I have worked with Disney's intellectual property teams in the past, and I'm blown away that this slipped under the radar. They are very up-tight about protecting their own IP and the brand of their princesses. If this were somebody selling a T-Shirt on eBay I would say, "Don't worry about it," but this is Disney. They know better. Their entire business model is based on intellectual property.
I have had similar experiences with the Disney IP teams. They mean serious business in all directions, from protecting IP to ensuring they are not infringing. They make sure everyone in the company or affiliated is very aware of IP issues. If the painting is indeed the original work and it somehow found its way onto some merchandise, I'm sure Disney will be amicable.
Amicable like they were over simba the white lion?
Disney rip-off left, right and centre. Yes, they aggressively protect their IP, but that doesn't mean they won't trample all over everyone else's. they have a history of this behaviour.
I've heard the kimba/simba thing before, but don't see it myself. Simba is the swahili word for lion, the plots are not at all similar and they don't look anything alike:
Well. OK; they really do not look alike. ;-) I have no idea, how far the stories match up, but coming from a literature background, I can only say, that a lot of stories are a lot alike, when they tell anything in the same genre.
I mean, look at a lot of forensic women in thrillers. But that is just meant as a bit background-info on literature. There is even a "scientific" way of saying, some (very) old author copied from someone else:
"But as a side-note: Don't the ears of the white lion remind anyone of Mickey Mouse? Just saying... ;-)"
* Mickey Mouse: First appearance - Steamboat Willie (1928)
* Kimba The White Lion: [..]Kimba the White Lion, is an anime series from the 1960s. Created by Osamu Tezuka and based on his manga of the same title which began publication in 1950
I wanted to link to another article, but can't find it right now, but it had a comparison of specific shots that were alleged to have been plagiarised. I remember it being quite striking, but these things are usually in the eye of the beholder.
Regardless, on the general point, for those who believe in "remix" culture there's nothing ethically wrong with this kind of direct inspiration provided credit is given where it is due.
The first thing that occurred to me is that the Disney artists (or contractors) probably came across the image on Tumblr or Pinterest or some similar social image-sharing network, stripped entirely of its original attribution.
It's entirely plausible that someone would have thought it was a Disney-owned image originally, and in circulation in violation of copyright.
If that's true, it's not an excuse for using someone else's work without permission, but it would be a sad and ironic commentary on the sharing and re-mixing economy.
No, they won't.
Whether or not it was provided by a third party supplier is irrelevant.
It does not make disney any less infringing if they are the ones selling it.
It just means you can sue disney, and then disney can turn around and attempt to recover the damages you win from the next guy up the chain.
You absolutely, positively, do not need to sue the people all the way up the chain.
I am an IP lawyer (though this is not legal advice, just an explanation of general concepts :P)
If Disney is the one selling the bags, surely they are the only party it would make sense for the artist to make a claim against?
If I, A, lie to you, B, and as a result you take a supposedly-harmless action which is in fact a tort against aggrieved party C, I would expect you to be liable to C, and myself to be liable in turn to you. What did I do to C?
I also think it's important for the artist to remember that Disney doesn't have a team of employees surfing the web looking for ideas to steal. The more likely scenario was a single designer was having trouble with a project and got desperate.
It's not excusable, but also isn't as conspiratorial.
Spare me the violins. This is a billion dollar global enterprise not a Mom and Pop. Its Disney's responsibility to make sure they have the requisite licences and in this case they appeared to have failed in that duty.
Disney works with 3rd party contractors and design agencies. If a design was claimed to be original artwork by one contractor, there's only so much that Disney can do. I'm not in any way defending them, but the possibility is there that this was either an honest mistake or a 3rd party that cut corners. I'm fairly certain there will be repercussions internally and externally due to this.
Why? So long as there are proper repercussions against the person who did the deed, if that person wasn't a part of Disney, what could Disney have reasonably done? If there turns out to be nothing it could reasonably have done, then whence comes responsibility?
