I have worked with Disney's intellectual property teams in the past, and I'm blown away that this slipped under the radar. They are very up-tight about protecting their own IP and the brand of their princesses. If this were somebody selling a T-Shirt on eBay I would say, "Don't worry about it," but this is Disney. They know better. Their entire business model is based on intellectual property.
I have had similar experiences with the Disney IP teams. They mean serious business in all directions, from protecting IP to ensuring they are not infringing. They make sure everyone in the company or affiliated is very aware of IP issues. If the painting is indeed the original work and it somehow found its way onto some merchandise, I'm sure Disney will be amicable.
The first thing that occurred to me is that the Disney artists (or contractors) probably came across the image on Tumblr or Pinterest or some similar social image-sharing network, stripped entirely of its original attribution.
It's entirely plausible that someone would have thought it was a Disney-owned image originally, and in circulation in violation of copyright.
If that's true, it's not an excuse for using someone else's work without permission, but it would be a sad and ironic commentary on the sharing and re-mixing economy.
I also think it's important for the artist to remember that Disney doesn't have a team of employees surfing the web looking for ideas to steal. The more likely scenario was a single designer was having trouble with a project and got desperate.
It's not excusable, but also isn't as conspiratorial.
Why assume the worst? Wouldn't it be a bit easier to just find the relevant group and ask them how they'd like to resolve it? If they want to be jerks, sure, lawyer up. However, it might be a very simple conversation with a much more positive outcome.
So far "the internet" seems to be on this artist's side, apparently because her work was stolen by a corporation. Recent history suggests, however, that if Andy Baio[0] or Shepard Fairey[1] had ripped her off, she would be excoriated for asserting her rights and lectured about the wonders of remix culture.
> I’m so mad because I have no chance at getting Disney to do anything about it.
For such a straightforward violation, I don't see why there's any call for pessimism. Send them an invoice for a worldwide license, follow it up with a lawyer letter (find someone willing to do no-win-no-fee if you want) once the invoice is overdue.
She probably said that because might not actually own the copyright to it.
Based on what I read on her site, this image was created for her final coursework.
Although I haven't been able to find out which University she attended to eliminate this possibility, it is quite possible that the University in question may actually owns this image.
Certainly in UK some Universities have IP clauses written stating who owns what.
I wonder how one prices out a worldwide license like this. Obviously if she put the prices at $1000/use, neither would Disney pay it nor would she recover that much from a court. But it's worth more than $0.01/use as well.
The cosmetics bag looks like a straightforward copyright violation.
The second example, where no artwork was copied but there may have been some influence, is more complicated. How do you prove the inspiration came from the "stolen" art, and not Disney's own film or the original story?
> "How do you prove the inspiration came from the "stolen" art, and not Disney's own film or the original story?"
And even if you did prove it, is it illegal, and should it be illegal?
All art is a derivation of something that came before it. Can someone reasonably claim ownership to "girl painting roses with paint brush as viewed from behind"?
Yes, the first one is without doubt a copyright violation, the second however I can't agree with.
If so then we'd have an insane amount of art that is stolen. The pose is the same, but this is totally different art in a totally different style with ha different dress etc. I personally don't think that should constitute as a copied/derived work, but that's just my opinion.
The first one however, clear cut copyright infringement, it IS the same artwork. Will be interesting to see how Disney spins this given how they forced daycare centers to paint over murals with Disney characters over trademark infringement.
Further proof that large media companies don't actually care about intellectual property. They care about their property.
Whether it is Disney stealing lions[1] or Fox stealing songs[2], their concern for your property is non-existent, but they are willing to throw you in jail if you think about using theirs.
Let's give Disney qua Disney (as opposed to one artist somewhere, which is all we know for sure at this point) some time to respond before we unleash the mob.
Past history certainly gives a non-zero probability that Disney will just try to throw their weight around, but let's give them the chance to do the right thing before we bury them. It makes the moral outrage that much more moral.
Disney has a reputation for doing everything in their power to deliver exceptional customer service and epic experiences. They even run a company that teaches other companies how to treat customers right. http://disneyinstitute.com/
Personally, I think this is a perfect opportunity for Disney to make a HUGE PR WIN, by apologizing, and paying out a nice and fair royalty without a fight. I would be very disappointed if they miss this opportunity.
