"Disney and Universal sue AI firm Midjourney over images"
<https://www.google.com/search?q=midjourney+"a+bottomless+pit+of+plagiarism">
PKB??
On 6/13/2025 11:24 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 15:49:55 -0000 (UTC), Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
"Disney and Universal sue AI firm Midjourney over images"
<https://www.google.com/search?q=midjourney+"a+bottomless+pit+of+plagiarism">
PKB??
The link is to a Google search result. "PKB" does not occur on it, at
least not here.
Perhaps it would help if you specified the actual article (there are
at least four, possibly more) in which "PKB" occurs.
Most of what I am finding for "PKB" is from chemistry. I have doubts
about that being relevant.
PKB -> Pot. Kettle. Black.
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 17:00:53 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:24 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 15:49:55 -0000 (UTC), Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
"Disney and Universal sue AI firm Midjourney over images"
<https://www.google.com/search?q=midjourney+"a+bottomless+pit+of+plagiarism">
PKB??
The link is to a Google search result. "PKB" does not occur on it, at
least not here.
Perhaps it would help if you specified the actual article (there are
at least four, possibly more) in which "PKB" occurs.
Most of what I am finding for "PKB" is from chemistry. I have doubts
about that being relevant.
PKB -> Pot. Kettle. Black.
That at least makes sense. If Disney/Pixar is in the plagiarism
business, that is.
Not that I am expressing an opinion about whether or not Midjourney's
AI is plagiaristic, BTW.
On 6/14/2025 8:28 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 17:00:53 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:24 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 15:49:55 -0000 (UTC), Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
"Disney and Universal sue AI firm Midjourney over images"
<https://www.google.com/search?q=midjourney+"a+bottomless+pit+of+plagiarism">
PKB??
The link is to a Google search result. "PKB" does not occur on it, at
least not here.
Perhaps it would help if you specified the actual article (there are
at least four, possibly more) in which "PKB" occurs.
Most of what I am finding for "PKB" is from chemistry. I have doubts
about that being relevant.
PKB -> Pot. Kettle. Black.
That at least makes sense. If Disney/Pixar is in the plagiarism
business, that is.
Not that I am expressing an opinion about whether or not Midjourney's
AI is plagiaristic, BTW.
Disney has long been in the business of taking old classics and
copyrighting them as their own. Many of them not technically
plagiarism, since the originals were never copyrighted. Snow White and Cinderella, to name two off the top of my head.
Winny the Pooh, they bought the rights to, I don't know about Pinocchio
or James and the Giant Peach, though since Dahl was still alive when
they made JatGP, I assume there was some sort of negotiation.
On 2025-06-14 19:05:53 +0000, Tim Merrigan said:
On 6/14/2025 8:28 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 17:00:53 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:24 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 15:49:55 -0000 (UTC), Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
"Disney and Universal sue AI firm Midjourney over images"
<https://www.google.com/search?
q=midjourney+"a+bottomless+pit+of+plagiarism">
PKB??
The link is to a Google search result. "PKB" does not occur on it, at >>>>> least not here.
Perhaps it would help if you specified the actual article (there are >>>>> at least four, possibly more) in which "PKB" occurs.
Most of what I am finding for "PKB" is from chemistry. I have doubts >>>>> about that being relevant.
PKB ->Â Pot. Kettle. Black.
That at least makes sense. If Disney/Pixar is in the plagiarism
business, that is.
Not that I am expressing an opinion about whether or not Midjourney's
AI is plagiaristic, BTW.
Disney has long been in the business of taking old classics and
copyrighting them as their own. Many of them not technically
plagiarism, since the originals were never copyrighted. Snow White
and Cinderella, to name two off the top of my head.
Winny the Pooh, they bought the rights to, I don't know about
Pinocchio or James and the Giant Peach, though since Dahl was still
alive when they made JatGP, I assume there was some sort of negotiation.
Winnie the Pooh itself is no longer copyright (expired in 2022), so
Disney doesn't own those now. Hence the idiotic "Blood and Honey" horror movie version made recently. Disney does still own the copyright to
their version of Winnie the Pooh though.
Similarly, Disney doesn't own the copyrights to the older stoires of Cinderlla, Snow White, Pinocchio, Bambi, etc. Disney only owns the
cpyrights for their own versions of those.
Roald Dahl refused to sell the movie rights for any of his works after
the "saccharine, sappy, and sentimental" mistreatment of the Charlie and
the Chocolate Factory movie with Gene Wilder. After he died, his widow
sold the James and the Giant Peach movie rights to Disney (she offered
them to other movie companies as well, but accepted Disney's agreement)
- she said Roald would have liked the movie, which is doubtful. In 2021
the Dahl family sold the copyrights for all his works to Netflix in 2021
for around US$500million.
On 6/14/2025 4:49 PM, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-14 19:05:53 +0000, Tim Merrigan said:
On 6/14/2025 8:28 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 17:00:53 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:24 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 15:49:55 -0000 (UTC), Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote: >>>>>>
"Disney and Universal sue AI firm Midjourney over images"
<https://www.google.com/search? q=midjourney+"a+bottomless+pit+of+plagiarism">
PKB??
The link is to a Google search result. "PKB" does not occur on it, at >>>>>> least not here.
Perhaps it would help if you specified the actual article (there are >>>>>> at least four, possibly more) in which "PKB" occurs.
Most of what I am finding for "PKB" is from chemistry. I have doubts >>>>>> about that being relevant.
PKB -> Pot. Kettle. Black.
That at least makes sense. If Disney/Pixar is in the plagiarism
business, that is.
Not that I am expressing an opinion about whether or not Midjourney's
AI is plagiaristic, BTW.
Disney has long been in the business of taking old classics and
copyrighting them as their own. Many of them not technically
plagiarism, since the originals were never copyrighted. Snow White and
Cinderella, to name two off the top of my head.
Winny the Pooh, they bought the rights to, I don't know about Pinocchio
or James and the Giant Peach, though since Dahl was still alive when
they made JatGP, I assume there was some sort of negotiation.
Winnie the Pooh itself is no longer copyright (expired in 2022), so
Disney doesn't own those now. Hence the idiotic "Blood and Honey"
horror movie version made recently. Disney does still own the copyright
to their version of Winnie the Pooh though.
Similarly, Disney doesn't own the copyrights to the older stoires of
Cinderlla, Snow White, Pinocchio, Bambi, etc. Disney only owns the
cpyrights for their own versions of those.
Roald Dahl refused to sell the movie rights for any of his works after
the "saccharine, sappy, and sentimental" mistreatment of the Charlie
and the Chocolate Factory movie with Gene Wilder. After he died, his
widow sold the James and the Giant Peach movie rights to Disney (she
offered them to other movie companies as well, but accepted Disney's
agreement) - she said Roald would have liked the movie, which is
doubtful. In 2021 the Dahl family sold the copyrights for all his works
to Netflix in 2021 for around US$500million.
Well, if you're going to sell out at least sell out BIG!
On 6/14/2025 8:28 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 17:00:53 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:24 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 15:49:55 -0000 (UTC), Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
"Disney and Universal sue AI firm Midjourney over images"
<https://www.google.com/search?q=midjourney+"a+bottomless+pit+of+plagiarism">
PKB??
The link is to a Google search result. "PKB" does not occur on it, at
least not here.
Perhaps it would help if you specified the actual article (there are
at least four, possibly more) in which "PKB" occurs.
Most of what I am finding for "PKB" is from chemistry. I have doubts
about that being relevant.
PKB -> Pot. Kettle. Black.
That at least makes sense. If Disney/Pixar is in the plagiarism
business, that is.
Not that I am expressing an opinion about whether or not Midjourney's
AI is plagiaristic, BTW.
Disney has long been in the business of taking old classics and
copyrighting them as their own. Many of them not technically
plagiarism, since the originals were never copyrighted. Snow White and >Cinderella, to name two off the top of my head.
Winny the Pooh, they bought the rights to, I don't know about Pinocchio
or James and the Giant Peach, though since Dahl was still alive when
they made JatGP, I assume there was some sort of negotiation.
On 2025-06-14 19:05:53 +0000, Tim Merrigan said:<original para split>
On 6/14/2025 8:28 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 17:00:53 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:24 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 15:49:55 -0000 (UTC), Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
"Disney and Universal sue AI firm Midjourney over images"
<https://www.google.com/search?q=midjourney+"a+bottomless+pit+of+plagiarism">
PKB??
The link is to a Google search result. "PKB" does not occur on it, at >>>>> least not here.
