it wasn't made by Disney!

[athena]

I was just browsing YouTube for Goofy reference footage, (wow, is that site a copyright mess), and came across a fan video for Balto.

A fan video tagged, of course, "Walt" and "Disney".
GRRRRRR... Balto was NOT made by Disney. :irate:

I remember sitting in my first 2D animation class in my first semester, surrounded by other animation students, listening to someone talk about this new Disney movie that had just come out... Spirit, Stallion of the Cimarron.

I wanted to smack them upside the head. You're animation students, for crying out loud!

I suppose things are a little better now with so many studios in the mix... but still, it's gotta be so hard for a studio to get ahead if, even when you do great work, it winds up getting credited to someone else.

[starlac]

YouTube has already received one cease and decease letter from Warner Bros. regarding its use of copyrighted material, which lead to the removal of the theatrical shorts on the site (even bits of shorts that animation experts used or clips for ‘show and tell’ about certain animators got wiped).

YT tries to state that it is not responsible for what its users put up, something the napster lawsuits proved was little protection in the end. I’ve enjoyed watching stuff on it, particularly that which I may never get to see anywhere else as yet; but I wonder how much time it has left.

I also partly wondered what persuaded News Corporation to buy it and then really wondered what persuaded Google to buy it off them…

I been going through the site to see what profiles I can find, either for profiling or even reviewing (although a lot of it has been titles that have taken from Retrojunk). For example I took the pictures for the Loonatics profile (and some others) from there after watching the half dozen episodes hosted (ironic really, the great shorts get removed while the crud stays).

It be good while it lasts, though it longevity is questionable.

-

As for the main point, yes it highly annoying thing that companies get confused with other companies, especially by those who should know better. Though I expect that the guy who made that video knows about their mistake, realising that the majority of the rest of the world possibly sees it as a Disney film.

I suppose as long as people go to see the movie it will make the real companies behind it the money, even if those going to see it think it was from someone else when they paid at the ticket booth. Certainly I hope that when someone else’s logo other than Disney’s comes up on screen they may learn that it is not the work of Disney.

[P.C. Unfunny]

YouTube has already received one cease and decease letter from Warner Bros. regarding its use of copyrighted material, which lead to the removal of the theatrical shorts on the site (even bits of shorts that animation experts used or clips for ‘show and tell’ about certain animators got wiped).

Warner Bros. was in wrong removing alot of those shorts, most of them were public domain and legally allowed to be on Youtube. Fortunetly, they are still some WB classic shorts marked as public domain.

[starlac]

I'm not aware of the exact details but I think it was probably more of a case of YouTube panicking and deleting every short that was Warner Bros. related without researching if it was protected or not.

It's easier to carpet sweep after all...

It's sad that YouTube didn't have the resolve to keep said Public Domain shorts, since WB has no legal say in controlling them, as much as they would like too.

Whatever the reason: the end result is that everything got tarred with the same brush, PD or not.

[P.C. Unfunny]

Whatever the reason: the end result is that everything got tarred with the same brush, PD or not.

Well they are still some classic shorts still on YT, they eased up a little though the WB still is on there case.

[athena]

I found the "Goofy Gymnastics" short on YouTube yesterday as well. Has any of Disney's stuff hit public domain status yet or have they found a way to work around the year limit and stamp everything with their copyright...?

[starlac]

The Short version... Yes, Disney did, up to a point.

The Long Version...

The Copyright Term Extension Act (which Disney helped to get into congress BTW), meant that corporate films retained their copyright for a further 20 years (on the top of the previous 75 standard). What this ultimately means is that even Steamboat Willie (which would have become public domain in 2003 under the old rules) is still under copyright protection and that it won’t run out until 2019.

Those PD Warner shorts came into the public domain due to the mishandling in the hands of those companies that were responsible for them at the time: they didn’t renew the copyright and so they fell into the public domain (as was US copyright practice at the time). The act didn’t help any film that was in the public domain (for whatever reason) upon its enactment, so these films did not regain protection.