Why assume the worst? Wouldn't it be a bit easier to just find the relevant group and ask them how they'd like to resolve it? If they want to be jerks, sure, lawyer up. However, it might be a very simple conversation with a much more positive outcome.
The difficulty if you don't "lawyer up" is that then you are a non-lawyer talking to lawyers - because the people on Disney's side who you would talk to would be lawyers. That is not in your favor.
If you need to talk about the law, then you want a lawyer.
You need a professional to make sure you get everything that you're entitled to and someone who knows how to negotiate so she gets the most appropriate terms.
For example, if she does this on her own, she might be well compensated but also unknowingly give up her copyrights in te deal. A good lawyer will be her advocate and make sure she understands everything she is about sign.
I agree that assuming the worst isn't the best idea- but I have to wonder how Disney's legal would react in the reverse situation? Would they assume the worst?
Disney would immediately lawyer up if the shoe was on the other foot. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Disney can't have it both ways!
A company like Disney doesn't really ever lawyer up, because that would imply that they are ever lawyered down. I have to agree with scott_s on this. You're in a bad enough situation pitting the lawyer you can afford against Disney's team. If you try and face them by yourself, you're going to get screwed.
So far "the internet" seems to be on this artist's side, apparently because her work was stolen by a corporation. Recent history suggests, however, that if Andy Baio[0] or Shepard Fairey[1] had ripped her off, she would be excoriated for asserting her rights and lectured about the wonders of remix culture.
I don't pretend to know anything about the relevant IP laws, but from a lay perspective I think there's a big difference between taking one piece of art and making a new derivative piece of art from it, and taking the same piece of art and making salable merchandise.
I know that Baio commissioned the art, and didn't personally create it. The decision to just take it rather than negotiate for rights was his. It should be pretty clear from the context of this discussion that I don't mean literally "copy-and-paste". The Disney ripoffs are also not identical to the source - does that mean that there is no issue?
I've got little to add to the larger discussion, but you know, this is kind of funny: I can ignore all kinds of crap that people on the internet get riled up over, and even the occasional personal insult, no sweat, but your assessment of Kind of Bloop and the chiptune scene in general actually made me angry.
There's an interesting (albeit tired -- we've been having the same conversation since at least the dawn of the sampler) question in there about where the line between "remixing" and "ripping someone off" gets drawn, but you didn't have to shit all over a subculture and genre of music to pose it.
EDIT: I'll add that there is a pretty direct parallel to be drawn here to the long-running controversy around hip-hop's heavy usage of sampling. Your article, then, read a bit like someone attempting to begin a thoughtful debate about this old "remix culture vs. copyright law" issue with a characterization like "hiphop is a primitive and culturally bankrupt musical 'genre' consisting of a sad excuse for poetry shouted on top of other people's music, and its creators are crooks who appropriate the hard work of others for a less sophisticated audience."
There are people out there that actually believe things like that (maybe even you?), but most of them have the good sense not to say so in public under their true identity. I'd like to think that has something to do with the common decency of not demeaning cultures that one is completely unfamiliar with, and not just fear of appearing to be a racist.
What was it specifically that made you angry? I enjoy chiptune music and listened to some of the linked samples thinking they were pretty good, but I still found the level of boldness in his "assessment of Kind of Bloop and the chiptune scene in general" quite refreshing and rather entertaining, even though I don't exactly agree with his opinion.
I enjoy a good articulate rant from someone who is making it in good faith, as I believe the author was. That "most of them have the good sense not to say so in public under their true identity" only makes it all the better - the argument is usually of such passion and ferocity that it must be confronted rather than sidestepped. If your reaction is one of anger then perhaps something he said was a little close to true and you're defaulting to an emotional response in defense.
I had the same reaction to Philips' blog post. I agree with his main argument, but not how he supports it.
Basically, Philips dismisses a broad range of 8-bit media without knowing how it is made. He says all you do is run some existing art through "a little bit of filtering", and like Instagram, there you have it. Basically, it's just a nasty-looking (or sounding) ripoff of existing artwork.
