Disney has a history of appropriating other peoples' works and then locking it away within their own copyright prison.
I probably wouldn't mind it so much if their resulting version was true to the originals. However the bastardised versions that the Disney marketing convinces the world is the 'real' version are so bad, that in many cases they are nothing like the originals.
One example: Disney's version of 'Alice in Wonderland' is some weird melange of Lewis Carroll's 'Alice in Wonderland' and his 'Alice Through the Looking Glass'. Go ahead and read the two Lewis Carroll books, then watch the Disney 'Alice in Wonderland' video.
For your own education, if nothing else, compare many of the Disney stories to the original versions of those stories.
Does anyone who would has access to such information, know if this means Disney has not agreed to pay or if this just took that long to work its way through WSJ?
>In response to queries about the “Alien” checks, a Disney attorney told Mr. Foster that the company had acquired the rights to these books, but not the obligations to pay out royalties.
Now they are reviewing the case to see if they actually owe royalties or not.
I probably wouldn't mind it so much if their resulting version was true to the originals. However the bastardised versions that the Disney marketing convinces the world is the 'real' version are so bad, that in many cases they are nothing like the originals.
One example: Disney's version of 'Alice in Wonderland' is some weird melange of Lewis Carroll's 'Alice in Wonderland' and his 'Alice Through the Looking Glass'. Go ahead and read the two Lewis Carroll books, then watch the Disney 'Alice in Wonderland' video.
For your own education, if nothing else, compare many of the Disney stories to the original versions of those stories.