[ Administrator's note: This message was a multipart/alternative with
plain text and HTML, but I've removed the latter. Please only use
plain text on the Disney comics mailing list. /Per ]
> From Don Rosa:
> "I hope you don't think me rude... but I doubt this very much. I would like
> to see copies of any correspondence where the Disney corporation formally
> allowed the use of any iota of its copyrighted images in any nonlicensed
> media, whether it was anything from a fanzine to TIME magazine. Perhaps
> Nichols just assumed it was okay because no one bothered to stop him. And
> they would not stop him because the "right" (wrong?) person never found out
> about it, or that it was never formally brought to their attention so that
> they would be compelled to squelch it."
Ahh, a good argument, then, eh? I personally haven't seen the correspondence
between Nichols and Disney, but rest assured that it exists. John personally
submitted each and every issue of the The Barks Collector to Disney Legal to get
it OK'ed. John had a sheet of dos and donts from Disney. Specifically, I
remember that each image had to have the (c) symbol attatched to it; that there
was a limit as to how many images could be attatched to any one article; that no
Disney character could appear on the cover. I'm not sure what you mean by
"nonlicensed" media, but I have stacks of magazines in my collection which have
loads of Disney and Barks images, none of which are licensed by Disney.
Storyboard was filled with Disney images and had an explicit disclaimer on its
indicia page stating that it was not affiliated in anyway with Disney. The Inside
Collector, The Comics Buyers guide, The Overstreet Price Guide, Collectables
Magazine, Panels, Funnyworld, Nemo, The Comics Journal, Disneyana: all of these
have run extensive articles on Barks accompanied by many illustrations. I think
you are wrong about this. No I don't think you are rude, just misinformed.
>
>
> Again, they either never saw it or were not compelled to deal with it. Just
> because you placed "(c) John Garvin" on a drawing you do is NOT any proof
> your claim on that image will stand up in a court if challenged. That Money
> Bin has appeared in Disney copyrighted stories for decades, so your "(c)
> John Garvin" on it was meaningless. What, did you think that *you* now owned
> the Money Bin image? I guess I'm not grasping your point.
> The fact you still possess that original art has little to do with who
> Disney thinks it belongs to. Of course, you and I and any other sane person
> knows its your property, but that's not the point
>
Well, I disagree. Of course no one can claim ownership of a Disney character by
simply slapping a (c) symbol on it and claiming that it belongs to them. However,
Disney does not own the concept of "piles of money" or "safes" or "bills" or
"treasure." Nor do I think that they would ever claim to. Why? Because the
concept did not originate with Barks or Disney? (It didn't; check out the article
on Scrooge's origin in the CBL which compares Scrooge to ...is it Little Orphan
Annie's rich Uncle? I can't remember.) No. It is because they are interested in
protecting their rights to Uncle Scrooge. My point is that "That Money Bin" that
has appeared in Disney copyrighted stories for decades, without the presense of
Uncle Scrooge or any other recognisable copyrghted character, is nothing more than
a collection of props and gadgets. You are right of course, in that anyone can
take anyone to court to challenge anyone over anything. But if my original
premise is correct (that Disney legal saw and approved each issue I did a cover
for) and that their rules were as stated (that you could not use any Disney
character, but anything else was fine) then it this goes towards refuting your
image of Disney as being unreasonable.
> I agree that they will lose this battle, yes, but they will still fight it
> and try to win. Have you forgotten that 20-some-odd years ago Disney tried
> to sue the worldwide manufacturers of videotape machines to prevent people
> from having the power to own their own copies of Disney films. They actually
> intended to prevent the existance of home video for the entire planet... and
> if they didn't think they could succeed, they wouldn't have tried. (Now you
> see how joyously they exploit these same video-buyers with the constant
> claims that video-releases of their films will be "the LAST TIME EVER ON
> VIDEO! LIMITED SALES PERIOD!" and then rerelease the same videos on a 7-10
> year cycle, knowing the public never seems to catch on.)
>
> So, I'm not debating with you what you and I know Disney actually owns and
> what they will eventually succeed in doing... I'm just telling you what THEY
> claim according to their own statements.
Yes I remember that. I also remember that recently Disney tried to claim that
they owned Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and Alice in Wonderland, to
prevent the release of those awful, cheezy low budget animated videos that sit
next to the Disney ones on the shelves of stores (second rate videos that even use
the same sleek, rounded, plastic covers.) Disney didn't win that one either. I'm
not arguing that Disney, as a corporation, is a saint, it's not. However, I am
arguing with your position that Disney is so stupid and greedy that it would stoop
to going after a school girl for using a Disney image in a school paper (surely,
in this you were being hyperbolic?) Or that Disney doesn't recognise the
difference, under the law, between fair use of copyrighted materials and unfair
use which endangers their legal rights. That Disney doesn't recognise the
difference between Eclipse comics trying to repring a bunch of old Mickey Mouse
strips (which I agree is unfair use), and fan magazines which encourage
consumption of even more Disney products.
Not to be rude, but you seem to have a very odd attitude towards Disney. I've
read many postings from you where you, for lack of a better word, "bash" Disney,
the company that makes it possilbe for you to tell your stories. Why do you do
this? You complain about the fact that they don't pay royalties, yet you knew
that when you signed on and you know that with every page you draw. You know that
Disney has a "work for hire" contract which gives them complete rights to every
character you create and the rights to reprint, change, censor, alter, rewrite,
etc. at will, yet you work with them anyway (I understand that Egmont is not
Disney, but it's close enough.) Other creators who have expressed these same
sentiments made changes (Dave Sim quit working for publishers and self published
Cerebus.) Barks has never expressed anger or resentment against Disney, but has
actually defended them on many occasions, recognizing that without the huge
network of Disney movies, parks, books, etc. etc., everything that is the "Disney
Machine" there would be no built in audience for his stories. It is a rule of
capitolism, that he who has the money makes the rules. Disney has the right to
squeeze every last dime of profit out of its characters, comics, videos, etc. You
have the right to not work for them.
jg
Author
Topic: 199805
(261 messages)
John Garvin
Disney comics Digest V98 #129
Message 226 -
1998-05-24 at 05:50:36
Ram Samudrala
Copyright issues
Message 227 -
1998-05-26 at 01:16:09
Did my other message on copyright not make it to the list? I can
repost.
>From: John Garvin ((Email removed))
>have run extensive articles on Barks accompanied by many
>illustrations. I think you are wrong about this. No I don't think
>you are rude, just misinformed.
I think that Disney generally polices its perceived property
selectively---that's all it can do. Remember, even with a staff of
lawyers, they can only police so much. I know websites that have been
asked to remove images of Mickey or other Disney characters even if
it's used in a manner that's completely harmless. Again, as I've
said, the Disney store had a policy on the web that said if you used
any of their stuff to create new works, the work would belong to
them.
>then it this goes towards refuting your image of Disney as being
>unreasonable.
Survey a bunch of IP lawyers and ask them who they think are the most
aggressive in terms of wanting IP rights that don't exist.
>Yes I remember that. I also remember that recently Disney tried to claim that
>they owned Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and Alice in Wonderland, to
>prevent the release of those awful, cheezy low budget animated videos that sit
>next to the Disney ones on the shelves of stores (second rate videos that even use
>the same sleek, rounded, plastic covers.) Disney didn't win that one either. I'm
>not arguing that Disney, as a corporation, is a saint, it's not. However, I am
>arguing with your position that Disney is so stupid and greedy that it would stoop
>to going after a school girl for using a Disney image in a school paper (surely,
>in this you were being hyperbolic?) Or that Disney doesn't recognise the
>difference, under the law, between fair use of copyrighted materials and unfair
>use which endangers their legal rights. That Disney doesn't recognise the
>difference between Eclipse comics trying to repring a bunch of old Mickey Mouse
>strips (which I agree is unfair use), and fan magazines which encourage
>consumption of even more Disney products.
I'm sure Disney recognises the differences. But that doesn't stop
them from grabbing as much as they can. Again, the issue to me at
least is not whether it is a saint or not, but realise that it is a
perfectly natural thing for Disney to do.
>Not to be rude, but you seem to have a very odd attitude towards Disney. I've
>read many postings from you where you, for lack of a better word, "bash" Disney,
>the company that makes it possilbe for you to tell your stories. Why do you do
>this? You complain about the fact that they don't pay royalties, yet you knew
>that when you signed on and you know that with every page you draw. You know that
>Disney has a "work for hire" contract which gives them complete rights to every
>character you create and the rights to reprint, change, censor, alter, rewrite,
>etc. at will, yet you work with them anyway (I understand that Egmont is not
>Disney, but it's close enough.) Other creators who have expressed these same
>sentiments made changes (Dave Sim quit working for publishers and self published
>Cerebus.) Barks has never expressed anger or resentment against Disney, but has
>actually defended them on many occasions, recognizing that without the huge
>network of Disney movies, parks, books, etc. etc., everything that is the "Disney
>Machine" there would be no built in audience for his stories. It is a rule of
>capitolism, that he who has the money makes the rules. Disney has the right to
>squeeze every last dime of profit out of its characters, comics, videos, etc. You
>have the right to not work for them.
While this point is true, there's also no reason why Don Rosa cannot
voice his complaints in the hope it will effect change. While Don is
one person, Disney ultimately depends on the consumer. And consumers'
views are influenced by the views of people like Rosa's. So I think he
is perfectly justified in expressing his first hand view of the matter
if he feels it is unfair (and obviously he does). In the long run, as
has been pointed out, Disney is fighting a losing battle. I am
surprised you don't see that Disney is fighting, but a bit of research
will illuminate that for you.
Barks may not express anger, but what I think has been done to Barks
is an injustice by Disney. Again, I'd take a survey of people and ask
them who created Uncle Scrooge. You could tell me I should not read
Disney comics or not support them (actually I do support their
positive policies, such as in the homosexual issue) but that's not how
life works.
--Ram
(Email removed) || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th
...because you believe that science is the greatest achievement so far
of the human race and its long term best hope for survival and
enlightenment. ---John Moult
repost.
>From: John Garvin ((Email removed))
>have run extensive articles on Barks accompanied by many
>illustrations. I think you are wrong about this. No I don't think
>you are rude, just misinformed.
I think that Disney generally polices its perceived property
selectively---that's all it can do. Remember, even with a staff of
lawyers, they can only police so much. I know websites that have been
asked to remove images of Mickey or other Disney characters even if
it's used in a manner that's completely harmless. Again, as I've
said, the Disney store had a policy on the web that said if you used
any of their stuff to create new works, the work would belong to
them.
>then it this goes towards refuting your image of Disney as being
>unreasonable.
Survey a bunch of IP lawyers and ask them who they think are the most
aggressive in terms of wanting IP rights that don't exist.
>Yes I remember that. I also remember that recently Disney tried to claim that
>they owned Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and Alice in Wonderland, to
>prevent the release of those awful, cheezy low budget animated videos that sit
>next to the Disney ones on the shelves of stores (second rate videos that even use
>the same sleek, rounded, plastic covers.) Disney didn't win that one either. I'm
>not arguing that Disney, as a corporation, is a saint, it's not. However, I am
>arguing with your position that Disney is so stupid and greedy that it would stoop
>to going after a school girl for using a Disney image in a school paper (surely,
>in this you were being hyperbolic?) Or that Disney doesn't recognise the
>difference, under the law, between fair use of copyrighted materials and unfair
>use which endangers their legal rights. That Disney doesn't recognise the
>difference between Eclipse comics trying to repring a bunch of old Mickey Mouse
>strips (which I agree is unfair use), and fan magazines which encourage
>consumption of even more Disney products.
I'm sure Disney recognises the differences. But that doesn't stop
them from grabbing as much as they can. Again, the issue to me at
least is not whether it is a saint or not, but realise that it is a
perfectly natural thing for Disney to do.
>Not to be rude, but you seem to have a very odd attitude towards Disney. I've
>read many postings from you where you, for lack of a better word, "bash" Disney,
>the company that makes it possilbe for you to tell your stories. Why do you do
>this? You complain about the fact that they don't pay royalties, yet you knew
>that when you signed on and you know that with every page you draw. You know that
>Disney has a "work for hire" contract which gives them complete rights to every
>character you create and the rights to reprint, change, censor, alter, rewrite,
>etc. at will, yet you work with them anyway (I understand that Egmont is not
>Disney, but it's close enough.) Other creators who have expressed these same
>sentiments made changes (Dave Sim quit working for publishers and self published
>Cerebus.) Barks has never expressed anger or resentment against Disney, but has
>actually defended them on many occasions, recognizing that without the huge
>network of Disney movies, parks, books, etc. etc., everything that is the "Disney
>Machine" there would be no built in audience for his stories. It is a rule of
>capitolism, that he who has the money makes the rules. Disney has the right to
>squeeze every last dime of profit out of its characters, comics, videos, etc. You
>have the right to not work for them.
While this point is true, there's also no reason why Don Rosa cannot
voice his complaints in the hope it will effect change. While Don is
one person, Disney ultimately depends on the consumer. And consumers'
views are influenced by the views of people like Rosa's. So I think he
is perfectly justified in expressing his first hand view of the matter
if he feels it is unfair (and obviously he does). In the long run, as
has been pointed out, Disney is fighting a losing battle. I am
surprised you don't see that Disney is fighting, but a bit of research
will illuminate that for you.
Barks may not express anger, but what I think has been done to Barks
is an injustice by Disney. Again, I'd take a survey of people and ask
them who created Uncle Scrooge. You could tell me I should not read
Disney comics or not support them (actually I do support their
positive policies, such as in the homosexual issue) but that's not how
life works.
--Ram
(Email removed) || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th
...because you believe that science is the greatest achievement so far
of the human race and its long term best hope for survival and
enlightenment. ---John Moult
HorizonHse
Disney comics Digest V98 #130
Message 228 -
1998-05-26 at 01:22:19
hi,
i too saw the ad in comics buyers guide for the 10 page story by carl barks
that is now up for auction. given all the conversation here about copyright
and fair usage, it was kind of surprising that they printed all 10 pages, but
i guess that is another discussion. while i agree with almost everything
stated in the article here, my impression was that the seller meant this was
the only story published while carl worked for dell/gold key where all of the
pages are still in the hands of one collector; i don't know whether that is
true or not, but it seems possible. according to matti eronen's catalog of
original art, the complete artwork for many stories still survives, including
"the house of haunts," "the queen of the wild dog pack," "so far and no
safari," "the phantom of notre duck" and "north of the yukon" (displayed at
carl's 95th birthday party in maryland). the art for several one pagers also
survive; they are stories, if brief ones. the other stories mentioned --
"milkman," etc. -- were published after carl retired the first time. uncle
scrooge in color states that only one sketch for "donald's christmas carol"
still exists, but all the storyboards for "lemonade king" do.
the advertisement also stated the story came directly from carl after it had
been returned to him from the disney archives. i find that impossible to
believe. when has the disney archives ever before returned anything given to
it or sold anything in its files?
i can't say whether the estimated prices are realistic or not. i can only say
they would set records for pages not containing scrooge if they sold for that.
the recent works that have come up for auction, including cover sketches, sold
for much less than $6,000-$15,000 per page.
i was at wondercon for 2 days and thought i saw everything. i'm sorry i missed
the original art by carl that was for sale there. everyone else who was there
is sorry they missed it, too.
bill lipsky
i too saw the ad in comics buyers guide for the 10 page story by carl barks
that is now up for auction. given all the conversation here about copyright
and fair usage, it was kind of surprising that they printed all 10 pages, but
i guess that is another discussion. while i agree with almost everything
stated in the article here, my impression was that the seller meant this was
the only story published while carl worked for dell/gold key where all of the
pages are still in the hands of one collector; i don't know whether that is
true or not, but it seems possible. according to matti eronen's catalog of
original art, the complete artwork for many stories still survives, including
"the house of haunts," "the queen of the wild dog pack," "so far and no
safari," "the phantom of notre duck" and "north of the yukon" (displayed at
carl's 95th birthday party in maryland). the art for several one pagers also
survive; they are stories, if brief ones. the other stories mentioned --
"milkman," etc. -- were published after carl retired the first time. uncle
scrooge in color states that only one sketch for "donald's christmas carol"
still exists, but all the storyboards for "lemonade king" do.
the advertisement also stated the story came directly from carl after it had
been returned to him from the disney archives. i find that impossible to
believe. when has the disney archives ever before returned anything given to
it or sold anything in its files?
i can't say whether the estimated prices are realistic or not. i can only say
they would set records for pages not containing scrooge if they sold for that.
the recent works that have come up for auction, including cover sketches, sold
for much less than $6,000-$15,000 per page.
i was at wondercon for 2 days and thought i saw everything. i'm sorry i missed
the original art by carl that was for sale there. everyone else who was there
is sorry they missed it, too.
bill lipsky
Don Rosa
Disney comics Digest V98 #130
Message 229 -
1998-05-26 at 03:25:49
>Ahh, a good argument, then, eh? I personally haven't seen the
correspondence
>between Nichols and Disney, but rest assured that it exists. John
personally
>submitted each and every issue of the The Barks Collector to Disney Legal
to get
>it OK'ed.
I can't help it -- the thought that Disney's legal department would examine
each and every issue of a fanzine, page by page, and send out a formal
declaration of permission on each usage therein, is laughable. I'm sure that
Nichols simply determined what would protect him from any normal
interpretation of the copyright law, and followed that course.
>no Disney character could appear on the cover.
That's FOR SURE. This is something that Disney would consider a gross
violation! It would mean that someone would be using their characters to
SELL a product. This they would NOT ignore under any circumstance.
>I'm not sure what you mean by "nonlicensed" media
Pretty simple -- a medium which does not pay a license fee.
>but I have stacks of magazines in my collection which have
>loads of Disney and Barks images, none of which are licensed by Disney.
And if Disney could, they would stop each one of these uses of their
characters which was not individually approved. They never see some, they
are not forced to deal with others, and the larger ones seek and get
approval on instance-by-instance basis.
>Of course no one can claim ownership of a Disney character by
>simply slapping a (c) symbol on it and claiming that it belongs to them.
However,
>Disney does not own the concept of "piles of money" or "safes" or "bills"
or
>"treasure."
You did not say you simply drew "piles of money" -- you said you drew "The
Money Bin", meaning the exterior of the building, not simply a lot of money
in some room somewhere... and that you placed your own copyright on the
image. Disney had published tens of thousands of views of that particularly
recognizeable structure, each one in a copyrighted story. It doesn't need to
be a "character" to be copyrighted -- it's all just "lines on paper". It's a
copyrighted image. A world-famous one (well, outside of the USA, anyway).
And as I said before, any piece of paper that has a drawing of something
that they consider their property, or any copy of such a paper, Disney
claims as their property as well. I'm simply telling you what they tell us
freelance artists.