Problem is, that's not how chip music is produced. At all. Most songs are original compositions, and even cover versions are not simple "degradations". Think of covering a Miles Davis song on classical guitar, and you'll be closer. You have to recompose the material from the ground up, and stretch both yourself and your hardware platform to make things begin to work. It's both an artistic and technological feat. Now think of composing an original song this way. Some people have spent decades perfecting chip music, just as others perfect jazz or photography. Philips says the entire body of work is worth less than one good picture.
Worst, the criticism of chip music is tangential to his main argument -- that Baio screwed up by trying to sell a work without thoroughly licensing it. Philips went out of his way to be an ass about it, for no good reason. That's what bothers me.
Thanks, that's a great demonstration of confronting the argument head on, and well-explained to boot.
One comment I would make on what you have said is that I think Phillips does understand how chip music is made and you have misunderstood when you write "He says all you do is run some existing art through "a little bit of filtering", and like Instagram, there you have it". The phrase "a little bit of filtering" is right at the end of the article and I believe is a reference to what Baio did with the photograph rather than to the process of creating the music.
Vitriolic as it is, I think what Phillips writes in the first two paragraphs - I would draw your attention especially to the use of the word "re-performance" - shows that he does at least understand that chip music isn't simply an existing work put through a filter and is something created more or less from scratch. He just really really hates it, and says so, in a way I find hilarious. However, now having read the piece several times, and recontextualised by your and ANTSANTS comments here, I do think it's a bit undermining to the main point for him to piggyback that rant onto the front-end of the article.
'He says all you do is run some existing art through "a little bit of filtering"'
I didn't say that, at least not about the chiptune music. I said "He [Baio] was fully aware that he needed to pay license fees in order to distribute his versions, even though they were radically transformed and reinterpreted."
I am aware that the music was a re-performance in a different medium, not just filtering of source material. I happened not to like it. I don't see why my personal aesthetic judgments should upset anyone. If I'm not getting chiptune then it's my loss; I'll keep listening, and maybe one day it will click for me. When I first picked up Joyce's Ulysses I thought it was gibberish; now I think it's a great work of art. When I hear people claiming that Ulysses is gibberish, I don't get mad, I just smile.
Not seeing how "it would be nice to live in a world without the current incarnation of intellectual property law" is incompatible with "but we don't, so we're going to hold you to the standards you've created". They seem imminently consistent to me.
I wouldn't call it optimism. Both of the 'infringers' you linked to paid plenty of money for it.
I can't say that article of yours makes your point nearly as well as you might like, either. I hope it doesn't represent your general attitude towards derivative works (or just derivative works you don't appreciate aesthetically, whichever).
Well, while Alice from "Alice in Wonderland" is now a "public domain" character, the depiction of her with a blue dress, white belt, and blonde hair with a black bow in it was very much created by Disney.
In this case, the artist herself is remixing a visual design elaborated by Disney.
So, yeah. It's murky, and the remix argument goes both ways.
> the depiction of her with a blue dress, white belt, and blonde hair with a black bow in it was very much created by Disney.
How do you figure? Have you seen the original illustrations? Because they depict Alice in essentially the same getup that Disney stylized with their own art style. However the character design (which is what we'd call it now) is essentially John Tenniel's original design:
Tenniel illustrations are in the public domain. The original work is about 150 years old. As you say, very a clear-cut copyright issue with Disney lifting the design. I'll be interested to hear the outcome of this.
"Fairey settled his civil case with the AP out of court."
Looks like Fairey paid up, and I imagine AP gets a royalty (and past royalties) for every sale of the image, not just a lump sum for damages.
"...Fairey maintain his work fell under fair-use laws."
It would have been interesting had the civil case actually gone to verdict - I tend to think a Judge or Jury would have ruled in Fairey's favor, like you allude to in your post.
