Animator Sues Disney For Allegedly Ripping Off Her Short Film For Its 'Frozen' Trailer
from the sticking-it-to-The-(Mouse-Eared)-Man dept
Disney has always found overbearing copyright protection to be an integral part of its business model, so much so that it has lobbied hard for copyright extensions while plundering the depths of the public domain for source material, shortsightedly failing to realize that one action undermines the other.
Disney doesn't get named in too many infringement lawsuits, but like any studio with a big hit on its hands (in this case, Frozen, which just became the most successful animated film of all time), there's always the chance someone will come looking for a piece of the action. Unlike the multiple lawsuits filed against the creators of Avatar, this one, filed by animator Kelly Wilson, appears to have some merit.
Wilson's animated short film, The Snowman, has been all over the internet since its release in 2010. It was even entered in several animated film festivals where Pixar employees "were present and competing" in the same category. Wilson doesn't say she personally showed this to Disney employees but she infers that there were many, many ways anyone could have viewed her creation prior to Frozen's development. She does note, however, that Disney's personnel had been supplied with copies of the animated work in the past.
Plaintiff created The Snowman and submitted The Snowman—in part and in full—to Defendants as part of job applications on four different occasions from 2009 through 2012. The Snowman was also submitted via DVD to Defendants in 2010 as part of a job application from The Snowman’s co-creator Neil Wrischnik. Disney has surreptitiously appropriated Plaintiff’s valuable work The Snowman to create the FROZEN teaser trailer and the character of Olaf the snowman in FROZEN without any attempt to obtain authorization from Plaintiff or to accord her credit.What's interesting about Wilson's case are two things:
One, she isn't going after Frozen itself, but rather its first trailer, which featured a storyline remarkably similar to hers. However, Wilson is looking to grab a part of any and all profits made by the movie because the allegedly infringing trailer was used to promote the film.
Two, there are some very distinct similarities to her animated film, as she details in a series of screencaps contained in the filing.
Here's the two in motion for comparison:
Beyond that, her filing links to other websites and writers who noticed the similarity between the Frozen trailer and Wilson's work, including a Slate writer whose daughter was disappointed the actual movie wasn't just about a wacky snowman.
The case, as it's laid out by Wilson and her legal rep, is pretty solid. While there are a few areas that are rather gray (the similarities of any narrative -- antagonist/protagonist, ice is slippery, forest animals are exchangable, etc.), many of the smaller details seem to indicate there's been some copying going on.
The Snowman and the FROZEN teaser trailer present the exact same plot in exactly the same sequence… There is no difference in the plot between the two works, except that The Snowman is longer in running time and therefore has additional plot elements. Both works are about: (1) a snowman competing with animals for a carrot nose on slippery ice; and (2) the formerly adversarial animals acting out of friendship to return the carrot nose to the snowman...Wilson goes into much more detail in the filing, but her inclusion of independent parties who have noticed the similarities helps set this apart from other lawsuits in which the infringement noted was largely subjective.
[T]he artistic rendering of the snowmen in both The Snowman and the FROZEN teaser trailer is likewise substantially similar. Both snowmen are portrayed as awkward, insecure and clumsy, and both are portrayed as having lanky bodies with heads larger than their bodies... [Wilson notes that most snowmen are portrayed as having heads smaller than their bodies elsewhere in the filing.]
First, in The Snowman, the snowman competes with the rabbits on the slippery ice to retrieve the carrot. Similarly, in the FROZEN teaser trailer, Olaf the snowman competes with the moose on the slippery ice to retrieve the carrot. Second, in The Snowman, the snowman is able to take hold of the carrot before the rabbit does. Similarly, in the FROZEN teaser trailer, Olaf the snowman is able to take hold of the carrot before the moose does. Third, in The Snowman, the snowman loses his carrot nose to the rabbit when both he and the rabbit have a grip on the carrot but the rabbit ends up wresting control of the carrot from the snowman. Similarly, in the FROZEN teaser trailer, Olaf the snowman loses his carrot nose to the moose when both he and the moose have a grip on the carrot but the moose ends up wresting control of the carrot from Olaf the snowman..
We'll have to wait for Disney's response to see where this is going, but this lawsuit does look a bit more valid than others that have been filed in the wake of runaway successes. As much as I'd personally like to see Disney get smacked for infringement damages, I'm personally a bit hesitant to back Wilson's claims that an infringed short film is due a cut of the profits made by Frozen, especially considering the allegations only cover a trailer whose events are not part of the larger film.
In addition, the demands made might play right into Disney's hands. Wilson asks for Disney to account for "any and all profits" derived from the "exploitation" of The Snowman. Hollywood accounting has shown over the years that some of the most successful movies have yet to show a profit. Deploying enough creativity in the ledger could have Disney offering Wilson a cut of its "empty" pockets.
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, frozen, kelly wilson, the snowman, trailer
Companies: disney
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I suspect Disney will go for a settlement rather than risking a winning a case that might weaken copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We seen plenty of examples of the "copyright is for me, not ye" mentality of maximalists, so I'm not holding my breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problem
If she's claiming to be entitled to the money that the _trailer_ for the film made, then she's not going to get any money. The trailer was promotional and no one paid a dime to watch it.