I can vouch for their service. I once lost my rental car keys while at one of the Disneyworld hotels, and I got no help from the rental company aside from the key code. The Disney folks sent one of their locksmiths to help me and he tried about half a day to make a key that would start the car. His dedication and attitude were remarkable.
My advice is to do something. Disney doesn't know they infringed, some sub-sub contractor did this. But eventually, they will find the image and assume that the original author is the infringer, and they're sticklers about this.
If the author does nothing, she may find herself in the unfortunate position of spending lots of money in court to prove that she didn't "steal" her own picture.
If this is all handled positively it could be a win win.
Having Disney license your artwork is something most designers would be glad of reputation wise.
I think she needs to lose the angry tone pronto and at least 'appear' more phlegmatic about it.
And there isn't any particular need for panic I'd have thought as it looks like an open and shut case in terms of infringement.
The person who is in deep trouble is whoever knowingly infringed, they could be out the door.
FIND/HIRE A LAWYER ASAP!! You definitely have grounds for this case. If you think it may be too expensive, I suggest using Lawdingo (https://www.lawdingo.com/lawyers) as you can cold-message/chat with lawyers for free. I am positive that if everything you have presented is true, someone or another will be more than willing to represent you and help you take the appropriate action.
Really sorry to hear about this but best of luck, its unfortunate this happens with such large companies. Nonetheless, hope it gets resolved soon--good luck!
I'm of course just guessing but this seams more like the result of a lazy (unscrupulous) designers hired by Disney rather than a corporate decision to ignore copyright.
This doesn't make the situation of the author any better, the author should at least talk to a copyright layer IMO.
Given Disney made their fortune from reselling public domain stories then suing anyone who infringed on their IP, this story comes as no surprise. Though that doesn't stop me feeling wound up that they consider themselves above the law, and sorry for the injustice against the author.
If your artwork was stolen, you should file a police report to get your stolen property back.
It seems what has happened, however, may be a copyright infringement, which is not theft. If that is the case, you should talk to a lawyer about filing a copyright claim against Disney.
You don't know that. The right to create derivative works is one of the exclusive rights granted to the original creator by the copyright act. If the same designer that put his image on the bag is the one that designed the shirt, it would be very hard for him to claim the second image isn't a derivative work of the unlicensed original.
I would honestly lawyer up in this instance. Disney from what I've seen are usually very thorough with their IP, I'm surprised something like this has happened and I am sure it's an honest mistake they will rectify. There is definitely a case here, but it doesn't seem as straightforward as some might think it is.
It's likely a lazy designer did a Google Image search, saw an illustration that looked like the original Alice in Wonderland illustrations by Tenniel, and assumed it was in the public domain.
I wonder what license the image was released under. While this could have been deliberate by Disney, I doubt they would use a (seemingly) very popular design on production material.
Many times that I knew some sort of stuff like this happened, it was because one specific worker, KNEW that he was doing wrong, but did it wrong anyway to take the credit, and hope his bosses would not find out.
This also apply when the "worker" is a boss, but working for a client, he do it in a lazy manner hoping his client won't notice...
I was under the impression that this would be covered under copyright and not a particular licence. As soon as the artwork was created by the artist it belongs to the artist, they don't even need to put a copyright symbol next to it. My advice would be get in touch with Disney, it seems the artist has support on tumblr already. I suspect a public spectacle of Disney's mistake (assuming it was a mistake) is probably the artist's best bet. DKNY were caught up in something similar and ended up paying and apologising for their mistake [1].
[+] [-] austenallred|13 years ago|reply
Time to lawyer up.
[+] [-] jconley|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gregcohn|13 years ago|reply
It's entirely plausible that someone would have thought it was a Disney-owned image originally, and in circulation in violation of copyright.
If that's true, it's not an excuse for using someone else's work without permission, but it would be a sad and ironic commentary on the sharing and re-mixing economy.
[+] [-] robbyking|13 years ago|reply
It's not excusable, but also isn't as conspiratorial.
[+] [-] clarkevans|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fargren|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leephillips|13 years ago|reply
[0]http://lee-phillips.org/music/whoIsTheDick/
[1]http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/08/entertainment/la-et-...
[+] [-] cjbprime|13 years ago|reply
For such a straightforward violation, I don't see why there's any call for pessimism. Send them an invoice for a worldwide license, follow it up with a lawyer letter (find someone willing to do no-win-no-fee if you want) once the invoice is overdue.
[+] [-] roc|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Spherical|13 years ago|reply
Based on what I read on her site, this image was created for her final coursework.