This may sound like Disney getting their cake and eating it, but the enactment brought the copyright protection of the United States closer to that of most of Europe; which provided much the same level of protection prior to the act. It was partly a result of the US joining with the Berne Convention (effectively the first thing I think of when I think of International Copyright Law). The Convention allows for individual Countries to extend their laws beyond its own limits.

However...

Canada has not yet given the same twenty year extension treatment, so in Canada at least Steamboat and corporate films more than 75 years old are in the Public Domain.

And trademarks work in a completely different way. As long as Disney etc can shed the money for trademark renewal they can own the likenesses of Mickey and co. effectively forever.

[Inkwolf]

Hi! (Yeah, I'm still alive, but barely) :D

Youtube is an interesting phenomenon. Definite copyright violations left and right, but how are you going to rein in thousands of uploading people?

On the original subject, it's a pet peeve of mine. When I worked, some years ago, for Toys R Us, a woman came in and asked if we had the movie Thumbelina, and stressed that she wanted the actual Disney version, not some knock-off.

I told her that the movie Thumbelina had actually been made by (was it Warner Bros?), that that was the theatrical version that she wanted, and that Disney had never made a full-length Thumbelina movie (or even a short I knew of) I gave her the videocassette of Thumbelina and she looked at it.

Then she put it down and said to her friend, "Let's go next door to Best Buy and see if THEY have Disney's Thumbelina."

I may have bored you guys with that story before, it seems to me...

[athena]

When I worked, some years ago, for Toys R Us, a woman came in and asked if we had the movie Thumbelina, and stressed that she wanted the actual Disney version, not some knock-off.

I told her that the movie Thumbelina had actually been made by (was it Warner Bros?), that that was the theatrical version that she wanted, and that Disney had never made a full-length Thumbelina movie (or even a short I knew of) I gave her the videocassette of Thumbelina and she looked at it.

Then she put it down and said to her friend, "Let's go next door to Best Buy and see if THEY have Disney's Thumbelina."

OUCH, that's awful! I mean, admittedly, there are cheap knockoffs of films like Thumbelina, Aladdin and Pocahontas, but really... ugh. :yuck:

Oh, and the theatrical version of "Thumbelina" was made by Don Bluth.

[servewithchips]

Then she put it down and said to her friend, "Let's go next door to Best Buy and see if THEY have Disney's Thumbelina."



maybe she went to one of the thumbelina test screenings where they showed the disney logo to see if it affected reviews (surprise, with the logo, the film scored higher).

[lupercal]

Well, I'm sure I'll get lambasted for this: I do, every time I express the opinion, but what the hell; I can take it now.

I think modern copyright laws are ridiculously excessive, and intellectual property is a form of cultural mental illness.

It may be different from corporations to individuals, but with recent extensions to the duration of copyright, works nowadays don't fall into the public domain for the lifetime of the author plus 70 years. IMO this is plain insidious. Copyright was intended to protect the livelihood of the author, not that of his great grandchildren, or whichever agent has ownership of it and is sitting on it 50 years later, refusing to let anyone publish it, in case the author somehow falls back into fashion again. To me this would be like me getting money because of some plumbing or carpentry my grandfather did.

Madder though, is the whole concept of intellectual property. This is roughly the way I've put this argument to people elsewhere:

I've posted to fora where people (not even professional artists or writers) have moaned because someone has written a story which uses their characters. My argument is that, since we each individually imagine a character when we think of them, it can't logically be the same character, but our own original mental creation. But people have almost literally argued that this pirate has taken the character out of their own head and made it do things without their permission. To me this is lunacy. I have written stories which people have gone and 'pinched' the characters from, and I couldn't care less. Admittedly this is somewhat different when we're talking about a visual image, which almost comes more under the concept of trademark.

All the same I've heard cogent arguments that characters like Star Wars, Star Trek, or Disney characters shouldn't be subject to copyright, because they're so much a part of our culture that they're virtually public property.

I support measures which are designed to protect the livelihood of the individual responsible for creating the character/idea/whatever - but the extent to which we've taken it is objectionable and ridiculous.

NB: when I use words like 'lunacy' or 'mental illness', I realise that this, to an extent, is a nescessary state in a consumer society.

