Did-disney-steal-this-alice-in-wonderland-image?

[Dottonedan]

http://io9.com/did-disney-steal-this-alice-in-wonderland-image-472820873

[inkman996]

What I would love to know is how much in sales Disney made off of the products before pulling the merchandise.

[starchild]

WDI campus uses inspiration not knock offs. 

Scroll to the INSPIRATION case study.
http://disneydesignerland.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2011-04-03T23:43:00-04:00&max-results=7&start=168&by-date=false

[Dottonedan]

Thats funny you mention "Inspiration".  Disney uses that term specifically in all communication as well as job orders and image source titles now. Don't ask me why now, it's a long story but similar to this thread.   The word"inspiration" in legal uses is much different that "reference" material.


Inspiration implies that you used a source to pawn other idea's from. Reference implies that you referred to (more specifically, "the details of" an image for your own art.  One is more important than the other in law.

[inkman996]

In this case we are talking about an exact to the minute detail rip off, inspiration be damned.

So Disney admits guilt by removing the merchandise yet does not have the ethics to contact the original artist to offer any compensation? I guess when your big like Disney all you have to do is remove offending product and you get away with it.

[starchild]

Well the image far right in the link you provided is fair game.. The middle image is pure laziness.. The images in the link I posted has strong similarities but I would call fair game.

[Dottonedan]

What I would love to know is how much in sales Disney made off of the products before pulling the merchandise.

You can bet that when this comes to that point (and it will),  this sales information will indeed come out. It will be required.


If it were for sale for a full year before being pulled, I would venture to say that it could easily be in the range of 7-10,000 units (total for the year) at a min. I have numbers that would make your mouth water. This quantity is between WD world and Disneyland, not to mention online sales where this was originally found.


I say all three locations because the merch division uses cross location leveraging. If someone can be re labeled with a park name drop, it will be. More cost efficient to order 2000 with a name change on 1000 of them.

[Dottonedan]

In this case we are talking about an exact to the minute detail rip off, inspiration be damned.

So Disney admits guilt by removing the merchandise yet does not have the ethics to contact the original artist to offer any compensation? I guess when your big like Disney all you have to do is remove offending product and you get away with it.

Guilty or not, it's protocol to remove it from the shelves until settled one one way or the other. It's also protocol to not have contact with the person directly and let the lawyers contact each other. They wouldn't even answer her phone calls if she called direct.


We had prep classes to handle such phone calls. We were required to read from a script as to how to answer. Even if (we) on the inside were calling someone within the Co, about questionable practices, I would occasionally get the Co script.  LOL.

[inkman996]

Dan if it is determined an in house artist willingly ripped her art off what then will happen to him? If and when terms are settled will the original artist only be compensated from a percentage of the profits or will she eligible for above and beyond just the profits?

[Dottonedan]

Well the image far right in the link you provided is fair game.. The middle image is pure laziness.. The images in the link I posted has strong similarities but I would call fair game.

Yours is even more gray.  Type usage of font styles and/or words (I believe is much harder to protect) and often not copyrightable, unless it's used in conjunction with or is part of an entire design.


I would also say they def used your linked image as a reference (almost sure of it) but a layout format is also a gray area. It's much harder to claim that the position and size of fonts and styles and illustrations can be claimed as a design where infringement took place.


This is the reason each case is different. A judge could review (take all things considered) and make a well formed decision. The original artist/Co could claim Disney copied his Circus art layout while Disney's lawyer could research for a year and find 20-30 other layouts very similar but different in theme. Some may even have the same theme. This is where a Judge could say that their is "enough" supporting evidence to say that Disney is/is not at fault.

[Dottonedan]

Dan if it is determined an in house artist willingly ripped her art off what then will happen to him?

In some cases, he would not have anything happen to him and can even still get promoted if you are a good butt kisser.


Scratch that.
I have been instructed by my lawyer not to discuss this case any further. LOL.

If and when terms are settled will the original artist only be compensated from a percentage of the profits or will she eligible for above and beyond just the profits?

That can be different in each case. It depends on a few things, but for example, wether it was proven to be intentional (as in, they knew about it and did it anyways) or just a case of making an honest mistake.  You can win on either can get "some" compensation or all or even more. Occasionally, you can win the case, but lose financially. Worse case is you can lose and is most common with the little person vrs the big corp.  A good lawyer is like a good pitch man. You can make anything look good if you try hard enough.

[Frog]

Ahhh, today being 4/20 inspires me to post this example of a work obviously "inspired" by Disney almost forty years ago.

Turnabout is fair play?

[screenxpress]

I think when you get big enough and have a stable of lawyers, you don't give a shytt anymore.  Above the law, well rich enough to prolong till the cows come home.