|
Actually the rights issue is even simpler. The holder of the IP owns the rights to distribute any derivative work, period, unless it is satirical or transformative (the latter being a very high standard). Its status as non-commercial is wholly legally immaterial, it's a standard by which IP owners tend to act but it has nothing to do with legality per se. Posting it online is distribution, passing it around to your neighbors is distribution. Fanart is protected to the extent you can draw it for yourself and hang onto it. Whether you made money from having distributed it doesn't affect this and I'm not sure where people are getting the sense it does.
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:33 |
|
|
Pick posted:Actually the rights issue is even simpler. The holder of the IP owns the rights to distribute any derivative work, period, unless it is satirical or transformative (the latter being a very high standard). Its status as non-commercial is wholly legally immaterial, it's a standard by which IP owners tend to act but it has nothing to do with legality per se. Posting it online is distribution, passing it around to your neighbors is distribution. Fanart is protected to the extent you can draw it for yourself and hang onto it. Whether you made money from having distributed it doesn't affect this and I'm not sure where people are getting the sense it does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#When_does_derivative-work_copyright_apply? quote:Copyright ownership in a derivative work attaches only if the derivative work is lawful, because of a license or other "authorization." The U.S. Copyright Office says in its circular on derivative works: So I guess Disney's argument would be that fanart as derivative work is created without authorisation and insufficiently original, thus is not protected by copyright. I think on the broad legality of the case the courts might fall down either way, but I wouldn't bet against Disney's lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 14:54
|
|
|
e: ^ Interesting! Isn't copyright chat fun?  Pick posted:Actually the rights issue is even simpler. The holder of the IP owns the rights to distribute any derivative work, period, unless it is satirical or transformative (the latter being a very high standard). Its status as non-commercial is wholly legally immaterial, it's a standard by which IP owners tend to act but it has nothing to do with legality per se. Posting it online is distribution, passing it around to your neighbors is distribution. Fanart is protected to the extent you can draw it for yourself and hang onto it. Whether you made money from having distributed it doesn't affect this and I'm not sure where people are getting the sense it does. Sure. But at the same time, they do not control the derivative work itself, which still puts Disney in the legal wrong here. e: oh yeah no regardless of who's legally right Disney's lawyers would crush any challenge in court. Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Aug 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 14:58
|
|
|
Didn’t Disney technically “steal”’ a lot of their stuff from existing stories too? Could descendants of Hans Christian Andersen take them to court over the little mermaid?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
Public domain and all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:Didn’t Disney technically “steal”’ a lot of their stuff from existing stories too? Could descendants of Hans Christian Andersen take them to court over the little mermaid? The only case I'd think was strong based on items outside public domain is Kimba. Usually they're very diligent. I think the Bambi book enters public domain this year though, and I'm not sure if that's the first or one of the first properties that has made that conversion while a derivative work is still a major Disney production and protected.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:Didn’t Disney technically “steal”’ a lot of their stuff from existing stories too? Could descendants of Hans Christian Andersen take them to court over the little mermaid? In most countries, copyright on a literary work ends 70 years after the death of its author. Andersen died in 1875, so his work has been in the public domain for decades.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 15:31
|
|
|
Just read up on that. Now I’m curious what will happen 2023 when Mickey Mouse should become free for all. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:Just read up on that. Now I’m curious what will happen 2023 when Mickey Mouse should become free for all. What you will see happen is why people are spitting the term "Disney lawyers". But the lawyers are really just doing the work made available to them by successful lobbyists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
If I had done this, my job would be on the line. Not my studio, because they have enough money to overpower courts. But me, the BG designer, could very possibly be fired. It takes A MAJOR loving FOUL-UP to get outright fired in this industry. So yes, I determine it to be a bad move both morally and legally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
not to derail from the current conversation too much, but does anyone have any recommendations for books about animation, beyond art books?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
The Illusion of Life, The Animators Survival Kit, Walt’s People, Miyazakis Starting Point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
I know standard animation student textbooks are The Illusion of Life, where Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnson explains their experience working in the early days of Disney, the people they worked alongside, the process of creating an animated product, and the technical aspects of animating. As well there's Richard Williams' The Animator's Survival Guide, which is a much more technical explanation of the techniques of animation (from what I heard, there's a thick section of the book dedicated to nothing but illustrating walk cycles). As for books about animation about non-animators, I've heard several strong reccomendations for Sick Little Monkeys which illustrates the history of Ren and Stimpy. And not necessarily about animation, but the book DisneyWar is an expose about Michael Eisner's tenure as CEO of Disney from pre-Renaissance to it's near downfall again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
DisneyWar is a very enjoyable read. I'm not entirely sure who comes off the worst between Eisner and Katzenberg; there's not a lot in it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:DisneyWar is a very enjoyable read. I'm not entirely sure who comes off the worst between Eisner and Katzenberg; there's not a lot in it. The secret best part in the book is about 2/3 through where it's just about the fuckups at ABC and there are literally eight layers of executives from Eisner down that theoretically have final say over the schedule Corek fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Aug 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