In ETW v. Jireh, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected a right of publicity claim brought by Tiger Woods against an artist who depicted Woods and other golf legends, holding that the transformative nature of the work exempted it from right of publicity liability under the First Amendment. Thus, this is not even a fair-use defense, but a first amendment defense, and the first amendment should be even more protective in the case of political speech where Fairey's work was of the leading candidate for POTUS at the time.
I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect the artist here would be thrilled to be getting a reasonable licensing fee from Disney for use of her work. Meanwhile, in Andy Baio's case, Jay Maisel was reportedly unwilling to license the photo for pixel art, period.
Presuming I'm correct, that's an important difference.
I didn't know the conclusion of the Fairey case and I had never even heard about the Baio case, so thanks for these links.
I don't think you can generalize "the internet" in this way because the forums I read are fairly liberal and will tend to favor the underdog, 'David' or whatever allusion you want to depict the lowly, individual up against 'the man.' So, by that thinking, we should be expected to favor Fairey (vs AP), Baio (vs Maisel ) and the current article's artist (vs Disney). You may say that Maisel is not so black and white, but consider that he still represents the establishment.
Just to specifically address Lee Phillips' article. He clearly has a personal bias that doesn't help his argument with lines like this referring to 'chiptune':
"I don’t get it either, but if people want to create music where part of the aesthetic is that it’s supposed to sound bad, I believe they have every right to."
I have plenty of fond memories to music from Battletoads, Mega Man and Final Fantasy so I think he's fighting a losing battle if he's going to try and convince people that there is no merit to 8-bit music production.
'I don't think you can generalize "the internet" in this way'
At least in the Baio case, there was really a perceptible "internet mob" that formed and attacked Maisel. It was disturbingly vicious, deliberately whipped up by John Gruber[0] and a few others, and actually spilled out into meatspace, with vandalism of Maisel's house.
I understand the "rooting for the underdog" tendency, and that might explain two of the examples. But how does Maisel represent the establishment? He's just an individual artist.
I agree that it's a stretch and I would not personally characterize him that way, it seems to be the perception that is being sold to the masses.
I think how artists deal with these forms of 'infringement' speaks to their character. For example, I love Bill Watterson (Calvin & Hobbes), but I also think it is somewhat petty that he so angrily hides his creations from the world in any form. I mean he wasn't able to stop millions of stickers being made depicting Calvin pissing on car logos, but yet he wouldn't allow children to purchase a plush toy of Hobbes? It may be his prerogative, but when something artistic has impacted the lives of millions in such an important way, I believe that artists need to live with the fact that there will be derivative works. I mean I could argue that Warhol should not have been able to use the Campbell's soup logo based on the same reasoning in this article... I think the pixelation of the original image constitutes a greater abstraction than simply enlarging the image and changing the colors.
BTW, I am adopting the term "meatspace." I love it.
"it seems to be the perception that is being sold to the masses."
That was part of my point - Maisel was characterized in a way that made it easier to whip up the mob against him. And that fact that Baio was a wealthy (probably) internet businessman was not mentioned.
Watterson: I love his work, too. His is unique in that he has so much respect for his own work and love for his characters that he has refused any form of licensing whatsoever - imagine how much money he has left on the table. Any time you see any of his characters on a shirt or anywhere outside of the original comics, it's a bootleg. Contrast this with Peanuts, Dilbert[0], or any other successful strip. Eventually his work will pass into the public domain, as it should, and then anyone can legally make a Hobbes toy. But I think that, until then, it's OK that he has some rights over his creations. Just because he can't stop some infringers doesn't mean that he's given up those rights. I don't see this as Watterson hiding anything: anybody can buy his books or check them out of the library.
Warhol: Interesting point. Maybe if Warhol had put his soup can image on a piece of merchandise for sale, like a record, he would have been in trouble. I'm guessing the artistic point of his paintings had something to do with the very fact that they were so close to the originals, compelling people to take a fresh look at familiar iconography. Or he was just a huckster, which was pretty much how he described himself. I think if the exact image on the cover of the "Bloop" album had been hung in a museum rather than used on merchandise, Maisel would have had a tougher case.
