Question on Disney copyright-free images/drawings

[Claudia1]

How can I find Disney copyright-free images or drawings to use for a publication? We don't want to receive a "cease & desist" order from the Disney legal eagles but would like to use some drawings & designs ofr characters.

I believe that I can use my own photographs for personal gain but what about other images? Is Mickey the only copyrighted character?

There are soooooooo many unofficial books on the market about Disney with Disney characters in them. How do they get around the legal issues?

Thanks!

 

[Feralpeg]

I'm pretty sure all the Disney characters are copyrighted.

 

[safetymom]

Disney has protected all their characters. They are very very fussy about people using them in their own creations. Many graphic programs that have the Disney characters in them only allow you to use them in that program and you can't copy and paste into something else.

You are out of luck if you want to use them in a publication.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Usually any images put up for FREE use--are for only personal use.

Unofficial books means that Disney did not sanction them. HOwever purchasing an image for use for personal gain doesn't mean that Disney now recognizes them as "official". So chances are that those images were purchased and the authors of the books were free and clear to use them for those publications.

 

[VSL]

Maybe you could try buying some images off www.gettyimages.com ?

I believe that all the Disney characters and designs are copyrighted. I think that they have it so that whatever their animators draw is automatically copyrighted to Disney (or something like that).

 

[bicker]

That's pretty much the case with every company, these days: Anything anyone creates in their job as an employee is owned by their employer.

 

[VSL]

That's pretty much the case with every company, these days: Anything anyone creates in their job as an employee is owned by their employer.

Didn't that happen with the guy who invented post-it notes?
I'm sure I heard that somewhere.

 

[bicker]

I'm not sure I'd say that it "happened" to the guy who invented Post-It notes. It's what we agree to in exchange for our salary.

 

[Galahad]

I'm not sure I'd say that it "happened" to the guy who invented Post-It notes. It's what we agree to in exchange for our salary.

Exactly. in one previous job, i can measure pretty closely how much money my company made from software that I developed. I think I got a nice polo shirt out of the deal (and a good review I suppose).

 

[tuckerkeys]

this is true. disney is copyrited and can not be reproduced (legally). we own a sign company and on a weekly basis i have people coming in asking me for a Mickey for their boat, etc etc........unless the person has DRAWN the character themselves ( then it is their intrepretation of the character) , then we will not reproduce it for them. The chances of anything happening to us are slim to none, but we are a reputable company and do not want to take any chances of copyrite infringement. In addition to this creative liscense, anything we create for a customer artwork wise is owned by US until they pay us for the design. Then it is owned by the customer & they can use it at free will. good luck finding something, maybe you know someone who can sketch something for you?

 

[Geoff_M]

Anything anyone creates in their job as an employee is owned by their employer.

The legal term for this concept is "work for hire". Our laws recognize that if an employer provides you with the workspace, and/or materials, and compensation for performing a task, any "fruits" from the tasks of that employment belongs to the employer.

Normally, as for the clip art question, there is no legal way to use any Disney character in a commercial manner without the consent of Disney. If it's recognizable as a Disney character, it won't fly legally. However, you said for use in a "publication". Copyright laws grants "fair use" exemption for "editorial" use. Editorial use implies use in a news periodical. Newpaper, newletter, annual book, etc. For example, if you were writing an article for publication in a neighborhood newletter, or small newspaper, about WDW trip planning, then you'd be legally within your rights to add a couple Disney characters along with the article. Prior permission would not be needed.

 

[ChibiJones]

I believe that I can use my own photographs for personal gain but what about other images? Is Mickey the only copyrighted character?

I was told in my copyright classes that anything pre-1923 is now considered to be in the public domain. After that, it gets a bit complicated.

This is also an area where trademark law bleeds into copyright law since Disney's characters also act as trademarks, especially Mickey. Even if fair use under copyright law were applicable, there is a chance that you could be liable for trademark infringement instead.

I would try to contact Disney's marketing or PR department. They would probably be able to provide stock photographs or grant you a license to use your images. That way, you would have permission and no worries. I'd be willing to bet that is what the unofficial guides do.

 

[Geoff_M]

I was told in my copyright classes that anything pre-1923 is now considered to be in the public domain. After that, it gets a bit complicated.

The rules changed in recent years. Law used to grant protection of "Life of the creator, plus 50 years". However, in large part due to Disney, a few years ago Congress changed the law to offer longer protection... now "Life, plus 70". Disney succeded in keeping early Mickey Mouse cartoons such as "Steamboat Willie" from going "public domain" in 2003.

This is also an area where trademark law bleeds into copyright law since Disney's characters also act as trademarks, especially Mickey. Even if fair use under copyright law were applicable, there is a chance that you could be liable for trademark infringement instead.

This would only apply if the use could be argued as creating confusion with consumers. The intent of trademark law is to prevent Company X from trying to pass off its products as coming from Company Y. If the OP wants to write a children's book of "Cinderella" and the drawings in the book bore a striking similarity to the Disney film, or the cover make it look as if it were a Disney product... then it'd be a trademark issue.

I'd be willing to bet that is what the unofficial guides do.

Actually, traditionally the "Unofficial" guide used no Disney images. However, since they are an annual publication, they would fall under editorial use if challenged. The courts treat an annual publication no different than an daily newspaper... all that matters is if they are a "periodical".

It boils down the to nature of the "publication". If it's a "editorial" publication, there would be no copyright issue, and only trademark concerns if it appeared that the work was a Disney product. That's protected by law. However, if it's a non-editorial publication, then permission would be needed.

 

[bicker]

There are other conditions on Fair Use, beyond "editorial" nature.

 

[Geoff_M]

Yes, you are correct. One consideration is the amount of work used. I cannot reproduce an entire work, such as a poem, book, etc. in a periodical under the banner of "fair use".

Other considerations in determining "fair use" are:
- Purpose of Use (Educational vs. Editorial vs. Commercial)
- Nature of the Work
- The Use's Effect on the Work's Value

The OP asked about using some character clip-art in a "publication". There is a legal fork in the road with two options:
1) The "publication" is editorial in nature... If so, given that it appears the use would be limited in nature, no explicit permission from Disney would be needed. This would be the case for use in newspapers, magazine, and other periodicals.
2) The "publication" is non-editorial in nature... If so, an "OK" would be needed from Disney before the use.

 

[Quinn222]

All Disney images are copyrighted, you are not going to find any you can use for commercial purposes. You cannot even sell a photo you took yourself of Cinderella Castle to a photo agency. As I found out when reading the legal fine print on the contract agreement with a stock photo agency I belong to.

 

[bicker]

One aspect of fair use, as Geoff mentioned, is that you cannot reproduce a full work. In many cases the characters are protected individually, so it can be argued that each one consitutes a full work, and therefore cannot be used, even in editorial works, without permission.

Also, it is generally held that the "editorial nature" pertains not to the publication, but to the usage of the copyrighted work, i.e., the publication must be commenting on the picture. It cannot be simply a tangential image intended only to attract attention to the editorial remarks about something other than the image.