RSS
ABC/Disney Memo Shows That Ripping Off Other TV Programs Is Ok... For ABC/Disney
from the next-ride-at-disneyland:-the-double-standard dept
Of course, we all know that in the long history of Disney, the company has made much of its money by taking the content of others and repurposing it in cute animated stories. Yet, when it comes to anyone else doing things with Disney's stories or characters, its lawyers are rather vicious in response. In fact, it's Disney's heavy handed lobbying that has helped extend copyright to ever longer terms, just to avoid Mickey Mouse from entering the public domain. Thus, it probably shouldn't come as a surprise, that Disney continues with this double standard in other parts of its business. Reader Comboman sent in the news that a leaked memo from Disney subsidiary ABC suggests that producers look for TV ideas from foreign shows, where the idea can be used without having to pay a license:
"As I'm sure you're all aware, foreign formats have increased in popularity as the basis for US television development and production. What is often overlooked, or not fully appreciated, are the complexities associated with negotiating format deals, coupled with the fact that often-times what is appealing in the format may be nothing more than a general underlying premise, which, in and of itself, may be no reason to license the underlying property."In other words, let's see what we can copy. And, yet, if anyone were to do that with a Disney/ABC property, you can bet that the lawyers would be all over it before you could get very far. But, of course, don't be surprised. It's simply the way Disney/ABC does business: abusing intellectual property laws is perfectly fine when done for its own purposes -- but is the destroyer of everything good when done to Disney/ABC.
23 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Two Contradictory Paths In The UK When It Comes To Copyright Issues
- UK Now Seizing Music Blogs (With American Domains) Over Copyright Claims
- Disney And Warner Bros. Prepare To Fight Over Who Owns The Public Domain Wizard Of Oz
- Protecting The Artists? Disney's Marvel Uses Copyright To Crush Already Broke Ghost Rider Creator
- Disney Refused Invitation From Senator Feinstein To Meet With Tech Companies Over PIPA/SOPA
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Huh?
And aren't you the site that, just a couple weeks ago, argued Scrabble was wrong in suing Scrabulous? Scrabulous pretty obviously stole Scrabble's format. Apparently that's OK, but using the same format as a TV show is not?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
RE:Huh?
The problem is who is doing it and how they support a double standard as they would most likely sue in to the ground if someone borrowed from them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Huh?
I think you are missing the point, he is not commenting on the practice of using other people's ideas to create new content, but rather the unethical double standard being used by one of copyright biggest supporters. Disney says that everyone should pay them for even thinking "Mickey Mouse" but has no problems use other hard work for free.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Isn't this a myth? I believe Disney still owns Mickey Mouse, as long as they keep producing new content, regardless of how long he has been around. Sorry I don't have time to cite a source but I'm fairly certain that the statement here is frequently repeated but false (or at least disingenuous).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Huh?
The issue isn't with the action -- I agree that you should be able to make your own TV, building off the format of others. The issue is with the hypocrisy of Disney acting one way when its content is concerned, and another way for others' content.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Huh?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Non-point
I agree that Disney's draconian copyright philosophies and constant demand for extension of copyright are stupid and wrong. However, I don't see a parallel here.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
---------------------------------------------------------
Brian, I understand your point about specific characters, but I remember an instance in the late 70's early 80's when Disney forced Marvel to put pants on Howard the Duck because they contended he looked too much like Donald Duck withouth the pants. That is a small example, but illustrates that Disney is not above going after people for using characters based on animals that their "icons" are based on.
PS - for anyone interested in reading a fascinating story about another famous Disney copyright battle, check out:
"The Pirates and the Mouse: Disney's War Against the Counterculture" by Bob Levin.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Huh?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Huh?
We all know that television and the movie business are incapable of producing new ideas. They have large well funded systems in place precisely to prevent new ideas from getting made (they are simply too risky). So thats why we get remakes of Alvin and the Chimpmonks and four knock-offs of whatever last years successful reality show was.
The point of the OP is simply about hypocracy, which is pretty obvious here. I dont know that ABC or Disney is any more guilty then any other big player . . . but they are certainly guilty.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Non-point
Because what the memo seems to indicate is that Disney is willing to take a successful show overseas and emulate here in the US without paying a lincensing fee, something that if done by a large oversees entertainment corporation, to one of Disney's properties would incur stiff legal repercussions.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/bombshell-abc-studios-memo-a-blueprint-to-rip-off-forei gn-tv-series/
The writer makes a very valid and important point. Licensing negotiations can at times be very complex, and one should never automatically initiate negotiations without first asking if they are even necessary.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I mean, lobbying for the retroactive extension of copyright and preventing any works from entering into the public domain for a couple decades... that's hardly improving the complex licensing situation for anyone, when works that were supposed to enter the public domain (and therefore not need to be licensed anymore) are held back.
It's not that it's bad that Disney builds off the ideas of others. It's just a shame that they don't seem to think others should be able to do the same.
Licensing negotiations can definitely be very complex. It's a good thing Disney didn't have to deal with them when they were starting out. Yet, they're one of the biggest supporters of making these negotiations more common for the rest of us.
That's the double standard.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The idea here is that, if it were reversed, you could bet a watermelon that Disney would have the lawyers after you the instant you started. Just because, they believe that it is always necessary, unless they are doing it, then they can check it out.
BTW Mike, the dept for this post is hilarious!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Specious Argument At Best
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Specious Argument At Best
Nobody is saying that Disney is breaking any law, just that they are being hypocritical.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Huh?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Brian / specific characters
But Mickey Mouse is a specific character, not a concept or a format.
And? There have been Sherlock Holmes stories published by authors other than Doyle. There are perhaps hundreds of Star Trek novels written by people other than Roddenberry. Characters are fair game to be recycled after a certain point. Why should Disney and Mickey Mouse be special?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Huh?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Huh?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Non-point
And the Hunchback of Notre-Dame is based on a novel by famous 19th century French author Victor Hugo, yet he was NOT credited in the american version because "Americans don't know and don't care", but they did credit him in the French version, because they knew French people would get cross if they didn't...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment