
Disney have stolen my artwork - spideyunlimited
http://katiewoodger.tumblr.com/post/47454350768/disney-have-stolen-my-artwork-i-dont-know-what
======
austenallred
I have worked with Disney's intellectual property teams in the past, and I'm
blown away that this slipped under the radar. They are _very_ up-tight about
protecting their own IP and the brand of their princesses. If this were
somebody selling a T-Shirt on eBay I would say, "Don't worry about it," but
this is Disney. They know better. Their entire business model is based on
intellectual property.

Time to lawyer up.

~~~
clarkevans
Why assume the worst? Wouldn't it be a bit easier to just find the relevant
group and ask them how they'd like to resolve it? If they want to be jerks,
sure, lawyer up. However, it might be a very simple conversation with a much
more positive outcome.

~~~
chris_wot
Disney would immediately lawyer up if the shoe was on the other foot. What's
good for the goose is good for the gander. Disney can't have it both ways!

~~~
mistercow
A company like Disney doesn't really ever lawyer up, because that would imply
that they are ever lawyered down. I have to agree with scott_s on this. You're
in a bad enough situation pitting the lawyer you can afford against Disney's
team. If you try and face them by yourself, you're going to get screwed.

------
leephillips
So far "the internet" seems to be on this artist's side, apparently because
her work was stolen by a corporation. Recent history suggests, however, that
if Andy Baio[0] or Shepard Fairey[1] had ripped her off, she would be
excoriated for asserting her rights and lectured about the wonders of remix
culture.

[0]<http://lee-phillips.org/music/whoIsTheDick/>

[1][http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/08/entertainment/la-
et-...](http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/08/entertainment/la-et-cm-
shepard-fairey-20120908)

~~~
GuiA
Well, while Alice from "Alice in Wonderland" is now a "public domain"
character, the depiction of her with a blue dress, white belt, and blonde hair
with a black bow in it was very much created by Disney.

In this case, the artist herself is remixing a visual design elaborated by
Disney.

So, yeah. It's murky, and the remix argument goes both ways.

~~~
cromulent
The similarities are much more than "blue dress, white belt, and blonde hair
with a black bow in it".

In any case, Disney did not "very much create" that image. Here's Tenniels
from 1866.

[http://www.goldmarkart.com/it-can-t-go-straight-you-know-
if-...](http://www.goldmarkart.com/it-can-t-go-straight-you-know-if-you-pin-
it-all-on-one-side-alice-said-as-she-gently-put-it-right-for-her.html)

Blonde hair, white belt, black bow? Looks that way to me. Blue apron? Not very
derivative.

~~~
GuiA
Ha, good point (and same to the other post making the same remark below). I
wasn't fully aware of Tenniels' drawings.

One could argue it makes the situation a little more clear cut then.

------
cjbprime
> I’m so mad because I have no chance at getting Disney to do anything about
> it.

For such a straightforward violation, I don't see why there's any call for
pessimism. Send them an invoice for a worldwide license, follow it up with a
lawyer letter (find someone willing to do no-win-no-fee if you want) once the
invoice is overdue.

~~~
jamesaguilar
I wonder how one prices out a worldwide license like this. Obviously if she
put the prices at $1000/use, neither would Disney pay it nor would she recover
that much from a court. But it's worth more than $0.01/use as well.

~~~
cjbprime
It's not my field, but by "worldwide license" I meant a single lump sum that
covers everything they might want to do or already have done -- i.e. "this is
the amount that you can pay to make this go away and avoid bringing in your
expensive legal team".

My naive guess would be that somewhere USD $5k-$10k is that amount: small
enough to be within budgetary authority, large enough to make it worth the
artist's time to chase up.

In reality, I'd suspect and hope that the artist already has an e-mail from
Disney's brand protection team, or whatever they call it, with an apology and
an offer to pay immediately. Disney's surely one of the most brand-conscious
companies in the world.

~~~
sk5t
IMHO this looks like a substantial infringement, and $5-10K is peanuts. The
signing authority of a middle manager would not factor into a settlement
demand whatsoever, if it were me.

------
xsmasher
The cosmetics bag looks like a straightforward copyright violation.

The second example, where no artwork was copied but there may have been some
influence, is more complicated. How do you prove the inspiration came from the
"stolen" art, and not Disney's own film or the original story?

[http://www.cornel1801.com/disney/Alice-Wonderland-
Painting-R...](http://www.cornel1801.com/disney/Alice-Wonderland-Painting-
Roses-Red/videosong.jpg)

~~~
potatolicious
> _"How do you prove the inspiration came from the "stolen" art, and not
> Disney's own film or the original story?"_

And even if you did prove it, is it illegal, and _should_ it be illegal?

