There's a difference between a private and public viewing though. You can screen to whomever you want in a private viewing session.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Disney CEO Bob Iger apologizes after licensing agent demanded $250 from an elementary school that showed The Lion King at fundraising event
- Thread starter excelsiorlef
- Start date
There's a difference between a private and public viewing though. You can screen to whomever you want in a private viewing session.
Why is there a distinction though? How is it any different if I screen the movie to 100 people I invite to my home or 100 people at a school? If they want a say in who can and can't watch the movie then they shouldn't sell DVDs.
So what do you propose?
Your post is all over the place. You're complaining that Disney "basically owns the concept of a furry Hamlet," but we're not talking about owning general concepts or Disney suing somebody who made a similar work that Disney claimed was derivative, so I have no idea where you're going with that. A group screened a Disney film that was released last year without paying Disney for the rights. Even the strictest, most elementary interpretation of film copyright would put that group in hot water.
We are still, for the time being, a nation of laws, and the most important thing about laws is that they're supposed to apply to everyone, without regard to how much you like them at the moment. Copyright protects scripts and films owned by Disney just as it protects scripts and films owned by an independent filmmaker. You can't say Disney can't have copyright protection just because you don't like them.
People here seem to have much less of a problem understanding the difference between private and public use rights when music artists try to get Trump to stop stupidly playing their music without licensing it at rallies. Just because you buy an MP3 or have an Apple Music subscription doesn't mean you can play that song on a radio station or broadcast it at an event with thousands of people. It's the exact same principle here; public sentiment just isn't on the side of the copyright enforcer, in this case.
Should Disney (or rather, the overzealous IP licensing firm representing Disney) have enforced that copyright, in this case? Of course not, it was petty and a PR blunder. Does that mean the PTA had the right to screen the film? No.
Owning a physical thing requires a level of physical investment and engagement that owning a concept does not. The idea that corporations should be allowed to own an idea into perpetuity is a perversion of our legal system.
Legal: Showing a Disney movie at your kid's birthday party
Illegal: Showing a Disney movie at your kid's birthday party on your home theatre and you charge people to enter the room
Gray Area: Showing a Disney movie at your kid's birthday party and you have a cover charge for guests, but I'm pretty sure this is illegal
Illegal: Showing a Disney movie at your kid's birthday party on your home theatre and you charge people to enter the room
Gray Area: Showing a Disney movie at your kid's birthday party and you have a cover charge for guests, but I'm pretty sure this is illegal
They can't own it into perpetuity, they own it over the copyright period established by law.
I hate Disney but they shouldn't have apologized for this. It's basic copyright law and it exists for a reason. That's why schools often license videos they show. They should have picked a public domain film. I'm not against changing the law for nonprofits but you cant just take a DVD and run it for the public for obvious reasons as the law is currently written
Disney's influence on copyright law is a different and hugely problematic thing though.
Disney's influence on copyright law is a different and hugely problematic thing though.
They don't own it into perpetuity, though yes in the age where nothing dies culturally they managed to get it extended a lot. And the same protections apply to individuals.
They pay the same in property taxes as others. If you don't like low property taxes blame CA prop 13.
You can show it in private all you want. A paid public screening needs a license though.
School was in Berkeley. Good chance a Pixar employee saw a flyer.
Gray area would be illegal, but this is otherwise accurate.
Every situation is different, but basic rules are that if you address charging money or inviting people outside your group, you have to pay a license fee.
Last edited:
That isn't the distinction though. Or the situation.
The difference is one screening is for entertainment purposes and considered fair use.
The other has a financial benefit without express permission.
Yes, there are cases where it becomes gray area and given the use and intent of the funds going to a noble cause(charity donation), typically and rationally it should be allowed to slide(but still requires approval). But also consider the need to curb situations of malfeasance where the money is deemed for charity purposes but instead ends up a grift. The IP holder has a right to shut that shit down, the disc is yours to use, but not to profit from.
I was just thinking this.
The other thread felt like fcking bizarro world with how many posters said, "Well that giant multi-billion company HAD to fleece that small Fundraiser!" So goddamn weird.