>However, I am
>arguing with your position that Disney is so stupid and greedy that it
would stoop
>to going after a school girl for using a Disney image in a school paper
(surely,
>in this you were being hyperbolic?)
Of course, you'll note I never said that. I was pointing out to the person
that simply putting a copyright symbol on a Disney image does NOT give them
permission, *in Disney's opinion*, to use that image.
> Or that Disney doesn't recognise the
>difference, under the law, between fair use of copyrighted materials and
unfair
>use which endangers their legal rights.
I didn't say they don't recognise these laws, I'm saying that they do not
necessarilly choose to agree with these laws.
>Not to be rude, but you seem to have a very odd attitude towards Disney.
I've
>read many postings from you where you, for lack of a better word, "bash"
Disney,
As I said before, I was warning the person about the facts as I have
observed them and as they have been told to me by Disney licensees and
Disney officials/lawyers. You choose to interpret that as "bashing".
>the company that makes it possilbe for you to tell your stories. Why do
you do
>this?
The Disney corporation does NOT make it possible for me to tell my stories.
Not at all! In fact, when they wanted me to work for their comic company
(when they assumed it from Gladstone), but I told them I refused and would
work for Egmont instead, I was informed by the then-editor-in-chief at
Egmont that Disney had called them and told them to *fire* me so I would be
forced to work for Disney. Egmont, to their credit, had the good sense to
know that they don't need to obey such commands from Disney. This is what
the editor told me in 1990.
>You complain about the fact that they don't pay royalties, yet you knew
>that when you signed on and you know that with every page you draw.
First, I did not "sign on". I have no contract with anyone. I have signed a
waiver-of-rights... but this was never expected to cover the usage of my
stories in anything but anthologies... not in something like hardback
collections or album series of work that I have done solely on my own (with
Byron's help), and which I did not do for Disney, but which they sell to
other piublishers. Yes, regardless of what may have been signed, I do feel
as though this sort of useage should entitle any sole-author to at least a
token royalty. I think any sane person would. Sorry if you think that's an
unreasonable attitude. (And I don't recall making this an issue on this
forum.)
>(I understand that Egmont is not Disney, but it's close enough.)
!!!! Hogwash! Egmont is a giant corporation which publishes MANY, many other
comics and books and magazines and Disney is only a tiny portion of it all.
Egmont and Disney are two totally separate corporations with NO
similarities, aside from a licensing agreement such as Disney has with
thousands of other companies which are also not "close enough" to being
Disney that there is no significant difference! What a bizarre thing to say!
For one thing, Egmont is a non-profit PUBLIC CHARITY. I don't believe Disney
is, eh?
>Barks has never expressed anger or resentment against Disney, but has
>actually defended them on many occasions, recognizing that without the huge
>network of Disney movies, parks, books, etc. etc., everything that is the
"Disney
>Machine" there would be no built in audience for his stories.
I constantly say the same thing. Probably far moreso than Barks ever did.
>It is a rule of
>capitolism, that he who has the money makes the rules. Disney has the
right to
>squeeze every last dime of profit out of its characters, comics, videos,
etc.
With customary, fair treatment to the creators, would you agree? Without
being forced to do it, as they would be by the people involved in the more
powerful fields of their TV shows and movies and CDs and books and
"collectibles", etc., etc., eh? So you're saying that "might makes right"?
Would Disney lose an iota of their profits if, in the field of comics, they
allowed art returns or royalties on special projects? You think they should
really be proud of these policies?
I'm not making an issue of these things -- you brought it up. But I don't
think I've ever heard anyone step forward and defend these sorts of
policies.
>You have the right to not work for them.
And I have always refused to. I would *love* to be able to work for Disney
... I would be *proud* to... I wish my conscience would let me. Their
policies prevent that. These policies could be changed in the wink of an eye
and brought into line with all other entertainment field policies... I'll
have to await that time... but when I have no relation with that
corporation, and when they don't know I exist, that makes the chances of
progress rather bleak.
Why don't you give Roy Disney a call for me and tell him I'd like to speak
to him? Nope... it's not so simple, eh?
correspondence
>between Nichols and Disney, but rest assured that it exists. John
personally
>submitted each and every issue of the The Barks Collector to Disney Legal
to get
>it OK'ed.
I can't help it -- the thought that Disney's legal department would examine
each and every issue of a fanzine, page by page, and send out a formal
declaration of permission on each usage therein, is laughable. I'm sure that
Nichols simply determined what would protect him from any normal
interpretation of the copyright law, and followed that course.
>no Disney character could appear on the cover.
That's FOR SURE. This is something that Disney would consider a gross
violation! It would mean that someone would be using their characters to
SELL a product. This they would NOT ignore under any circumstance.
>I'm not sure what you mean by "nonlicensed" media
Pretty simple -- a medium which does not pay a license fee.
>but I have stacks of magazines in my collection which have
>loads of Disney and Barks images, none of which are licensed by Disney.
And if Disney could, they would stop each one of these uses of their
characters which was not individually approved. They never see some, they
are not forced to deal with others, and the larger ones seek and get
approval on instance-by-instance basis.
>Of course no one can claim ownership of a Disney character by
>simply slapping a (c) symbol on it and claiming that it belongs to them.
However,
>Disney does not own the concept of "piles of money" or "safes" or "bills"
or
>"treasure."
You did not say you simply drew "piles of money" -- you said you drew "The
Money Bin", meaning the exterior of the building, not simply a lot of money
in some room somewhere... and that you placed your own copyright on the
image. Disney had published tens of thousands of views of that particularly
recognizeable structure, each one in a copyrighted story. It doesn't need to
be a "character" to be copyrighted -- it's all just "lines on paper". It's a
copyrighted image. A world-famous one (well, outside of the USA, anyway).
And as I said before, any piece of paper that has a drawing of something
that they consider their property, or any copy of such a paper, Disney
claims as their property as well. I'm simply telling you what they tell us
freelance artists.
>However, I am
>arguing with your position that Disney is so stupid and greedy that it
would stoop
>to going after a school girl for using a Disney image in a school paper
(surely,
>in this you were being hyperbolic?)
Of course, you'll note I never said that. I was pointing out to the person
that simply putting a copyright symbol on a Disney image does NOT give them
permission, *in Disney's opinion*, to use that image.
> Or that Disney doesn't recognise the
>difference, under the law, between fair use of copyrighted materials and
unfair
>use which endangers their legal rights.
I didn't say they don't recognise these laws, I'm saying that they do not
necessarilly choose to agree with these laws.
>Not to be rude, but you seem to have a very odd attitude towards Disney.
I've
>read many postings from you where you, for lack of a better word, "bash"
Disney,
As I said before, I was warning the person about the facts as I have
observed them and as they have been told to me by Disney licensees and
Disney officials/lawyers. You choose to interpret that as "bashing".
>the company that makes it possilbe for you to tell your stories. Why do
you do
>this?
The Disney corporation does NOT make it possible for me to tell my stories.
Not at all! In fact, when they wanted me to work for their comic company
(when they assumed it from Gladstone), but I told them I refused and would
work for Egmont instead, I was informed by the then-editor-in-chief at
Egmont that Disney had called them and told them to *fire* me so I would be
forced to work for Disney. Egmont, to their credit, had the good sense to
know that they don't need to obey such commands from Disney. This is what
the editor told me in 1990.
>You complain about the fact that they don't pay royalties, yet you knew
>that when you signed on and you know that with every page you draw.
First, I did not "sign on". I have no contract with anyone. I have signed a
waiver-of-rights... but this was never expected to cover the usage of my
stories in anything but anthologies... not in something like hardback
collections or album series of work that I have done solely on my own (with
Byron's help), and which I did not do for Disney, but which they sell to
other piublishers. Yes, regardless of what may have been signed, I do feel
as though this sort of useage should entitle any sole-author to at least a
token royalty. I think any sane person would. Sorry if you think that's an
unreasonable attitude. (And I don't recall making this an issue on this
forum.)
>(I understand that Egmont is not Disney, but it's close enough.)
!!!! Hogwash! Egmont is a giant corporation which publishes MANY, many other
comics and books and magazines and Disney is only a tiny portion of it all.
Egmont and Disney are two totally separate corporations with NO
similarities, aside from a licensing agreement such as Disney has with
thousands of other companies which are also not "close enough" to being
Disney that there is no significant difference! What a bizarre thing to say!
For one thing, Egmont is a non-profit PUBLIC CHARITY. I don't believe Disney
is, eh?
>Barks has never expressed anger or resentment against Disney, but has
>actually defended them on many occasions, recognizing that without the huge
>network of Disney movies, parks, books, etc. etc., everything that is the
"Disney
>Machine" there would be no built in audience for his stories.
I constantly say the same thing. Probably far moreso than Barks ever did.
>It is a rule of
>capitolism, that he who has the money makes the rules. Disney has the
right to
>squeeze every last dime of profit out of its characters, comics, videos,
etc.
With customary, fair treatment to the creators, would you agree? Without
being forced to do it, as they would be by the people involved in the more
powerful fields of their TV shows and movies and CDs and books and
"collectibles", etc., etc., eh? So you're saying that "might makes right"?
Would Disney lose an iota of their profits if, in the field of comics, they
allowed art returns or royalties on special projects? You think they should
really be proud of these policies?
I'm not making an issue of these things -- you brought it up. But I don't
think I've ever heard anyone step forward and defend these sorts of
policies.
>You have the right to not work for them.
