Did Disney's The Lion King Rip Off an Old Japanese TV Series? (1999)
straightdope.com
straightdope.com
FTFY. Also http://artlawjournal.com/mickey-mouse-keeps-changing-copyrig...
I got the legal thing from the article so not sure if its accurate or not. And also if you don't let other do the same with your work then your own excuse don't hold anyway.
But the real kicker is that Disney made their fortune from leeching stories from the public domain: The Little Mermaid, Sleeping Beauty, Jungle Book, etc.
Which I guess answers the question about whether you can have your cake and eat it. In Disney's case, you can.
Non-creative works of the same fallacy include the Lincoln/Kennedy comparison, the one book (can't remember the name) that seemed to predict the sinking of the Titanic decades earlier, and the various Nostradamus "predictions". Also see the Birthday Paradox.
Yes, but creators will typically only be aware of a few thousand. And the Disney staff had indeed watched the original.
Just found a discussion on that topic on IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110357/board/thread/235177489 I hope that the discussion in this actual thread is not going to end like that :-)
Try to create a similar tribute to Disney's intellectual property, then explain it to their lawyers. Here's what happened with deadmau5: http://consequenceofsound.net/2014/09/disney-attempts-to-blo...
But, technical point, the Joel Zimmerman thing is trademark law, and not copyright law. There is a big difference between the amount of original work and money Disney put into producing Lion King (with or without inspiration from Osamu Tezuka) and how much work it takes to draw 3 black circles in Illustrator and exporting as SVG. I mean, Lion King was based around the idea of "tell Hamlet with lions", which, as an idea, isn't even copyrightable. Combined with the original lines (in fact, even the language was different), original music, original songs, vastly different coloring, different camera angles, mostly different scenes, etc., it'd be a very hard case for any copyright lawyer to win in court.
That's not to say Disney's lawyers wouldn't try their hardest to prosecute if the tables were turned on them; they would and they did. But it's unfair to merely say Disney copyright lawyers are the scum of the earth, when the truth is closer to that all copyright lawyers (and judges) are the scum of the earth - that is, they all labor under what has become a terrible system of laws that, through a select few awful decisions, have come to oppress creativity in the interest of protecting existing corporation rather than foster improvement.
I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and Disney was just being sincere. With permission I am sure if it indeed was based on the original Kimba show.
Kimba..Simba.. Nope can't see any coincidences there.
But you make an excellent point: There's not really any originality left in the arts. It's all been done before.
I find it interesting that the HN community is usually deeply anti-copyright until they're own works or the works they like are used seemingly without permission. Then we all become copyright nannies and strict copyright lawyers. This is why I think IP reform will never truly work. We're all to hypocritical about it. We want to use Disney's stuff but we don't want to let Disney use anyone else's. If the stuff that someone else owns is more valuable that ours we want it. When someone takes something of value from us, we freak out. That isn't politics, that's just envy and theft.
I saw reddit take down a site that was using some redditors clip-art without permission, most likely accidentately. The outrage and DDOS was unbelievable for a place where "free culture" is the norm. It seems like there is no real anti-copyright movement, at least an organized one. Just a disorganized group engaging in hypocritical self-interest under the guise of "political reformer."
Shame really, 10+ years ago, it seemed guys like Lessig were making progress and we were just one SCOTUS ruling from change. If anything, we're farther from reform than ever now.
Generally, I'd say the anti-copyright community gets angry when it is copyright advocates that commit copyright infringement. It doesn't really have to do with whether they like the infringed work - but when the very people who are actively working on maintaining, or even worsening the copyright situation (such as Disney) get away with infringing it leaves a very bitter taste, and is hard to forgive.
People get angry when it is OK for Disney to break the law and make millions doing so, while a random kid doing it on a much smaller scale without earning a dime gets fined into oblivion. The hypocrisy and the injustice is worse than the crime itself.
Which is why I don't give a shit about Disney ripping of kimba in this case. Tezuka is/was a media giant in Japan and the Lion King didn't really do anything to harm the Kimba IP financially anyway.
The truth is intellectual property is not real property, and therefore has no legitimate claim for protection in a capitalist society. That's the principle, property rights for property. Be it Disney or whomever.
This is true in the sense that intellectual property is a subcategory of intangible personal property which is a subcategory of personal property, which is a different and mutually exclusive subcategory of "property" from real property.
But I suspect that you are using "real property" to mean something other than what that term means in discussing categories of property (since otherwise you'd be arguing that all personal property is inconsistent with capitalism, which only makes sense if you've gotten capitalism confused with a particularly extreme form of communism.) But I don't know exactly what you do mean by "real property", and I think you would do well to define what you mean by it (and maybe choose a term that doesn't already have a clear and well-understood meaning in the context of property) and explain why that thing is the only thing with a "legitimate claim for protection in a capitalist society".