I stole "meatspace" from somewhere, long forgotten.
[0] Not meant as a criticism. Scott Adams has said that Watterson is an artist, while he, himself, is a businessman, and so they have different concerns.
Your second link doesn't indicate any internet-derived excoriation, but instead shows an artist being taken through the legal system by AP, along with the artist obstructing the judicial process. I don't think it supports the point you're making.
That we "should"? No, I'm basically on her side, although I think GuiA, in a comment above, has a good point that this particular case is murky. What I was attempting to get at is that the sympathies of the internet mob seem to depend not on the merits of any particular copyright case, but on who is doing the copying. Sorry if this wasn't obvious.
> I’m so mad because I have no chance at getting Disney to do anything about it.
For such a straightforward violation, I don't see why there's any call for pessimism. Send them an invoice for a worldwide license, follow it up with a lawyer letter (find someone willing to do no-win-no-fee if you want) once the invoice is overdue.
She probably said that because might not actually own the copyright to it.
Based on what I read on her site, this image was created for her final coursework.
Although I haven't been able to find out which University she attended to eliminate this possibility, it is quite possible that the University in question may actually owns this image.
Certainly in UK some Universities have IP clauses written stating who owns what.
I wonder how one prices out a worldwide license like this. Obviously if she put the prices at $1000/use, neither would Disney pay it nor would she recover that much from a court. But it's worth more than $0.01/use as well.
$25k per copy, by my reckoning. I mean, seriously, if it flies in court for them, why not for her? She should/could push for ten figures of punitive damages.
I don't think the MPAA gets punitive damages except for willful infringement. It's going to be hard to prove that this case with Disney -- it may be that nobody in Disney's employ even knows that this image is someone else's, if the work was done on contract. And it's going to be hard to make the case of economic harm, since the artist was not selling her work in the market otherwise.
Wouldn't the same logic follow though if someone agreed to turn off their file sharing and/or delete the files they downloaded? The MPAA/RIAA doesn't seem to be ok with that.
It's not my field, but by "worldwide license" I meant a single lump sum that covers everything they might want to do or already have done -- i.e. "this is the amount that you can pay to make this go away and avoid bringing in your expensive legal team".
My naive guess would be that somewhere USD $5k-$10k is that amount: small enough to be within budgetary authority, large enough to make it worth the artist's time to chase up.
In reality, I'd suspect and hope that the artist already has an e-mail from Disney's brand protection team, or whatever they call it, with an apology and an offer to pay immediately. Disney's surely one of the most brand-conscious companies in the world.
IMHO this looks like a substantial infringement, and $5-10K is peanuts. The signing authority of a middle manager would not factor into a settlement demand whatsoever, if it were me.
Some subscribe to the view that infringement is stealing, and that when you're caught stealing you shouldn't be afforded an opportunity to simply pay the fair market price.
I would guess the fair price would be: 1) typical licence for image on a global website, and 2) some percentage of sales of that particular bag.
I concur with others that have suggested just contacting Disney's Consumer Products division directly. I am sure they would want to fairly compensate the artist for her work.
They will also want to reprimand the company from which they sourced the bag.
Why would a fair price be relevant? I assume that statutory damages for copyright infringement would be far, far more than a fair price for the work if negotiated up-front. In other words, a retrospective license to cure infringement should probably be a bit "unfair".
Normally a price is decided upon before the use of the image. In this case, they have used the image without the permission of the owner. Kind of tough for them really - they should have gotten permission first.
The MPAA is just a publicity shunt so that people don't associate the bad press of the MPAA with the 8 brands that are behind it. [0]
The Copyright Extension Act of 1998 is called Mickey Mouse Protection Act. [1]
The modern BS of copyright lasting 100yrs [2] is caused because of the Disney corporation and the Mickey Mouse brand. Copyright will always be at least ($current_year - 1928) because of the Mickey Mouse brand.