Perhaps it would help if you specified the actual article (there are >>>>> at least four, possibly more) in which "PKB" occurs.
Most of what I am finding for "PKB" is from chemistry. I have doubts >>>>> about that being relevant.
PKB -> Pot. Kettle. Black.
That at least makes sense. If Disney/Pixar is in the plagiarism
business, that is.
Not that I am expressing an opinion about whether or not Midjourney's
AI is plagiaristic, BTW.
Disney has long been in the business of taking old classics and
copyrighting them as their own. Many of them not technically
plagiarism, since the originals were never copyrighted. Snow White and
Cinderella, to name two off the top of my head.
Winny the Pooh, they bought the rights to, I don't know about Pinocchio
or James and the Giant Peach, though since Dahl was still alive when
they made JatGP, I assume there was some sort of negotiation.
Winnie the Pooh itself is no longer copyright (expired in 2022), so
Disney doesn't own those now. Hence the idiotic "Blood and Honey"
horror movie version made recently. Disney does still own the copyright
to their version of Winnie the Pooh though.
Similarly, Disney doesn't own the copyrights to the older stoires of >Cinderlla, Snow White, Pinocchio, Bambi, etc. Disney only owns the
cpyrights for their own versions of those.
Roald Dahl refused to sell the movie rights for any of his works after
the "saccharine, sappy, and sentimental" mistreatment of the Charlie
and the Chocolate Factory movie with Gene Wilder.
After he died, his
widow sold the James and the Giant Peach movie rights to Disney (she
offered them to other movie companies as well, but accepted Disney's >agreement) - she said Roald would have liked the movie, which is
doubtful. In 2021 the Dahl family sold the copyrights for all his works
to Netflix in 2021 for around US$500million.
On 2025-06-15 00:06:06 +0000, Dimensional Traveler said:
On 6/14/2025 4:49 PM, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-14 19:05:53 +0000, Tim Merrigan said:
On 6/14/2025 8:28 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 17:00:53 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:24 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 15:49:55 -0000 (UTC), Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote: >>>>>>>
"Disney and Universal sue AI firm Midjourney over images"
<https://www.google.com/search?
q=midjourney+"a+bottomless+pit+of+plagiarism">
PKB??
The link is to a Google search result. "PKB" does not occur on
it, at
least not here.
Perhaps it would help if you specified the actual article (there are >>>>>>> at least four, possibly more) in which "PKB" occurs.
Most of what I am finding for "PKB" is from chemistry. I have doubts >>>>>>> about that being relevant.
PKB ->Â Pot. Kettle. Black.
That at least makes sense. If Disney/Pixar is in the plagiarism
business, that is.
Not that I am expressing an opinion about whether or not Midjourney's >>>>> AI is plagiaristic, BTW.
Disney has long been in the business of taking old classics and
copyrighting them as their own. Many of them not technically
plagiarism, since the originals were never copyrighted. Snow White
and Cinderella, to name two off the top of my head.
Winny the Pooh, they bought the rights to, I don't know about
Pinocchio or James and the Giant Peach, though since Dahl was still
alive when they made JatGP, I assume there was some sort of
negotiation.
Winnie the Pooh itself is no longer copyright (expired in 2022), so
Disney doesn't own those now. Hence the idiotic "Blood and Honey"
horror movie version made recently. Disney does still own the
copyright to their version of Winnie the Pooh though.
Similarly, Disney doesn't own the copyrights to the older stoires of
Cinderlla, Snow White, Pinocchio, Bambi, etc. Disney only owns the
cpyrights for their own versions of those.
Roald Dahl refused to sell the movie rights for any of his works
after the "saccharine, sappy, and sentimental" mistreatment of the
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie with Gene Wilder. After he
died, his widow sold the James and the Giant Peach movie rights to
Disney (she offered them to other movie companies as well, but
accepted Disney's agreement) - she said Roald would have liked the
movie, which is doubtful. In 2021 the Dahl family sold the copyrights
for all his works to Netflix in 2021 for around US$500million.
Well, if you're going to sell out at least sell out BIG!
US$500million is peanuts really (probably not even enough to make a
movie of just one of Dahl's books). It cost Disney US$4.05billion to get their hands on the, admittedly far bigger, Star Wars franchise. :-)
Roald Dalh's books are still huge popular and the rights could easily
have been sold for a lot more.
