Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disney have stolen my artwork

katiewoodger.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 198 posts

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#121

Post by stevewilhelm »

gregcohn wrote: post #93
austenallred wrote: post #17

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. Time to lawyer up.

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 someon…

Disney's consumer merchandise is sourced by third party suppliers (see below).

It is most likely one of these suppliers claimed to have created or licensed the image.

The artist will probably end up negotiating with the handbag maker.

https://www.disneyconsumerproducts.com/Home/display.jsp?cont...

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#122

Post by gillianseed »

xsmasher wrote: post #4

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? http://www.cornel1801.com/disney/Alice-Wonderland-Painting-R...

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.

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#123

Post by xsmasher »

jahabrewer wrote: post #53
xsmasher wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Disney have used it" is correct here, in British English. "It’s one of my favourite images I created at University" could use a [while] to my ear, but it's not so bad. The world is a big place.

> "Disney have used it" is correct here, in British English. Is it even a matter of US vs. British English? I thought collective nouns could be treated as either singular or plural when conjugating the verb.

In the US, I would never say "The government have shut down" or "The team have lost." I would treat them as singular entities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_noun#Metonymic_mergi...

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#124

Post by MichaelApproved »

scott_s wrote: post #115
clarkevans wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#125

Post by polymatter »

robbyking wrote: post #54
austenallred wrote: post #17

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. Time to lawyer up.

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.

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#126

Post by weareconvo »

jerf wrote: post #30
weareconvo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And didn't she, in turn, steal the idea of Alice from Lewis Carroll?

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?

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#128

Post by phreanix »

polymatter wrote: post #125
robbyking wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#129

Post by ANTSANTS »

leephillips wrote: post #62

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. [0] http://lee-phillips.org/music/whoIsTheDick/ [1] http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/08/entertainment/la-et-…

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.

Post reply on HN