| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/25/2012 08:06:58 PM · #1 |
So I seem to remember that Disney is pretty gung-ho on their copy-write stuff. So , say, if someone did a complete series of photographs on their Princess's and it was pretty darn close.
Would they be 'iffy' about it??
Or, as I am such a flake, made this all up in my own brain , again.........
|
|
|
|
07/25/2012 08:23:06 PM · #2 |
Depends...what do you mean by "their princesses"? Snow White, Aurora, Cinderella are folklore and not in any way property of Disney. Now, the Disney Character is their property and a quick search showed a couple instances where Disney sued for use of the likeness.
Notice, in "Snow White and the Huntsman" and "Mirror Mirror", Snow White looks nothing like the iconic character. |
|
|
|
07/25/2012 08:41:51 PM · #3 |
Well, that is what I wondering. I remember a few years ago, when Disney went bananas on their 'look alike' you are not going to use this image, that may or may not look like anything we have, heck I still read about them asking people to leave their Disney parks as they look too much alike to their actors, films etc
Well, this is all 'their' women folk, actually, a couple of their men too. Cinderella, the new Brave one, Snow white, that mermaid one, basically all of them. And they are really really looking the same and the set's behind them re-enforce this in photographs. It is also called "The Princess Series". There is TOTALLY no way you would not recognize them and associate them with the movies.
So, I was just curious,,,
|
|
|
|
07/25/2012 08:51:18 PM · #4 |
I think taking a photograph of someone dressed as those characters would qualify as "tribute" or "satire", either of which is not a copyright violation. Disney licences costumes, and you can use pictures of your kids in them, right? Using images of their characters drawn the way they drew them is a definite no no.
Years ago there was a porn take off on Cinderella, so I think whatever you do will be less likely to offend they folks at Disney. |
|
|
|
07/25/2012 09:00:57 PM · #5 |
That does make sense Brennan.
I do not know why it stuck in my head, that it was a 'no no'. Knowing me, it was probably reading about how people where kicked out, barred from Disney land/ world, etc for looking like their characters.
My brain has been so screwed up recently that I probably dreamed the whole thing. Along with my eyeball falling out last night whilst being chased by dinosaurs. =\ |
|
|
|
07/25/2012 09:11:43 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Knowing me, it was probably reading about how people where kicked out, barred from Disney land/ world, etc for looking like their characters. |
Well kicking out people dressed as characters from their park makes sense. It is their property, so they can do what they want, and the people who Disney pays to dress up have a pretty strict code of conduct. I can imagine the law suit if something weird happened when a visitor confused one of their employees with some random oddball in a costume. "Go sit on Donald's lap for a picture Timmy....wait, Timmy , get away from that man."
 |
|
|
|
07/25/2012 09:20:05 PM · #7 |
Aye, I can totally see that. But my brain is niggling on this thought.....
Someone shut my brain up!!! lol |
|
|
|
07/25/2012 09:30:44 PM · #8 |
|
|
|
07/25/2012 09:44:37 PM · #9 |
So , is that a Yes or No then?
It seems like a No from my interpretation of what Bear wrote,,,, am I let field here????
Here is one of the pictures of the series I am enquiring about
Doe sit make sense as to why I am asking now, it is just so much alike and so spot on.
Edited to add: The title of the series is Princess Series. All Princess's are depicted in this.
Message edited by author 2012-07-26 10:41:34. |
|
|
|
07/25/2012 10:26:46 PM · #10 |
First...very cool photo...my 6 year old daughter really liked that movie.
I'm no lawyer, but your photo would seem to be fine from my view. It is not the exact cartoon copy of Merida.
But, I do know a law student and I'll send this photo onto him.
ETA: Message sent. I should hear tomorrow.
Message edited by author 2012-07-25 22:30:55. |
|
|
|
07/25/2012 10:31:19 PM · #11 |
| I'm not getting the impression these are Juliet's series... I'm getting the idea she's seeing this elsewhere and wondering if it's legal... perhaps because she has a similar, or related, project in mind. I could be wrong. |
|
|
|
07/25/2012 10:46:48 PM · #12 |
| i think the idea is along the same lines as "cos-play" which happens all the time. just my 2 cents. |
|
|
|
07/25/2012 10:51:21 PM · #13 |
| Disney is insane about defending its copyrights. It changes U.S. law to extend its copyrights. Of course if you dress people up as their princesses you are infringing their copyright. I don't understand the question. |
|
|
|
07/25/2012 10:55:29 PM · #14 |
I think you're running in a slightly gray shade of white here, but it is strongly my suspicion that you would be ok.