She feels hopeless because the company that wrote modern copyright law is infringing on her copyright.
Hopelessness is a common feeling when someone from the working class is faces a fight against a multi-national company who can invest millions in legal fees.
Maybe the thought of investing a bunch of time and money on a possibly fruitless lawsuit is less appealing to her than spending time doing art. Yet, she may feel a moral obligation to her peers not to let Disney's behavior pass; placing her in a position where she feels powerless. Or maybe she just engaged in a bit of hyperbole.
The cosmetics bag looks like a straightforward copyright violation.
The second example, where no artwork was copied but there may have been some influence, is more complicated. How do you prove the inspiration came from the "stolen" art, and not Disney's own film or the original story?
> "How do you prove the inspiration came from the "stolen" art, and not Disney's own film or the original story?"
And even if you did prove it, is it illegal, and should it be illegal?
All art is a derivation of something that came before it. Can someone reasonably claim ownership to "girl painting roses with paint brush as viewed from behind"?
Doesn't matter; all works of Lewis Carroll's are in the public domain. As far as I know, this is true in all jurisdictions. The traditional Tennyson illustrations are also public domain. Compare with https://www.google.com/search?q=tennyson+illustrations+alice... .
I didn't mean legally, I meant morally. Don't her complaints about having her work co-opted by Disney when that work co-opted Alice wholesale ring a little false to anybody else?
I think that if you took the time to try to carefully define "co-opted" you'd have a hard time really nailing down what exactly is so wrong that no further explanation is necessary by the mere invocation of the word. "Co-opting" happens all the time, every which way. There's no new ideas under the sun.
There's a perfectly clear line here; assuming her account is correct, what she did was legal, and what Disney did is not legal. Legal is not always equal to moral, but with the particulars of this case I'm not feeling the need to draw some sort of complicated distinction. Legality is the entire point here.
You're suggesting there is some sort of equality between her own actions and Disney's, but they are not equal. Disney is making money from of her effort and she is not making money from her effort.
if you're citing lewis carroll's (well, Tennyson's graphics) work as the artist's inspiration then why not a line from LC to Disney, bypassing the artist entirely?
I'm not 100% sure I can parse your question, but the answer is that the handbag appears to be an exact copy on the inside, with some Disney graphics on the outside. The Disney painting is, as others have observed, much more ambiguous and would be harder to prove (although perhaps not impossible, given the presence of the handbag, if for instance the same "artist" did both).
(In fact, the handbag is quite bad as a result of this mixture, if I say so myself as a rather poor judge of design. The tone of Katie Woodger's work and the tone of the original Disney animated piece are at odds with each other, and the juxtaposition is rather less than the sum of the parts.)
didn't like the downvotes for a question but whatever. i by no means want to see artists ripped off, i was just asking about an alternative explanation and its plausibility.
Yes, the first one is without doubt a copyright violation, the second however I can't agree with.
If so then we'd have an insane amount of art that is stolen. The pose is the same, but this is totally different art in a totally different style with ha different dress etc. I personally don't think that should constitute as a copied/derived work, but that's just my opinion.
The first one however, clear cut copyright infringement, it IS the same artwork. Will be interesting to see how Disney spins this given how they forced daycare centers to paint over murals with Disney characters over trademark infringement.
Further proof that large media companies don't actually care about intellectual property. They care about their property.
Whether it is Disney stealing lions[1] or Fox stealing songs[2], their concern for your property is non-existent, but they are willing to throw you in jail if you think about using theirs.
Let's give Disney qua Disney (as opposed to one artist somewhere, which is all we know for sure at this point) some time to respond before we unleash the mob.
Past history certainly gives a non-zero probability that Disney will just try to throw their weight around, but let's give them the chance to do the right thing before we bury them. It makes the moral outrage that much more moral.
