even though there are differences between being inspired to create something, even if somewhat derivative, and visual plagiarism, in the end what matters is what you do with the image.
my best understanding is as follows (however, if it really matters to you, you should take this to your attorney, or an attorney in your area with experience in intellectual property law):
if a woman with red, flowing hair comes to you and ask you to help outfit her to look like merida, you can do that
if she wants a really large print made, you can do that
if you want to put it in your portfolio, on your studio wall, in your studio window, on your website home page, you can do that (although i wouldn't recommend using any verbiage or captioning that referenced the source of the inspiration)
if you wanted to make a handful, say maybe 10, large (4' x 8') canvas prints, signed and numbered by you, you could do that - if your attorney gives you a greenlight
if you wanted to make 1000 postcards or coffee mugs, you should not do that
if a theater group was to put on a play about a young scottish lass coming of age and they wanted to use that image on their playbill and other printed materials, you should not do thatunless your attorney is ok with it
remember: it's not the taking of the image that is the problem - it's the what you do with it that is the problem. and then, even though you - the photographer - can get dragged into it, it's more about the who is doing the what with the image (that is, the publisher/user of the image). if the use is editorial, then the publisher is fairly well protected. if the use is commercial, well, that's where the problems start...
if this is just something you're curious about, the internet is your friend. if this is something you might actually want to do (that is, shoot a bunch of princesses for the purpose of selling the images, or develop a set of backdrops and costumes for girls to come in and dress up as their favorite character for you to photograph them), i wouldn't do it without an ok from my attorney.
I haven't read this carefully -- so this may be completely irrelevant.
Disney is completely insane about their copyrights. Our school put on a play -- Aladdin Jr. -- No pictures could be taken, even during rehearsals, because of disney copyright.
remember: it's not the taking of the image that is the problem - it's the what you do with it that is the problem.
One trigger of infringement is when your output takes money from the copyright holder. If you hang the picture in a gallery, you are not in the same market as Disney. If you put it on a lunchbox or a T-shirt then you are.
The current law is based on Koons V Blanch. In ruling that Koons’s use of the legs from Blanch’s copyrighted picture constituted fair use, the Second Circuit went through a detailed explanation of the four-factor fair use test 1) the purpose and character of use 2) the nature of the copyrighted work 3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used 4) and the effects on the actual or potential market for the work or its derivatives.
Current copyright law is in flux, and if you think the law on photography is bad, take a look at computer software and intellectual property, that is a field day for the lawyers; And as the lawyers like to say " A jury is a group of twelve people assembled to determine who has the better lawyer."
Current copyright law is in flux, and if you think the law on photography is bad, take a look at computer software and intellectual property, that is a field day for the lawyers;
That's patent law, and yes it's a ridiculous mess. Thousands of conflicting software patents that companies can use against each other at will. In fact, there are companies that do nothing else but buy up patents so they can sue other companies.
what totally pisses me off is that most of these so-called Disney characters started life not in Happywood, nor even in Grimmwood, but long before and further afield/awood.
If you notice, many of Disney's modern characters aren't from popular fairy tales anymore, they're 100% created by the company.
Originally posted by tnun:
what totally pisses me off is that most of these so-called Disney characters started life not in Happywood, nor even in Grimmwood, but long before and further afield/awood.
If you notice, many of Disney's modern characters aren't from popular fairy tales anymore, they're 100% created by the company.
Originally posted by tnun:
what totally pisses me off is that most of these so-called Disney characters started life not in Happywood, nor even in Grimmwood, but long before and further afield/awood.
Also, you are free to depict the fairy tale characters, just don't dress/make them up such that they would be easily confused with the Disney depiction/interpretation.
If the snow white is a pale girl with dark hair with an apple, Disney can't touch you but if the costume is the typical yellow/blue dress with red ribbon then they're going to create a fuss if they see the series online.
Cosplay is fine because you aren't selling anything. Infringement requires you to effect or potentially effect the marketplace for the copyright holder. If you start mass producing cosplay costumes and selling them, some lawyer will come around with a big stick and smack you. If you put an image of a cosplayer on a Tshirt and sell a bunch of them, you would probably have crossed the line. If you walk around at FanimeCon in a costume, no one will bother you.
Cosplay is fine because you aren't selling anything. Infringement requires you to effect or potentially effect the marketplace for the copyright holder. If you start mass producing cosplay costumes and selling them, some lawyer will come around with a big stick and smack you. If you put an image of a cosplayer on a Tshirt and sell a bunch of them, you would probably have crossed the line. If you walk around at FanimeCon in a costume, no one will bother you.
Others are not making that distinction.
Originally posted by vawendy:
Disney is completely insane about their copyrights. Our school put on a play -- Aladdin Jr. -- No pictures could be taken, even during rehearsals, because of disney copyright.
This sounds exactly like a school trying to cover it's ass, not one that was threatened by a corporate lawyer. It also does not seem like something a corporation would try and pull. The backlash from the public would be _far_ greater than the value of any IP protected.