And I have always refused to. I would *love* to be able to work for Disney
... I would be *proud* to... I wish my conscience would let me. Their
policies prevent that. These policies could be changed in the wink of an eye
and brought into line with all other entertainment field policies... I'll
have to await that time... but when I have no relation with that
corporation, and when they don't know I exist, that makes the chances of
progress rather bleak.
Why don't you give Roy Disney a call for me and tell him I'd like to speak
to him? Nope... it's not so simple, eh?
Mattias Hallin
Disney and The Barks Collector
Message 230 -
1998-05-26 at 08:35:15
At 20.25 1998-05-25, Don Rosa wrote:
>I can't help it -- the thought that Disney's legal department would examine
>each and every issue of a fanzine, page by page, and send out a formal
>declaration of permission on each usage therein, is laughable. I'm sure that
>Nichols simply determined what would protect him from any normal
>interpretation of the copyright law, and followed that course.
Just exactly what Disney did and didn't do, I don't know; but some ten
years ago or so I wrote an article for "The Barks Collector" (which was
accepted by John Nichols, but in the end never published, since I decided
it wasn't good enough and retracted it). In my correspondance with John
Nichols on these matters, he emphatically told me that he had to submit
each issue to Disney before publication, and that this was the condition
under which he could use Disney-copyrighted illustrations. He also asked me
to make some minor changes in the text, that he thought would otherwise not
be approved by Disney.
So while you may indeed be correct in saying that Disney probably didn't
issue separate written approval for each illustration, according to what
John Nichols told me, they checked and approved each issue before it was
published. What exact form that approval took (blanket or detailed) is, I
would say, less interesting than the fact that an approval was required at
all.
All the best,
/Mattias
*** Mattias Hallin ** Brussels ** Belgium ** <(Email removed)> ***
* *
* "Oh bury me thar! With my battered git-tar! *
************* A-screamin' my heart out fer yew!" *************
>I can't help it -- the thought that Disney's legal department would examine
>each and every issue of a fanzine, page by page, and send out a formal
>declaration of permission on each usage therein, is laughable. I'm sure that
>Nichols simply determined what would protect him from any normal
>interpretation of the copyright law, and followed that course.
Just exactly what Disney did and didn't do, I don't know; but some ten
years ago or so I wrote an article for "The Barks Collector" (which was
accepted by John Nichols, but in the end never published, since I decided
it wasn't good enough and retracted it). In my correspondance with John
Nichols on these matters, he emphatically told me that he had to submit
each issue to Disney before publication, and that this was the condition
under which he could use Disney-copyrighted illustrations. He also asked me
to make some minor changes in the text, that he thought would otherwise not
be approved by Disney.
So while you may indeed be correct in saying that Disney probably didn't
issue separate written approval for each illustration, according to what
John Nichols told me, they checked and approved each issue before it was
published. What exact form that approval took (blanket or detailed) is, I
would say, less interesting than the fact that an approval was required at
all.
All the best,
/Mattias
*** Mattias Hallin ** Brussels ** Belgium ** <(Email removed)> ***
* *
* "Oh bury me thar! With my battered git-tar! *
************* A-screamin' my heart out fer yew!" *************
Donald D. Markstein
POSSIBLY Incomplete Message: Junkville Journal
Message 231 -
1998-05-26 at 19:20:09
ON THE "FAIR USE" AND COPYRIGHT FLAP --
I don't pretend to know what Disney will or will not
allow, or how vigorously they will defend what they see as their
rights. I do know their general reputation in that area is
amazing. I also recall the story of the nursery school with
Disney characters on its walls, that Disney lawyers forced them
to re-paint. (The Hanna-Barbera folks got wind of it and not
only gave permission to use their characters, but sent their own
artists over to do it -- score one for H-B.)
Anyway, I take the reputation and the stories seriously
enough to act. I'm currently working on a CD-ROM anthology of
pirate-theme material -- everything I can find on the subject,
that can be digitized, that's worth using, that I won't get sued
over. I have complete texts of TREASURE ISLAND (with Wyeth
paintings), PETER PAN (with stills from a 1924 silent movie
version), PIRATES OF PENZANCE (with music in MIDI format), and
lots of other pirate stories. Plus clip art, sc=
I don't pretend to know what Disney will or will not
allow, or how vigorously they will defend what they see as their
rights. I do know their general reputation in that area is
amazing. I also recall the story of the nursery school with
Disney characters on its walls, that Disney lawyers forced them
to re-paint. (The Hanna-Barbera folks got wind of it and not
only gave permission to use their characters, but sent their own
artists over to do it -- score one for H-B.)
Anyway, I take the reputation and the stories seriously
enough to act. I'm currently working on a CD-ROM anthology of
pirate-theme material -- everything I can find on the subject,
that can be digitized, that's worth using, that I won't get sued
over. I have complete texts of TREASURE ISLAND (with Wyeth
paintings), PETER PAN (with stills from a 1924 silent movie
version), PIRATES OF PENZANCE (with music in MIDI format), and
lots of other pirate stories. Plus clip art, sc=
Mike Schneiderath
German Rosa Album 18 out!
Message 232 -
1998-05-26 at 22:22:26
Hi!
The 17th Album with stories by Don Rosa is now out in Germany.
"Onkel Dagobert - von Don Rosa #17" (48 pages) and contains the following
stories:
D93287 - Dabeisein ist alles (From Duckburg to Lillehammer)
D94144 - Die Karten des Christoph Kolumbus (The lost charts of Columbus)
AR 118 - Finanzielle Schwergewicht (Fiscal Fitness)
AR 107 - Zeitungsjagd (The paper chase)
Also included are comments from Don Rosa to the individual stories that are
printed in this issue.
The Columbus story has the same text as the earlier print that appeared in
the "Micky Maus Präsentiert: #16" comic and keeps all historical references
intact.
Sadly there are three word-baloons that have absolutely no text:
Page 10, panel 2 - originally "Hooray" of two nephews
Page 20, panel 5 - originally "They dropped a load of Bombs"
Page 21, panel 9 - originally "Wak" from Donald
(That bubble didn´t had any text in the first german print either)
Bye!
Mike Martin
The 17th Album with stories by Don Rosa is now out in Germany.
"Onkel Dagobert - von Don Rosa #17" (48 pages) and contains the following
stories:
D93287 - Dabeisein ist alles (From Duckburg to Lillehammer)
D94144 - Die Karten des Christoph Kolumbus (The lost charts of Columbus)
AR 118 - Finanzielle Schwergewicht (Fiscal Fitness)
AR 107 - Zeitungsjagd (The paper chase)
Also included are comments from Don Rosa to the individual stories that are
printed in this issue.
The Columbus story has the same text as the earlier print that appeared in
the "Micky Maus Präsentiert: #16" comic and keeps all historical references
intact.
Sadly there are three word-baloons that have absolutely no text:
Page 10, panel 2 - originally "Hooray" of two nephews
Page 20, panel 5 - originally "They dropped a load of Bombs"
Page 21, panel 9 - originally "Wak" from Donald
(That bubble didn´t had any text in the first german print either)
Bye!
Mike Martin
Mike Schneiderath
Sorry! The new Rosa Album is #17 of course
Message 233 -
1998-05-26 at 22:31:50
Sorry for the typing mistake in my last message!
The new Rosa Album is #17 of course
Mike Martin
The new Rosa Album is #17 of course
Mike Martin
Mike Schneiderath
Don Rosa´s Eldorado story now out in
Message 234 -
1998-05-27 at 18:44:42
The current issue of the German "Micky Maus Magazin" #22=20
has the fist half of Don Rosa=B4s Eldorado Story inside!=20
The cover shows already scenes from the comic, but they mirrored the truck
including the "SOC" Logo, so that the letters make it quite obvious that
the image is mirrored!
It is even announced as "Extra cool adventure comic - The Secret of=
Eldorado"
on the cover, which is also quite unusual for the MM-weekly.
(as least as far as I can tell)
It looks as if the story is translated quite nicely, the historical
references are not changed and the German guy even has a bawarian accent.
Bye!
Mike Martin
-------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the D.U.C.K.hunt!=20
Even more than you ever wanted to know about Don Rosa at:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/8024/index.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
has the fist half of Don Rosa=B4s Eldorado Story inside!=20
The cover shows already scenes from the comic, but they mirrored the truck
including the "SOC" Logo, so that the letters make it quite obvious that
the image is mirrored!
It is even announced as "Extra cool adventure comic - The Secret of=
Eldorado"
on the cover, which is also quite unusual for the MM-weekly.
(as least as far as I can tell)
It looks as if the story is translated quite nicely, the historical
references are not changed and the German guy even has a bawarian accent.
Bye!
Mike Martin
-------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the D.U.C.K.hunt!=20
Even more than you ever wanted to know about Don Rosa at:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/8024/index.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fluks, H.W.
Disney comics Database: new version
Message 235 -
1998-05-27 at 18:47:31
There is a new version of the Disney comics Database available on the
ftp site! The previous version was from October, 1997, so it was about
time...
(Note that the web pages still use the old version.)
NEW FEATURES AND DATA IN THE VERSION OF MAY, 1998
- GENERAL PROGRAM CHANGES:
- The programs that generate the database have been completely
rewritten. Much attention is given to preserving the integrity of
the data in the DcD.
A lot of checking capabilities have been added. The new software
may have some errors and bugs that were not in the previous
versions.
- GENERAL DATA UPDATES:
The following data has been continuously updated, with the mentioned
people "in charge":
- Dutch stories index: Harry Fluks (with help from Pieter van Cleef
c.s.)
