Hell Freezing Over? Disney Realizing That Fans Celebrating 'Frozen' By Infringement May Be A Good Thing

from the and-that-day-disney's-heart-grew-one-size-bigger dept

Disney is a name that is often associated with copyright maximalism for pretty good reasons. Despite the fact that many of its early successes depended heavily on either direct infringement or making use of the public domain, the company was a very aggressive enforcer of its own copyrights. And, of course, it was also a primary lobbyist for expanding copyright protections, and extending copyright term every time Mickey Mouse approached the public domain.

However, in the past few years, it's seemed as though Disney has been a bit quieter than in the past about copyright issues, allowing some other companies to take the lead on that. And, in some cases, it seems to even be recognizing (*gasp*) that some infringement can actually be a good thing. Andrew Leonard, over at Salon, has the story of how Disney has finally joined the 21st century in realizing that having fans create derivative works around the movie Frozen, has actually been useful and free promotion for the original (and massively successful) movie.

Disney’s expertise in nurturing, co-opting and, most of all, not cracking down on the many ways fans have embraced “Frozen” online is a template for how to thrive in a digital, copy-promiscuous, consumer-empowered environment. Disney, long one of the fiercest and most powerful defenders of strict intellectual property control, has learned how to let copyright go.

The article includes a bunch of examples of people who have built up huge audiences (and even careers) themselves, almost entirely built off of Disney's works -- without Disney getting involved at all. Disney isn't asking for money and it's not shutting them down. It's just letting them do their thing, even if they're making money from doing so. Why? Because it appears that even Disney is recognizing that even when these "infringers" are making money, Disney itself likely makes even more money from it:

Disney did not respond to my queries as to where they draw the line or how they are engaging with non-authorized use of Disney characters. But there’s anecdotal evidence that the company has realized that the same people who are buying soundtracks and merchandise and DVDs are the same people who are making and sharing YouTube videos. Although Disney once viewed YouTube with alarm, the company now seems to realize that fan-created content — even in cases where that content is generating revenue that is not captured by Disney — is cross-promotional marketing that money can’t buy.

For all the times we see copyright defenders insist that anyone "making money" from someone else's work is "obviously" a problem, it's nice to see Disney understand how non-zero-sum markets work, and the fact that just because someone is making some money, it doesn't automatically mean that money is coming out of Disney's bank account.

So... within a very short time it appears we've seen both the Supreme Court officially admit that infringement can be beneficial, and Disney implicitly admit the same thing. It feels like hell may be freezing over.

Filed Under: copyright, creativity, fans, frozen, infringement, publicity
Companies: disney

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...

[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..

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.

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.

Filed Under: copyright, frozen, kelly wilson, the snowman, trailer
Companies: disney

DailyDirt: Keeping Food Around Longer... And Longer

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Civilization has greatly depended on the our ability to store food for long periods of time. Without various food preservation techniques, our daily lives would be much different. Perhaps we've strayed a bit too far away from fresh foods, but the benefits of refrigeration, preservatives and food packaging probably outweigh the costs. Here are just a few articles on the topic of food preservation to ponder while you enjoy your next processed meal.

• Twinkies are back on stores shelves with a new and improved... shelf life of 45 days. Previously, Twinkies had a shelf life of just 26 days -- and not an indefinite lifespan that most people assume. [url]
• Canned foods can last a really long time, and some folks actually prefer the taste of canned items that have been aged. The definition of a shelf life is not about when a packaged food is inedible, but when the food acquires a noticeably different flavor compared to a newly-manufactured item. [url]
• About 70% of the food we eat is stored or transported at chilled temperatures. And if you think that's a high percentage: "An astonishing 80% of the nation's potato output is cut, processed, frozen, bagged, and distributed as French fries." [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: aged, canning, flavor, food, frozen, inedible, packaging, preservation, refrigeration, shelf life, twinkies

DOJ Argues That Even If Case Against Megaupload Is Dismissed, It Still Can Hold Its Assets

from the well-of-course dept

As the fight over whether or not the US can even charge Megaupload under criminal law continues, the US Justice Department continues to make quite extraordinary claims. If you don't recall, the US filed criminal charges against Megaupload and a bunch of its execs. However, as a US judge noted back in April, under US law it might actually be impossible for the case against Megaupload to proceed, because criminal law requires "serving" the defendant, and the law also says you can only serve companies at their US address. Megaupload is not based in the US and has no US address. The DOJ is trying to tapdance around what the law actually says, but (as Megaupload points out) they can't point to a single real legal citation that supports their position. The DOJ is basically arguing that the law should be what they want it to be... because otherwise the DOJ wouldn't like it very much.

Tim Lee continues his always excellent reporting, by providing some details of the latest court hearings on the matter where the judge definitely seems to recognize that Megaupload may be legally correct:

[Judge O'Grady] noted that the "plain language" of the law required sending notice to the company's address in the United States. "You don't have a location in the United States to mail it to," he said. "It's never had an address" in the United States.

Perhaps even more interesting is the claim by the DOJ that even if the Judge rules against them on this issue, they should still be able to freeze Megaupload's assets, because the cases against the individuals will continue.

Not only that, but the government believes it can continue to freeze Megaupload's assets and paralyze its operations even if the judge grants the motion to dismiss. That's because in the government's view, the assets are the proceeds of criminal activity and the prosecution against founder Kim Dotcom will still be pending. The fact that the assets are in the name of Megaupload rather than its founder is of no consequence, the government claimed.

That's a trickier argument to make, though, not a totally crazy one. It's more or less based on the same controversial theory under which the Justice Department seizes and forfeits things like hip hop blogs because someone might possibly get some infringing music from them. But here it's even more complex, because there is supposed to be a separation between the corporation as an entity and the execs who work there as entities. It's part of the reason why "limited liability" corporations exist. There are, of course, ways to get past that, but the government would need to make that case, and they may have a hard time doing so. Either way, it does appear that they're legitimately worried about this rather massive error on their part in bringing the case.

Perhaps, next time, the DOJ won't rush into highly questionable lawsuits just because the MPAA is upset about a website.

Filed Under: assets, copyright, doj, frozen, jurisdiction, service
Companies: megaupload

Feds Show Their Cards On Online Poker: Freeze Funds

from the whoops dept

For years, the federal government has insisted that online poker in the US is illegal, and reinforced it by tacking on punishment for payment processors who process gambling payments onto a totally unrelated bill about harbor safety. Poker players, on the other hand, have insisted for years that there are no laws against online poker -- in part because the laws are all against games of chance, whereas poker is a game of skill. This position received a small boost recently when a judge agreed that poker was a game of skill rather than chance. On top of this, there's been an ongoing effort underway (led by Barney Frank) to specifically make it clear that online poker is legal. However, until that bill goes anywhere, the feds apparently still believe it's very much illegal and have now started going after the payment processors, freezing the funds of payment processors who work with a variety of online poker sites. Expect quite a legal battle to follow.

Filed Under: feds, frozen, funds, legality, online poker