Take what you can, give nothing back. Apparently.
Disney should be allowed to protect their interests within the applicable laws.
Which is a reference to the Lion King, one of the mouse’s 2d classics, which is also one of their most egregious derivative works.
But in Hamlet Shakespeare kills everyone; while in The Lion King, Walt disnae.
Here's a nearly 3 hour video from someone whose Special Interest is The Lion King where he researches the claims that it's ripping off Kimba.
If you don't want to watch it, the original kimba series was 52 episodes and only bears a superficial resemblance to The Lion King.
_MANY_ of the most egregious examples are actually from the 1997 Kimba movie released as Jungle Emperor Leo which came out after The Lion King.
lion king 1 1/2 was fantastic tho
I think the visual/contextual similarities with the original manga/anime run do in fact point more plainly to the reality of the mouses' relationship with their public domain reworks.
That is, what they did exactly exemplifies excellent use of the public domain. They did more than just updated reproductions of the original works. They used the public domain as a starting point, an inspiration, but told their own stories; often wildly different from their source, like, where I mention elsewhere, The Little Mermaid.
The problem focused on should be that while they benefited from having access to these works in the public domain they have spent time and resources to ensure others are unable to do the same with work they have financial control over that should have long been included in the public domain.
12 more years, I guess.
But go ahead and pretend that this is the same as the cheap-ass behavior of some stoned pirate who can't bring himself to pay for content and uses Lessig as a justification for his thievery.
And "Steamboat Bill" didn't?
I fail to see the difference outside of the fact that Grimm et. Al didn't have a small army OF lawyers to say otherwise.
It's just wrong for the pro piracy crowd to use this as an excuse to justify their theft.
Theft is taking something away from someone. Copying by definition doesn't. Pretending it's equivalent to, or even similar to, "theft" is ridiculous.
and
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-105publ147
If the terminology is good enough for the DoJ and Congress, it’s good enough for an internet forum.
I don’t like this movement to memoryhole the debate we had in the ‘90s through wordsmithing.
My main point wasn't really about modern pirates. The internet cabal will define however they want to fit their own notions.
It was more about artists treated as "thieves" by companies like Disney that themselves have done "copyright infringement" to get themselves off the ground (by the definition they defined over the past century).
Maybe you should take a second read of the original, Grimm's version.