Copyright Maximalist Disney Accused Of Copying Artist's Painting On Cosmetic Bag
from the copyright-is-for-me,-not-for-thee dept
It is always interesting to see how the strongest defenders of copyright can often be found infringing -- sometimes in the most obvious ways imaginable. A bunch of folks have sent in variations on this story, concerning Katie Woodger, an artist who did a painting of Alice in Wonderland a few years ago, and later discovered that the same image was clearly copied onto a cosmetic bag that Disney is selling. Woodger also claims that a similar work is used on a t-shirt. Here's the graphic comparison she put together.That said, it does feel a little bit shady for Woodger to complain about someone else using her image, when her image is clearly based on the work of others as well. That's how creativity works. Still, given Disney's general maximalist tendencies, it's telling that even it can be found to copy the work of others without permission. For what it's worth, there are lots of stories of companies pulling random designs and artwork that they find on the internet and placing it on t-shirts and bags and other products. It's just somewhat ironic to see it being done by Disney in particular.
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: alice in wonderland, copying, copyright, katie woodger
Companies: disney
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blah Blah Blah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember the Corporate Golden Rule
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So while I cannot entirely hold it against her on the bag...still trying to find where I saw that Image of hers last...She is definitely overboard about the shirt.
Anyone who has ever watched the Disney version knows about painting the Roses Red. I guess Disney's train of thought was transitive work fair use. The problem is that the work on the bag that was copied over was original it thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Had someone else tried to copy Disney's artwork and sell it, you know for a fact that they'd pursue legal action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disney's public domain for me and not for thee philosophy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response
Either way, the idea may not be 100% original, but the work itself was. Just because she has stood on the shoulders of giants does not make her contribution worthless and open to theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pretty clear infringement on the bag
Think of this way: fair use allows you to quote a book in a book review, but it doesn't allow the book author to copy the entire review wholesale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Logical Disconnect
Wait just a second here. There is a SLIGHT (read: huge) difference between reading a description of a scene and illustrating it (aka, being BASED on the written work) and looking at someone's illustration and then straight up copying it onto their products (aka, total rip off). Copy/paste is not how creativity works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to Reap the Harvest
Based upon previous legal argument used by Disney and co themselves. Every copy of that hand bag, and ever digital image of that hand bag, is a separate infringement. Each one should be fairly due the minimum statutory damages. That's 10's maybe 100's of thousand dollars.
Get a well known, agressive, no win no fee lawyer and set them loose. As much as we all complain about copyright, it's there for us too and unless we all agressively enforce it against the big guys they will always assume it's for them only.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scan
So if someone creates an image based on "girl from the back with flowers" that won't stop you from making your own "girl from the back with flowers" but you can't just copy the exact same image... because if you can, there are going to interesting developments... how about sheet music? Photographs? etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scan
So if someone took a picture of the Mona Lisa and adds other photo-manipulations in, that picture can gain copyright and anyone copying that one is on the hook. But it doesn't suddenly mean someone has 'stolen' the copyright to the original.
Unless you are an art gallery of course...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scan
Your scanned image is a new derivative work, and any new elements that are considered creative expression in that new work are protected under copyright.
To the extent that you just made an exact scanned image of a public domain work, however, there would not be anything new to protect. If I re-type "Romeo and Juliet", I don't get a new copyright. If I publish an annotated version of "Romeo and Juliet", then my annotations are potentially protected, but the original text would not be. Graphical images are less clear cut due to all of the aesthetic variables; photos were considered uncopyrightable for a long time (until 1884- see Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony) but the court found that elements like setting and composition were eligible for protection.
The key point is that you would need to add something the court would consider protectable (i.e., new creative expression), and only those elements would be covered under your copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's how creativity works.
Had you not known about Alice in Wonderland, would you have noticed there was a reference to it? No, you'd see a girl painting roses and nothing more. None of the elements in the image are particularly unique to Alice in Wonderland. Change the hair color, dress color, and rose colors. Now you have a new image.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
victorian paintings for sale
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
idea theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong. So long as the world in which we live constrains both creators and culture with copyright law, this is not remotely applicable.
Once we've abolished copyright, the Disney appropriation of her work without attribution could be considered a simple case of plagiarism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]