From the link above:
Transformative Use
Another way to legally use Disney characters could be to use them in what the law refers to as "transformative use." Transformative use requires that you change, or transform, the character enough so that it is no longer a mere copy of the original. The resulting transformation is sometimes called a "derivative work." For example, if a painter created an original oil painting of his family and included the Disney character Tinkerbell as a family member, his use of Tinkerbell would be fair use because of its commentary that the artist considers Tinkerbell a member of his family. The use of Tinkerbell in the painting could be could be characterized as a transformative use, and the painting could be called a derivative work.
That seems very much like a derivative work... My guess is you'll be just fine..
Now, do this, and please share as fast as you can, I want to see this.
Go CHICK! ;) |
|
|
|
07/25/2012 10:57:58 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I think you're running in a slightly gray shade of white here, but it is strongly my suspicion that you would be ok.
From the link above:
Transformative Use
Another way to legally use Disney characters could be to use them in what the law refers to as "transformative use." Transformative use requires that you change, or transform, the character enough so that it is no longer a mere copy of the original. The resulting transformation is sometimes called a "derivative work." For example, if a painter created an original oil painting of his family and included the Disney character Tinkerbell as a family member, his use of Tinkerbell would be fair use because of its commentary that the artist considers Tinkerbell a member of his family. The use of Tinkerbell in the painting could be could be characterized as a transformative use, and the painting could be called a derivative work.
That seems very much like a derivative work... My guess is you'll be just fine..
Now, do this, and please share as fast as you can, I want to see this.
Go CHICK! ;) |
ETA:
Just make sure they're engaged in some sort of activity that could be argued as "commentary" as above. Snow white snorting a line, Tinkerbell with a gun... *shrug* You can go much more traditional, but just something that compels this to be a "commentary" rather than a simple imitation. |
|
|
|
07/25/2012 10:59:42 PM · #16 |
| They can afford to sue you even if they are wrong. |
|
|
|
07/25/2012 11:06:47 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
They can afford to sue you even if they are wrong. |
True, but a cease and desist letter is much more common as a first step.
-CB |
|
|
|
07/25/2012 11:13:18 PM · #18 |
No Bear is right, this is not my thing, I am not that kinda girlie to do something like this unless it was along the lines of Cory's thinking.
The whole thing about this , was , you KNOW who it is, you KNOW who it depicts, you KNOW who it belongs or was originally made by and you all know it is damn close or a copy of what was in the movie.
WE as togs, come along and make our own original idea's. We Certainly get really pissed when someone copies us to this extent. We all know Disney has a bajiziolliotrillionmillion dollars to sue where as we do not, and we all know it has happened before.
So according to their legal rights. Is this illegal or not. I think if they found out, they would be asked to to remove them.
If it is not copy-write or copying of their characters, then WHAT is???
Where does that leave the simple man/woman with no bajiziolliotrillionmillion dollars.
Is impersonation a form of flattery or to this extent wrong???
|
|
|
|
07/25/2012 11:28:33 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
No Bear is right, this is not my thing, I am not that kinda girlie to do something like this unless it was along the lines of Cory's thinking.
The whole thing about this , was , you KNOW who it is, you KNOW who it depicts, you KNOW who it belongs or was originally made by and you all know it is damn close or a copy of what was in the movie.
WE as togs, come along and make our own original idea's. We Certainly get really pissed when someone copies us to this extent. We all know Disney has a bajiziolliotrillionmillion dollars to sue where as we do not, and we all know it has happened before.
So according to their legal rights. Is this illegal or not. I think if they found out, they would be asked to to remove them.
If it is not copy-write or copying of their characters, then WHAT is???
Where does that leave the simple man/woman with no bajiziolliotrillionmillion dollars.
Is impersonation a form of flattery or to this extent wrong??? |
Well, as they said, if you're not just copying them, and you're creating "commentary" (that's the key word), you're in the clear... I mean, for me I think it's pretty clear, they say as much on their own page, the given example was closer to the original, given that they were talking about a perfect replica, just inserted into a family photograph... Don't use their names, don't re-create a scene from the movie, make it your own, and arguably have "commentary" as the purpose, and you're in the clear.
If you don't want to take any chances, then just go spend the few hundred bucks and consult a lawyer, but I'm betting they'll tell you exactly what I'm saying here, not because I'm some expert, but because Disney themselves specified a case that would be closer to infringement than the scenario I proposed above.