There was a time when nobody 'owned' stories or characters: they were communal possessions. Nobody would think of taking action against someone else for telling the same story. That was the whole point of stories. They became commodified in relatively modern times. Became products like everything else. So I suppose this is more a comment on modern consumer society than anything else.

Copyright laws, in our culture, are nescessary, but we are pushing them to absurd extents.

Loop

[MonkeyFunk]

I'm inclined to agree. It's not like Disney's doing anything worthwhile with half its properties anyway.

[KimbaWLion]

maybe she went to one of the thumbelina test screenings where they showed the disney logo to see if it affected reviews (surprise, with the logo, the film scored higher).Disney is God. The sooner you accept that, the easier it will be to get along with the rest of the world.

(If you think I'm advocating that point of view, see
http://www.kimbawlion.com/secretrant.htm. I'm just resigned to not getting along with the rest of the world.)

[KimbaWLion]

Copyright laws, in our culture, are nescessary, but we are pushing them to absurd extents.You won't get any lambasting from me; the copyright laws are insane. I just wouldn't use the word "we" in that sentence; it's the paucity of non-corporate-owned lawmakers that's the cause.

The loopholes are insane, too. The Richard Greene TV series, The Adventures of Robin Hood, is Public Domain in the US but not in the UK. The result of this is that the UK has received excellent full-season DVD sets of the series, while the US gets haphazard (both in quality and content) dollar-store DVDs.

Jay Ward's Fractured Flickers series is PD because--get this--it contains a 1961 copyright notice at the beginning and a 1963 copyright notice at the end. Because the two are more than one year apart, they are both invalid. But we did get a very nice complete DVD set of the series (missing only the Kennedy family spoof that was excised before broadcast due to bad timing).

Kimba the White Lion is PD in the US, which is why Disney's remake was transformed into the company's "first original story".

I've posted to fora where people (not even professional artists or writers) have moaned because someone has written a story which uses their characters. My argument is that, since we each individually imagine a character when we think of them, it can't logically be the same character, but our own original mental creation.I can see why individuals just starting out would fear loss of control of their characters. If I had created Bugs Bunny et al and someone else transformed them into The Loonatics, I'd be livid. (But that transformation was legal.)

I agree that when others write for a character, it's a different character. Like Animaniac's Slappy Squirrel--Sherri Stoner was the only one who could write for that character. If I didn't see her name at the beginning of the cartoon, I turned it off.

[lupercal]

I can see why individuals just starting out would fear loss of control of their characters. If I had created Bugs Bunny et al and someone else transformed them into The Loonatics, I'd be livid. (But that transformation was legal.)

I was intending to refer pretty specifically to text characters, but I think it applies to anything that involves a mental construct on the part of the reader/viewer/listener. Also it was a very metaphysical argument more than a pragmatic one. I was just arguing from the logical position that it's actually impossible to 'steal' intellectual property, because in the act of re-imaging it, it gets turned into something else. It wasn't meant to be a legal argument. I acknowledge the need for copyright laws in our society; I was just pointing out that the concept of protecting thoughts from being stolen is basically mad.


I agree that when others write for a character, it's a different character. Like Animaniac's Slappy Squirrel--Sherri Stoner was the only one who could write for that character. If I didn't see her name at the beginning of the cartoon, I turned it off.

Well, again this is metaphysics, not legalese, but I would say that it's actually a different character for everyone who watches it.

Loop

[athena]

I've posted to fora where people (not even professional artists or writers) have moaned because someone has written a story which uses their characters. My argument is that, since we each individually imagine a character when we think of them, it can't logically be the same character, but our own original mental creation. But people have almost literally argued that this pirate has taken the character out of their own head and made it do things without their permission. To me this is lunacy. I have written stories which people have gone and 'pinched' the characters from, and I couldn't care less.

I'm working on a novel right now and, if by some miracle it gets mass publication someday, I think the best thing ever would be if it generated a whole bunch of fan fiction... I would just love to see people that engaged with the world I created and see where they would take it.

Now, if someone were to try and make money off my story premise that would be different... at least while I was alive anyways.

