Disney Sued For Copyright Infringement

from the but-is-it? dept

Mon, Nov 26th 2012 1:27pm — Mike Masnick

A few folks sent over the following story of how Disney is being sued for copyright infringement. Seems a bit ironic, given just how strict Disney has been over the years in enforcing its copyright and being at the forefront of efforts to expand copyright law -- even as it tend to build some of its greatest works by copying works in the public domain. In this case, a design company produced a graphic that consists of drawings of dozens of dogs, each with a little signature under their names:

Disney then introduced a teen fashion line called "D-Signed." However, some noticed that one of the t-shirts had a design quite reminiscent of the original dog artwork.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see where those particular images were directly copied from the original. As fun as it would be to catch Disney in a clear copyright violation, the dogs on the t-shirt don't appear to be the same. And, we're always told that there's an "idea/expression" dichotomy in copyright law, which is supposed to mean that you only protect the specific and defined expression -- not the general idea. So I'm just not sure I see how this is infringing, even if the idea was taken from their poster. Obviously I can understand the creators' frustration, but that hardly means there's a legal claim. Update: On closer inspection, as pointed out in the comments with a handy illustration, it turns out the copying was more direct than we thought.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, dogs, idea expression dichotomy
Companies: disney

63 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

weneedhelp (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 1:29pm

Brat kid
Its like watching a bratty kid get beat for something he did not do. Did he deserve it? Not in that instance, but for many other bratty things he has done in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mormolyke (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 2:59pm
  
  Re: Brat kid
  Just curious, if I were to show you how nearly all of the pictures on the Disney shirt have nearly exact analogs in the original work, would you say they have a case?
  
  http://i.imgur.com/oOQaQ.jpg
  
  I'm confused as to why everyone's saying that Disney doesn't deserve it, or that it's just the concept that was copied and not the drawings, when this is clearly not true. There's no way that many dogs look that similar by coincidence. It's amazing to me that their artists didn't bother to trace different dog faces.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 4:03pm
    
    Re: Re: Brat kid
    Just curious, if I were to show you how nearly all of the pictures on the Disney shirt have nearly exact analogs in the original work, would you say they have a case?
    
    If they are only nearly exact, and not actually exact, then no, they shouldn't have a case. Copyright covers the expression, not the idea. If the expression differs, there's no violation.
    
    But courts have found a gray area in prior cases. I suppose that if the expression is close enough, they might find a sympathetic judge. But since this is against Disney, that seems unlikely.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Scott Yates (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 5:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Brat kid
      Agreed, in this case they are ALL different. Even if only in small ways, it seems obvious that they were re-drawn.
      
      I don't see ANY that are exact copies.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 8:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Brat kid
        I don't see ANY that are exact copies.
        
        This doctrine that only 100% precise copies can be copyright infringement has no basis in US copyright law. You cannot just make a miniscule change to a work and then use it however you want.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - dennis deems (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 6:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Brat kid
      So according to you, I could make a copy of Fantasia, change the order of the scenes, flip the frame 180 degrees and maybe change the color balance, and that's a different expression with no violation.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 2:34am
    
    Re: Re: Brat kid
    There's no way that many dogs look that similar by coincidence.
    To be fair to Disney (and ****-knows why the hell I should be), the illustrations are of fairly distinctive breeds of dog done in what is essentially a black and white line-art pencil sketch, exactly how different could they look? I make no claims of being an artist, but that style would seem to reduce the image somewhat to key distinctive features so how many ways are there to sketch a chihauhau face for example?
    
    On the other hand, there have been many more equally silly claims for this sort of thing so if even one of those succeeded, the balance of the universe would suggest that Disney ought to lose their shirt over this. If only the universe worked like that...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 26 Nov 2012 @ 1:32pm

The deep pockets aspect comes into play.
Disney has bucks + lawyers (do I need say avarice?) = lawsuit.

Nothing to do with copyright as such. No wider significance. I'm ready for your next re-write.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ruben, 26 Nov 2012 @ 1:47pm
  
  Re: The deep pockets aspect comes into play.
  I'm gonna make a book of your posts.
  