Disney has long been in the business of taking old classics and=20 >>copyrighting them as their own. Many of them not technically=20 >>plagiarism, since the originals were never copyrighted. Snow White and=20 >>Cinderella, to name two off the top of my head.
IANAL, but my understanding of this would be:
1. The stories as such are not copyrighted.
2. A particular book containing the stories may be copyrighted as
regards any essays, notes, illustrations, etc added to the book by its >publisher.
3. A movie based on a book is copyrightable as such, whether the book
was copyrighted or not. Of course, if it was, the rights to make the
movie would have to be acquired.
Winny the Pooh, they bought the rights to, I don't know about Pinocchio
or James and the Giant Peach, though since Dahl was still alive when
they made JatGP, I assume there was some sort of negotiation.
On 6/14/25 3:05 PM, Tim Merrigan wrote:
Winny the Pooh, they bought the rights to, I don't know about Pinocchio
or James and the Giant Peach, though since Dahl was still alive when
they made JatGP, I assume there was some sort of negotiation.
Disney's Pinocchio came out more than half a century after Collodi's
story. Copyrights didn't run as long in those days, and the copyright on
the original story had probably expired.
Disney, however, takes great works and ruins them. That's my objection. >Whoever decided to tack a happy ending on to Hunchback of Notre Dame deserves >to be thrown in the catacombs.
Disney, however, takes great works and ruins them. That's my objection. Whoever decided to tack a happy ending on to Hunchback of Notre Dame deserves to be thrown in the catacombs.
And Disney does not really give credit to the sources... so many people today think Cinderella was originally a Disney story. That is another layer of shame.
[Hal Heydt]
Alternatively, if the story wasn't originally copyrighted in the
US, the US may not have recognized the validity of the copyright.
See, for instance, the reason for the premier of the G&S oparetta
_The Pirates of Penzance_.
20,00 Leagues Under the Sea is a bit of an oddity in that Nemo is much >nastier than in the book, and the ending was changed so that Nemo died >despite surviving until "The Mysterious Island" book-wise. Imagine
that nowadays, where the norm is to leave an opening for sequels.
To counterbalance this, Disney did, of course, add some songs and
slapstick humour via Douglas and Lorre's supporting characters.
Jerry Brown <jerry@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
20,00 Leagues Under the Sea is a bit of an oddity in that Nemo is much >>nastier than in the book, and the ending was changed so that Nemo died >>despite surviving until "The Mysterious Island" book-wise. Imagine
that nowadays, where the norm is to leave an opening for sequels.
That's a Hollywood code thing. Bad people have to come to a bad end at the >end of the movie. You don't see so much of that today, except of course in >Disney films.
To counterbalance this, Disney did, of course, add some songs and
slapstick humour via Douglas and Lorre's supporting characters.
It was so sad to see Lorre in that film. The end of a great actor,
reduced to playing this crap.
Disney has long been in the business of taking old classics and=20 >>>copyrighting them as their own. Many of them not technically=20 >>>plagiarism, since the originals were never copyrighted. Snow White and=20 >>>Cinderella, to name two off the top of my head.
IANAL, but my understanding of this would be:
1. The stories as such are not copyrighted.
2. A particular book containing the stories may be copyrighted as
regards any essays, notes, illustrations, etc added to the book by its >>publisher.
3. A movie based on a book is copyrightable as such, whether the book
was copyrighted or not. Of course, if it was, the rights to make the
movie would have to be acquired.
My objection is not necessarily that they are using old stories from the >public domain. Shakespeare did that.
However, having read both Othello and the story _Un Capitano Moro_ that the >plot was taken from, I think Othello is a far better work. Shakespeare took >a good idea with a mediocre workup and turned it into something great.
Disney, however, takes great works and ruins them. That's my objection. >Whoever decided to tack a happy ending on to Hunchback of Notre Dame deserves >to be thrown in the catacombs.
And Disney does not really give credit to the sources... so many people today >think Cinderella was originally a Disney story. That is another layer of >shame.
On 6/15/2025 11:59 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 12:05:53 -0700, Tim Merrigan <tppm@rr.ca.com>
wrote:
On 6/14/2025 8:28 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 17:00:53 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:24 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 15:49:55 -0000 (UTC), Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote: >>>>>>
"Disney and Universal sue AI firm Midjourney over images"
<https://www.google.com/search?q=midjourney+"a+bottomless+pit+of+plagiarism">
PKB??