All art is a derivation of something that came before it. Can someone
reasonably claim ownership to "girl painting roses with paint brush as viewed
from behind"?

~~~
weareconvo
And didn't she, in turn, steal the idea of Alice from Lewis Carroll?

~~~
jerf
Doesn't matter; all works of Lewis Carroll's are in the public domain. As far
as I know, this is true in all jurisdictions. The traditional Tennyson
illustrations are also public domain. Compare with
[https://www.google.com/search?q=tennyson+illustrations+alice...](https://www.google.com/search?q=tennyson+illustrations+alice+in+wonderland)
.

~~~
weareconvo
I didn't mean legally, I meant morally. Don't her complaints about having her
work co-opted by Disney when that work co-opted Alice wholesale ring a little
false to anybody else?

~~~
jerf
I think that if you took the time to try to carefully define "co-opted" you'd
have a hard time really nailing down what exactly is so _wrong_ that no
further explanation is necessary by the mere invocation of the word. "Co-
opting" happens all the time, every which way. There's no new ideas under the
sun.

There's a perfectly clear line here; assuming her account is correct, what she
did was legal, and what Disney did is not legal. Legal is not always equal to
moral, but with the particulars of this case I'm not feeling the need to draw
some sort of complicated distinction. Legality is the entire point here.

------
SoftwareMaven
Further proof that large media companies don't actually care about
intellectual property. They care about _their_ property.

Whether it is Disney stealing lions[1] or Fox stealing songs[2], their concern
for your property is non-existent, but they are willing to throw you in jail
if you think about using theirs.

1\. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimba_the_White_Lion>

2\. [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jonathan-coulton-
glee-...](http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jonathan-coulton-glee-
controversy-baby-415443)

~~~
jerf
Let's give Disney _qua_ Disney (as opposed to one artist somewhere, which is
all we know for sure at this point) some time to respond before we unleash the
mob.

Past history certainly gives a non-zero probability that Disney will just try
to throw their weight around, but let's give them the chance to do the right
thing before we bury them. It makes the moral outrage that much more moral.

~~~
nknighthb
> Let's give Disney [...] some time to respond

Why should anyone give Disney more leeway than Disney gives natural persons
they accuse of copyright infringement?

~~~
jerf
Because letting loose the Great Internet Mob is _always_ something that should
be done with a bit of due consideration, despite the fact that it is
essentially impossible to do so. Mobs aren't made more intelligent by being on
the Internet, and while they are physically defanged (well... mostly, anyhow)
they can make up for the destructiveness in their scope.

------
danso
Before they take down the cosmetic bag entry at
[http://www.disneystore.com/alice-in-wonderland-cosmetic-
bag/...](http://www.disneystore.com/alice-in-wonderland-cosmetic-
bag/mp/1328029/1000291/)

Screenshot here: <http://i.imgur.com/tr2FZ3c.png>

~~~
trevorcreech
They already changed it: <http://i.imgur.com/NzCo3ns.png>

~~~
jmharvey
That's the image from the front of the bag, the image in question is on the
back.

------
davemel37
Disney has a reputation for doing everything in their power to deliver
exceptional customer service and epic experiences. They even run a company
that teaches other companies how to treat customers right.
<http://disneyinstitute.com/> Personally, I think this is a perfect
opportunity for Disney to make a HUGE PR WIN, by apologizing, and paying out a
nice and fair royalty without a fight. I would be very disappointed if they
miss this opportunity.