  Working title: The taming of a shill.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Zakida Paul (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 1:50pm
    
    Re: Re: The deep pockets aspect comes into play.
    I'm not sure shills can be tamed. They seem go keep going from strength to strength, spouting bigger and better bollocks. If I weren't such a hard ass I would be scared shitless.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2012 @ 2:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The deep pockets aspect comes into play.
      I haven't read the original Shakespeare play, but don't they usually end in tragedy? I can only imagine that the taming of the shill ends likewise.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2012 @ 10:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The deep pockets aspect comes into play.
        From the title and the obvious parallel I would think this is more of a comical farce.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Alana (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 3:12pm
    
    Re: Re: The deep pockets aspect comes into play.
    Actually, he's more of a self-admitted troll.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 7:41pm
    
    Re: Re: The deep pockets aspect comes into play.
    Working title:In to the Black
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Logan2057 (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 2:16pm
  
  Re: The deep pockets aspect comes into play.
  Big mouth - no thought- no brains = moronic troll.
  My word, o_o_t_b, can't you do anything but pick on people. You constantly whine and carp at Mike no matter what he does or doesn't write. According to you it's, "All Mike's Fault" and you won't rest till you get a rise out of him. Well, he ain't baked bread so that day will be long coming. I'm sure that like the majority of us Mike is getting more than a little tired of your self-serving, MAFFIA spouting, moronic drivel. Or to put it a bit more succinctly, "CRAWL BACK UNDER THE BRIDGE FROM WHENCE YOU CAME, HOSER!!" You ain't wanted or needed here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2012 @ 1:33pm

Speculation (magic 8-ball) says that the original company may have 'proposed' an idea to Disney, which was rejected, then suddenly produced without the original companies authorization or any compensation....

Big companies take, little companies get taken....

It's a dog eat dog business....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gnudist, 27 Nov 2012 @ 7:56am
  
  Re:
  yum
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2012 @ 1:38pm

It a derivative work, at least thats what Disney would say if the positions were reversed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mesonoxian Eve (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 2:51pm
  
  Re:
  You beat me to it. :)
  
  +1 to Insightful, young lass or sir. ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 1:40pm

I find it impossible to have any sympathy for Disney here, considering their past activities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2012 @ 1:42pm

Copyright probably won't get them anywhere. If only they'd patented selling dog shirts with little signatures ON THE INTERNET they'd be raking in millions of settlement dollars right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forest_GS (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 1:42pm

There's at least one that is exactly the same(haven't looked at it long). The dog with large ears pointing out in the middle of the heart is exactly the same as the one in the other image, 'cept its flipped horizontally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Forest_GS (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 1:46pm
  
  Re:
  Upon zooming in, they aren't exact copies...but it's kinda odd that one dog image has an ear bent in the exact way.
  
  Its not looking like a solid case, anyways.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2012 @ 1:52pm
    
    Re: Re:
    They're not exact photocopies, but they're definitely the same dogs. I've picked 6 or 7 of the more unique looking dogs in the shirt, and they've all been in the poster. Same type, same pose, identifiably the same. It looks like they were traced over, flipped in some cases, and rearranged.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rick, 14 Jul 2015 @ 8:58pm
      
      Disney has a dog with ears sticking out, they immitated the plaintiffs dog sketches.
      One dog sketch that disney did is exactly the plaintiffs. Its seems that after they copied that dog. The artist began to get how to do similar sketches to the plaintiffs.
      
      The styles are the same. Groupings of dogs.
      
      Disney stole it.
      
      Get real
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jt, 26 Nov 2012 @ 1:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I actually see four or five that are almost identical.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - crade (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 2:55pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, at first I thought they were photocopies too, that one with the big bat ears spread out fooled me, but it looks like they are manual copies, not machine ones.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike C. (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 1:48pm

Important to remember
The deeper point here that gets lost in the lack of merit in this suit is that if the copyright maximalists succeed, this will become a very common occurrence. For every suit the entertainment conglomerates file, they'll be defending a dozen as more and more people subscribe to their version of "copyright". Makes you wonder if they'll go screaming to Congress to get the changes backed out at that point. I doubt it, but you never know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2012 @ 2:36pm
  
  Re: Important to remember
  If the maximalists have their way, and all books end up scanned, think how much fun the lawyers would have chasing down money for every little quote, and finding every instance of derivative works.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2012 @ 2:02pm

So if I make a dog T-shirt like that and try to sell it, who would sue me? Oh right, Disney...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mormolyke (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 2:04pm

Things I do when I'm procrastinating...
Here you go. I spent a while finding the very very similar ones. Some of them have been horizontally flipped, and all of them look like they were drawn by an idiot child, but they are clearly copying http://imgur.com/oOQaQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2012 @ 2:14pm
  
  Re: Things I do when I'm procrastinating...
  Just had issues getting to the Images, Well done for a /.!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mormolyke (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 2:18pm
    
    Re: Re: Things I do when I'm procrastinating...
    Can't take credit -- I think imgur is having issues; I had to reload a couple of times to get to the originals and when signing in. Maybe a direct link to the jpg will be better? http://i.imgur.com/oOQaQ.jpg
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2012 @ 2:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Things I do when I'm procrastinating...
      Got there on a retry, thanks.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dennis Deems, 27 Nov 2012 @ 6:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Things I do when I'm procrastinating...
      Disney's "Fifi" is a copy of the original "Mitzel"; they even copied the bow on the forehead.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atkray (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 3:09pm
  
  Re: Things I do when I'm procrastinating...
  If the Disney lawyers see that they would have to be idiots not settle.
  
  This is going to drag on until Modern Dog Design goes bankrupt. Maybe longer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2012 @ 2:12pm

there most definitely would have been had the positions been reversed and Disney had done the first design
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OldMugwump (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 2:26pm

Did they try to settle it out of court?
I'd like to know if they tried to settle this out of court before filing the lawsuit.

I don't seen any mention of it on their web page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2012 @ 2:29pm

OOTB, do us all a favor and do what you threatened to do...that is if you have the balls to live up to your supposed threats of leaving and do so.

You've had more than enough time to contribute to the community but instead you wanna troll. The community has given you more than enough rope to jump and and actually put some brain power into your objections and all that comes out of your mouth is spittle and slobber. That is why your posts disappear. The few and rare where you have actually contributed to the community have remained up and visible.

Get a clue troll. Buy one if you have to. I saw a tee shirt the other day asking if you would like to buy a vowel that was appropriate for your condition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wally (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 2:30pm

Interesting...
I guess that for every aggressor, there's a money grubbing gold digger just to ride on the cash cow of another. The RIAA would know all about that. Also, the artwork from Disney looks like concept art for "Lady and The Tramp". As much as I have a love/hate relationship with Disney, this is something you just don't do. Just because you're an underdog doesn't mean you have the right to ride a cash cow through litigation. Karma be DAMNED, nomatter what, big or small, no individual or company should be allowed to claim rights to works it doesn't own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nico, 12 Aug 2013 @ 11:36pm
  
  Re: Interesting...
  ...http://mynorthwest.com/646/738676/Small-Seattle-design-firm-takes-on-Disney
  ...they are exact copies...and Mad dog even has the reference pictures they used...can't believe Disney does this kind of shit
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2012 @ 2:32pm

Let's suppose that this suit actually represents a legitimate copyright claim; if it does, remind me never to risk drawing a picture of a dog's head.
Let's also suppose, when it eventually gets to court, that the judge-turned-art-critic determines that the shirt is infringing and orders Disney to pay damages.

Then let's realise that the creator of the shirt had to sell her house and continues to risk bankruptcy in order to fight this case.

Can we please free ourselves from the delusion that copyright (and patents) exists to protect small creators from big, mean corporations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2012 @ 2:34pm
  
  Re:
  creator of the shirt
  
  s/shirt/graphic/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 2:46pm

Some of those look like they could be photocopied from the original, but it's possible they were just traced or re-drawn by intentionally copying each line from the original as I used to do with comics when I was a kid..

Pretty blatantly direct copies though, whether they used a photocopier or a hand. The heads are moved around, but each one certainly isn't changed noticably from the originals.

Even if it's not illegal it's good enough to show Disney is being hypocritical anyway by copying someone else's work without giving them even credit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peet McKimmie (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 3:04pm

Where's Waldo(g)
The dog with the ears out, just below the centre of the tee shirt, is clearly a direct mirror image of the dog with the ears out one-fifth of the way in from the left and one row up from the bottom in the poster. I can't be bothered looking for the others, but that should be enough to substantiate the claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 3:05pm

Same kind of behavior that MAFIAA does so my opinion is to Sue Disney for whatever you possibly can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 26 Nov 2012 @ 4:18pm

Samsung v Apple
If Apple can argue that Samsung's icons were to round, then this guy can argue that his design has been ripped off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 4:56pm
  
  Re: Samsung v Apple
  The agressor asserting claims to age old Disney art. As karma ridden as this is, I can't help but notice that the people making the shirt failed to realize that their product is completly different.
  
