Re: ELDRED

Re: ELDREDLinda,

I do not believe I am the only one to disagree with you that Disney makes definitive versions of Public Domain stories. Disney's Cinderella comes nowhere near to being the best version of the story - it is simply the 'cutest.' And I do not mean that in an entirely good way. It's cutesy and most certainly made for an audience of children. The story, in their version, becomes limited by that. Rogers & Hammerstein's version is a classic adult version of the story and my personal favorite is Ever After.

The other stories they do are no different. Rudyard Kipling's book is the best version of The Jungle Book, etc and so on. I can't think of a single Public Domain story where Disney's version is the best.

Susan Aker

• Original Message ----- From: Linda Gruber To: Multiple recipients of list Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 7:09 AM Subject: Re: ELDRED

  on 1/23/03 9:03 PM, cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org at cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org wrote:

  Keith Tabor wrote:

    The creative genius of Disney is in taking others     works and remaking them. (Beauty and the Beast and     Sleeping Beauty fall in there with Cinderella.) Why     should they be protected from others doing the same     with their works?

  Yes, Disney puts its stamp upon previously existing works. However, Disney   does a lot more than republish the work. It takes a story and breathes life into   it by animating it, and that's no small accomplishment. Disney's investment in the   creative works which illustrate the fairy tales is huge. Their marketing is amazing.   Their distribution is worldwide yet restrained. Disney is smart enough to pull works   off the market periodically to prevent overexposure and to introduce other products   in a less saturated marketplace.

  Disney does its job so well that no artist could illustrate the story of Cinderella without   being unfavorably compared to Disney. In the public's mind, Disney's Cinderella will   always be the "real" Cinderella. Children's genre illustrators concentrate, instead, on trying   to create new characters with a unique hook in the hope of attracting licensees. Precious   Moments, Holly Hobby, Scooby Doo, Barney, and Barbie are just a few examples that   compete with Cinderella and other Disney characters in some of the same merchandising arenas.

  It's not about protecting Disney. It's about allowing capitalism and copyrights to work as the   engine of progress. I think there is a greater need to maintain balance since we've entered an age in   which everyone can be a worldwide publisher/distributor of currently valuable works that enter   the public domain.

    As to the lack of enforcement powers, see any     discussion of the DMCA. There are imense powers     available, at least for now.

  The DMCA is not much help to a digital artist except in cases where the website owner no longer   answers email. Then, at least, it's a way to prevent further infringement, at the expense of additional   paperwork and time. Most infringers will remove the work as soon as they are told, so I avoid   invoking the DMCA unless I don't get an answer to my emails. DMCA or no DMCA, I still have   to spend my time and money if I want to take the infringer to court. Most of the time, it turns out to   be a child or young mother who doesn't have money to pay if I took them to court.

  Linda Gruber
  Novel Art
  http://www.novelart.com

    From: Keith Tabor <ket354[_at_]yahoo.com>     Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 05:45:00 -0800 (PST)     To: cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org
    Subject: Re: ELDRED

    Disney is merely a lightning rod in this debate. The     effects of this decision reach much further than the     cluttered shelf of Mickey Mouse remakes of your     nightmares.

    Adressing that fear of yours though, neither     Cinderella nor Peter Pan are Disney creations.     Cinderella is a public domain story that Disney     capitalized on, read that as a remake of the sort you     so fear. Peter Pan was made with the approval of the     Great Orman Street Childrens Hospital of London (if my     memory serves me), who has a perpetual copyright,     under English law at least.

    The creative genius of Disney is in taking others     works and remaking them. (Beauty and the Beast and     Sleeping Beauty fall in there with Cinderella.) Why     should they be protected from others doing the same     with their works?

    As to the lack of enforcement powers, see any     discussion of the DMCA. There are imense powers     available, at least for now.