Corek posted:The secret best part in the book is about 2/3 through where it's just about the fuckups at ABC. Oh, yeah, like Eisner personally turning down almost every show that became successful for other networks because he was convinced that Who Wants to Be a Millionaire was always going to be on top. My personal favourite is the running thread of Eisner bulldozing everyone who warns him that Michael Ovitz is pointedly not the right person to be company president and getting him into the job and then immediately deciding Ovitz is not the right person to be company president and trying to undermine him and get him to quit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
Corek posted:The secret best part in the book is about 2/3 through where it's just about the fuckups at ABC and there are literally eight layers of executives from Eisner down that theoretically have final say over the schedule 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
Katzenburg was a jackass showboater, but Eisner constantly sabotaging his own hires was gross as hell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
Oddly enough, Michael Eisner as this massive hate figure who Disney had to be "saved" from is one of my earliest memories of being online. Sort of quaint in retrospect. It's also funny because a "Save Disney" campaign was what put him and Wells and Katzenberg in charge in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
Remember when Disney was about to file bankruptcy? Strange times those were.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 03:41
|
|
|
Invalid Validation posted:Remember when Disney was about to file bankruptcy? Strange times those were. Are you talking about after Fantasia and Pinocchio failed at the box office or was there a point later on where they were also close to going under? The first time they got saved by Dumbo, so you can either thank or blame that flying elephant for todays entertainment behemoth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
Ccs posted:Are you talking about after Fantasia and Pinocchio failed at the box office or was there a point later on where they were also close to going under? Yes I know The Great Mouse Detective and Oliver and Co. are inbetween there, but as great as those films are, they weren't what changed Disney's fate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 04:24
|
|
|
not to mention Sleeping Beauty How did they recover from that one, just switching to the xerox method?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 04:30
|
|
|
Shadow Hog posted:Black Cauldron nearly put the entire company under. The Little Mermaid saved them. Well, the fact that GMD wasn’t a failure gave Musker and Clements enough goodwill they were allowed to make Little Mermaid. So in a roundabout way we can still thank the second most loved Disney film in this thread after Goofy Movie. I’ve been meaning to go back and revisit the Black Cauldron, but I’m almost certain I’ll be disappointed still.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
dirksteadfast posted:I’ve been meaning to go back and revisit the Black Cauldron, but I’m almost certain I’ll be disappointed still. Out of curiosity, was the book series it's loosely based on any better?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 04:37
|
|
|
From what I heard, it's way better, what didn't help with the movie is it shoved plot points from several books into one, and barely did anything with the characters
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 04:40
|
|
|
I had to read the black cauldron book one for school and frankly it was extremely dull but at least it was a coherent enough story. Its also a story that is kicked off by the protagonist having to track down a pig so it may be the singular worst start to a five book fantasy saga.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 05:14
|
|
|
I remember hearing that the author of the books actually thought the film was decent
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 05:23
|
|
|
Larryb posted:Out of curiosity, was the book series it's loosely based on any better? Granted I haven't read the Prydain books in like thirty years, but my recollection is that if you're a kid who's already read Tolkien and CS Lewis they'll scratch that same itch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 05:25
|
|
|
Animation sure has a bad track record adapting fantasy books in between Bakshis ugly Tolkien adaptions, The Black Cauldron, and Tales of Earthsea being the only bad movie Studio Ghibli ever made.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 13:55
|
|
|
Barudak posted:I had to read the black cauldron book one for school and frankly it was extremely dull but at least it was a coherent enough story. Its also a story that is kicked off by the protagonist having to track down a pig so it may be the singular worst start to a five book fantasy saga. It's a pig that can tell the future, sir. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 14:29
|
|
|
Larryb posted:Out of curiosity, was the book series it's loosely based on any better? The Chronicles of Prydain? It's amazing; truly one of the greats in early reading classics, but not really a good choice for a Disney movie or even series of movies, given how dark it is. I don't mean dark like Game of Thrones, with blood, betrayal, sex, and gore- I mean, there's violence, but it's never treated as visceral or exciting in the least and most of the time you just see the aftermath. I mean dark like The Last Unicorn- it has individual exciting, humorous elements to it, but overall it's a sad story, melancholic, with the air of a bittersweet ballad celebrating long-ago triumph and glory. Sort of like Diet Lord Of The Rings for those who couldn't get past that loving forest and can't stand Tom Bombadil... you can make a good story out of that, but it unequivocally would not suit the Disney Brand, as it were. To illustrate what I mean... The Black Cauldron The Movie is based loosely off of the first two books in the series, and taken on its own terms, it's... meh? I mean, it's all right, but it was obviously made as an attempt to appeal to "boys"- to the adventuresome, superhero crowd, something that would be done to greater effect with Gargoyles and even Atlantis (Hell, Treasure Planet is better, because it is actually a passable adaptation of Treasure Island, something this movie is not), because they remembered to put in a thought out story. It's meant to make the audience feel empowered, to beat the bad guys, to win, right? Well...
