How does this artist get away with ripping off Disney?

[EUROPACL]

Originality is based on independent creation, not novelty. One can independently create something similar to what is in the public domain and it is protected by copyright. Novelty, unlike with patents, plays no role in copyright protection.

Ok I've grown tired of this, you are talking in circles now. You, mousefun and his "friend" can worry about Disney's copyright on two pictures that aren't the same.

 

[fwm]

Ok I've grown tired of this, you are talking in circles now. You, mousefun and his "friend" can worry about Disney's copyright on two pictures that aren't the same.

Actually, I am not worried about Disney's copyright (I never referred to Disney in my posts). That is their problem.

I was responding to clarify what is and is not protected by copyright law. As long as their is going to be a discussion it may as well be discussed accurately.

 

[Tink's Tormentor]

To be fair the wings on the statue are different, the robe, the hair, no headband and the bird are different too. I have a feeling this is a popular statue of the time and is in the public domain already.

Yes, you are right... At first glance, I did not notice the headband, bird, hair, and robe.... I think you may be right that this kind of statue is already in public domain.... And if in public domain, there are NO copyright infringements....

 

[fwm]

Yes, you are right... At first glance, I did not notice the headband, bird, hair, and robe.... I think you may be right that this kind of statue is already in public domain.... And if in public domain, there are NO copyright infringements....

Under copyright law, a "kind" of statue would not be in the public domain, but rather specific statues. Copyright does not protect an idea, but rather the expression. Thus even a similar statue if created independently is protected and can be infringed.

 

[Dznefreek]

If I remember correctly and an item is altered by more than 26% from the original object it is not considered infringement.

 

[fwm]

If I remember correctly and an item is altered by more than 26% from the original object it is not considered infringement.

That is not correct. There is no hard and fast rule.

 

[EUROPACL]

So who gets to enforce all those copyrights on paintings of The Last Supper, David, Thinking Man, Statue of Liberty, Lady Justice Statue, The Discus Thrower, Savannah Bird Girl Statue.... and on and on.

 

[Dznefreek]

That is not correct. There is no hard and fast rule.

So your degeree is in copyrights. . . .



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3. Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used of the Copyrighted Work[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The third factor analyzes the amount and substantiality of the copying in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. The crucial determination is whether the quality and value of the material copied from the original copyrighted work is "reasonable" in relation to the purpose of copying. Regretfully, there is no black and white rule that sets forth an absolute ratio or quantity of words that may be used of the original work that would ensure a finding of fair use. Instead there have been circumstances where a court has found that the use of an entire work was fair use while under different circumstances the use of a small fraction of a work failed to qualify as a fair use. This factor not only evaluates the quantity that has been copied but also the quality and importance of the copied material. The courts when analyzing this factor evaluate whether the user of the original copyrighted material has taken any more of the original work than was necessary to achieve the purpose for which the material was copied from the original work. [/FONT]

 

[fwm]

So your degeree is in copyrights. . . .



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3. Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used of the Copyrighted Work[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The third factor analyzes the amount and substantiality of the copying in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. The crucial determination is whether the quality and value of the material copied from the original copyrighted work is "reasonable" in relation to the purpose of copying. Regretfully, there is no black and white rule that sets forth an absolute ratio or quantity of words that may be used of the original work that would ensure a finding of fair use. Instead there have been circumstances where a court has found that the use of an entire work was fair use while under different circumstances the use of a small fraction of a work failed to qualify as a fair use. This factor not only evaluates the quantity that has been copied but also the quality and importance of the copied material. The courts when analyzing this factor evaluate whether the user of the original copyrighted material has taken any more of the original work than was necessary to achieve the purpose for which the material was copied from the original work. [/FONT]

No, there is no such thing. But I do it for a living.

The citation relates to the defense of fair use which applies in only certain circumstances. This is not one of them.

Europacl, perhaps you should read what I said previously. Or should I say it twice?

 

[Dznefreek]

No, there is no such thing. But I do it for a living.
The citation relates to the defense of fair use which applies in only certain circumstances. This is not one of them.

That explains your passion . . . .I do not care either way . . .

 

[paulh]

i would expect any time soon a french aristocrat fille a writ re design of castle,saying it looks like theres
Paulh

 

[DancingBear]

fwm, thanks for the input.

 

[mousefun]

Ok.....

Everyone is right. I am wrong. He did not copy the pearl. The fact that it orogonally looked like this, then all of the sudden he changed the statue, is noooo evidence that he copied the Pearl. None at all.........

 

[mousefun]

whatever

 

[Maza]

hate to butt in ,mid fight...but the maritime museums in Southampton, Plymouth, Bristol...and many many other British coastal cities/towns/villages, have DOZENS of pictures/models and actual bits , of ships that look like the black pearl! The figurehead used was a popular design in the UK in the 17th, 18th and 19th century. Disney probably dont own the 'rights' to sole use of the image. In the UK once something is 50 years old or more it enters the public domain. I will try and find out if the figurehead has a name-they often did!