  I'm sure some of you will expect me to "defend Apple" But I'm not going to. The newest litigation against Apple by Samsung alleges a few ridiculous patents, and now in retaliation, Apple filed more ridiculous patent suits against Samsung...next bloody annoying war is scheduled for 2014.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin, 26 Nov 2012 @ 7:39pm

Dogs
I hate to say it... But the lawsuit has no merit. If you we're to ask me to draw 30 different dogs... they would only look marginally different from each of these. Nothing here is a direct copy or even a unique property. If it was a really obscure design with original concepts... the designers would have a lot more weight in their corner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin, 26 Nov 2012 @ 7:39pm

Dogs
I hate to say it... But the lawsuit has no merit. If you we're to ask me to draw 30 different dogs... they would only look marginally different from each of these. Nothing here is a direct copy or even a unique property. If it was a really obscure design with original concepts... the designers would have a lot more weight in their corner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin, 26 Nov 2012 @ 7:39pm

Dogs
I hate to say it... But the lawsuit has no merit. If you we're to ask me to draw 30 different dogs... they would only look marginally different from each of these. Nothing here is a direct copy or even a unique property. If it was a really obscure design with original concepts... the designers would have a lot more weight in their corner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin, 26 Nov 2012 @ 7:39pm

Dogs
I hate to say it... But the lawsuit has no merit. If you we're to ask me to draw 30 different dogs... they would only look marginally different from each of these. Nothing here is a direct copy or even a unique property. If it was a really obscure design with original concepts... the designers would have a lot more weight in their corner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin, 26 Nov 2012 @ 7:39pm

Dogs
I hate to say it... But the lawsuit has no merit. If you we're to ask me to draw 30 different dogs... they would only look marginally different from each of these. Nothing here is a direct copy or even a unique property. If it was a really obscure design with original concepts... the designers would have a lot more weight in their corner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin, 26 Nov 2012 @ 7:39pm

Dogs
I hate to say it... But the lawsuit has no merit. If you we're to ask me to draw 30 different dogs... they would only look marginally different from each of these. Nothing here is a direct copy or even a unique property. If it was a really obscure design with original concepts... the designers would have a lot more weight in their corner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 8:51pm
  
  Re: Dogs
  Are you copying your comment over and over as some kind of meta-commentary?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 5:28am
  
  Re: Dogs
  Every time you hit your web browser's back button after submitting a comment, it gets resubmitted. Also, Google+ has submission issues.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nospacesorspecialcharacters (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 10:31am
  
  Re: Dogs
  ˙ɹǝuɹoɔ ɹıǝɥʇ uı ʇɥƃıǝʍ ǝɹoɯ ʇol ɐ ǝʌɐɥ plnoʍ sɹǝuƃısǝp ǝɥʇ ˙˙˙sʇdǝɔuoɔ lɐuıƃıɹo ɥʇıʍ uƃısǝp ǝɹnɔsqo ʎllɐǝɹ ɐ sɐʍ ʇı ɟI ˙ʎʇɹǝdoɹd ǝnbıun ɐ uǝʌǝ ɹo ʎdoɔ ʇɔǝɹıp ɐ sı ǝɹǝɥ ƃuıɥʇoN ˙ǝsǝɥʇ ɟo ɥɔɐǝ ɯoɹɟ ʇuǝɹǝɟɟıp ʎllɐuıƃɹɐɯ ʞool ʎluo plnoʍ ʎǝɥʇ ˙˙˙sƃop ʇuǝɹǝɟɟıp 0Ɛ ʍɐɹp oʇ ǝɯ ʞsɐ oʇ ǝɹ,ǝʍ noʎ ɟI ˙ʇıɹǝɯ ou sɐɥ ʇınsʍɐl ǝɥʇ ʇnq ˙˙˙ʇı ʎɐs oʇ ǝʇɐɥ I
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Manok, 27 Nov 2012 @ 3:17am

Why is no-one mentioning they both are violating our publicity right?
WOOF !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JustMe (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 4:16am

Now now
Some of the dog images were clearly flipped so they face the other direction. That's transformative, right? Right?
\sarc
#DisneySteals
#woof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2012 @ 10:22am

Disney hypocrisy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disney, 28 Nov 2012 @ 10:24am

It's not copyright infringement when we do it!

Suck it pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Locutus, 8 Dec 2012 @ 9:21pm

Disney is satan, pure and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Harper Boland, 19 Sep 2016 @ 8:22am

this page
really Disney?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]