If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Jezebel)   Well, someone has their mouse ears all in a tiff   (jezebel.com) divider line 31
    More: Amusing, visual design, French-Canadian  
•       •       •

7017 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 30 Dec 2013 at 9:40 AM (15 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



31 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-30 08:22:21 AM
It's weird because the only ones not fooled are the intended audience.
 
2013-12-30 09:29:12 AM
Some great examples in the comments.

img.gawkerassets.com
 
2013-12-30 09:49:33 AM
I checked out Transmorphers one time just to see how bad it was. Couldn't even make it twenty minutes. My roommate even said to me, "I will never badmouth Super Mario Bros. The Movie ever again!"
 
2013-12-30 09:59:46 AM
If the Disney lawyers get the case heard in Orange County Courts these producers will be sealed up in "Small World" characters for the next 82 Olympics. If they win.
 
2013-12-30 10:05:09 AM
www.virginmedia.com
 
2013-12-30 10:07:51 AM
It's a dick move but Disney has blatantly ripped off other people's work many times so I sort of hope they lose. In fact, there was a big stink over how they ripped off an entire sequence in Frozen from some else's short film.
 
2013-12-30 10:58:20 AM
i.bnet.com
 
2013-12-30 11:05:09 AM

EyeballKid: [www.virginmedia.com image 590x350]


3.bp.blogspot.com

(Disney didn't really "rip off" Richard Williams' "Thief and the Cobbler", they just made sure they had an Arabian Nights themed movie come out first. "Thief's" production was so chaotic and the failure to make a deadline required by their completion bond I don't even know if the Thief's princess character was even in the movie until the last minute (all of her content was obviously a different style) -- which could have meant they* double-reverse 'stolen' from Disney. But then again, her design is pretty generic.

*"they" meaning "not Richard Williams or his production company", since the movie had been removed from them. Who was in control? I dunno. Lawyers?
 
2013-12-30 11:22:14 AM

StopLurkListen: (Disney didn't really "rip off" Richard Williams' "Thief and the Cobbler", they just made sure they had an Arabian Nights themed movie come out first. "Thief's" production was so chaotic and the failure to make a deadline required by their completion bond I don't even know if the Thief's princess character was even in the movie until the last minute (all of her content was obviously a different style) -- which could have meant they* double-reverse 'stolen' from Disney. But then again, her design is pretty generic.

*"they" meaning "not Richard Williams or his production company", since the movie had been removed from them. Who was in control? I dunno. Lawyers?


Notionally whoever funded the thing.  Not finishing a project by the delivery date cost Orson Welles a number of films, including some which have never been seen as no one knows who has the negatives (there's one that was funded by Iranians and all trails to it run out at the Revolution in 1979).

Basically, you can't spend over a decade reworking a film unless you're doing all the animation yourself.
 
2013-12-30 12:36:10 PM
Disney has buildings full of lawyers just looking for people to sue.
 
2013-12-30 12:57:30 PM

Dwight_Yeast: StopLurkListen: (Disney didn't really "rip off" Richard Williams' "Thief and the Cobbler", they just made sure they had an Arabian Nights themed movie come out first. "Thief's" production was so chaotic and the failure to make a deadline required by their completion bond I don't even know if the Thief's princess character was even in the movie until the last minute (all of her content was obviously a different style) -- which could have meant they* double-reverse 'stolen' from Disney. But then again, her design is pretty generic.

*"they" meaning "not Richard Williams or his production company", since the movie had been removed from them. Who was in control? I dunno. Lawyers?

Notionally whoever funded the thing.  Not finishing a project by the delivery date cost Orson Welles a number of films, including some which have never been seen as no one knows who has the negatives (there's one that was funded by Iranians and all trails to it run out at the Revolution in 1979).

Basically, you can't spend over a decade reworking a film unless you're doing all the animation yourself.


I watched a documentary on Heaven's Gate (The film not the cult) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_%28film%29  and learned that if you're taking 96 shots of a bull whip crack, that's not being creative that's being wasteful. Deadline are not trying to squash your creativity it's just if you want money to keep your job you gotta be reasonable and work with the people in charge and not against them or you end up with something that people misinterpret as a snuff film years down the road. .
 
2013-12-30 12:59:24 PM

Crewmannumber6: Disney has buildings full of lawyers just looking for people to sue.


Well duh... So does every other Hollywood studio Mr. Neckbeard!
 
2013-12-30 01:13:12 PM

alice_600: Crewmannumber6: Disney has buildings full of lawyers just looking for people to sue.