Glad to see Iger realized how awful this looked and is trying to course correct.
I actually don't remember anyone saying Disney should have gone after the school, just that the school should have known better. (Which is true.)
There were a few people holding onto the mistaken "well copyright holders have to vigorously defend their copyright or lose it" thing, but that was it.
I don't think anyone denied that it was a bad look for Disney.
Corporations like Disney have aggressively, and so far successfully, managed to lobby for copyright laws to be extended further and further, and there is no indication that they will ever stop. Saying that those same protections also apply to individuals is like saying that individuals have the right to own as many houses as they want; technically true but in practice a legal fiction meant only to service an extremely privileged minority of society.
I'm sure some did, but you don't get paid for stopping PR disasters unless you're HR.
Which they continually extend using their significant lobbying power afforded to them by the wealth they generate from the IPs they claim ownership of.
They have stopped, though. We already know that they've stopped; new material has been entering the public domain for the past few years. Steamboat Willie is going to enter the public domain on January 1, 2024, and any change in law to prevent that would have to already be working its way through the channels by now, but no such law exists. Making a push to change laws to extend copyright further would be hugely expensive and honestly it's pretty clear the major corporations have made the calculation and don't think it's worth it. Copyright is already so long; there isn't a lot of value in retaining copyright on near-century-old works. And the last copyright extension was hugely controversial and public sentiment isn't on their side.
That said, even if some people somewhere were trying to extend copyright, that doesn't exactly mean that copyright as a concept shouldn't exist.
This is absolute nonsense. The vast majority of people who enjoy the benefits of copyright are individual creators. Obtaining a copyright is nothing like buying a house; a work is protected under copyright as soon as it is published or shared in a fixed form. To put a point on it, congratulations: your nonsense post is already protected under your copyright. You, yourself, are a member of that "extremely privileged minority of society." If I wrote a book of bad takes and included your post in it without your permission, you'd be able to come after me for violating your copyright on it. Copyright is the very thing that gives an artist recourse if a t-shirt company downloads their art and throws it on a t-shirt, which happens seemingly every other day, judging by my Twitter feed.
Enforcement companies just enforce. That's what they do.
I've gotten takedown notices from Sony before (which uses a third party enforcement agent who had no concept of media coverage and fair use). I just tell them to go away and never hear of it again.
In those cases they should have known they had no claim on me, but then again every notice is another number on the monthly metrics that justify the contract those companies have with IP holders.
It's stopped. We're about to see some bigger named stuff cycle into public domain.
I'm fucking dying at the number of people who don't get that this is satire.
I'll believe it when i see it, honestly.
Ah, it was a third party enforcer. That makes a bit more sense
I don't think he can actually, unless you sign your post with a copyright the rights pass to Resetera as per the TOS which is a boilerplate all social media companies use.
This post © of Samoyed 2020 All Rights Reserved
Well, okay. But it was just an illustration.
The point is, copyright is not some weird thing that only massive corporations have, and spinning it as such is nonsense. I know tons of writers and artists and filmmakers who have copyright protection (and who actually have to use it) who aren't part of some giant machine.
Well, first off, I want to clarify that I don't think, nor have I ever claimed, that copyright law shouldn't exist in any form. Secondly, just because the majority of people who see some benefit from copyright law are individual creators doesn't therefore mean that copyright law isn't constructed in such a way to primarily serve the interests of a privileged minority. Third, I'm going to have to put a giant citation needed asterix next to your claim that my posts on a message board somehow qualifies as protected IP.
The difference is when one charges money for it or money is made from the screening.
simpsons-references-for-everything is probably top five best things on the internet. don't ever stop you crazy sexy fools.
I was responding to your post about bad PR, about how it was a 3rd party, then noticed someone already let you know, so it would have been a redundant post
He should be fired immediately. People in the other thread said Disney had to do this to save their IP otherwise they would go out of business.
Imagine being dumb enough to believe Disney can go out of business
One year of Disney+ for free!!!*
*With a 2 year subscription contract and one-time $250 fee when joining.
*With a 2 year subscription contract and one-time $250 fee when joining.
He's definitely rolling his eyes and wondering why people can't just follow the law.