[lupercal]

I'm working on a novel right now and, if by some miracle it gets mass publication someday, I think the best thing ever would be if it generated a whole bunch of fan fiction... I would just love to see people that engaged with the world I created and see where they would take it.

Now, if someone were to try and make money off my story premise that would be different... at least while I was alive anyways.

True. About the only downside to it is that (again because of copyright laws) you could be sued by a fanfic writer you'd never even read if you went and wrote an 'official' story which resembled it. Which i why most publishers won't accept unsolicited manuscripts.

But generally speaking I agree and think fanfics are a good thing (even if the fanfics themselves usually aren't). I think someone writing something vased in someone else's universe should relinquish the right to litigate over it, but apart from that fanfic is much more like the old, pre-industrial way of storytelling, where characters just became part of the culture and stories were made up about them. I mean, can you imagine Homer (if there was a single person called that) sueing someone for publically reciting a story that seemed similar to 'The Oddysey'?

There's also the fact that people are, I presume, going to turn to the original source for any subsequent material. I mean, I just can't see someone else starting to write Harry Potter books, and outselling the original author.

The unfortunate fact is that, in our consumer culture, we need businesses to be protected by copyright so they can make enough millions to make more product.

Loop

[starlac]

It is said that Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I also remember another quote that refers to what Loop is taking about "the pictures are better on Radio."

The biggest problem I have with copyright protection is when companies, corporations and agents use it to be able to withhold a program, etc from any kind of circulation. Disney are particularly guilty of this with their return to the vault system of release and the sordid nature of their Treasure tin boxes.

I do think that 50, 70, whatever years after author’s death is way too long a term in this day and age; originally it used to be life of author. As for corporate-owned films, I think the original 75 years from copyright date was fine.

The next thing the corps will want is the removal of the “Fair Dealing” part of copyright law.

I was just pointing out that the concept of protecting thoughts from being stolen is basically mad.

True...

Thoughts are pure ideas and of course copyright only protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. Characters are only very vaguely protected by said laws, mostly as part of the collective expression of the text, etc. Copyright is a subjective law and yes, it is much easier to protect characters if they are visual works, but the thing is that it is the art that gets protected, not the persona.

Also, as KimbaWLion noted, when something enters the public domain its commercial value simply collapses as everyone and anyone can make a copy; meaning you get those dollar DVDs. This also can reduce a company’s incentive (if it had any) to restore and release a high quality product: if the thing has no value, why should the company bother?

[KimbaWLion]

when something enters the public domain its commercial value simply collapses as everyone and anyone can make a copy; meaning you get those dollar DVDs. This also can reduce a company’s incentive (if it had any) to restore and release a high quality product: if the thing has no value, why should the company bother?Well, they would have to put some effort into the product and the marketing. Legend Films is doing well at restoring and selling PD films. (http://www.legendfilms.net/) They promote their restorations and their colorizations. Yes, I know colorization is an evil word, but they make the restored B&W film available on the same disc, thereby negating any evil, IMO.

Anyone wishing to release a high quality version of a PD film is going to have to make it known that they are selling quality. This takes some effort, and avoiding effort is what the copyright extensions are about.

[lupercal]

Also, as KimbaWLion noted, when something enters the public domain its commercial value simply collapses as everyone and anyone can make a copy; meaning you get those dollar DVDs. This also can reduce a company’s incentive (if it had any) to restore and release a high quality product: if the thing has no value, why should the company bother?

Perhaps this is true to an extent, but consider:

As I mentioned recently, I have at least 14 DVDs of public domain WB cartoons which cost $2 each, and as you noted, on the one volume you looked up, most of them were still re-released by Warner in their Golden Collections, which have sold very well.

Similarly I have PD discs of Betty Boop and Popeye which cost more like $10-12, and I have discs with some of the same cartoons that cost $2. The $12 were digitally remastered and packaged with inserts and bonus features, even if they were PD, and from what I can tell, they sold well. So I think to a certain extent something being PD is irrelevant. Clearly a large percentage of the public is going to go for the superior version, regardless of who releases it.

Loop