The movie was completely different from the trailer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Problem
That's never stopped the **AAs going after old grannies, dead people, or small children before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disney
As for profits, if the plaintiff is smart she will sue in proportion to gross profits rather than net profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disney
She can have a portion of the gross profits from the trailer….. $0
No one paid for the trailer!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disney
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disney
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disney
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hence the status of the story the film itself is based on is irrelevant, as the film itself isn't what's being argued about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You would think a good lawyer would know this before making such demands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Although, it does specify "all media". If that includes merchandising, that's probably going to be more difficult to hide.
Part of me just wishes that we get to a trial and judgement here quite quickly. I'd love to read the methods they use to argue that a movie with a $150 million production budget can gross over $1 billion theatrically worldwide + home media + digital + licencing + merchandising and actually lose money...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps Disney can in fact ask for some money from this animator for damages any copying caused people to avoid Frozen. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
am i the only curmudgeon on the planet who was 'meh' on frozen ? ? ?
1. LOVE animation, (but not just because it is animation...)
2. the story was pitiful: EVERYONE walks away unscathed with NO real lessons learned, except, its good to be the king/queen... some of the plot was forced and stupid...
3. as per the usual disney formula, the music was overblown, the lyrics were insipid, and the pretty, pretty voices were oh-so-sincere about cliches...
4. the trite content pointed to adults, lame anachronistic jokes, and predictable gags were boring...
(for an animation which appealed to kids AND adults, see despicable me, done absolutely pitch perfect)
5. sure, PLENTY of nice visuals, OF COURSE it is 'made well', which makes it watchable; but the payoff is predictable and safe...
all in all: i give it 3 out of 5 'mehs'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
really, you learn NOTHING from '...and they waved a magic wand and everything was made right and they lived happily ever after...'
that's the cheap and easy way out, instead of an actual plot with actual characters...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
-- Sanderson's First Law
If the audience understands the rules and was given enough information to be capable of figuring out the solution before it happened, then it's OK. Otherwise, it feels like the author just pulled a solution out of his Deus Ex Magia. (Forgive the mixed metaphor.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
NOW, i realize i am truly stupid, and all the rest of the nekkid apes walking around in total denial that this planet is circling the drain are the smart ones...
*whew* that was close: everything is going to be okay, everything is going to be okay, if i shut my eyes real tight and don't listen to my instincts screaming, everything is going to be okay...
(repeat non-stop)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do I need to make my kids learn at every turn?
I guess I'm a shitty parent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
JUST LIKE 'regular' movies: i really don't mind that we have secret-agent-assassin-hitmen on a righteous-mission-to-kill-everyone movies, but does it HAVE TO BE -as it seems like- that 90% of them have to be about that -you know- ultra-common set of events ? ? ?
again, NOT opposed to using 'magic' as a part of some movie's world, but it is rarely used 'logically'... for example, there are PLENTY of places in lord of the rings, where a little gandalf magic would save a ton of time/lives, but he only pulls out his magic bag on dead-end plot points where there is no other way out...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what matters is who makes contributions to this judges next campaign... indirectly of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let it go
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But, but...
Do it for the innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But, but...
This is primarily about plagiarism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But, but...
And so they act, and they extend copyright and related rights, and they hunt down pirates and plagiarists, and yet, somehow, help never comes your way.
Help's not coming, Carl. It never was. The IP system really, truly doesn't care about you, because it can't. IP was made from the start to defend the big guys from the common folk. It will never serve you. It cannot be changed into something that will help you. It can only be destroyed, so that it can no longer make you false promises.
You and your work deserved better, but we so rarely get what we deserve. The only thing to do now is to figure out how to do without.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But, but...
As Old Mugwump pointed out, this is about plagiarism, and even the most pirate-y of us won't stand for that, particularly when it's a powerful company like Disney going after an independent filmmaker. It's not right.
No one ought to be obliged to do without because the big guys can get away with pretending other people's work is their own. That is not and never will be fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well
If this case goes to trial and Disney WINS, people and smaller companies will be able to use this ruling to support the idea that it's okay to copy Disney's works to promote their own work, even if their finished product does not resemble the promotion.
If this case goes to trial and Disney LOSES, they will have to make an accounting to a judge showing their actual profits, and if they try to pull the whole "We made a billion but actually lost money" trick the judge might call them out on it. It's safer to just settle and keep the accounting methods hidden so they can keep doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well
I personally think what Disney did was okay, but F them for doing what they would normally sue anyone else for doing. Let them settle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When was the last time a case dealt with Hollywood Bookkeeping?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When was the last time a case dealt with Hollywood Bookkeeping?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When was the last time a case dealt with Hollywood Bookkeeping?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Profit
http://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/frozen-highest-grossing-disney-animated-film
It is also extremely profitable:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_(2013_film)
Budget $150 million
Box office $1,072,391,611
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i hope this person is more than just successful with her case!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snow is generally the required background. I guess theres some similarity in that an ice covered lake is involved?
Snowman loses nose to animal/creature.
Fights with/chases animal/creature for nose.
Loses nose.
Animal/creature takes pity, friendship ensues as nose is returned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Granted, far more different stuff like this has won in a copyright dispute - the point is that it *shouldn't*.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The quirks that make the Disney trailer what it was (expressions, actions, actions and reactions) wern't there in the short animation.
Snow is going to look like snow and a snowman is going to look like a snowman. The essence however was very different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]