(And then, for bonus points, explain what relevance being the only thing with a "legitimate claim for protection a capitalist society" should even be relevant in any modern mixed economy, all of which have made the conscious choice to deviate in some important ways from pure capitalist notions of property rights.)
For instance, if you print a computer file, the sheet of paper with the data on it is real property because it's a material thing in the world. The file on the computer is not real property because it is not a material thing in the real world that you can carry around - you can put it on a flash drive and carry that around, but not the bytes or the letters that make up that data.
Even if you could carry the bytes around (let's say for the sake of the nitpickers) in your hand without a flash drive, just the bytes, then only those bytes would be property, but the information those bytes represent is never property because the information anything represents is purely conceptual; not inherently material, but something that comes from the interpretation of material things. So I'd be free to arrange my own bytes in the same way you arranged your bytes, if you happen to publish your arrangement in any way, and you could not sue me for some bogus "copyright" claim since you have your bytes and I have mine, and you'd impinge on my right if you told me I can't arrange my bytes in a certain way because you've arranged yours that way first.
Capitalism can only concern itself with real, material property because one can only possess material things. IT is not possible, really, to possess an interpretation of something material (unless you never tell anyone, like Coca-Cola does, but they do not rely on law for their trade secret to be enforced, they simply don't tell anyone).
Voyage and Return, Overcoming the Monster, Rags to Riches, The Hero's Quest, Rebirth/Bildungsroman, Comedy, Tragedy.
Probably because Shakespeare was white.
A good example of this article just trying to trick people into thinking that it is a rip off if that cliff dangling comparison. In truth, Kimba is actually just trying to climb out of a small hole with a spiked trap at the bottom of it, and the female lioness herself gets herself caught in trouble soon after that.
A lot of these comparisons are pretty much just a classic case of grabbing similar looking screen captures, and pairing them together out of context to fool people into thinking the scenes themselves are exactly alike.
I have no doubt that Kimba played some influence very early on in production, but plot-wise, they're significantly different at the end of it. This old article really needs to have a bullet put its head. It's caused so much damage and warped the whole thing into an unnecessary "rip off" controversy.
Look at industries that aren't protected by copyright, like fashion. There is a lot of progress and change in that industry because it's legal to borrow from other people's ideas while still making a unique work.
Scientific progress is another area that requires the sharing of knowledge and ideas freely in order for all of society to benefit and progress.
I'm not convinced that borrowing, even heavily, from someone else to make a new work is a bad thing as seems to be the implication in this article.
General Disarray: "Simpsons did it! Simpsons did it!" Mr. Stotch: "That's it! Butters, you are grounded for plagiarism! Go to your room!"
Fuck it, I don't give a shit. It's painfully lazy headline writing like every other commercial site on the web and it has made Hacker News as fucking useless as the articles it links to...
Leaving comments like this is painfully lazy writing, if you can call it writing at all, and it has helped make Hacker News as fucking useless as you are.
This won't have been down to a storyboarder or artist going "mwahahaha, appropriate the things", rather down to execs going "hey guys... you know... I was thinking it'd be neat if like the daddy lion appeared in clouds like a ghost... above a pointy rock or something. Left a bit. Slope it more. Give the baddie lion a scar or something. Hey, hyenas are evil, let's use hyenas as a sort of critical greek chorus.". This is apparently largely what happened with DS9 - "hey, it'd be great if there were like, some aliens or something, and if we had long expansive plot arcs... and let's make it on a space station. with a bar. and hookers. and blackjack. ok, forget the hookers and the blackjack.".
Typically, the people who are doing the ripping off have absolutely no idea that this is what they're doing. Talk to a web developer who, after the event, realises he's been made to clone a site through drip-fed inference by their client.
Did Paramount see that B5 was in development and decide, "we need a space station show too"? Yes. Are the two series especially comparable? No. There's ten times as much similarity between the backstory to Star Trek: The Next Gemeration and the writings of the Argentine Marxist J. Posadas, who believed that nuclear war on Earth (World War III in TNG) would inevitably lead to visitation from benevolent communist aliens (first contact with the Vulcans, as shown in Star Trek: First Contact) who would usher in a utopian paradise of communism (as repeatedly established in TNG, where Picard gives passionate speeches about people no longer caring about accumulating wealth and that there's no money in the future).
But back to the point with Kimba: the article I jj posted in the comments repeatedly mentions references to the notion that Disney was explicitly working on an adaptation to Kimba until their effort to get the rights fell through, to storyboard artists using stills of Kimba as points of reference and to quotes from people involved in the project implying that it was an adaptation.