Hans Christian Andersen published "The Snow Queen" in 1844, which is roughly 169 years prior to Disney's release of Frozen. Frozen is a loose adaptation of "The Snow Queen," and for all intents and purposes, it is mostly new material. Andersen's heirs have had plenty of time to capitalize on the characters and scenarios involved in "The Snow Queen" between 1844 and whenever Disney first started work on Frozen. Andersen receives an "inspired by" credit on the film, though as far as I am aware, his family does not receive any royalties or other financial consideration.
Now, many people would argue that that's perfectly fair. But they'd also argue that it's hypocritical for Disney to profit from adapting public-domain properties, while lobbying the government to preserve its own IP well beyond the IP's putative lifespan of exclusivity. It'll be a hot day in Arendelle before a Disney princess enters the public domain.
Let's look at a fascinating example: the story of Mickey Mouse, who first appeared in 1928. Mickey isn't entering the public domain anytime soon, because Disney's lawyers are brilliant. They've found ways to extend Walt Disney's original copyright -- and furthermore, to move beyond copyrights and into trademarks, which have different lifespans. Mental Floss sums it up better than I can: http://mentalfloss.com/article/30946/why-isnt-mickey-mouse-p...
Context, context. The post I was replying to seemed to imply that Hans Christian Andersen somehow had economic incentive to create his works even though they would enter the public domain because later Disney would create Frozen. That logic makes no sense to me. I was trying to point out that the economic incentives driving creation of original content is totally divorced from the later derivation of those works in the public domain.
"The post I was replying to seemed to imply that Hans Christian Andersen somehow had economic incentive to create his works even though they would enter the public domain because later Disney would create Frozen."
That's not what I said, and not what I meant to imply. But if that's what you inferred from my post, then I'll accept full responsibility for having been unclear. That's my fault. I think you and I are in less disagreement than you might think.
What I meant to say:
1. Andersen created "The Snow Queen" 169 years before Disney released Frozen. In pretty much any copyright regime around the world, Andersen's copyright would have expired long before Disney started work on Frozen. That includes any posthumous copyright periods, during which the IP presumably passed to Andersen's heirs. [1]
2. My point about the public domain, and economic incentives, had more to do with Disney. It is sometimes claimed, by Disney and by others, that the public domain is a bad thing. If works fall into the public domain, or so this argument goes, then they enter a sort of "deadpool." Nobody will touch them again. They'll become commodities. They'll lose their inherent value. Only the original creators (or heirs) of a property have a rational economic incentive, and the necessary creative skill, to profit from the property. I reject this logic. By way of example, I pointed to two properties -- Sherlock Holmes and "The Snow Queen" -- that fell into the public domain, and whose public-domain status has not stopped others from coming along and revitalizing them. The case of "Snow Queen"/Frozen is particularly interesting, in that you have a party (Disney) reaching into the public domain to find gold (Frozen), yet still fighting tooth and nail to keep its own properties out of the public domain. There's a wonderful irony there.
On a separate note: Hans Christian Andersen and/or his heirs absolutely deserved a royalty from any profits earned off of "The Snow Queen" during the lifetime of their copyright to it. By any legal measure, that lifetime had come and gone by the time Disney got around to making Frozen.
[1] To the best of my understanding (IANAL), current US copyright law holds that a creator of a work owns the copyright for his or her lifetime, plus 50 years after his or her death -- during which time the copyright passes to whomever the creator designated as an heir. After those 50 posthumous years are over, the work becomes public domain. I'll admit, however, that I have no idea what copyright law looked like in Denmark in 1844. :)
It isn't ironic at all, and I think you are missing the point. A Disney property entering the public domain is a bad thing for Disney. Yes, people can make money off public domain properties. If a Disney property enters public domain then people other than Disney can make money.
Respectfully, I think you're missing my point. I don't disagree with anything you've just written, and nor do my prior posts.
"If a Disney property enters public domain then people other than Disney can make money."
Correct. And Disney argues the opposite: that, if its properties enter the public domain, they'll be devalued. Nobody will want to make money off of them. Hence, my point that Disney (and others who champion the anti-public domain argument) is wrong about that. Case in point: Disney itself, who makes a lot of money reviving old public-domain properties. When it comes to the public domain, Disney wants to have its cake and eat it, too. It happily revitalizes and capitalizes on properties in the public domain -- then it turns around and argues that its own properties should never enter the public domain, because the public domain is a deadpool. That argument is silly on its face, and Disney is living proof of it.
As I posted elsewhere, you seem to be missing the point I was trying to make. But let's run with it:
What does "deserving" have to do with it? If I write the next Great American Novel and assign royalties to my favorite children's charity, do they deserve the royalties? No, I do, but I decided to give that income straight to them and my wishes should be respected in this regard.
Setting aside issues of public domain, Hans Christian Andersen does deserve to be compensated for his work at least for the duration that the copyrights are his. And if he chooses to assign those royalties to his heirs on his death, then those people should be recipients just as if he had assigned royalties to some charity. Deserving has got nothing to do with it.
