandonment of copyright from disuse (it's been almost 25 years now since the film was available in the USA)

Except the characters, music, and incidents are on display every day in theme parks all over the world. Hard to argue before a judge that the creative elements of the film have been abandoned, when the Judge's family probably took a ride on Splash Mountain sometime in the last five years.

Trust me, you don't need to worry about the copyright on Song of the South, if that is indeed your argument for a US video release.

[ajmrowland]

It's not so I could see it, but so people can get over their phobia of it.

You can't control people's stilted uninformed prejudices or opinions - you can't even control people's informed opinions. People still believe Walt Disney is frozen underneath Sleeping Beauty's castle. I don't think a release of Song of the South is going to make people "get over" the idea that the film has racial stereotypes. Far from it.

clearly, you didnt put nearly as much thought into that as I did. and myths about Walt's body are much less founded. I gave clear examples to my belief and you obviously ignored them.

[merlinjones]

>>Except the characters, music, and incidents are on display every day in theme parks all over the world. Hard to argue before a judge that the creative elements of the film have been abandoned, when the Judge's family probably took a ride on Splash Mountain sometime in the last five years.<<

Yes, and that is how Republic managed to pull "It's a Wonderful Life" back from Public Domain - - through reasserting commercial value of the music rights and underlying rights to the story it was based on, which had not lapsed.

Normally though -- I believe -- the "mechanical rights" - - the married content of a Public Domain film itself in all ways -- becomes PD use when shown as a whole, uncut and unaltered - - even though the copyrighted components do not. Meaning anyone could show the film, but not sell a music CD or merchandise based on it if those other elements are still protected. Fleischer's Superman cartoons are the perfect example - - they are all PD even though Superman isn't (however, Warner's has finally offered superior restored prints -- to which they own the negatives -- in their own packaging to battle bootlegger competition).

But again, "Song of the South" is a very unique case in that the rights holder does not currently --- and has no apparent plans to -- commercially exploit the movie in the USA -- yet would surely wish to extend the copyright on it -- that must be a completely unique position in all of Hollywood history for such a financially successful classic film. It was a huge hit but the owner doesn't want to put it out. I really can think of no other comparable example.


>>Trust me, you don't need to worry about the copyright on Song of the South, if that is indeed your argument for a US video release.<<

No, my first argument for a US release would be for the rights holders to make a quality legal DVD or Blu-Ray of Walt Disney's historic, timeless classic film accessible to everyone to process and debate for themselves -- as it should be.

[Margos]

God, it annoys me when people argue whether something is or is not offensive to a group that they do not belong to.

I'm black, and you know what is the only thing that pisses me off about SotS? THAT IT HASN'T BEEN PROPERLY TREATED! Sure, it's a little dated, but it's a lovely, classic film. And goodness knows, it deserves a proper release. I mean, good lord, there's a ride based on it in the Disney parks, for goodness' sakes, and yet a majority of people simply haven't seen it! And those who have had mostly had to settle for crappy quality! That's just not right!

[Rudy Matt]

Well, if 22 pages of overblown rhetoric and high-minded lies hasn't convinced you that this film will cause nothing more than a @#$%storm of more of the same all over the U.S., most of it negative, and all aimed at Disney (and this on a Disney forum), then I don't know what else will convince you.

[merlinjones]

>>Well, if 22 pages of overblown rhetoric and high-minded lies hasn't convinced you that this film will cause nothing more than a @#$%storm of more of the same all over the U.S., most of it negative, and all aimed at Disney (and this on a Disney forum), then I don't know what else will convince you.<<

That only supports the commercial value of the movie -- as the bigger the alleged controversy and noise, the more copies it will sell out of curiosity when re-released. Still, the film did not engender that kind of controversy in the 1970's or 1980's when regularly shown - - it simply minted money like all the other Walt classics. Either way, there is a fortune lying on the table... they should just slap a disclaimer on it and chalk it up to history.

[ajmrowland]

Well, if 22 pages of overblown rhetoric and high-minded lies hasn't convinced you that this film will cause nothing more than a @#$%storm of more of the same all over the U.S., most of it negative, and all aimed at Disney (and this on a Disney forum), then I don't know what else will convince you.

ah, so that's what your getting at. You see, what i was trying to say is that these storms dont last nearly as long as you claim. It always happens at first, gets a little worse, and then it blows over, like all bad things. If the storm never comes, than nobody appreciates the blue skies and rainbows at the end.

[ajmrowland]

>>Well, if 22 pages of overblown rhetoric and high-minded lies hasn't convinced you that this film will cause nothing more than a @#$%storm of more of the same all over the U.S., most of it negative, and all aimed at Disney (and this on a Disney forum), then I don't know what else will convince you.<<

That only supports the commercial value of the movie -- as the bigger the alleged controversy and noise, the more copies it will sell out of curiosity when re-released. Still, the film did not engender that kind of controversy in the 1970's or 1980's when regularly shown - - it simply minted money like all the other Walt classics. Either way, there is a fortune lying on the table... they should just slap a disclaimer on it and chalk it up to history.

Yes! Thank You!

[Goliath]

Buddy, it's the blank, empty truth. Not a call-to-arms. So, I dare say... that's the way it's meant to be.

I thought it was an excellent post. People just don't want to think too much about it, because they want to have their precious film on dvd, the consequences and other people's feelings be damned.

Mind you, I'm *in favor* of releasing the film. I'm against the censorship and hiding of history that's going on now. But that doesn't mean I'm going to pretent this film is not racist. Because it is. Disney-fans just don't *want* to see it.

Or you can join MouseBits.com and download it. You need to have certain software installed first, though.

No, Rudy is opposed to that. Downloading is for stealing and thieving communists.

[Margos]

Mind you, I'm *in favor* of releasing the film. I'm against the censorship and hiding of history that's going on now. But that doesn't mean I'm going to pretent this film is not racist. Because it is. Disney-fans just don't *want* to see it.

I wasn't aware that a kindly old black man telling stories (and having more common sense and wisdom than any white people in the film!) was racist. Thank you so much for that! Now I understand what "racism" is!

[Goliath]

I wasn't aware that a kindly old black man telling stories (and having more common sense and wisdom than any white people in the film!) was racist. Thank you so much for that! Now I understand what "racism" is!

Your sarcasm is totally misplaced. The fact that you're black (and I'm not) doesn't make you an authority on this film and its content.

It has been explained, at great lenghts, by Lazario and me (and others, I'm sure) why this film is racist in a number of ways. I'm not going to do that again. You'll just have to check the previous 22 pages. I don't like to repeat myself.

But ask yourself this: as a black person, do you think black people are naieve, childish, and obedient and subservient to white people? And do you think the freed slaves lived such happy lives as those in SotS? Or is it just one big whitewash of history?

[The_Iceflash]

I wasn't aware that a kindly old black man telling stories (and having more common sense and wisdom than any white people in the film!) was racist. Thank you so much for that! Now I understand what "racism" is!

Your sarcasm is totally misplaced. The fact that you're black (and I'm not) doesn't make you an authority on this film and its content.

It has been explained, at great lenghts, by Lazario and me (and others, I'm sure) why this film is racist in a number of ways. I'm not going to do that again. You'll just have to check the previous 22 pages. I don't like to repeat myself.

But ask yourself this: as a black person, do you think black people are naieve, childish, and obedient and subservient to white people? And do you think the freed slaves lived such happy lives as those in SotS? Or is it just one big whitewash of history?

Those claims have also been challenged by just as many on here.