- French stories index: Francois Willot
- Italian stories index: Marco Barlotti
- Other stories indexes: Harry Fluks
- Danish issues index: Ole Reichstein Nielsen
- Dutch issues index: Harry Fluks
- French issues index: Francois Willot
- German issues index: Brix Lichtenberg, Gilbert Roser
- Italian issues index (Topolino): Paolo Castagno
- Other issues indexes: Harry Fluks
General advisors: Alberto Becattini, David Gerstein.
- USA:
- Updates to Gladstone and Western comics, by Jonathan Markoff,
David Gerstein, Harry Fluks, and others
- Error corrections in the dates and credits of newspaper strips,
by Francois Willot and Alberto Becattini
- Germund Silvegren (+ Per Vedin): more Gold Key/Whitman issues
- ITALY:
- Updates for Almanacco Topolino and Mega 2000, by Marco Barlotti
and Rich Bellacera
- GERMANY:
- Alexander Gruenke and Brix Lichtenberg: nearly complete index
of German pocket books (DD and LT)
- UK:
- Major update of the UK index, by David Gerstein
- MISC:
- Info on Robert Klein, Sieger Zuidersma and Frank Jonker,
delivered by themselves
--Harry.
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V98 Issue #131
******************************************
ftp site! The previous version was from October, 1997, so it was about
time...
(Note that the web pages still use the old version.)
NEW FEATURES AND DATA IN THE VERSION OF MAY, 1998
- GENERAL PROGRAM CHANGES:
- The programs that generate the database have been completely
rewritten. Much attention is given to preserving the integrity of
the data in the DcD.
A lot of checking capabilities have been added. The new software
may have some errors and bugs that were not in the previous
versions.
- GENERAL DATA UPDATES:
The following data has been continuously updated, with the mentioned
people "in charge":
- Dutch stories index: Harry Fluks (with help from Pieter van Cleef
c.s.)
- French stories index: Francois Willot
- Italian stories index: Marco Barlotti
- Other stories indexes: Harry Fluks
- Danish issues index: Ole Reichstein Nielsen
- Dutch issues index: Harry Fluks
- French issues index: Francois Willot
- German issues index: Brix Lichtenberg, Gilbert Roser
- Italian issues index (Topolino): Paolo Castagno
- Other issues indexes: Harry Fluks
General advisors: Alberto Becattini, David Gerstein.
- USA:
- Updates to Gladstone and Western comics, by Jonathan Markoff,
David Gerstein, Harry Fluks, and others
- Error corrections in the dates and credits of newspaper strips,
by Francois Willot and Alberto Becattini
- Germund Silvegren (+ Per Vedin): more Gold Key/Whitman issues
- ITALY:
- Updates for Almanacco Topolino and Mega 2000, by Marco Barlotti
and Rich Bellacera
- GERMANY:
- Alexander Gruenke and Brix Lichtenberg: nearly complete index
of German pocket books (DD and LT)
- UK:
- Major update of the UK index, by David Gerstein
- MISC:
- Info on Robert Klein, Sieger Zuidersma and Frank Jonker,
delivered by themselves
--Harry.
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V98 Issue #131
******************************************
Fluks, H.W.
Disney comics Database (DcD)
Message 236 -
1998-05-27 at 18:48:54
THE DISNEY COMICS DATABASE
The Disney comics Database (DcD) is a large set of files containing
information about Disney comic stories. We aim to include every story
made anywhere, plus all publications of that story in the most
important countries.
A lot of people from the Disney comics Mailing List have helped in
gathering all the information. Besides that, the most important
published indexes about Disney comics are included in the database.
There are several ways you can get information out of this database.
1. Get listing files from the ftp site:
ftp://ftp.update.uu.se/pub/comics/disney/index/
There you find formatted files with information about a specific
country's publications (for instance the USA, Sweden, France), and
stories produced by a specific country (for instance Denmark,
Holland, France).
These files are usually very big, but they contain complete
information.
2. Look at the Disney comics website, in the creators section:
http://www.update.uu.se/~starback/disney-comics/creators/
There you can find indexes for all creators. For instance an
index of the work of Tony Strobl. You can choose to have all
known publications (in all countries) of his stories as well.
3. There are a few additional pages that contain parts of the DcD.
These pages are probably updated more often than the DcD itself.
Harry's pages (Don Rosa, Carl Barks, William Van Horn):
http://www.pi.net/~fluks4/disney.htm (follow the links from there)
(NOTE: THE URL OF THIS WEB SITE WILL CHANGE IN MAY 1998)
Marco Barlotti's website (Italian stories):
http://marcobar.cce.unifi.it/DisneyIndex
Luna Storta's search page for Italian issues (in Italian):
http://www.confor.it:2222/disney
4. You can go to one of the Disney comics webpages, and lookup a
story by its code.
http://www.update.uu.se/~starback/disney-comics/database.html
You then get a listing of all information about that
story, including its writer, artist, number of pages, etc. as well
as all known publications of that story.
This web facility also allows you to add a description of the
story.
5. Download the "internal" files from the Disney comics ftp site
ftp://ftp.update.uu.se/pub/comics/disney/index/internal/
(files ending with ".ins", ".ine", ".inl" and ".dbx").
Then download the Database browser from Bent Pedersen, from:
http://home4.inet.tele.dk/bp (follow the links from there)
You need a PC with Windows and some dozens of megabytes disk space
to do this.
6. Download the "MS-Access" files from the Disney comics ftp site
ftp://ftp.update.uu.se/pub/comics/disney/index/access/
(all files ending with ".acc") and import them
into MS-Access. The string delimiter used is @, the field
separator is a comma.
The Access files contain a lot of information from the Database,
but of some countries the reprint information is not included.
7. Ask Harry Fluks (mailto:(Email removed)) for specific
listings. For instance, when you want an index of all stories by
Carl Barks where Gladstone Gander appeared.
Or all stories featuring both Fethry Duck and Hard Haid Moe.
Or anything you can think of (as long as the listing is not too
big to send in regular mail).
--Harry.
The Disney comics Database (DcD) is a large set of files containing
information about Disney comic stories. We aim to include every story
made anywhere, plus all publications of that story in the most
important countries.
A lot of people from the Disney comics Mailing List have helped in
gathering all the information. Besides that, the most important
published indexes about Disney comics are included in the database.
There are several ways you can get information out of this database.
1. Get listing files from the ftp site:
ftp://ftp.update.uu.se/pub/comics/disney/index/
There you find formatted files with information about a specific
country's publications (for instance the USA, Sweden, France), and
stories produced by a specific country (for instance Denmark,
Holland, France).
These files are usually very big, but they contain complete
information.
2. Look at the Disney comics website, in the creators section:
http://www.update.uu.se/~starback/disney-comics/creators/
There you can find indexes for all creators. For instance an
index of the work of Tony Strobl. You can choose to have all
known publications (in all countries) of his stories as well.
3. There are a few additional pages that contain parts of the DcD.
These pages are probably updated more often than the DcD itself.
Harry's pages (Don Rosa, Carl Barks, William Van Horn):
http://www.pi.net/~fluks4/disney.htm (follow the links from there)
(NOTE: THE URL OF THIS WEB SITE WILL CHANGE IN MAY 1998)
Marco Barlotti's website (Italian stories):
http://marcobar.cce.unifi.it/DisneyIndex
Luna Storta's search page for Italian issues (in Italian):
http://www.confor.it:2222/disney
4. You can go to one of the Disney comics webpages, and lookup a
story by its code.
http://www.update.uu.se/~starback/disney-comics/database.html
You then get a listing of all information about that
story, including its writer, artist, number of pages, etc. as well
as all known publications of that story.
This web facility also allows you to add a description of the
story.
5. Download the "internal" files from the Disney comics ftp site
ftp://ftp.update.uu.se/pub/comics/disney/index/internal/
(files ending with ".ins", ".ine", ".inl" and ".dbx").
Then download the Database browser from Bent Pedersen, from:
http://home4.inet.tele.dk/bp (follow the links from there)
You need a PC with Windows and some dozens of megabytes disk space
to do this.
6. Download the "MS-Access" files from the Disney comics ftp site
ftp://ftp.update.uu.se/pub/comics/disney/index/access/
(all files ending with ".acc") and import them
into MS-Access. The string delimiter used is @, the field
separator is a comma.
The Access files contain a lot of information from the Database,
but of some countries the reprint information is not included.
7. Ask Harry Fluks (mailto:(Email removed)) for specific
listings. For instance, when you want an index of all stories by
Carl Barks where Gladstone Gander appeared.
Or all stories featuring both Fethry Duck and Hard Haid Moe.
Or anything you can think of (as long as the listing is not too
big to send in regular mail).
--Harry.
Fluks, H.W.
Disney comics Database (DcD) - 3rd message
Message 237 -
1998-05-27 at 19:13:51
There are a few things that are NOT included in the new version of the
DcD. The main reason for that is time: if I would wait till everything
was included in the DcD, the new version would not be available in this
century.
Some of the things that you can expect in a future version are:
- An Australian index, by David King and others
- An index of Marvel's and Acclaim's comic books, by Steve Rowe, and
with data that Heidi MacDonald will provide some day.
- An update of the H-coded index (from the archives of the Dutch
editors)
- Updates for the Gladstone comics
- Some Yugoslavian and Egyptian comics
DcD. The main reason for that is time: if I would wait till everything
was included in the DcD, the new version would not be available in this
century.