~~~
mark-r
I can vouch for their service. I once lost my rental car keys while at one of
the Disneyworld hotels, and I got no help from the rental company aside from
the key code. The Disney folks sent one of their locksmiths to help me and he
tried about half a day to make a key that would start the car. His dedication
and attitude were remarkable.

~~~
alanfalcon
Wow. Lost my keys at Universal Studios once and it was just a very long, very
expensive night (given my budgetary realities at the time).

------
noonespecial
My advice is to do _something_. Disney doesn't know they infringed, some sub-
sub contractor did this. But eventually, they will find the image and assume
that the _original author_ is the infringer, and they're sticklers about this.

If the author does nothing, she may find herself in the unfortunate position
of spending lots of money in court to prove that she didn't "steal" her own
picture.

------
barking
If this is all handled positively it could be a win win. Having Disney license
your artwork is something most designers would be glad of reputation wise.

I think she needs to lose the angry tone pronto and at least 'appear' more
phlegmatic about it.

And there isn't any particular need for panic I'd have thought as it looks
like an open and shut case in terms of infringement.

The person who is in deep trouble is whoever knowingly infringed, they could
be out the door.

------
aashaykumar92
FIND/HIRE A LAWYER ASAP!! You definitely have grounds for this case. If you
think it may be too expensive, I suggest using Lawdingo
(<https://www.lawdingo.com/lawyers>) as you can cold-message/chat with lawyers
for free. I am positive that if everything you have presented is true, someone
or another will be more than willing to represent you and help you take the
appropriate action.

Really sorry to hear about this but best of luck, its unfortunate this happens
with such large companies. Nonetheless, hope it gets resolved soon--good luck!

------
Trufa
I'm of course just guessing but this seams more like the result of a lazy
(unscrupulous) designers hired by Disney rather than a corporate decision to
ignore copyright.

This doesn't make the situation of the author any better, the author should at
least talk to a copyright layer IMO.

------
laumars
Given Disney made their fortune from reselling public domain stories then
suing anyone who infringed on their IP, this story comes as no surprise.
Though that doesn't stop me feeling wound up that they consider themselves
above the law, and sorry for the injustice against the author.

------
DanBC
As people suggest - hire a lawyer.

And see this blog (<http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/>) where people
post other rip offs of their work.

------
throughnothing
If your artwork was stolen, you should file a police report to get your stolen
property back.

It seems what has happened, however, may be a copyright infringement, which is
_not_ theft. If that is the case, you should talk to a lawyer about filing a
copyright claim against Disney.

------
darkchasma
Only the bag could possibly be, the cartoon on the shirt simply isn't.

~~~
dangrossman
You don't know that. The right to create derivative works is one of the
exclusive rights granted to the original creator by the copyright act. If the
same designer that put his image on the bag is the one that designed the
shirt, it would be very hard for him to claim the second image isn't a
derivative work of the unlicensed original.

------
jcampbell1
Does anyone know what these things typically settle for? My guess is she is
going to see something like $30k within the next few months.

Here is a link to the bag in their store:

[http://www.disneystore.com/alice-in-wonderland-cosmetic-
bag/...](http://www.disneystore.com/alice-in-wonderland-cosmetic-
bag/mp/1328029/1000291/)

------
DigitalSea
I would honestly lawyer up in this instance. Disney from what I've seen are
usually very thorough with their IP, I'm surprised something like this has
happened and I am sure it's an honest mistake they will rectify. There is
definitely a case here, but it doesn't seem as straightforward as some might
think it is.

------
spullara
Wow, this is everywhere. Google Image search:

<http://bit.ly/14ShFNZ>

~~~
jcl
It's likely a lazy designer did a Google Image search, saw an illustration
that looked like the original Alice in Wonderland illustrations by Tenniel,
and assumed it was in the public domain.

------
ed2417
Perhaps she should leave a comment to this effect on the store page:
[http://www.disneystore.com/alice-in-wonderland-cosmetic-
bag/...](http://www.disneystore.com/alice-in-wonderland-cosmetic-
bag/mp/1328029/1000291/)

------
darxius
I wonder what license the image was released under. While this could have been
deliberate by Disney, I doubt they would use a (seemingly) very popular design
on production material.

Then again, things like this have happened.

~~~
speeder
Many times that I knew some sort of stuff like this happened, it was because
one specific worker, KNEW that he was doing wrong, but did it wrong anyway to
take the credit, and hope his bosses would not find out.

This also apply when the "worker" is a boss, but working for a client, he do
it in a lazy manner hoping his client won't notice...