The link is to a Google search result. "PKB" does not occur on it, at >>>>>> least not here.
Perhaps it would help if you specified the actual article (there are >>>>>> at least four, possibly more) in which "PKB" occurs.
Most of what I am finding for "PKB" is from chemistry. I have doubts >>>>>> about that being relevant.
PKB -> Pot. Kettle. Black.
That at least makes sense. If Disney/Pixar is in the plagiarism
business, that is.
Not that I am expressing an opinion about whether or not Midjourney's
AI is plagiaristic, BTW.
Disney has long been in the business of taking old classics and
copyrighting them as their own. Many of them not technically
plagiarism, since the originals were never copyrighted. Snow White and
Cinderella, to name two off the top of my head.
IANAL, but my understanding of this would be:
1. The stories as such are not copyrighted.
2. A particular book containing the stories may be copyrighted as
regards any essays, notes, illustrations, etc added to the book by its
publisher.
3. A movie based on a book is copyrightable as such, whether the book
was copyrighted or not. Of course, if it was, the rights to make the
movie would have to be acquired.
Winny the Pooh, they bought the rights to, I don't know about Pinocchio
or James and the Giant Peach, though since Dahl was still alive when
they made JatGP, I assume there was some sort of negotiation.
There was a film about /Mary Poppins/, which had a pretty grim and
somewhat inexplicable backstory, but had the author at the premier
enjoying the film.
'Saving Mr Banks'. 2013. She did, however, hate the animated
penguins.
So you can complain about the ending if you wish, but your complaint
applies to all the movie versions the person doing this could find and >watch.=20
On 6/15/25 4:17 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
[Hal Heydt]
Alternatively, if the story wasn't originally copyrighted in the
US, the US may not have recognized the validity of the copyright.
See, for instance, the reason for the premier of the G&S oparetta
_The Pirates of Penzance_.
Gilbert and Sullivan solved that problem, after losing a lot of
potential royalties, by filing for copyright in the US. To do this, they
had to put on a US production of the operas they wanted to protect.
Tangentially related, but I just happen to have posted a blog article on
it this morning, which I wrote a few days ago: For most of the 18th
century, printed music was considered uncopyrightable in Great Britain. >Johann Christian Bach, the son of Johann Sebastian Bach who had moved to >London, filed a lawsuit against a publisher that established in 1777
that it was copyrightable.
IIRC, at least one attibutes the story to a French author in the
titles.
Disney does appear to prefer the French versions to the German
versions. No evil stepsisters getting their eyes pecked out by birds
in Disney!
Note that most versions of Dracula end in England because they are
based (directly or indirectly through an earlier movie's script) on a
stage play, not the book. And I don't think these are isolated cases.
On 6/16/2025 8:16 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
Note that most versions of Dracula end in England because they are
based (directly or indirectly through an earlier movie's script) on a
stage play, not the book. And I don't think these are isolated cases.
Also, the book is a collection of letters and diary entries, some >"originally" in shorthand. It would be hard to maintain that in a
visual format.
Another novel done similarly is, IIRC, Wilkie Collins' /The Woman in
White/. There were probably others: this is probably a recognized
literary style.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 13:46:07 -0700, Tim Merrigan <tppm@rr.ca.com>
wrote:
Also, the book is a collection of letters and diary entries, some=20 >>"originally" in shorthand. It would be hard to maintain that in a=20 >>visual format.
Another novel done similarly is, IIRC, Wilkie Collins' /The Woman in
White/. There were probably others: this is probably a recognized
literary style.
In the /Dracula/ I have seen, the closest to this is a scene where an
orderly reads a newspaper report about small childern injured by a
"bootiful lady". In the book, IIRC, you just get the newspaper story.
You /could/ do a film of the book with characters reading the various >letters, diaries, etc, but I agree that it would work very well. As
you say, this literary style would be hard to maintain in a visual
format.
Tangentially related, but I just happen to have posted a blog article on
it this morning, which I wrote a few days ago: For most of the 18th
century, printed music was considered uncopyrightable in Great Britain.