Although I haven't been able to find out which University she attended to eliminate this possibility, it is quite possible that the University in question may actually owns this image.
Certainly in UK some Universities have IP clauses written stating who owns what.
[+] [-] jamesaguilar|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bhb916|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xsmasher|13 years ago|reply
The second example, where no artwork was copied but there may have been some influence, is more complicated. How do you prove the inspiration came from the "stolen" art, and not Disney's own film or the original story?
http://www.cornel1801.com/disney/Alice-Wonderland-Painting-R...
[+] [-] potatolicious|13 years ago|reply
And even if you did prove it, is it illegal, and should it be illegal?
All art is a derivation of something that came before it. Can someone reasonably claim ownership to "girl painting roses with paint brush as viewed from behind"?
[+] [-] __david__|13 years ago|reply
But I agree, the bag is straightforward copyright infringement.
[+] [-] gillianseed|13 years ago|reply
If so then we'd have an insane amount of art that is stolen. The pose is the same, but this is totally different art in a totally different style with ha different dress etc. I personally don't think that should constitute as a copied/derived work, but that's just my opinion.
The first one however, clear cut copyright infringement, it IS the same artwork. Will be interesting to see how Disney spins this given how they forced daycare centers to paint over murals with Disney characters over trademark infringement.
[+] [-] warfangle|13 years ago|reply
It might actually fall under the "significantly modified" arena. Same with the tshirt - while it's the same pose, it's clearly a different drawing.
Besides which, she may have actually been the one infringing Disney's trademark.
These kinds of ambiguities outline how fucking important it is to reform our copyright system.
[+] [-] swalsh|13 years ago|reply
The bag though, that is straight up theft.
[+] [-] astrodust|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|13 years ago|reply
Whether it is Disney stealing lions[1] or Fox stealing songs[2], their concern for your property is non-existent, but they are willing to throw you in jail if you think about using theirs.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimba_the_White_Lion
2. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jonathan-coulton-glee-...
[+] [-] jerf|13 years ago|reply
Past history certainly gives a non-zero probability that Disney will just try to throw their weight around, but let's give them the chance to do the right thing before we bury them. It makes the moral outrage that much more moral.
[+] [-] fnordfnordfnord|13 years ago|reply
http://robwrite.hubpages.com/hub/THE-LION-KING-Controversy-D...
[+] [-] danso|13 years ago|reply
Screenshot here: http://i.imgur.com/tr2FZ3c.png
[+] [-] gorrillamcd|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trevorcreech|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davemel37|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mark-r|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noonespecial|13 years ago|reply
If the author does nothing, she may find herself in the unfortunate position of spending lots of money in court to prove that she didn't "steal" her own picture.
[+] [-] barking|13 years ago|reply
I think she needs to lose the angry tone pronto and at least 'appear' more phlegmatic about it.
And there isn't any particular need for panic I'd have thought as it looks like an open and shut case in terms of infringement.
The person who is in deep trouble is whoever knowingly infringed, they could be out the door.
[+] [-] aashaykumar92|13 years ago|reply
Really sorry to hear about this but best of luck, its unfortunate this happens with such large companies. Nonetheless, hope it gets resolved soon--good luck!
[+] [-] Trufa|13 years ago|reply
This doesn't make the situation of the author any better, the author should at least talk to a copyright layer IMO.
[+] [-] laumars|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanBC|13 years ago|reply
And see this blog (http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/) where people post other rip offs of their work.
[+] [-] throughnothing|13 years ago|reply
It seems what has happened, however, may be a copyright infringement, which is not theft. If that is the case, you should talk to a lawyer about filing a copyright claim against Disney.
[+] [-] darkchasma|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dangrossman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jcampbell1|13 years ago|reply
Here is a link to the bag in their store:
http://www.disneystore.com/alice-in-wonderland-cosmetic-bag/...
[+] [-] DigitalSea|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spullara|13 years ago|reply
http://bit.ly/14ShFNZ
[+] [-] jcl|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ed2417|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darxius|13 years ago|reply
Then again, things like this have happened.
[+] [-] speeder|13 years ago|reply
This also apply when the "worker" is a boss, but working for a client, he do it in a lazy manner hoping his client won't notice...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbaland_plagiarism_controvers...
[+] [-] _chrismccreadie|13 years ago|reply
[1]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732388430457832...
Edit: Sorry, silly formatting