DVDizzy Forum

Bump, bump, bump.

Courtesy of Nymbus in the Tangled thread, it appears that not only are the cheap studios doing their version of the Rapunzel story already and using Disney-esque visuals, they're jumping on the retitle bandwagon in a turn to trick even more people.

Nymbus wrote:Hmm, what exactly is this?:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tangled-Up-DVD/ ... 687&sr=8-3

Product Description

Tangled up is the fabulous fairy tale of Rapunzel.

Locked in a tower by a wicked witch, her beautiful blond hair grows incredibly long and her delightful singing entrances all around her. A handsome prince riding by is enchanted by her singing and has to see for himself the beauty that is Rapunzel.

As well as Rapunzel there are some other incredible stories of princesses locked in towers and witched witches. This is a DVD the family will treasure and look forward to enjoying again and again.

How do these people not get sued? I mean, Tangled Up? Could they honestly defend themselves in court that they came up with the same name, around the same time, for a Rapunzel-based story as Disney?

And, considering Disney's power as a corporation and their history of suing over minor things, I'm surprised they haven't done something about these rip-offs already. No doubt they would win (money = power, or good lawyers).

Disney's Divinity wrote:How do these people not get sued? I mean, Tangled Up? Could they honestly defend themselves in court that they came up with the same name, around the same time, for a Rapunzel-based story as Disney?

And, considering Disney's power as a corporation and their history of suing over minor things, I'm surprised they haven't done something about these rip-offs already. No doubt they would win (money = power, or good lawyers).

Titles cannot be copyrighted, and the Rapunzel story is public domain.

These knock-offs are always around. This one has listed Birghtspark as its studio, which is actually a UK media duplication service and not the folks responsible for the content, which is probably some fly-by-night Asian operation. Disney would have to figure out who actually created the film, file suit, and---according to my understanding---demonstrate some actual damages resulting from the confusion, since neither the story nor the title can be copyrighted. It most likely wouldn't stop the manufacture or distribution and regardless of the ruling Disney would probably collect nothing at all, not even enough to cover their court costs.

Disney's Divinity wrote:How do these people not get sued? I mean, Tangled Up? Could they honestly defend themselves in court that they came up with the same name, around the same time, for a Rapunzel-based story as Disney?

Wow. Even the tower, hair, and valley look the same.

Disney's Divinity wrote:And, considering Disney's power as a corporation and their history of suing over minor things, I'm surprised they haven't done something about these rip-offs already. No doubt they would win (money = power, or good lawyers).

In a great deal of cases, the stories in the animated rip-offs are already in the public domain. In fact, when it comes to adaptations made by Disney, relatively few are based on books that are still under copyright. And technically by even just tweaking a few little design features, anyone can get away with a character looking remarkably similar to a Disney creation. Disney's rendering of Snow White has, over perhaps any other animated heroine, become the version of the character most people recognise, and any commercial (as an example) wanting to allude to the story of Snow White can and will most likely use a Snow White inspired, but not a direct copy of, Disney's character. The infamous nursery window fiasco, the ultimate petty lawsuit, probably occurred due to the fact that the characters in the images were direct copies of the Disney characters.

And as I said back in the early stages of this thread, another animated version of a classic story beloved by children (Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland) would be inevitable somewhere down the line and little more than a casual cash-in; it's worth adding that a lot of those same studios have of course made versions of other favourites not covered in Disney animation, such as Little Red Riding Hood or A Christmas Carol. Yet one has to wonder whether there would be so many animated DTV versions of something like Mulan or The Hunchback of Notre Dame if Disney hadn't made their own respective versions.

Wonderlicious wrote:

Disney's Divinity wrote:And, considering Disney's power as a corporation and their history of suing over minor things, I'm surprised they haven't done something about these rip-offs already. No doubt they would win (money = power, or good lawyers).

In a great deal of cases, the stories in the animated rip-offs are already in the public domain.

