Talk:Walt Disney

	This Films related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Copyright extension myth

That section had to be heavily rewritten - it was ladden with myths and myth debunking is our thing. Faunas (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, @Faunas. Debunking the Steamboat Willie stuff is good and necessary, but I wonder if this isn’t, at the same time, a bit beside the point? The idea that the US had to “keep up” with the EU strikes me as rather baseless (by contrast, the need to harmonise copyright within the EU is simply one aspect of creating and strengthening the Single Market, just like it would be problematic if individual US states had differing copyright terms)). It also seems to me that this “We cannot have shorter copyright terms than those guys across the Atlantic!”-logic is used as part of the lobbying for constantly extending copyright terms in both the EU and the US.

The current tone sounds almost apologetic, as if there was no reason not to raise copyright terms or that Disney had nothing to do with it. What Disney probably had and has a significant interest in protecting is not so much Steamboat Willie, but its big earners, i.e. its classic, full-length movies from the 1930s (Snow White), ‘40s (Pinocchio, Dumbo, Bambi etc,) and ‘50s (Cinderella, Peter Pan, Lady and the Tramp, Sleeping Beauty etc.). Pointing out that Disney had no reason to defend Steamboat Willie is not the same as Disney not lobbying for/influencing the copyright extension decision at all. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry having taken so long, but here it goes.

1. The USA are the world's largest exporters of cultural products.
2. There is an optional rule in the Berne Convention called the rule of the shorter term, which states that a country can (although they're not obliged to) apply either that country's term or the country of origin's term to foreign works (otherwise it's the second term in both countries.
3. When all its countries are put together, the EU is the largest market in the world.
4. The EU directive applied that rule to the works from countries which did not apply this term (taken from this).

Faunas (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Disney and Social Justice section maybe?

@Spud There is quite a lot of talk on youtube complaining about "wokeness" in Disney movies. It might, as such, be mentioned as conspiracy theory. On the other hand, Social Justice agenda in Disney productions is being discussed by academic sources such as Boston U School of Theology, and the troll phenomena is widely discussed in mainstream media. This is not my cup of tea, but gentleman that I am, I thought of some work that you could do.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Other sources discussing Disney’s “wokeness” include the videos “Woke Disney” by Lindsey Ellis, “Late Stage Disney” by Renegade Cut and “Half in the Bag: The 70-Minute Rise of Skywalker Review” by Red Letter Media, around the 53:35 mark. Allgoodusernamesweretaken (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The Mickey Mouse portion in an image is not in the public domain

The area containing Mickey Mouse in this image is not in the public domain.

The image on the right itself is in the public domain. However any part of the image that includes Mickey Mouse is still protected by copyright law. Derivative works of characters are copyrighted in the US until the original work that features the character is released into the public domain. See [1]. If we put a black box over the Mickey Mouse in the photo or crop the image to remove the character, it would be fine. Thus the image caption "Of course, finding public domain images of Mickey Mouse is not impossible." is wrong. There are no public domain images of Mickey Mouse and there will never be such images until January 1, 2024, when the copyright for Steamboat Willie expires, which is where Mickey Mouse originated from. 206.176.159.221 (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The image is from Wikimedia Commons. If you think there is a copyright problem, nominate the file for deletion on Wikimedia Commons. Spud (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Meh, I can't be bothered to. The image will be in the public domain in 3.5 years. It wouldn't make sense at this point to delete it and then restore it a few years later. I just want to say that the image caption is false. 206.176.159.221 (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

All right. I've changed the image caption. Spud (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is full of amateur lawyers who enjoy finding obscure copyright objections to content and deleting it.I generally presume that these types have vetted any content that appears there. There are many ways this particular content could have fallen into the US public domain. Release as a publicity still without a copyright symbol and notice is one way. For material before 1978, which this surely was, copyright had to be renewed; no renewal, no copyright. Note also that a character or costume strictly speaking can't be copyrighted; only particular images of the character can be copyrighted. Characters can be trademarked, but trademark really isn't relevant here. The only issue is whether this particular image has fallen into the public domain, and if it's on Commons I presume it is. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 03:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The image is taken from an October 1931 issue of National Board of Review Magazine. According to the licensing template. its copyright was not renewed. And Wikimedia Commons has an entire category devoted to Mickey Mouse with multiple sub-categories. I'd say there are some pictures there that would get some of those amateur copyright lawyers' knickers in a twist. Spud (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Florida versus Disney

My usual source of bizarre stories (I do look at better news sites as well) came up with this. Anna Livia (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

“Sometimes it's like watching a wasp land on a stinging nettle: someone's going to get stung and you don't care.” - Terry Pratchett

So, yeah, Ron DeSantis is having a performative temper tantrum for the Fox News crowd that is scared of teh gay and IS ALL OFFENDED!! about Disney's mild criticism of the "Don't Say Gay" bill. So, the Florida Republicans want to waste time with this bullshit and try to take away Disney's independent special district (and any others created before November 5, 1968 that hadn't been re-approved. Which also means a few rural development authorities and water / sewer districts also are on the chopping block. An example would be the Bradford County Development Authority, dealing a "blow" to our nation's most notorious "speed trap").

That being said, according to a Florida legislation statute (189.072.2a), independent districts cannot be dissolved without a majority vote of the residents. And I frankly doubt the "notwithstanding 189.072.2a" in the new bill text will fly with a judge.

If this actually does go through, the only net effect will be that Orange County (Orlando area) inherits Reedy Creek's debts and operations, without inheriting Reedy Creek's taxes. Since there is 50 years of Disney infrastructure to inherit, I imagine it will be an expensive mess. My guess, of course, is that the above is "performative theater", but in these shitpost political times, who knows? 72.184.174.199 (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The proposal does seem to be moving forward.

Someone should suggest 'mock-serious-wise' that Florida should shut down 'the tubes' as people will look up information there, and the Lysistrata option be pursued. Anna Livia (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Faking Disneyworld

Came across [2] - there are probably 'better'/longer lasting pages. Anna Livia (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Disneyworld can be accused of a lot of things, but lacking adequate natural drainage in the form of swampland surrounding the park is not one of them. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)