Now, if you're just re-creating scenes from the movies, you're probably going to land in a rather nasty pile of Disney brand excrement.
ETA: If you want an extra layer of security, drop the "Princesses" title, but I think you could darn well use it without trouble.
Of course, if you don't want to hire the lawyer, write Disney, ask them for their position. IF you're so uncomfortable with the risk, then why not just go straight to them... I would note the passage from their page above, and state the case that you think your work is commentary, derivative, and further from the actual copyright than the hypothetical work used as an example by Disney themselves as being permissible. Again, I'm betting they'll just write you with a "glad you like our crap, yes, your use is OK, just don't do x,y,z.. Have a nice day, rainbows, unicorns, sunshine, bleh -Sincerly, Disney Goon #27293".).. ;)
Message edited by author 2012-07-25 23:34:01. |
|
|
|
07/26/2012 02:19:01 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Cory:
IF you're so uncomfortable with the risk, then why not just go straight to them... I would note the passage from their page above, |
I can promise you, you will NEVER get a copyright holder like Disney to give you a thumbs up on any question. They will either say it is a clear infringement, or give some vague response. Giving you an OK is not in the best interest of an attorney who might find that note ends up being used against him, and you aren't paying him. As the wise man said, it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission.
The courts have begun to emphasize the first fair use factor—assessing whether the alleged infringement has transformative use as described by the Hon. Judge Pierre N. Leval.[7] More recently, Koons was involved in a similar case with commercial photographer Andrea Blanch, [8] regarding his use of her photograph for a painting, whereby he appropriated a central portion of an advertisement she had been commissioned to shoot for a magazine. In this case, Koons won; the case sets a favorable precedent for appropriation art where the use is deemed transformative.Fair use on wikipedia "the case can be reduced to two fundamentals: Koons' use was highly transformative and the copyright owner suffered no harm to her market; the rest is window dressing."" “[t]he painting’s use does not supersede or duplicate the objective of the original, but uses it as raw material in a novel context to create new information, new aesthetics, and new insights. Such use, whether successful or not artistically, is transformative."
Message edited by author 2012-07-26 02:22:52. |
|
|
|
07/26/2012 03:04:43 AM · #21 |
So for the likes of us small people with no bazzioln dollars, if someone copied our work, nearly to the T, we have no recourse. If they called it inspiration, flattery, a dedication, it is all -all right???
\\
((((just as a side note, there is this women that is copying every single picture I do, kinda pissed me off after the 15th time))))) BUT my question is still legitimate, I was asking about the Disney thing as it 'seems' in my fuddled old bi-focal brain that it is wrong!, just remembered the women thing no connection at all. But now I have remembered phfrrrrrrrrrrrt |
|
|
|
07/26/2012 03:13:39 AM · #22 |
If they use the actual image they violate the copyright. If they modify the heck out of it, but keep the models' likeness they violate the privacy laws. If they steal all your ideas and style, hire the same model and use similar props and the same lighting setup, there is nothing copyright can do to protect you.
Message edited by author 2012-07-26 03:15:51. |
|
|
|
07/26/2012 03:17:58 AM · #23 |
So in layman's terms. IF you saw that picture of the lass from Brave that I posted and did not know the background behind it. WOULD you think it was a Disney production shot? Even though by some discussion on here, it is legal. The woman is pretty similar , the background suits the movie, the concept, the clothes etc etc.
Where do we draw the line, or where do you think 'big' companies draw the line.
Edited to add: I hope that made sense, it is way past this old lady's bedtime but I did not want to leave or make myself clear
Message edited by author 2012-07-26 03:27:49. |
|
|
|
07/26/2012 03:32:37 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Where do we draw the line, or where do you think 'big' companies draw the line. |
I'm sure someone at Pixar might think, hey that shot was inspired by our work. But I'm sure some castle owner in Scotland saw some backgrounds in the movie and thought it was inspired by their property. Inspiration can be taken wherever you find it.
In Cars Pixar portrayed automobile makes by Porche, Plymouth, Hudson, Mack and Cadillac. I know they paid no royalties to use the likeness of those copyrighted designs. The toys that Pixar sold based on those famous automobiles are copywrited even though they are based on the work of others, they were transformed enough to be unique. Change something enough and you created it. |
|
|
|
07/26/2012 03:37:32 AM · #25 |
 BrennanOB I wish I had that like button
What you say 'makes' sense and I can see the logic behind it |
|