Of course corporations have done some pretty mind-boggling things, so it's definitely possible, but I think it's fairly unlikely.
Cosplay is fine because you aren't selling anything. Infringement requires you to effect or potentially effect the marketplace for the copyright holder. If you start mass producing cosplay costumes and selling them, some lawyer will come around with a big stick and smack you. If you put an image of a cosplayer on a Tshirt and sell a bunch of them, you would probably have crossed the line. If you walk around at FanimeCon in a costume, no one will bother you.
Unless you go to Disney World dressed up as Tinkerbell...
You should hear what the Brand Police are doing in London to "protect" the Olympics ... a butcher tries to get in the spirit of things and puts up five rings of sausages -- and is threatened with a $30,000 fine ...
Some time ago, a group of Ford Mustang enthusiasts decided have their customized Mustangs photographed in order to print and sell a calendar as a fundraiser. Ford sued.
You should hear what the Brand Police are doing in London to "protect" the Olympics ... a butcher tries to get in the spirit of things and puts up five rings of sausages -- and is threatened with a $30,000 fine ...
what's wrong with that.
they have a definitive brand that and they dont want people using it. Lot sof people pay big buck to license that brand and letting anyone use it dilutes its value. Many large outfits do it. You can't even use the word "Superbowl" to advertise something for the Superbowl, you need to use "the big game" or something else.
Disney is completely insane about their copyrights. Our school put on a play -- Aladdin Jr. -- No pictures could be taken, even during rehearsals, because of disney copyright.
This sounds exactly like a school trying to cover it's ass, not one that was threatened by a corporate lawyer. It also does not seem like something a corporation would try and pull. The backlash from the public would be _far_ greater than the value of any IP protected.
Of course corporations have done some pretty mind-boggling things, so it's definitely possible, but I think it's fairly unlikely.
Wendy has it right. For a school to mount a play, you have to get the rights to put it on the show. Disney owns several properties that have been on Broadway like the Lion King, Newsies and Beauty and the Beast as well as more junior fare like Little Mermaid, Mulan Jr and Aladin Jr ect.
When you get the rights to put on a Disney show you must observe any restrictions they choose to put in the contract, and Disney has a strict no photography clause. They claim it is to protect their franchise, and control the messaging around their product, but if you balk at such a restriction, you will not be allowed to perform any of their plays. Had the school signed the contract and then allowed photography, and Disney had found those images on the net, the contract would have spelled out how much the penalties would have been, and the school would have had no legal recourse but to pay the fines.
Wendy has it right. For a school to mount a play, you have to get the rights to put it on the show. Disney owns several properties that have been on Broadway like the Lion King, Newsies and Beauty and the Beast as well as more junior fare like Little Mermaid, Mulan Jr and Aladin Jr ect.
When you get the rights to put on a Disney show you must observe any restrictions they choose to put in the contract, and Disney has a strict no photography clause. They claim it is to protect their franchise, and control the messaging around their product, but if you balk at such a restriction, you will not be allowed to perform any of their plays. Had the school signed the contract and then allowed photography, and Disney had found those images on the net, the contract would have spelled out how much the penalties would have been, and the school would have had no legal recourse but to pay the fines.
I was not aware they wrote plays for schools etc. If they really do then I agree about the contract etc.
Wendy has it right. For a school to mount a play, you have to get the rights to put it on the show. Disney owns several properties that have been on Broadway like the Lion King, Newsies and Beauty and the Beast as well as more junior fare like Little Mermaid, Mulan Jr and Aladin Jr ect.
When you get the rights to put on a Disney show you must observe any restrictions they choose to put in the contract, and Disney has a strict no photography clause. They claim it is to protect their franchise, and control the messaging around their product, but if you balk at such a restriction, you will not be allowed to perform any of their plays. Had the school signed the contract and then allowed photography, and Disney had found those images on the net, the contract would have spelled out how much the penalties would have been, and the school would have had no legal recourse but to pay the fines.
I was not aware they wrote plays for schools etc. If they really do then I agree about the contract etc.
That's why so many school plays are Shakespeare...it's old enough to be public domain.
Wendy has it right. For a school to mount a play, you have to get the rights to put it on the show. Disney owns several properties that have been on Broadway like the Lion King, Newsies and Beauty and the Beast as well as more junior fare like Little Mermaid, Mulan Jr and Aladin Jr ect.
When you get the rights to put on a Disney show you must observe any restrictions they choose to put in the contract, and Disney has a strict no photography clause. They claim it is to protect their franchise, and control the messaging around their product, but if you balk at such a restriction, you will not be allowed to perform any of their plays. Had the school signed the contract and then allowed photography, and Disney had found those images on the net, the contract would have spelled out how much the penalties would have been, and the school would have had no legal recourse but to pay the fines.
I was not aware they wrote plays for schools etc. If they really do then I agree about the contract etc.
That's why so many school plays are Shakespeare...it's old enough to be public domain.