Because letting loose the Great Internet Mob is always something that should be done with a bit of due consideration, despite the fact that it is essentially impossible to do so. Mobs aren't made more intelligent by being on the Internet, and while they are physically defanged (well... mostly, anyhow) they can make up for the destructiveness in their scope.
Disney has a reputation for doing everything in their power to deliver exceptional customer service and epic experiences. They even run a company that teaches other companies how to treat customers right. http://disneyinstitute.com/
Personally, I think this is a perfect opportunity for Disney to make a HUGE PR WIN, by apologizing, and paying out a nice and fair royalty without a fight. I would be very disappointed if they miss this opportunity.
I can vouch for their service. I once lost my rental car keys while at one of the Disneyworld hotels, and I got no help from the rental company aside from the key code. The Disney folks sent one of their locksmiths to help me and he tried about half a day to make a key that would start the car. His dedication and attitude were remarkable.
My advice is to do something. Disney doesn't know they infringed, some sub-sub contractor did this. But eventually, they will find the image and assume that the original author is the infringer, and they're sticklers about this.
If the author does nothing, she may find herself in the unfortunate position of spending lots of money in court to prove that she didn't "steal" her own picture.
If this is all handled positively it could be a win win.
Having Disney license your artwork is something most designers would be glad of reputation wise.
I think she needs to lose the angry tone pronto and at least 'appear' more phlegmatic about it.
And there isn't any particular need for panic I'd have thought as it looks like an open and shut case in terms of infringement.
The person who is in deep trouble is whoever knowingly infringed, they could be out the door.
FIND/HIRE A LAWYER ASAP!! You definitely have grounds for this case. If you think it may be too expensive, I suggest using Lawdingo (https://www.lawdingo.com/lawyers) as you can cold-message/chat with lawyers for free. I am positive that if everything you have presented is true, someone or another will be more than willing to represent you and help you take the appropriate action.
Really sorry to hear about this but best of luck, its unfortunate this happens with such large companies. Nonetheless, hope it gets resolved soon--good luck!
I'm of course just guessing but this seams more like the result of a lazy (unscrupulous) designers hired by Disney rather than a corporate decision to ignore copyright.
This doesn't make the situation of the author any better, the author should at least talk to a copyright layer IMO.
Given Disney made their fortune from reselling public domain stories then suing anyone who infringed on their IP, this story comes as no surprise. Though that doesn't stop me feeling wound up that they consider themselves above the law, and sorry for the injustice against the author.
If your artwork was stolen, you should file a police report to get your stolen property back.
It seems what has happened, however, may be a copyright infringement, which is not theft. If that is the case, you should talk to a lawyer about filing a copyright claim against Disney.
You don't know that. The right to create derivative works is one of the exclusive rights granted to the original creator by the copyright act. If the same designer that put his image on the bag is the one that designed the shirt, it would be very hard for him to claim the second image isn't a derivative work of the unlicensed original.
I would honestly lawyer up in this instance. Disney from what I've seen are usually very thorough with their IP, I'm surprised something like this has happened and I am sure it's an honest mistake they will rectify. There is definitely a case here, but it doesn't seem as straightforward as some might think it is.
It's likely a lazy designer did a Google Image search, saw an illustration that looked like the original Alice in Wonderland illustrations by Tenniel, and assumed it was in the public domain.
I wonder what license the image was released under. While this could have been deliberate by Disney, I doubt they would use a (seemingly) very popular design on production material.
Many times that I knew some sort of stuff like this happened, it was because one specific worker, KNEW that he was doing wrong, but did it wrong anyway to take the credit, and hope his bosses would not find out.
This also apply when the "worker" is a boss, but working for a client, he do it in a lazy manner hoping his client won't notice...
Whoa, I'm really shocked that the case essentially lost there several times. That's.... terrible. One of them because they "failed to register copyright in the US" according to the Wikipedia. I was under the impression that there was no real need to register under US copyright law as its an automatic right.
