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

181–190 of 198 posts

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#181

Post by Osmium »

aidenn0 wrote: post #166
madaxe wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: http://theafictionado.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/lionking46... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bd/ReallyKimbaThe...

There's some more info here:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1378/did-disneys-em...

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.

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#182

Post by datagramm »

aidenn0 wrote: post #166
madaxe wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: http://theafictionado.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/lionking46... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bd/ReallyKimbaThe...

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that the Lion King is basically just an adaptation of Hamlet...

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#183

Post by ludston »

weareconvo wrote: post #126
jerf wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#184

Post by jamesmcbennett »

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.

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#185

Post by pyre »

datagramm wrote: post #182
aidenn0 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: http://theafictionado.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/lionking46... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bd/ReallyKimbaThe...

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that the Lion King is basically just an adaptation of Hamlet...

Were there "mysterious" injuries during production though?

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#186

Post by Millennium »

jenskanis wrote: post #177
phreanix wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Disney has to take responsibility for the actions of their third parties and contractors.

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?

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#187

Post by Millennium »

yaddayadda wrote: post #24

"...I created at University and I was proud of it in many ways. Disney have used it..." If she passed any English classes or graduated from the mentioned university, then she deserves a tuition refund.

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.

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#188

Post by edlinfan »

JDGM wrote: post #180
ANTSANTS wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 fa…

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.

http://www.linusakesson.net/hardware/chiptune.php (NOTE: This is not me.)

http://ay-riders.speccy.cz/

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.

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#189

Post by leephillips »

cromulent wrote: post #164
leephillips wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might be true, but in both my examples, the copy-and-paste artists were making salable merchandise from the works that they appropriated.

Andy Baio didn't make that image [0], and it's not a copy-and-paste - look at the tie for example [1]. [0] http://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/ [1] http://waxy.org/random/images/weblog/kind_of_bloop_compariso...

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?

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#190

Post by ukandy »

jlgreco wrote: post #79
GuiA wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Her depiction of Alice seems like more of a potential trademark issue, while Disney lifting the design seems like a clear-cut copyright issue.

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.
Post reply on HN