Well duh... So does every other Hollywood studio Mr. Neckbeard!


That's the funniest, and most incongruous, thing anyone has ever called me.
 
2013-12-30 01:25:38 PM
Disney: a company that steals public domain stories left and right, getting their butthole in a knot about their "copyright" being stolen.
 
2013-12-30 01:26:59 PM
 
2013-12-30 04:05:24 PM

TV's Vinnie: Disney: a company that steals public domain stories left and right, getting their butthole in a knot about their "copyright" being stolen.


Yep, remember when they tried to trademark the name of a Mexican holiday?
 
2013-12-30 04:06:54 PM
We need a MST3K-type show just for riffing, and analyzing Mockbusters.  And the occasional "Re-imagined/Re-booted" film.
 
2013-12-30 04:17:04 PM

freetomato: TV's Vinnie: Disney: a company that steals public domain stories left and right, getting their butthole in a knot about their "copyright" being stolen.

Yep, remember when they tried to trademark the name of a Mexican holiday?


Why, yes I do.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7757554/Disney-tries-to-copyright-Da-de -l os-Muertos-aka-Mexican-Day-of-Dead-which-is-a-popular-holiday-in-Mexic o-More-than-a-few-Mexicans-are-upset-with-this
 
2013-12-30 05:25:44 PM
oi39.tinypic.com

You don't even have to leave Frozen to get an example of Disney plagiarizing
 
2013-12-30 05:28:51 PM
Looks more like a jpg to me subby.
 
2013-12-30 05:33:47 PM

TV's Vinnie: Disney: a company that steals public domain stories left and right, getting their butthole in a knot about their "copyright" being stolen.


This sentence makse so little sense that it may actually be a black hole of information.
 
2013-12-30 05:52:20 PM

Teiritzamna: TV's Vinnie: Disney: a company that steals stories from the public domain stories left and right, and then gets their butthole in a knot about their "copyright" being stolen infringed.

This sentence makse so little sense that it may actually be a black hole of information.


Fixed?

/Also, typos.
//Slashies.
///Threes.
 
2013-12-30 05:59:31 PM

agent00pi: Teiritzamna: TV's Vinnie: Disney: a company that steals stories from the public domain stories left and right, and then gets their butthole in a knot about their "copyright" being stolen infringed.

Fixed?


You cannot steal stories from the public domain.  By definition, it is public.  This is akin to complaining that Alice is a hypocrite because she keeps using that free air but gets mad when someone takes her money.
 
2013-12-30 05:59:52 PM

Teiritzamna: TV's Vinnie: Disney: a company that steals public domain stories left and right, getting their butthole in a knot about their "copyright" being stolen.

This sentence makse so little sense that it may actually be a black hole of information.


That's because you're a dolt.
 
2013-12-30 06:07:39 PM

TV's Vinnie: That's because you're a dolt.


That is likely true.  Which may be why I cannot understand how someone can steal from the public domain.

I am, however, always willing to be enlightened.
 
2013-12-30 06:13:52 PM

Teiritzamna: TV's Vinnie: That's because you're a dolt.

That is likely true.  Which may be why I cannot understand how someone can steal from the public domain.

I am, however, always willing to be enlightened.


The point, El Thicko, was that Disney frequently steals public domain tales and then if anyone else tries to do any stories of their own based on those tales, Disney throws a screaming fit and claims that their copyrights are being violated.
 
2013-12-30 06:35:04 PM

TV's Vinnie: The point, El Thicko, was that Disney frequently steals public domain tales and then if anyone else tries to do any stories of their own based on those tales, Disney throws a screaming fit and claims that their copyrights are being violated.


ah delightful!  I take it you are using a strange and coloquial form for "steal," so passionate your hatred for the Disney corporation.  Although your acerbic tone suggests instead that such aggressive language is a regular part of your register.  Either way,

Of course, as a further point, it is entirely possible for a rights holder to take materials from the public domain, add new elements and end up with a new, albeit thin copyright.  Such derivative works, as defined in 17 U.S.C. 101, may have protection as long as they contain substantially sufficient new material.  See L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder, 536 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1976).  A good example would be taking an existing story and animating it. The illustrations and vocal characterizations may be original to the derivative work creator even if the story elements are public.

