DVDizzy Forum

Unfortunately I don't think that will happen. I think the best hope is that Disney fixes Beauty and the Beast for the 4K or for one of these restoration fan groups to do Beauty and the Beast one day.

In addition, I found someone on Youtube who uploaded the VHS of Cinderella in parts:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... Q9BnEeD21t

When it came to copyright extension, Disney was a bandwagon jumper. The push for longer copyrights started in the EU not US.

farerb wrote:In addition, I found someone on Youtube who uploaded the VHS of Cinderella in parts:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... Q9BnEeD21t

I've been using that to watch the film in its proper restoration when I feel like lol. It's much easier than actually putting in the VHS tape.

Thanks for posting that, farerb.

Winnie-the-Pooh, Bambi Enter Public Domain in 2022
https://www.cbr.com/winnie-the-pooh-bam ... main-2022/

Great. Can't wait till the 1950 Cinderella film becomes public domain so we can get a proper restoration.

Disney Duster wrote:Great. Can't wait till the 1950 Cinderella film becomes public domain so we can get a proper restoration.

It's going to be in 2045 unless the time period is extended again, so I hope that you can wait for that eventually.

The books are going into public domain this year, not the Disney films.

Sotiris wrote:The books are going into public domain this year, not the Disney films.

Indeed. And it's only the USA that this applies to. In the UK and much of Europe, the original novel of Bambi is already in the public domain, while Winnie the Pooh is still a few years away from going into the public domain (British and European Union copyright laws dictate that cultural works expire 70 years after the death of the author, or 70 years after the death of the last principal director or producer for films).

And Disney still own the trademark for Pooh and friends, so while the text of the original novel can be republished and used free of charge, the characters themselves and their likeness can only be marketed by Disney.

This is all very confusing. I can't even imagine what people can do with Bambi and Pooh. Just re-publish the books? Without marketing them or using their likeness in images for the cover and illustrations?


Thanks farerb, Sotiris and Wondy. I guess if Cinderella the film goes into public domain 2045 that'll work.

Disney Duster wrote:This is all very confusing. I can't even imagine what people can do with Bambi and Pooh. Just re-publish the books? Without marketing them or using their likeness in images for the cover and illustrations?

It's simple. With the books being in the public domain, anyone can produce an adaptation of any kind as long as they don't use elements unique to the Disney films. For example, if someone were to make a Winnie the Pooh movie, they wouldn't be able to put Winnie in a red T-shirt as that was a Disney invention.

A. A. Milne will enter the public domain in Europe and other countries around the world five years from now. But E. H. Shepard lived 20 years longer than Milne, so it wouldn't surprise me if one has to wait 25 years to publish the books with his illustrations without having to pay anything to an estate or whoever has the rights.

This article explains the rights about Winnie-the-Pooh: https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdom ... 022/bcvpd/

Then there are books like Bambi, which was first published in 1923. The first translation published in English was in 1928. The way I understand it; it doesn't matter when a book outside USA was first published, it is when it was first published (and translated if it is a non-English book) in America. Or it could be that the original Bambi is in public domain, but not the American translation, so one would have to translate it again or way a couple more years. I'm not entirely sure how it works.

What I'm really excited about is to see if Steamboat Willie (and The Gallopin' Gaucho) enters public domain a couple of years from now. I'm worried Disney will try to sabotage it. If they don't, it will be a huge victory. It has been claimed that the Copyright Term Extension Act from 1998 would never have happened if the internet had been as big then as it is now. The media barely mentioned it and most people were unaware that Clinton signed the papers that meant one would have to wait 20 more years before works entered public domain. If it wasn't for that, it would be works from 1946 that was released this year, instead of 1926. Disney's animated features like Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo and Bambi, and a ton of shorts, would already be available. As it is today, Snow White is still years away (and again, I hope Disney or others doesn't prevent this from happening).

Just look at what the estates of Edgar Rice Burroughs and Arthur Conan Doyle have tried to do in an effort to control as much of the original creators' works as possible.

https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2022/

What Could Have Been
Works from 1926 are finally entering the public domain, after a 95-year copyright term. However, under the laws that were in effect until 1978, thousands of works from 1965 would be entering the public domain this year. In fact, since copyright used to come in renewable terms of 28 years, and 85% of authors did not renew, 85% of the works from 1993 might be entering the public domain! Imagine what the great libraries of the world—or just internet hobbyists—could do: digitizing those holdings, making them available for education and research, for pleasure and for creative reuse. Under current copyright terms we will have to wait until 2061.

I can’t wait until Song of the South and Make Mine Music and the uncensored Fantasia (welcome back, Sunflower!) for that matter, enter the public domain.

Thanks for sharing the article, Rumpelstiltskin! The article says, "This evolution into a lucrative franchise began when Milne sold certain rights to the literary agent and “father of the licensing industry” Stephen Slesinger in 1930. Slesinger was the first to draw Winnie the Pooh in color with the familiar red shirt, and he marketed Pooh board games, toys, records, radio broadcasts, animations, and more.". " Nor can Disney prevent you from putting a shirt on the E.H. Shepard bear—in fact, Shepard’s Pooh sometimes wears a shirt of sorts in the 1926 book." (https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdom ... 022/bcvpd/). So surely we will see new Pooh works using the red shirt, I guess as long as Pooh doesn't look like the Disney Pooh...

Oh. Ok thank you Sotiris, Wondy, and Amy!

You're welcome. Yeah, I'm curious what we might see of new adaptations in the future. The only character still missing is Tigger, which is two years away. But at least Disney will still keep their Gopher for many years to come.

Stephen Slesinger appears to have done the same for Winnie the Pooh as Kay Kamen did for Mickey Mouse what marketing is concerned.

If you’re a writer or artist, for instance, “You can put original iterations of Pooh into any of your creative work” such as a film, musical or play, says Jenkins, while noting that Disney holds trademark rights on various “Winnie the Pooh” products, be it plush dolls or pajamas.

So, you can still hold the rights to consumer products even if the story is in public domain. Can't say I like the idea of that. If something is in public domain, it should include all rights.

I agree with you, Rumple.

Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey’ — Violent New Horror Film Reworks A Childhood Classic
https://www.dreadcentral.com/news/43029 ... ic-images/

I can see why Disney wants to hang onto their copyrights! *shudder*