DVDizzy Forum

<center>Disney and Copyrights/Public Domain debate


I've been reading about Disney and the issue of copyright when it comes to their earliest shorts, etc. What do you think about copyrights/public domain in general and what you think in regards to Disney owning the copyright to their work, etc.

Here's an interesting discussion piece about this in regards to Oswald:

Exposed: Disney's repurchase of Oswald the Rabbit a sham</center>

I think they need to stop pushing for extensions to the law and learn to let go of their stuff as time goes on. They are ruthless in their application of copyright law. They will fight to the hilt to hold on to things they did that should have expired years ago and then turn around and push for other things that they have stuff based on (Peter Pan) to go into public domain. They need to stop.

I don't know, I like Disney keeping their copyrights so that other schmucks can't make random money off of them. But, I think that there should definitely be limitations. The best example would have to be SotS. If this thing doesn't go into the public domain, we may not see it legally released at all! I think they seriously need a "use it or lose it" policy.

I'm not sure if I'd like Disney material losing copyright. I feel a public domain release of Disney material would degrade the quality of a Disney product. Could you imagine seeing public domain releases of Snow White or Pinocchio? or Mickey Mouse/Silly Symphonies shorts? I feel as long as the Disney company exists, that material should always be allowed to be owned by them.

The_Iceflash wrote:I'm not sure if I'd like Disney material losing copyright. I feel a public domain release of Disney material would degrade the quality of a Disney product. Could you imagine seeing public domain releases of Snow White or Pinocchio? or Mickey Mouse/Silly Symphonies shorts? I feel as long as the Disney company exists, that material should always be allowed to be owned by them.

Why? Capatalism is built on competition. It's how it works. At the moment, there's no competition for Disney's films. 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...

If the Disney films were public domain, could people get hold of the original negatives or whatever form the original, untouched films are available in, and make copies of the films that they feel look more correct, and have all the mistakes intact, and things like that?

Because if they did, it is obvious I, and many others, would like that.

Disney Duster wrote:If the Disney films were public domain, could people get hold of the original negatives or whatever form the original, untouched films are available in, and make copies of the films that they feel look more correct, and have all the mistakes intact, and things like that?

Because if they did, it is obvious I, and many others, would like that.

I'm not sure that they could get the negatives - presumably Disney has those secured in their vaults. But they could take other copies. Look at most PD releases - while there are some exceptions (such as Kino) most PD releases simply recycle old TV or movie prints.

So how is that with Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck? if Disney lose their right to these figures, anyone can use them as images whenever and wherever they want? Will non-Disney studios try to make a Donald Duck short?

The Disney Co should be a good sport.. after all, they used many stories and characters created by others and made it their own. Winnie the Pooh for instance. It's only fair if others are allowed to use their creations too.


I just don't have any idea how copyrights work when int concerns cartoon characters.

BelleGirl wrote:So how is that with Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck? if Disney lose their right to these figures, anyone can use them as images whenever and wherever they want? Will non-Disney studios try to make a Donald Duck short?

I believe not - because the character names and likenesses will still be trademarked. Donald and Mickey, due to some legal slip-ups, already are in the public domain ( http://forums.goldenagecartoons.com/sho ... php?t=2658 see post #9) but 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.

The Disney Co should be a good sport.. after all, they used many stories and characters created by others and made it their own. Winnie the Pooh for instance. It's only fair if others are allowed to use their creations too.

I just don't have any idea how copyrights work when int concerns cartoon characters.

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

Maybe it is "capitalism," but that sure doesn't make it a good idea! Heck, maybe that makes it a bad idea! I would hate it if any old person could do whatever they wanted with Disney stuff!
But I will make an exception for SotS. As I said, if the company can't be bothered with it, maybe someone else would be more than happy to make the money from it.

Margos wrote:Maybe it is "capitalism," but that sure doesn't make it a good idea! Heck, maybe that makes it a bad idea! I would hate it if any old person could do whatever they wanted with Disney stuff!

You mean like Disney did with other peoples stuff? Most of Disney's animated classics are simply Disney doing whatever they wanted with "other people's stuff" - often (but not exclusively) without permission because the works were in the public domain.

You know, if you invent something, the patent only lasts 20 years? After that anyone can make use of your invention. Why should artistic rights be different? What's different and so special about Snow White over zero emission hydrogen powered engine?

And like I said, Disney didn't care about the recent Snow White DVD because they had the monopoly. (To all intents and purposes the 2001 Platinum Edition wasn't a viable purchasing option for the bulk of the public). So they didn't have to care - either you upgraded to Blu-ray or you bought the DVD - because it was the only one available. If other publishers could make their own Snow White DVDs, you can bet Disney would have made more of an effort with there's because they would be afraid of loosing sales.

Sure, I could have had the best DVD of "Snow White." But it wouldn't be a Disney DVD, and where's the fun in that?
And you can't compare artistic rights to technological rights. Sure, inventions affect our quality of life, but anyone can make them. Art is the very heart and soul of a culture, and its creators should be given special rights with regards to it.
And really, adapting some one else's work into your own is not the same thing as taking and marketing already created works. Adaptations are not stealing.

Margos wrote:Sure, I could have had the best DVD of "Snow White." But it wouldn't be a Disney DVD, and where's the fun in that?

If the DVD had everything from the first Platinum release, I wouldn't give two craps about if it's a Disney DVD or Universal Studios DVD or some small studio no one knows about DVD.

Well, OK, point taken, SHJ. But would the other studios have access to the material that went in to making the platinum? No, I don't think so. They don't have the Disney Research Library at Universal Studios or some small studio no one knows about.