Johann Christian Bach, the son of Johann Sebastian Bach who had moved to
London, filed a lawsuit against a publisher that established in 1777
that it was copyrightable.
[Hal Heydt]
IIRC (it gets mentioned on KDFC fairly regularly), JC was the
youngest surviving son of JS. He also gets referenced as "the
London Bach" or "John Bach". There were a *lot* of musical
Bachs...
What other creative categories have no IP protection?
IIRC, neither clothing styles nor culinary recipes have any
protection. You can knock off the shape and material of a
Louis Vuitton handbag, but you'll be in trouble if you include
the 'LV' pattern, which is a trademark.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 13:46:07 -0700, Tim Merrigan <tppm@rr.ca.com>
wrote:
On 6/16/2025 8:16 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
Note that most versions of Dracula end in England because they are
based (directly or indirectly through an earlier movie's script) on a
stage play, not the book. And I don't think these are isolated cases.
Also, the book is a collection of letters and diary entries, some
"originally" in shorthand. It would be hard to maintain that in a
visual format.
Another novel done similarly is, IIRC, Wilkie Collins' /The Woman in
White/. There were probably others: this is probably a recognized
literary style.
In the /Dracula/ I have seen, the closest to this is a scene where an
orderly reads a newspaper report about small childern injured by a
"bootiful lady". In the book, IIRC, you just get the newspaper story.
You /could/ do a film of the book with characters reading the various letters, diaries, etc, but I agree that it would work very well. As
you say, this literary style would be hard to maintain in a visual
format.
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 13:22:48 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:
Disney has long been in the business of taking old classics and=20
copyrighting them as their own. Many of them not technically=20
plagiarism, since the originals were never copyrighted. Snow White and=20 >>>> Cinderella, to name two off the top of my head.
IANAL, but my understanding of this would be:
1. The stories as such are not copyrighted.
2. A particular book containing the stories may be copyrighted as
regards any essays, notes, illustrations, etc added to the book by its
publisher.
3. A movie based on a book is copyrightable as such, whether the book
was copyrighted or not. Of course, if it was, the rights to make the
movie would have to be acquired.
My objection is not necessarily that they are using old stories from the
public domain. Shakespeare did that.
However, having read both Othello and the story _Un Capitano Moro_ that the >> plot was taken from, I think Othello is a far better work. Shakespeare took >> a good idea with a mediocre workup and turned it into something great.
Disney, however, takes great works and ruins them. That's my objection.
Whoever decided to tack a happy ending on to Hunchback of Notre Dame deserves
to be thrown in the catacombs.
When the Disney film came out, on another newsgroup, this point was
raised. One regular disappeared for a week, and reported he had
watched every movie version of /Hunchback/ he could find. The results
(as I recall them):
1. The villain is sometimes split (as in the Disney film) and
sometimes is not (as in the book).
2. Phoebus sometimes dies half-way through (in which case he is
replaced by another character -- no, not Quasimodo) or he makes it to
the end (as in the Disney film).
3. Esmeralda survives in all movie versions (but not in the book,
where she is hanged).
4. The book's ending has never been filmed. For the curious, this
involves a coffin being opened and finding in the skeletons of a young
woman and a horribly deformed man in an embrace.
5. Quasimodo and Esmeralda never end up together; Esmeralda ends up
with Phoebus (if he survived) or his replacement (if he didn't).
The conclusion from this extensive research was:
The only real difference between Disney's version and the other movie versions is -- the talking gargoyles.
So you can complain about the ending if you wish, but your complaint
applies to all the movie versions the person doing this could find and
watch.
IOW, there is an established tradition of how the book is filmed, and
the Disney version stands well within that tradition.
Note that most versions of Dracula end in England because they are
based (directly or indirectly through an earlier movie's script) on a
stage play, not the book. And I don't think these are isolated cases.
This makes a certain amount of sense, as the playwright has already
reduced the story to something that can be shown in a reasonable
length of time.
And Disney does not really give credit to the sources... so many people today
think Cinderella was originally a Disney story. That is another layer of
shame.
IIRC, at least one attibutes the story to a French author in the
titles.
Disney does appear to prefer the French versions to the German
versions. No evil stepsisters getting their eyes pecked out by birds
in Disney!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 148:19:14 |
| Calls: | 10,383 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 14,054 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (1,861K bytes) |
| Messages: | 6,417,740 |