This of course would require an analysis of whether the second party's work is based on the public domain, or upon the new derivative work.  It is not enough to say that the first derivative work was based on the public domain, the second work must show that it was not based on copying the original elements of the first derivative work.  I don't happen to know of any large patterns wherein Disney has sued and lost based on the argument that any alleged substantial similarity was based on the underlying public domain work.  Instead, the instances i can recall involved disney actually "throw[ing] a screaming fit" as you so excitingly put it, based on alleged infringement of their derivative works. However, as before, i would be happy to look to any contravening documentation you may have, as my knowledge of Disney's litigation history is admitedly not complete.

cheers
 
2013-12-30 06:39:26 PM

StopLurkListen: EyeballKid: [www.virginmedia.com image 590x350]

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x425]

(Disney didn't really "rip off" Richard Williams' "Thief and the Cobbler", they just made sure they had an Arabian Nights themed movie come out first. "Thief's" production was so chaotic and the failure to make a deadline required by their completion bond I don't even know if the Thief's princess character was even in the movie until the last minute (all of her content was obviously a different style) -- which could have meant they* double-reverse 'stolen' from Disney. But then again, her design is pretty generic.

*"they" meaning "not Richard Williams or his production company", since the movie had been removed from them. Who was in control? I dunno. Lawyers?


Disney actually got distribution rights to "Thief and the Cobbler", did their own edit with a couple new voice tracks for the silent characters, retitled it "Arabian Knight" and released it very poorly a few months after "Aladdin" hit theaters, almost as if intending to slander it as a low-rent knockoff. Years later control reverted and there was a more genuine home video release with the original title.
 
2013-12-30 07:05:55 PM

Teiritzamna: TV's Vinnie: The point, El Thicko, was that Disney frequently steals public domain tales and then if anyone else tries to do any stories of their own based on those tales, Disney throws a screaming fit and claims that their copyrights are being violated.

ah delightful!  I take it you are using a strange and coloquial form for "steal," so passionate your hatred for the Disney corporation.  Although your acerbic tone suggests instead that such aggressive language is a regular part of your register.  Either way,

Of course, as a further point, it is entirely possible for a rights holder to take materials from the public domain, add new elements and end up with a new, albeit thin copyright.  Such derivative works, as defined in 17 U.S.C. 101, may have protection as long as they contain substantially sufficient new material.  See L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder, 536 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1976).  A good example would be taking an existing story and animating it. The illustrations and vocal characterizations may be original to the derivative work creator even if the story elements are public.

This of course would require an analysis of whether the second party's work is based on the public domain, or upon the new derivative work.  It is not enough to say that the first derivative work was based on the public domain, the second work must show that it was not based on copying the original elements of the first derivative work.  I don't happen to know of any large patterns wherein Disney has sued and lost based on the argument that any alleged substantial similarity was based on the underlying public domain work.  Instead, the instances i can recall involved disney actually "throw[ing] a screaming fit" as you so excitingly put it, based on alleged infringement of their derivative works. However, as before, i would be happy to look to any contravening documentation you may have, as my knowledge of Disney's litigation history is admitedly not complete.

cheers


2/10
 
2013-12-31 03:23:04 AM

TV's Vinnie: Teiritzamna: TV's Vinnie: That's because you're a dolt.

That is likely true.  Which may be why I cannot understand how someone can steal from the public domain.

I am, however, always willing to be enlightened.

The point, El Thicko, was that Disney frequently steals public domain tales and then if anyone else tries to do any stories of their own based on those tales, Disney throws a screaming fit and claims that their copyrights are being violated.


You can't "steal" a public domain story, dear heart. What you mean is, Disney frequently creates stories BASED UPON public domain tales and then if anyone else tries to do a story based on those same public domain tales, Disney claims copyright violation.

Which may or may not be true. Disney can be mean and ruthless in court; but it's hard to argue that when they release a move entitled "Brave" and the same week another studio releases a DVD entitled "Kiara the BRAVE" with the cover done up in similar colors with a similar-looking princess and similar-looking type style, that it's not copyright or trademark infringement.

In the same way, "Frozen" may have nothing in common with "Frozen Land--the Legend of Sarilla" but the logo certainly looks virtually identical, they've got a Mulan-looking princess and some animals on the cover, and it sure LOOKS a lot like a Disney release. Advertising is expensive, and Disney doesn't want anyone else cashing in on their hard work, any more than Sony or 20th-Century does.

Hate on Disney all you want; but just make sure that if you do a remake of "Snow White" it doesn't feature a singing princess in a yellow skirt in a magical forest, and you should be okay. Retell the original Grimm Bros. tale, and Disney probably won't claim any ownership, howabout that?
 
2013-12-31 02:55:15 PM
Strong Bad covers the grey area of the Mockbuster during the SBEmail "Licensed."  Starting HERE.
As well as the general genre of Knock-Offs and the many forms it can take.
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report