I was under the impression that this would be covered under copyright and not a particular licence. As soon as the artwork was created by the artist it belongs to the artist, they don't even need to put a copyright symbol next to it. My advice would be get in touch with Disney, it seems the artist has support on tumblr already. I suspect a public spectacle of Disney's mistake (assuming it was a mistake) is probably the artist's best bet. DKNY were caught up in something similar and ended up paying and apologising for their mistake [1].
Copyright is the law from which licenses get their power. It's because the author has the exclusive rights granted by copyright protection that they can dictate the terms under which others may use their work (that is, offer licenses). When no license is offered, the author retains exclusive rights. The parent comment was implying that the author may have offered some kind of license (for example, by uploading his artwork to Flickr and ticking off one of the Creative Commons boxes in the license selection).
It's also quite possible that someone unauthorized put the picture on a site with a permissive license. That's an easy explanation for how this came about. I really do doubt that Disney or anyone representing them intended to steal this image.
I presume everyone knows the birthday cake story. A small bakery allowed kids draw digitally that the bakery could print on the cake. As kids like to draw things they have seen or things they know, many drew characters of Disney. Disney made a legal move and shut down the bakery as the kids were stealing their IP.
I wish Tumblr had some sort of attribution engine that helped hunt down the original sources for images and text posted to its site. I know people would probably object to force attribution being injected into their posts, but there ought to be some easier way to track down original material in this network.
Katie, consult with an IP attorney to see if you have a case in the first place. They may be very costly especially if you're suing Disney! Then, if you want to proceed, try to hire them on contingency. You have nothing to loose, if you win, they will earn a share (probably a third) of the settlement/award.
The t-shirt image, you have no claim - it's a lot more similar to the depiction in their own film of Alice in Wonderland, from the stripey socks to the shape of the roses. No reasonable jury would find for a plaintiff on that claim.
The bag is definitely an infringement, but it gets complicated, because she ripped the background from a website. The t-shirt seems different enough to be legal.
It's Alice in Wonderland, which was written in 1865, so it's in the public domain. The artist's illustration is inspired by the original Tenniel illustrations, so it's not a derivative of the 1951 Disney adaptation.
Many people here are concerned about copyright related issues. Especially when a large corporation that regularly asserts copyright claims is caught doing the infringement.
I'm glad this story ended up here, and I hope the press causes royalties to be paid to the original artist for the bag which is a direct copy.
Given the entirely non-technical nature of the post, it's not an unfair criticism to make. As others have pointed out, there is indeed a group on HN interested in IP (which I don't personally identify with) but who find stuff like this interesting even if it's not technical - I see that now, and that's merely our difference in opinion about what's relevant here.
But I'd recommend caution in criticizing that trope just for the sake of it: you're dissuading expression of possibly valid opinions on culture fitness, and those discussions are crucial for maintaining a culture anywhere.
The guidelines ask posters not to do this: "Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site." http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
If you flag articles like this, you'll soon lose the flagging privilege on your account. Submissions which aren't spammy/low quality, but which you simply aren't interested in, are supposed to be ignored, not flagged.
I was under the impression that the 'flag' feature is for content that is grossly inappropriate (e.g. a Reddit-esque asinine post), not for posts whose content I believe doesn't fit?
That is correct. By that extension, if you are not interested in the content, ignore it. What's actually worse is posting a comment that merely complains about this not being content you think is appropriate.
> Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
She is British (it says so on her site). Using plural verbs with organizations ("the police are coming", etc.) is perfectly correct British English; same for "at university" [1].
I'm not a native speaker, and learned British English in school, American English through informal practice while living there, so I may not have picked the greatest example. :)
I think it is. I don't know the rules, but I've never heard a US English speaker use an entity like "Disney" as plural. That said, "the police" is always plural, and I have no idea why that's different.
It's not correct American English, but she's not American.
The only thing I'm not sure is correct in non-American usage is the capitalized "University"; I thought they used lowercase for the generic (much in the same way we use "college" in the US). The rest, though, reflects common usage outside the US.
Time to lawyer up.