Some of the things that you can expect in a future version are:
- An Australian index, by David King and others
- An index of Marvel's and Acclaim's comic books, by Steve Rowe, and
with data that Heidi MacDonald will provide some day.
- An update of the H-coded index (from the archives of the Dutch
editors)
- Updates for the Gladstone comics
- Some Yugoslavian and Egyptian comics
Jgarvin
Disney comics Digest V98 #131
Message 238 -
1998-05-27 at 20:25:33
Ram:
> While this point is true, there's also no reason why Don Rosa cannot
> voice his complaints in the hope it will effect change.
I never said Don couldn't complain. I just think it odd that one the one hand he
complains about Disney's business practices, yet on the other he continues to make
product for them. Don can try to claim that he is working for Egmont, but I bet that
Disney is making a share of the money on the Life of Scrooge albums, the Gladstone
comics, and anything else that is published with their characters.
> While Don is one person, Disney ultimately depends on the consumer. And consumers'
> views are influenced by the views of people like Rosa's. So I think he
> is perfectly justified in expressing his first hand view of the matter
> if he feels it is unfair (and obviously he does).
I don't think consumers' views are influenced by the creators at all. The only thing
that would influence consumers is if they had to go elsewhere to find the stories they
wanted to read. Which is exactly the point I was trying to make about "built in"
audiences. Don could create his own characters and his own universe and try to sell
them to another publisher and make a deal for royalites and profits etc. But I would
bet that the vast majority of comics readers are looking for stories about "Uncle
Scrooge," not for stories "by Don Rosa," or "Carl Barks" for that matter. I'm not
saying that Don could not find an audience with characters of his own, just that Disney
provides a huge built in audience.
> In the long run, as has been pointed out, Disney is fighting a losing battle. I am
> surprised you don't see that Disney is fighting, but a bit of research
> will illuminate that for you.
>
As I said, I am aware that Disney is very protective of its copyrights and that it has
a tenacious legal department.
> Barks may not express anger, but what I think has been done to Barks
> is an injustice by Disney. Again, I'd take a survey of people and ask
> them who created Uncle Scrooge.
I've talked to Barks about this. His position (he's also stated this in numerous
interviews) is that he was very aware that his comics sold millions of issues BECAUSE
it had the name "Disney" plastered all over it. Kids bought Walt Disney's Comics and
Stories. Disney was a house-hold name long before Barks started drawing comics using
Disney characters. Donald Duck was popular enough for their to be a "built in" demand
for the character in comic form: that's why Barks had the opportunity to do comics in
the first place. Look, I'm not arguing that Barks didn't deserve recognition, or that
he didn't elevate the character to something far beyond the Disney character. But
Barks recognised that without Disney, he would probably have been a chicken farmer
somewhere.
I'm not sure what you mean by "injustice." Are you refering to the fact that he is not
famous? Again, that is a result of the era Barks lived in. Thousands of creators
worked on thousands of characters for both comics and animated film, and almost NO ONE
was famous, except for the CHARACTERS. Audiences wanted to see Bugs Bunny and they
didn't much care whether it was Chuck Jones or Fritz Freleng of McKimson or Clampett or
Warner Brothers. Audiences wanted Donald Duck.
I think that Barks has been treated extremely fairly in the years since his
retirement. (Compared to say, Siegal and Shuster, the creators of Superman.)
> You could tell me I should not read
> Disney comics or not support them (actually I do support their
> positive policies, such as in the homosexual issue) but that's not how
> life works.
>
Well this is the whole issue, isn't it? Corporate change is brought about by consumer
"action" not talk. Every one on the planet can complain about Disney's unfair
treatment of creators, but if they all still "buy" Disney products, Disney won't
change. It would take a consumer boycott to get Disney's attention. But if you
boycott a product, wouldn't that take away the living that all these creators are
making?
> From Don:
>
> I can't help it -- the thought that Disney's legal department would examine
> each and every issue of a fanzine, page by page, and send out a formal
> declaration of permission on each usage therein, is laughable. I'm sure that
> Nichols simply determined what would protect him from any normal
> interpretation of the copyright law, and followed that course.
You are probably right about one thing: If John had started making tons of money (he
made none since it was a fanzine), Disney would probably have tried to put a stop to
it.
> >no Disney character could appear on the cover.
>
> That's FOR SURE. This is something that Disney would consider a gross
> violation! It would mean that someone would be using their characters to
> SELL a product. This they would NOT ignore under any circumstance.
>
Agreed.
> And if Disney could, they would stop each one of these uses of their
> characters which was not individually approved. They never see some, they
> are not forced to deal with others, and the larger ones seek and get
> approval on instance-by-instance basis.
Here's where we disagree. Look, most of these magazines published many many issues
with recurring use of Disney images. And these are high profile magazines that sit on
newstands all over the country. Don't tell me Disney didn't know about them. What do
you mean by "not forced to deal with"? I really think that Disney only "deals" with
illegal use (i.e. someone profitting from their characters) or with use that would be
in danger of allowing a character to enter the public domain.
> You did not say you simply drew "piles of money" -- you said you drew "The
> Money Bin", meaning the exterior of the building, not simply a lot of money
> in some room somewhere...
Well you misunderstood what I said. Money bin for me, means the interior: piles of
money, tractors, bars of gold, trinkets, etc.
> and that you placed your own copyright on the
> image. Disney had published tens of thousands of views of that particularly
> recognizeable structure, each one in a copyrighted story. It doesn't need to
> be a "character" to be copyrighted -- it's all just "lines on paper"
I would agree that the exterior of the bin is destinctive enough to be considered
copyrightable.
> . It's a
> copyrighted image. A world-famous one (well, outside of the USA, anyway).
> And as I said before, any piece of paper that has a drawing of something
> that they consider their property, or any copy of such a paper, Disney
> claims as their property as well. I'm simply telling you what they tell us
> freelance artists.
This _is_ ironic since you will argue in the next paragraphs that you _don't_ work for
Disney. So why do they tell you anything?
> >However, I am
> >arguing with your position that Disney is so stupid and greedy that it
> would stoop
> >to going after a school girl for using a Disney image in a school paper
> (surely,
> >in this you were being hyperbolic?)
>
> Of course, you'll note I never said that. I was pointing out to the person
> that simply putting a copyright symbol on a Disney image does NOT give them
> permission, *in Disney's opinion*, to use that image.
I will confess to some hyperbolic interpretation myself.
> As I said before, I was warning the person about the facts as I have
> observed them and as they have been told to me by Disney licensees and
> Disney officials/lawyers. You choose to interpret that as "bashing".
>
There is _no question_ that you have made it very clear that you are unhappy with
Disney's business practices in numerous postings. Bashing is a perfectly suitable word
for this.
> The Disney corporation does NOT make it possible for me to tell my stories.
> Not at all! In fact, when they wanted me to work for their comic company
> (when they assumed it from Gladstone), but I told them I refused and would
> work for Egmont instead, I was informed by the then-editor-in-chief at
> Egmont that Disney had called them and told them to *fire* me so I would be
> forced to work for Disney. Egmont, to their credit, had the good sense to
> know that they don't need to obey such commands from Disney. This is what
> the editor told me in 1990.
>
> >You complain about the fact that they don't pay royalties, yet you knew
> >that when you signed on and you know that with every page you draw.
>
> First, I did not "sign on". I have no contract with anyone. I have signed a
> waiver-of-rights... but this was never expected to cover the usage of my
> stories in anything but anthologies... not in something like hardback
> collections or album series of work that I have done solely on my own (with
> Byron's help), and which I did not do for Disney, but which they sell to
> other piublishers. Yes, regardless of what may have been signed, I do feel
> as though this sort of useage should entitle any sole-author to at least a
> token royalty. I think any sane person would. Sorry if you think that's an
> unreasonable attitude. (And I don't recall making this an issue on this
> forum.)
>
> >(I understand that Egmont is not Disney, but it's close enough.)
>
> !!!! Hogwash! Egmont is a giant corporation which publishes MANY, many other
> comics and books and magazines and Disney is only a tiny portion of it all.
> Egmont and Disney are two totally separate corporations with NO
> similarities, aside from a licensing agreement such as Disney has with
> thousands of other companies which are also not "close enough" to being
> Disney that there is no significant difference! What a bizarre thing to say!
> For one thing, Egmont is a non-profit PUBLIC CHARITY. I don't believe Disney
> is, eh?
>
!!!Hogwash back at you. I have in front of me the Egmont form that they wanted me to
sign in order to submit work to them (I refused). The form reads, and I quote:
I hereby transfer to you and the Walt Disney Company any and all rights of whatever
kind, known and yet unknown, present and future in and to the storylines, manuscripts
and/or drawings (collectively and separately referred to as material) that I deliver to
Egmont Publishing Service A/S for the use in Disney publications. I declare that the
remuneration I receive according to our agreement for such material covers full and
final release for such rights transfer.
The rights transferred include the right to adapt, modify, alter and re-transfer the
material in whole or in part and the right to print and reprint the material in any
translation, adaptation or connection whatsoever, it being understood that the
aggregate printrun can be very large on a world-wide basis.
For the sake of clarity I accept that the material can be used as part of collective
works with other material providers.
(sign your life away here)
I don't see much difference between Disney and Egmont.
> >Barks has never expressed anger or resentment against Disney, but has
> >actually defended them on many occasions, recognizing that without the huge
> >network of Disney movies, parks, books, etc. etc., everything that is the
> "Disney
> >Machine" there would be no built in audience for his stories.
>
> I constantly say the same thing. Probably far moreso than Barks ever did.