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbaland_plagiarism_controvers...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbaland_plagiarism_controversy)

~~~
tibbon
Whoa, I'm really shocked that the case essentially lost there several times.
That's.... terrible. One of them because they "failed to register copyright in
the US" according to the Wikipedia. I was under the impression that there was
no real need to register under US copyright law as its an automatic right.

------
waterflame
I'm sorry I didn't read all the comments, but couldn't it be that the artist
was inspired by Alice in Wonderland (1951) movie? The silhouette resembles to
that of Alice:
[http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110816104841/disney/...](http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110816104841/disney/images/a/ae/Alice_KHREC.png)

...just saying.

------
jamesmcbennett
I presume everyone knows the birthday cake story. A small bakery allowed kids
draw digitally that the bakery could print on the cake. As kids like to draw
things they have seen or things they know, many drew characters of Disney.
Disney made a legal move and shut down the bakery as the kids were stealing
their IP.

------
xbryanx
I wish Tumblr had some sort of attribution engine that helped hunt down the
original sources for images and text posted to its site. I know people would
probably object to force attribution being injected into their posts, but
there ought to be some easier way to track down original material in this
network.

------
eliekh
Katie, consult with an IP attorney to see if you have a case in the first
place. They may be very costly especially if you're suing Disney! Then, if you
want to proceed, try to hire them on contingency. You have nothing to loose,
if you win, they will earn a share (probably a third) of the settlement/award.

------
anigbrowl
The bag, absolutely - take them to the cleaners.

The t-shirt image, you have no claim - it's a lot more similar to the
depiction in their own film of Alice in Wonderland, from the stripey socks to
the shape of the roses. No reasonable jury would find for a plaintiff on that
claim.

------
EGreg
[http://www.cracked.com/article_17299_6-famous-characters-
you...](http://www.cracked.com/article_17299_6-famous-characters-you-didnt-
know-were-shameless-rip-offs.html)

------
deckar01
The bag is definitely an infringement, but it gets complicated, because she
ripped the background from a website. The t-shirt seems different enough to be
legal.

------
warfangle
Maybe she should file a DMCA notice against their store.

------
segmondy
There has never been a better time to say HIRE A LAWYER!

------
urbanturbanguy
Would like to know from someone more knowledgeble about copyrights: Wouldn't
Disney claim a copyright on the Snow-white character itself?

~~~
jcl
It's Alice in Wonderland, which was written in 1865, so it's in the public
domain. The artist's illustration is inspired by the original Tenniel
illustrations, so it's not a derivative of the 1951 Disney adaptation.

------
unreal37
If it was me, I would just contact Disney directly. I don't understand why
everyone thinks she needs a lawyer from the get-go.

------
beedogs
Copyright infringement is totally fine when you're a massive corporation.
These laws only seem to work in one direction.

------
eqyiel
I can't believe that in 2013 people still think they can get away with things
like this.

------
nano111
Isn't Disney a big reason why copyright is always being extended before it
would expire?

------
hornbaker
This seems to be one of the rare occasions when you should, in fact, f __*
with The Mouse.

------
largesse
I'm not buying it. Both paintings are of Alice from behind with the same pose.
That's about it. Are we really copyrighting poses now?

------
yoster
As long as your artwork is an original piece, I would contact a lawyer that is
well versed in this type of situation.

------
workbench
> I had so much respect for the company

Why? It's an awful company

------
bby
has* ?

------
mieubrisse
While I sympathize with the author and wish her the best, I don't really see
how this article belongs on HN.

~~~
enraged_camel
The 'flag' function exists for a reason.

~~~
mieubrisse
I was under the impression that the 'flag' feature is for content that is
grossly inappropriate (e.g. a Reddit-esque asinine post), not for posts whose
content I believe doesn't fit?

~~~
jasonlotito
That is correct. By that extension, if you are not interested in the content,
ignore it. What's actually _worse_ is posting a comment that merely complains
about this not being content you think is appropriate.

------
yaddayadda
"...I created at University and I was proud of it in many ways.

Disney have used it..."

If she passed any English classes or graduated from the mentioned university,
then she deserves a tuition refund.

~~~
rbehrends
She is British (it says so on her site). Using plural verbs with organizations
("the police are coming", etc.) is perfectly correct British English; same for
"at university" [1].

[1] [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Writing-at-University-Phyllis-
Creme/...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Writing-at-University-Phyllis-
Creme/dp/0335221165)

~~~
pekk
"the police is coming" is not correct American English, so it's unclear what
you have revealed by using "the police are coming".

~~~
rbehrends
I'm not a native speaker, and learned British English in school, American
English through informal practice while living there, so I may not have picked
the greatest example. :)