Yes, but they can still sue for the DVD cover design. The visuals and the logo are obviously ripped-off. In the past, Disney had sued GoodTimes Entertainment for their VHS covers and they had won. They were forced to make alterations and put the GoodTimes logo atop the VHS covers.

sotiris2006 wrote:In a great deal of cases, the stories in the animated rip-offs are already in the public domain.

Yes, but they can still sue for the DVD cover design. The visuals and the logo are obviously ripped-off. In the past, Disney had sued GoodTimes Entertainment for their VHS covers and they had won. They were forced to make alterations and put the GoodTimes logo atop the VHS covers.[/quote]That's what I was thinking. I mean, yes, these stories are "old as time," but Disney's Tangled and Brother Grimm's "Rapunzel" are not the same thing. They aren't copying the story, they're copying Disney's interpretation of the story. It would be the same with TLM--Disney's version is nothing like the story, so a rip-off where a red-head gets a prince, battles an evil sea-witch, and lives happily ever after would not be based on the original story, but on Disney's version of the story. Not the same thing.

Good Grief

It's one thing to rip off something good...........

Wait, isn't that a spin-off of "Legally Blonde?"

blackcauldron85 wrote:

Neal wrote:Wait, isn't that a spin-off of "Legally Blonde?"

No, it's a rip-off of Beverly Hills Chihuahua.

And for anyone who wants to know what the "Tangled Up" DVD that I posted is actually about, here's a jokey review somebody made along the lines of the Nostalgia Critic.

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EvcfbrDHOgo" frameborder="0"></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pY9hHQG7Uow" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Wonderlicious wrote: And as I said back in the early stages of this thread, another animated version of a classic story beloved by children (Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland) would be inevitable somewhere down the line and little more than a casual cash-in; it's worth adding that a lot of those same studios have of course made versions of other favourites not covered in Disney animation, such as Little Red Riding Hood or A Christmas Carol. Yet one has to wonder whether there would be so many animated DTV versions of something like Mulan or The Hunchback of Notre Dame if Disney hadn't made their own respective versions.

Disney already made Christmas Carol and Red Riding Hood. The former should be pretty obvious, the latter is one of the sequels to Three Little Pigs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4Lx5Bmpojw

Wonderlicious wrote:And for anyone who wants to know what the "Tangled Up" DVD that I posted is actually about, here's a jokey review somebody made along the lines of the Nostalgia Critic.

FigmentJedi wrote:

Wonderlicious wrote: And as I said back in the early stages of this thread, another animated version of a classic story beloved by children (Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland) would be inevitable somewhere down the line and little more than a casual cash-in; it's worth adding that a lot of those same studios have of course made versions of other favourites not covered in Disney animation, such as Little Red Riding Hood or A Christmas Carol. Yet one has to wonder whether there would be so many animated DTV versions of something like Mulan or The Hunchback of Notre Dame if Disney hadn't made their own respective versions.

Disney already made Christmas Carol and Red Riding Hood. The former should be pretty obvious, the latter is one of the sequels to Three Little Pigs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4Lx5Bmpojw

Yes, I know that the Disney animation studio has made versions of those stories, but they were fairly minor shorts showcasing staple characters (and of course, there's A Christmas Carol with Jim Carey, but it also doesn't have the same qualities to merit a cash-in). The stories weren't made into feature films that have arguably become the most famous, if not definitive, film version. In all fairness, I could really have used any example of well-known story not done by Disney, such as Black Beauty or Sinbad the Sailor.

Wonderlicious wrote:And for anyone who wants to know what the "Tangled Up" DVD that I posted is actually about, here's a jokey review somebody made along the lines of the Nostalgia Critic.

That was so funny!

Although the rest of the stories sucked, I found the Rapunzel one to be quite cute and funny in the likes of "Fractured Fairytales".

^ The radioactive candy was one of the best parts.

Just how old are the shorts on that Tangled Up DVD? Because when I started watching the review, I was half-expecting them to be half-assed CG or something.

Gotta wonder what ancient vault that company pulled those segments from.

Thanks for the review

That cover art is not on

Off topic - Who wants to see Disney or Pixar do Fenchelchen? It would quite possibly be deemed too similar to Rapunzel, but you never know