>
But Barks never complained about not getting royalties.
> >It is a rule of
> >capitolism, that he who has the money makes the rules. Disney has the
> right to
> >squeeze every last dime of profit out of its characters, comics, videos,
> etc.
>
> With customary, fair treatment to the creators, would you agree? Without
> being forced to do it, as they would be by the people involved in the more
> powerful fields of their TV shows and movies and CDs and books and
> "collectibles", etc., etc., eh? So you're saying that "might makes right"?
> Would Disney lose an iota of their profits if, in the field of comics, they
> allowed art returns or royalties on special projects? You think they should
> really be proud of these policies?
> I'm not making an issue of these things -- you brought it up. But I don't
> think I've ever heard anyone step forward and defend these sorts of
> policies.
>
There is a difference between what is "right" and what is legal. There is nothing
that compels a corporation to be generous.
> >You have the right to not work for them.
>
> And I have always refused to. I would *love* to be able to work for Disney
> ... I would be *proud* to... I wish my conscience would let me. Their
> policies prevent that. These policies could be changed in the wink of an eye
> and brought into line with all other entertainment field policies... I'll
> have to await that time... but when I have no relation with that
> corporation, and when they don't know I exist, that makes the chances of
> progress rather bleak.
> Why don't you give Roy Disney a call for me and tell him I'd like to speak
> to him? Nope... it's not so simple, eh?
Am I missing something here? Did you not have to sign the same Egmont release form
that I have? That transfers any and all work done for Egmont _to_ The Walt Disney
Company?We're getting off the point here. No creator has the right to complain about
rights that he/she has signed away. No one has the right to profit from the characters
that belong to someone. I don't think Disney is a model corporation (I never said they
were) but I think they do recognise fair use. Are we done beating this horse?
(By the way, since you cannot see my face while these virtual argments ensue I want to
make sure you know that, this is all good natured on my part. I am a big fan of your
work and plead guilty to purchasing all of your stories and helping the Disney Machine
to no end, economically. My only regret is that we are not sitting if front of a couple
of pints.)
jg
> While this point is true, there's also no reason why Don Rosa cannot
> voice his complaints in the hope it will effect change.
I never said Don couldn't complain. I just think it odd that one the one hand he
complains about Disney's business practices, yet on the other he continues to make
product for them. Don can try to claim that he is working for Egmont, but I bet that
Disney is making a share of the money on the Life of Scrooge albums, the Gladstone
comics, and anything else that is published with their characters.
> While Don is one person, Disney ultimately depends on the consumer. And consumers'
> views are influenced by the views of people like Rosa's. So I think he
> is perfectly justified in expressing his first hand view of the matter
> if he feels it is unfair (and obviously he does).
I don't think consumers' views are influenced by the creators at all. The only thing
that would influence consumers is if they had to go elsewhere to find the stories they
wanted to read. Which is exactly the point I was trying to make about "built in"
audiences. Don could create his own characters and his own universe and try to sell
them to another publisher and make a deal for royalites and profits etc. But I would
bet that the vast majority of comics readers are looking for stories about "Uncle
Scrooge," not for stories "by Don Rosa," or "Carl Barks" for that matter. I'm not
saying that Don could not find an audience with characters of his own, just that Disney
provides a huge built in audience.
> In the long run, as has been pointed out, Disney is fighting a losing battle. I am
> surprised you don't see that Disney is fighting, but a bit of research
> will illuminate that for you.
>
As I said, I am aware that Disney is very protective of its copyrights and that it has
a tenacious legal department.
> Barks may not express anger, but what I think has been done to Barks
> is an injustice by Disney. Again, I'd take a survey of people and ask
> them who created Uncle Scrooge.
I've talked to Barks about this. His position (he's also stated this in numerous
interviews) is that he was very aware that his comics sold millions of issues BECAUSE
it had the name "Disney" plastered all over it. Kids bought Walt Disney's Comics and
Stories. Disney was a house-hold name long before Barks started drawing comics using
Disney characters. Donald Duck was popular enough for their to be a "built in" demand
for the character in comic form: that's why Barks had the opportunity to do comics in
the first place. Look, I'm not arguing that Barks didn't deserve recognition, or that
he didn't elevate the character to something far beyond the Disney character. But
Barks recognised that without Disney, he would probably have been a chicken farmer
somewhere.
I'm not sure what you mean by "injustice." Are you refering to the fact that he is not
famous? Again, that is a result of the era Barks lived in. Thousands of creators
worked on thousands of characters for both comics and animated film, and almost NO ONE
was famous, except for the CHARACTERS. Audiences wanted to see Bugs Bunny and they
didn't much care whether it was Chuck Jones or Fritz Freleng of McKimson or Clampett or
Warner Brothers. Audiences wanted Donald Duck.
I think that Barks has been treated extremely fairly in the years since his
retirement. (Compared to say, Siegal and Shuster, the creators of Superman.)
> You could tell me I should not read
> Disney comics or not support them (actually I do support their
> positive policies, such as in the homosexual issue) but that's not how
> life works.
>
Well this is the whole issue, isn't it? Corporate change is brought about by consumer
"action" not talk. Every one on the planet can complain about Disney's unfair
treatment of creators, but if they all still "buy" Disney products, Disney won't
change. It would take a consumer boycott to get Disney's attention. But if you
boycott a product, wouldn't that take away the living that all these creators are
making?
> From Don:
>
> I can't help it -- the thought that Disney's legal department would examine
> each and every issue of a fanzine, page by page, and send out a formal
> declaration of permission on each usage therein, is laughable. I'm sure that
> Nichols simply determined what would protect him from any normal
> interpretation of the copyright law, and followed that course.
You are probably right about one thing: If John had started making tons of money (he
made none since it was a fanzine), Disney would probably have tried to put a stop to
it.
> >no Disney character could appear on the cover.
>
> That's FOR SURE. This is something that Disney would consider a gross
> violation! It would mean that someone would be using their characters to
> SELL a product. This they would NOT ignore under any circumstance.
>
Agreed.
> And if Disney could, they would stop each one of these uses of their
> characters which was not individually approved. They never see some, they
> are not forced to deal with others, and the larger ones seek and get
> approval on instance-by-instance basis.
Here's where we disagree. Look, most of these magazines published many many issues
with recurring use of Disney images. And these are high profile magazines that sit on
newstands all over the country. Don't tell me Disney didn't know about them. What do
you mean by "not forced to deal with"? I really think that Disney only "deals" with
illegal use (i.e. someone profitting from their characters) or with use that would be
in danger of allowing a character to enter the public domain.
> You did not say you simply drew "piles of money" -- you said you drew "The
> Money Bin", meaning the exterior of the building, not simply a lot of money
> in some room somewhere...
Well you misunderstood what I said. Money bin for me, means the interior: piles of
money, tractors, bars of gold, trinkets, etc.
> and that you placed your own copyright on the
> image. Disney had published tens of thousands of views of that particularly
> recognizeable structure, each one in a copyrighted story. It doesn't need to
> be a "character" to be copyrighted -- it's all just "lines on paper"
I would agree that the exterior of the bin is destinctive enough to be considered
copyrightable.
> . It's a
> copyrighted image. A world-famous one (well, outside of the USA, anyway).
> And as I said before, any piece of paper that has a drawing of something
> that they consider their property, or any copy of such a paper, Disney
> claims as their property as well. I'm simply telling you what they tell us
> freelance artists.
This _is_ ironic since you will argue in the next paragraphs that you _don't_ work for
Disney. So why do they tell you anything?
> >However, I am
> >arguing with your position that Disney is so stupid and greedy that it
> would stoop
> >to going after a school girl for using a Disney image in a school paper
> (surely,
> >in this you were being hyperbolic?)
>
> Of course, you'll note I never said that. I was pointing out to the person
> that simply putting a copyright symbol on a Disney image does NOT give them
> permission, *in Disney's opinion*, to use that image.
I will confess to some hyperbolic interpretation myself.
> As I said before, I was warning the person about the facts as I have
> observed them and as they have been told to me by Disney licensees and
> Disney officials/lawyers. You choose to interpret that as "bashing".
>
There is _no question_ that you have made it very clear that you are unhappy with
Disney's business practices in numerous postings. Bashing is a perfectly suitable word
for this.
> The Disney corporation does NOT make it possible for me to tell my stories.
> Not at all! In fact, when they wanted me to work for their comic company
> (when they assumed it from Gladstone), but I told them I refused and would
> work for Egmont instead, I was informed by the then-editor-in-chief at
> Egmont that Disney had called them and told them to *fire* me so I would be
> forced to work for Disney. Egmont, to their credit, had the good sense to
> know that they don't need to obey such commands from Disney. This is what
> the editor told me in 1990.
>
> >You complain about the fact that they don't pay royalties, yet you knew
> >that when you signed on and you know that with every page you draw.
>
> First, I did not "sign on". I have no contract with anyone. I have signed a
> waiver-of-rights... but this was never expected to cover the usage of my
> stories in anything but anthologies... not in something like hardback
> collections or album series of work that I have done solely on my own (with
> Byron's help), and which I did not do for Disney, but which they sell to
> other piublishers. Yes, regardless of what may have been signed, I do feel
> as though this sort of useage should entitle any sole-author to at least a
> token royalty. I think any sane person would. Sorry if you think that's an
> unreasonable attitude. (And I don't recall making this an issue on this
> forum.)
>
> >(I understand that Egmont is not Disney, but it's close enough.)
>
> !!!! Hogwash! Egmont is a giant corporation which publishes MANY, many other
> comics and books and magazines and Disney is only a tiny portion of it all.