    Keith

• Linda Gruber <linda[_at_]novelart.com> wrote:
  > Hello Ivan,
  >
  > I completely agree with you. The CTEA was a good
  > thing. The Supreme Court
  > made a wise decision.
  >
  > In most cases, incredible effort and money is spent
  > on creating and
  > marketing original creations for only a little
  > return. Volumes of creations
  > are produced by a sole creator before one may
  > finally make an impact in the
  > marketplace. It takes a lot of incentive for
  > creators to keep plugging away
  > on their challenging career paths.
  >
  > In this digital age, there are abundant ways for a
  > work to be infringed
  > before a creator has a chance to market it
  > successfully. There is precious
  > little in the way of prevention or help provided
  > when an infringement
  > occurs. It's not like I can call a policeman and
  > swear out a complaint. I
  > can't call up my insurance agent and report the
  > damage either. Pursuit of
  > infringers generally depends on the time and the
  > funds available. I have to
  > be both detective and enforcer. It comes down to a
  > choice between spending
  > my efforts and money on tracking down infringers or
  > creating and marketing
  > more work. And as you said, the digital age has
  > introduced new venues for
  > revenue which creators and their heirs ought to be
  > entitled to exploit.
  > Current copyright holders should be given a chance
  > to release their works in
  > eBook format or on CD etc. before anyone else gets
  > to capitalize on their
  > creations in those markets.
  >
  > Personally, I shudder to think of Disney's
  > Cinderella, Peter Pan, etc.
  > entering the public domain at all in today's
  > climate. Famously successful
  > copyrights such as Disney's will have thousands of
  > digital publishers and
  > manufacturers eager to flood the market with
  > republished works, remixed
  > animations and films, revised stories, and rehashed
  > merchandise.
  > Furthermore, I think it is outrageous that
  > publishers and manufacturers
  > could both capitalize on and compete with Disney's
  > current and ongoing
  > creative and marketing efforts while paying nothing
  > for the product which
  > they got only because of Disney's efforts. In my
  > opinion, such rampant
  > distribution wouldn't further progress much at all.
  > It would drastically
  > reduce the incentive to create new, original works
  > in the children's genre
  > because the marketplace would be so jammed full. If
  > there were already forty
  > remixed children's movies being released by
  > filmmakers who have used
  > Disney's animations from the public domain, who
  > would want to compete with
  > an original, expensively produced, new animation?
  > Prices would be far too
  > depressed while demand would be nearly non existent.
  >
  > Linda Gruber
  > Novel Art
  > http://www.novelart.com
  >
  > on 1/20/03 9:03 PM, : Ivan Hoffman
  > <ivan[_at_]ivanhoffman.com>wrote:
  >
  > I completely support the decision. Intellectual
  > property is today's means
  > of production and the source of wealth in the world
  > today. You just have
  > to look at the top 10 richest people in the world to
  > see that. A hundred
  > years ago, the source of wealth might have been
  > steel mills etc. Later, the
  > source of wealth might have been real estate and the
  > like. Today, the
  > source of wealth is IP. Ownership of IP rights is
  > essential if your goal
  > is to be successful and wealthy. That is the reason
  > I constantly stress
  > the need to "own everything."
  >
  > Thus, any laws that protect the creative process,
  > even well into the
  > future, I support. In today's world, and presumably
  > in tomorrow's, media
  > has many diverse formats. A quick scan of cable
  > television, as but one
  > example, reveals the long term potential of IP
  > rights of old television
  > shows, music etc. Rights of creators should be
  > viewed with that diversity
  > in mind. What level of protection might have
  > existed 50 or so years ago
  > seems to me to be irrelevant. As both a creator
  > myself and an attorney who
  > has represented creatives throughout all of my over
  > 29 years of practicing
  > law, I believe that if you do not at least wake up
  > every day believing that
  > what you are going to create is going to have that
  > kind of potential, it
  > makes it hard to justify the act of creating the
  > same. Clearly not
  > everything is going to have those "legs" but if any
  > of us knew what was or
  > was not going to last, we'd be in another line of
  > work. Thus, those
  > creating creativity should make the assumption that
  > what they are creating
  > is going to be valuable for a long time and thus the
  > longevity of
  > protection should be at least part of the motivation
  > for such creation.
  >
  > Those interested can read "What Business Are You
  > In?,"
  > (http://www.ivanhoffman.com/business.html) "Private
  > Laws"
  > (http://www.ivanhoffman.com/private.html) and "The
  > Need for Vision"
  > (http://www.ivanhoffman.com/vision.html) on my site.
  >
  >
  > IVAN HOFFMAN, B.A., J.D.
  > Attorney at Law
  > Lawyering With Integrity
  > Internet Law, Publishing Law, Copyrights,
  > Trademarks, Fine Art Law,
  > Corporate Training and Online Education Law, Web
  > Design Law, Music Law. *A
  > 7 Times Award Winning Site.*
  > http://www.ivanhoffman.com
  

  > Received on Mon Jan 27 2003 - 16:42:47 GMT