'Ho White and the Seven Dwarves' beer advert angers Disney

[snopes]

A beer advertisment featuring a ranchy version of Snow White has reportedly raised the ire of Disney.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...rs-Disney.html

[Troberg]

Well, they should remember that they didn't really create the Snow White story. That honor goes back to the Grimm brothers, who collected old tales, among them Snow White. Grimm lived long enough ago for their works to have passed into the public domain, so it's an extremely weak case for Disney.

[Floater]

Snow White thought Seven up was a soft drink until she discovered Smirnoff's.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Troberg

Well, they should remember that they didn't really create the Snow White story. That honor goes back to the Grimm brothers, who collected old tales, among them Snow White. Grimm lived long enough ago for their works to have passed into the public domain, so it's an extremely weak case for Disney.

Wrong. It's a strong case, because the issue is the specific visual depictions of Snow White and the dwarves, which Disney did create.

That honor goes back to the Grimm brothers, who collected old tales, among them Snow White.

That's self-contradictory. If the Grimm brothers "collected" the story from other sources, then obviously they didn't create it.

[A Turtle Named Mack]

Originally Posted by snopes

Wrong. It's a strong case, because the issue is the specific visual depictions of Snow White and the dwarves, which Disney did create.

I was going to take Troberg's position when I first saw the thread, but the problem is that the ad specifically references the Disney version in several respects, such as the individualizing of the dwarves with names that describe their character, the floppy conical hats, the rounded Disneyesque style, the similar look of the furnishings (especially the wooden things), and the look of the dwarves faces - not identical, but very similar style in the eyes, other features and facial shape, not to mention having one who is asleep (Sleepy) and one who looks very grumpy.

[Wicked Tinkerbell]

Random question: Does anyone else think that the dwarf on the far right (wearing the red cap) looks like Mark Twain?

[BatmanBeatles]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

I was going to take Troberg's position when I first saw the thread, but the problem is that the ad specifically references the Disney version in several respects, such as the individualizing of the dwarves with names that describe their character, the floppy conical hats, the rounded Disneyesque style, the similar look of the furnishings (especially the wooden things), and the look of the dwarves faces - not identical, but very similar style in the eyes, other features and facial shape, not to mention having one who is asleep (Sleepy) and one who looks very grumpy.

The bed looks almost like the one in the movie and Snow White has the same short bob and red ribbon.

[jimmy101_again]

Originally Posted by Troberg

Grimm lived long enough ago for their works to have passed into the public domain, ...

Yep, if the Grimm's had had lawyers half as good as Disney's the Grimm descendants would be rich.

As long as Disney, or a descendant company, exists they'll have copyright protection on their creations.

[Insensible Crier]

I thought parody counted as free speech. If it doesn't then how do radio stations make all those song parodies without copyright infringement or paying a ton of money in royalties?

[jimmy101_again]

Originally Posted by Insensible Crier

I thought parody counted as free speech. If it doesn't then how do radio stations make all those song parodies without copyright infringement or paying a ton of money in royalties?

Do you mean the parody exemption to copyright and fair use etc? I don't think "free speech" enters into it at all. But does the parody exemption even apply to an advertisement?

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Insensible Crier

I thought parody counted as free speech. If it doesn't then how do radio stations make all those song parodies without copyright infringement or paying a ton of money in royalties?

"Free speech" and "copyright/public domain" are two entirely different concepts.

"Free speech" (i.e., the copyright exemption for parodies) enables you to create a parody of someone else's song, whether they like it or not. However, if the song you're parodying is not public domain (i.e., it is copyright-protected), then the rightsholder will collect royalties for commercial uses of your parody.

[Errata]

Originally Posted by jimmy101_again

As long as Disney, or a descendant company, exists they'll have copyright protection on their creations.

Not necessarily. When their oldest copyrights were about to expire, Disney went out and got the copyright law changed to extend it. But it's only an extension, not made permanent. As the law stands now, some of their major works will start becoming public domain in the next couple of decades. Of course, when that time actually comes, they'll probably lobby to change it again, and maybe they'll keep extending it forever.

[A Turtle Named Mack]

Originally Posted by jimmy101_again

Do you mean the parody exemption to copyright and fair use etc? I don't think "free speech" enters into it at all. But does the parody exemption even apply to an advertisement?

If the ad was published in the USA, there would certainly be First Amendment concerns about attempts to squelch it or seek damages. However, the protections are significantly less for businesses and commercial advertisements.

I think you are right that there would be no parody exception in the context of an exploitation of a copyrighted image (or the likeness of a person) for an advertisement. In such a case the advertiser is appropriating some of the value of the copyrighted image, and diluting the value of the image to the actual owner..

[jimmy101_again]

Originally Posted by Errata

Not necessarily. When their oldest copyrights were about to expire, Disney went out and got the copyright law changed to extend it. But it's only an extension, not made permanent. As the law stands now, some of their major works will start becoming public domain in the next couple of decades. Of course, when that time actually comes, they'll probably lobby to change it again, and maybe they'll keep extending it forever.

Actually that's my point. Snow white should have expired decades ago. Indeed it would have except every time the expiration date approaches Disney manages to convince congress to extend the copyright. I don't see any reason why Disney won't be able to do that indefinitely.

So like I said, it's unlikely that Disney copyrights will ever expire, at least as long as Disney exists as a viable (and rich) organization.

[Judecat]

Copyright expires 75 years after the death of the copyright holder, and can be renued after that by the heirs. The copyright holder may not be the same person as the creator of the work. Prior to 1976 copyright had to be renued every 28 years. So since Disney corporation is presumably the owner of the copyright, (their artists were employed by the company when they drew the cartoons, their for it was "work for hire" there was really no reason for them to "have the law changed every time they were about to expire" as there was never any danger of them loosing the copyright.

And there is also the fact that most Disney art is also "trademark", which is a whole different matter, as long as the trademark is defended they won't loose the trademark.

[Errata]

Originally Posted by Judecat

Copyright expires 75 years after the death of the copyright holder, and can be renued after that by the heirs.

Wrong. It can't be renewed forever. The concept of renewal became irrelevant when they changed it to make renewal automatic. The expiration is it. After that it's public domain. Copyright was never intended to eliminate the concept of public domain.

[Sebbenth]

I'm actually pretty curious how it turns out, since the beer is from Australia. I think that Australia and Canada have slightly different versions of the copyright law than US does.

[faceless007]

Originally Posted by snopes

"Free speech" and "copyright/public domain" are two entirely different concepts.

"Free speech" (i.e., the copyright exemption for parodies) enables you to create a parody of someone else's song, whether they like it or not. However, if the song you're parodying is not public domain (i.e., it is copyright-protected), then the rightsholder will collect royalties for commercial uses of your parody.

Wait really? So Weird Al has to pay royalties to the original artists of the songs he parodies?

[TrekkerScout]

Originally Posted by faceless007

Wait really? So Weird Al has to pay royalties to the original artists of the songs he parodies?

Since his parodies are part of a commercial venture, he is required to pay royalties to the original artists. For more information, see:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Yankovic-...copyrights.htm