> Egmont and Disney are two totally separate corporations with NO
> similarities, aside from a licensing agreement such as Disney has with
> thousands of other companies which are also not "close enough" to being
> Disney that there is no significant difference! What a bizarre thing to say!
> For one thing, Egmont is a non-profit PUBLIC CHARITY. I don't believe Disney
> is, eh?
>
!!!Hogwash back at you. I have in front of me the Egmont form that they wanted me to
sign in order to submit work to them (I refused). The form reads, and I quote:
I hereby transfer to you and the Walt Disney Company any and all rights of whatever
kind, known and yet unknown, present and future in and to the storylines, manuscripts
and/or drawings (collectively and separately referred to as material) that I deliver to
Egmont Publishing Service A/S for the use in Disney publications. I declare that the
remuneration I receive according to our agreement for such material covers full and
final release for such rights transfer.
The rights transferred include the right to adapt, modify, alter and re-transfer the
material in whole or in part and the right to print and reprint the material in any
translation, adaptation or connection whatsoever, it being understood that the
aggregate printrun can be very large on a world-wide basis.
For the sake of clarity I accept that the material can be used as part of collective
works with other material providers.
(sign your life away here)
I don't see much difference between Disney and Egmont.
> >Barks has never expressed anger or resentment against Disney, but has
> >actually defended them on many occasions, recognizing that without the huge
> >network of Disney movies, parks, books, etc. etc., everything that is the
> "Disney
> >Machine" there would be no built in audience for his stories.
>
> I constantly say the same thing. Probably far moreso than Barks ever did.
>
But Barks never complained about not getting royalties.
> >It is a rule of
> >capitolism, that he who has the money makes the rules. Disney has the
> right to
> >squeeze every last dime of profit out of its characters, comics, videos,
> etc.
>
> With customary, fair treatment to the creators, would you agree? Without
> being forced to do it, as they would be by the people involved in the more
> powerful fields of their TV shows and movies and CDs and books and
> "collectibles", etc., etc., eh? So you're saying that "might makes right"?
> Would Disney lose an iota of their profits if, in the field of comics, they
> allowed art returns or royalties on special projects? You think they should
> really be proud of these policies?
> I'm not making an issue of these things -- you brought it up. But I don't
> think I've ever heard anyone step forward and defend these sorts of
> policies.
>
There is a difference between what is "right" and what is legal. There is nothing
that compels a corporation to be generous.
> >You have the right to not work for them.
>
> And I have always refused to. I would *love* to be able to work for Disney
> ... I would be *proud* to... I wish my conscience would let me. Their
> policies prevent that. These policies could be changed in the wink of an eye
> and brought into line with all other entertainment field policies... I'll
> have to await that time... but when I have no relation with that
> corporation, and when they don't know I exist, that makes the chances of
> progress rather bleak.
> Why don't you give Roy Disney a call for me and tell him I'd like to speak
> to him? Nope... it's not so simple, eh?
Am I missing something here? Did you not have to sign the same Egmont release form
that I have? That transfers any and all work done for Egmont _to_ The Walt Disney
Company?We're getting off the point here. No creator has the right to complain about
rights that he/she has signed away. No one has the right to profit from the characters
that belong to someone. I don't think Disney is a model corporation (I never said they
were) but I think they do recognise fair use. Are we done beating this horse?
(By the way, since you cannot see my face while these virtual argments ensue I want to
make sure you know that, this is all good natured on my part. I am a big fan of your
work and plead guilty to purchasing all of your stories and helping the Disney Machine
to no end, economically. My only regret is that we are not sitting if front of a couple
of pints.)
jg
Donald D. Markstein
Disney comics Digest V98 #131
Message 239 -
1998-05-27 at 21:36:22
Correct, Per. Only part of my last post made it through. I have
no idea what happened, but here it is complete:
ON THE "FAIR USE" AND COPYRIGHT FLAP --
I don't pretend to know what Disney will or will not
allow, or how vigorously they will defend what they see as their
rights. I do know their general reputation in that area is
amazing. I also recall the story of the nursery school with
Disney characters on its walls, that Disney lawyers forced them
to re-paint. (The Hanna-Barbera folks got wind of it and not
only gave permission to use their characters, but sent their own
artists over to do it -- score one for H-B.)
Anyway, I take the reputation and the stories seriously
enough to act. I'm currently working on a CD-ROM anthology of
pirate-theme material -- everything I can find on the subject,
that can be digitized, that's worth using, that I won't get sued
over. I have complete texts of TREASURE ISLAND (with Wyeth
paintings), PETER PAN (with stills from a 1924 silent movie
version), PIRATES OF PENZANCE (with music in MIDI format), and
lots of other pirate stories. Plus clip art, screen savers,
animation, historical material, shareware games, and just PILES
and PILES of pirate-theme material of every type. It should go
on sale in mid-June, weighing in at around half a gigabyte. It's
loads of fun and should bring in a few bucks; and if it goes
over, I'll do one about dinosaurs.
I've been gathering Disney material right along with the
rest -- stills from Disney's TREASURE ISLAND and BLACKBEARD'S
GHOST, cels from Disney's PETER PAN, cover of PIRATE GOLD (as
part of a general pirate comics cover gallery), etc. And all
that stuff will be on MY copy of the CD -- but NOT on any copies
that leave my house.
All of this stuff, if accompanied by a copyright notice,
is traditionally tolerated by most corporations. But Disney has
this awful reputation, and since they could squish me like a
flea without even noticing the exertion, I figure I just don't
need the potential headache. What the hell -- people who pay
$19.95 for this CD-ROM will definitely get their money's worth
with or without the Disney stuff.
I don't know that there's a point to this story. Disney
wouldn't lose anything by my including stills from their movies
-- but then, they don't lose by having them left off, either.
The diminution of value of my CD is very small, and probably
won't be noticed by anyone who buys it. I guess the biggest
source of detriment to the world is that their constant activity
to quash this sort of thing provides employment for lawyers,
thus encouraging them to exist.
Quack, Don
no idea what happened, but here it is complete:
ON THE "FAIR USE" AND COPYRIGHT FLAP --
I don't pretend to know what Disney will or will not
allow, or how vigorously they will defend what they see as their
rights. I do know their general reputation in that area is
amazing. I also recall the story of the nursery school with
Disney characters on its walls, that Disney lawyers forced them
to re-paint. (The Hanna-Barbera folks got wind of it and not
only gave permission to use their characters, but sent their own
artists over to do it -- score one for H-B.)
Anyway, I take the reputation and the stories seriously
enough to act. I'm currently working on a CD-ROM anthology of
pirate-theme material -- everything I can find on the subject,
that can be digitized, that's worth using, that I won't get sued
over. I have complete texts of TREASURE ISLAND (with Wyeth
paintings), PETER PAN (with stills from a 1924 silent movie
version), PIRATES OF PENZANCE (with music in MIDI format), and
lots of other pirate stories. Plus clip art, screen savers,
animation, historical material, shareware games, and just PILES
and PILES of pirate-theme material of every type. It should go
on sale in mid-June, weighing in at around half a gigabyte. It's
loads of fun and should bring in a few bucks; and if it goes
over, I'll do one about dinosaurs.
I've been gathering Disney material right along with the
rest -- stills from Disney's TREASURE ISLAND and BLACKBEARD'S
GHOST, cels from Disney's PETER PAN, cover of PIRATE GOLD (as
part of a general pirate comics cover gallery), etc. And all
that stuff will be on MY copy of the CD -- but NOT on any copies
that leave my house.
All of this stuff, if accompanied by a copyright notice,
is traditionally tolerated by most corporations. But Disney has
this awful reputation, and since they could squish me like a
flea without even noticing the exertion, I figure I just don't
need the potential headache. What the hell -- people who pay
$19.95 for this CD-ROM will definitely get their money's worth
with or without the Disney stuff.
I don't know that there's a point to this story. Disney
wouldn't lose anything by my including stills from their movies
-- but then, they don't lose by having them left off, either.
The diminution of value of my CD is very small, and probably
won't be noticed by anyone who buys it. I guess the biggest
source of detriment to the world is that their constant activity
to quash this sort of thing provides employment for lawyers,
thus encouraging them to exist.
Quack, Don
Bmartin
Disney comics Digest V98 #131
Message 240 -
1998-05-27 at 22:10:43
>However, I am
>arguing with your position that Disney is so stupid and greedy that it
>would stoop
>to going after a school girl for using a Disney image in a school paper
>(surely,
>in this you were being hyperbolic?)
I can add that Disney has written numerous day-care operations warning them
that the day-care must be registered and pay a fee (nominal to be fair) if
the day-care wished to show Disney videos to the children. Without the
registration, Disney considers these showings outside of the normal viewing
allowed for private home use after purchase of the video. Effectively,
Disney seems to be arguing that the day-care is showing the video as part
of its paid duties which is outside the license when purchased.
B. Martin
>arguing with your position that Disney is so stupid and greedy that it
>would stoop
>to going after a school girl for using a Disney image in a school paper
>(surely,
>in this you were being hyperbolic?)
I can add that Disney has written numerous day-care operations warning them
that the day-care must be registered and pay a fee (nominal to be fair) if
the day-care wished to show Disney videos to the children. Without the
registration, Disney considers these showings outside of the normal viewing
allowed for private home use after purchase of the video. Effectively,
Disney seems to be arguing that the day-care is showing the video as part
of its paid duties which is outside the license when purchased.
B. Martin