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 14:29
|
|
|
Does Disney still hold the rights to the series? I thought I heard buzz about them considering a new adaptation but nothing after that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
resurgam40 posted:The Chronicles of Prydain? It's amazing; truly one of the greats in early reading classics, but not really a good choice for a Disney movie or even series of movies, given how dark it is. It sounds extremely badly written, to be honest. How's the prose?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 15:06
|
|
|
(Sorry for the break, had to change computers at work) Do you remember the protagonist of the story, Taran? The brash, imaginative kid who has "This is the hero" written all over him and rises to the occasion in the movie? He spends the first two books getting the poo poo kicked out of him, pretty much, in a way that's not empowering or fun to watch. He desperately aches to prove himself, thinks he gets his chance when the pig he's looking after runs away, and pretty much spends the entire time eating poo poo while other people do the more important, supposedly glorious things. The arc of his story is all about how he should stop trying to be special and just be himself- the plot of A Goofy Movie*, so Disney is no stranger to that kind of story- but in order to get there, his life lessons are not so much gentle prodding as it is a repeated sledgehammer to the face. Taran spends the entirety of Book One and a good 60% of Book 2 breaking stuff, getting his rear end handed to him in combat, disappointing his friends and allies, and generally being wrong about pretty much everything - all the while having his nose rubbed in about how completely unimportant he is in the grand scheme of things (the aforementioned pig he looks after is more magical and important than he is, to give you an idea; it can tell the future)- before just barely pulling out a win... and in the second book, it isn't even his win. You recall the part in the movie where Gurgi, imagined as the Cheerful, Annoying Animal friend, sacrificed himself to break the Black Cauldron, and then was immediately brought back 5 seconds later? Well, that part is half true, someone does jump in the Cauldron to break it- it has to be a willing sacrifice who knows he's giving up his life- but in the book, it was Taran's rival character who is also a tryhard wannabe who flails about and got the Cauldron captured again due to his own arrogance and hunger for recognition and wanted to make amends. And then he dies, leaving Taran to wonder if they could have been friends, and he doesn't come back. "Sacrifice" is kind of the point of the entire series, really- the entire point is that there are no easy victories which you come out of intact, a point that the makers of that movie very deliberately avoided, presumably because downer endings aren't as marketable. Other changes include The Horned King as this cackling bad guy rather than the silent force of nature he's portrayed as in the novel, and of course, an incompetent lackey as a henchman (don't want the villains to come off as too scary, don't you know). I didn't really care for it. *Although that still doesn't really work, as AGM is as much about Goofy learning to listen better as a parent as it is about Max learning to stop fronting, and for both of them to communicate more. It's a relationship story, not an adventure one, even if it does take the form of a road trip.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 15:13
|
|
|
So the appeal of the books is purely on the level of plot instead of prose, and the plot is totally lame.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 15:17
|
|
|
Speaking of Atlantis, I rewatched it last night and I was reminded just how bad the pacing of the movie is and how “dark” it is compared to Disney’s usual fare. I can’t figure out if it should have been, like, an hour longer or a maybe even a miniseries instead (maybe change the beginning so that they go to Iceland to get the journal and that’s where the Leviathan attack happens?). I never really processed how different all the characters appearance and animation is the other two times I watched it (first as a child when it came out and then again as a high schooler). It ultimately works, but it really doesn’t feel like a Disney film because of it. My wife pointed out that it really feels more like a Bluth film and I think she’s right. Also if Disney is going to continue insisting on remaking their animated films into live action ones they really need to redo Atlantis because the movie deserves better than it got.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
yeah, Atlantis really was hampered by it's run time, I feel like it should've been a two season mini-series - the first season is getting to Atlantis, with the second actually being in Atlantis and then returning to the surface - it'd give the huge cast room to breathe, and the sub doesn't get wasted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
Here's a question for you guys out of nowhere: which is the most technically exquisite animated film there is?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:33 |
|
|
Kurzon posted:Here's a question for you guys out of nowhere: which is the most technically exquisite animated film there is? Rango.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 18:09
|
|