2099net wrote:

Margos wrote:Maybe it is "capitalism," but that sure doesn't make it a good idea! Heck, maybe that makes it a bad idea! I would hate it if any old person could do whatever they wanted with Disney stuff!

You mean like Disney did with other peoples stuff? Most of Disney's animated classics are simply Disney doing whatever they wanted with "other people's stuff" - often (but not exclusively) without permission because the works were in the public domain.

You know, if you invent something, the patent only lasts 20 years? After that anyone can make use of your invention. Why should artistic rights be different? What's different and so special about Snow White over zero emission hydrogen powered engine?

Exactly! I love Disney, but even I see that they have created an unfair advantage where in they keep their copyrights for far longer then they should, but don't extend the same courtesy to other's.

I'll tell everyone right now the number one reason for copy right law: money. This "creativity" crap is just that, crap. It is a law designed to protect the author's economic interests, and Disney is the master of when it comes to the game. They come off as little more then copy right bullies.

So... If you put all of your creativity (which you seem so quick to scorn) into something, should everyone in the world be able to sell it and make a quick buck off of it?
It is the people that want to make money from something that is not theirs who only think about said money. If I created something beautiful and wonderful, I would want it to be rightfully mine, at least until I died. And since a company does not die (if all goes well), those rights may as well last.
If you think the "creativity" is BS, then why do you think Disney ever made movies at all? To get rich?

Margos wrote:So... If you put all of your creativity (which you seem so quick to scorn) into something, should everyone in the world be able to sell it and make a quick buck off of it?
It is the people that want to make money from something that is not theirs who only think about said money. If I created something beautiful and wonderful, I would want it to be rightfully mine, at least until I died. And since a company does not die (if all goes well), those rights may as well last.
If you think the "creativity" is BS, then why do you think Disney ever made movies at all? To get rich?

I say it is wrong for Disney to fight so hard to keep their copyrights and then turn around and fight so hard to make sure everyone else looses theirs. That is about money.

Besides, the copyrights behind the "creativity" doesn't belong the people who actually created all of this stuff. John Lassiter of Chris Sanders or any of the talented men and women behind these films and cartoons don't hold the copy right to their creativity, the soulless corporate empire owns it.

Disney Duster wrote:If the Disney films were public domain, could people get hold of the original negatives or whatever form the original, untouched films are available in, and make copies of the films that they feel look more correct, and have all the mistakes intact, and things like that?

No.

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.

netty wrote:And like I said, Disney didn't care about the recent Snow White DVD because they had the monopoly. (To all intents and purposes the 2001 Platinum Edition wasn't a viable purchasing option for the bulk of the public). So they didn't have to care - either you upgraded to Blu-ray or you bought the DVD - because it was the only one available. If other publishers could make their own Snow White DVDs, you can bet Disney would have made more of an effort with there's because they would be afraid of loosing sales.

Most studios do this with public domain titles that they release, at least from titles that I've come across. Warner included Royal Wedding in a "Classic Musicals from the Dream Factory" boxset with exclusive features and a transfer derived from the negatives rather than a poor-quality film print. And Criterion has also released several PD titles with the cooperation of the original studios (Charade with Universal, The Most Dangerous Game with RKO via Warner, etc.) to ensure they get the highest quality film elements to work with.

albert

Margos wrote:So... If you put all of your creativity (which you seem so quick to scorn) into something, should everyone in the world be able to sell it and make a quick buck off of it?

Like I said, a patent on inventions only lasts 20 years. Why should people put all their time and money in research and development of new ideas and create innovation if everyone in the world is able to sell it and make a quick buck of it in two decades? Why should entertainment get better ownership rights than practical objects we all use every day?

And at the end of the day, Disney loosing their copyrights on their older films wouldn't affect their creativity one jot. They still would make movies and television shows, because that's their business. Drug companies haven't all pulled out of their business just because generic, nameless copies are made when their patents run out.

And I don't really understand the worry that people will "mess about" with the properties should they go Public Domain. Look how many classic novels are in the public domain - has Pride and Prejudice meant people have constantly messed about with it? There's been lots of tv and film adaptations but all done with respect to the source. The novel itself has been reprinted many times, but the text is intact and unmolested. True, there's stuff like the recent "Pride and Prejudice with Zombies", but nobody's going to think that's the original classic are they? And even if they did, why's "Pride and Prejudice with Zombies" different from Disney itself making Treasure Planet based on Treasure Island?

Its the same for movies - plenty of movies are PD. Universal's Original silent Phantom of the Opera is PD - but people haven't "messed around with it". In fact, while there's been some somewhat lazy cheap transfers and releases, there's also been at least two stunning DVD releases, one of which the publisher went out of their way to provide as close as possible a definitive release of the film on DVD.

Yeah, some PD releases are crap - but they're cheap and you sort of know what you're getting into when you see them for sale in the $1 or $2 bins. But let's face it, Disney doesn't have an immaculate record with their own DVD releases... how many live action films that they own and have released are still only available in full-frame DVDs? How many have been released with lazy LD transfers? How many cheap cartoon short compilations have they released where they hack the cartoons to bits? Disney themselves are hardly model examples of how to treat their own films (Anchor Bay for example when they licenced a number of Disney films released DVDs which put the majority of Disney's better known titles DVD's to shame).

Good points Netty. Makes me think of the many times people complain about Disney ' spoiling' an original classic story with their own version of it. In it's defence Disney can always counter that the orginal classic story is still there to read, so nothing's lost. In the same way competitors who copy ideas from Disney can say: the original is still there.