Brief 6: Copyright and Fair Use

Walt Disney Animation studio is a global icon. No doubt that most children around the world have a beloved childhood classic that was made by Disney. Now with their fingers in all sorts of mediums from Broadway plays, to Disney+ streaming, Marvel, Star Wars, there is no competing with the billion dollar typhoon.

As beloved as Disney is, there is been in question for many years about its authenticity. While Disney is known to adapt fairy tales and iconic stories, this has gotten them into a gray area. While it is perfectly find to adapt a story that is well aged, (the legality of copyright issued by the Berne Convention states that a piece is copyrighted for the duration of the author's life plus 50 years after their death) recent pieces must be respected. Many creators and smaller studios have come forward claiming that Disney stole their ideas.

"Some of the animation studio's best loved films have become mired in lawsuits from authors, filmmakers and cartoonists they've been accused of flat-out ripping off. Normally the cases are dropped and if not they're settled out of court with the official compromise not made public, but it's certainly something that tarnishes the reputation of a company whose biggest crime is only releasing their classics on DVD for painfully short periods." Source

The most well-known fabrication is Kimba vs Simba. Kimba is an animation adapted from Japanese manga created by Osamu Tezuka and was extremely popular in Japan and Eastern Asia. It is also known that the Tezuka was a well-known fan of Disney, but if he were still alive, he may feel differently.

A year after his death, Disney began working on the story of the Lion King. While Disney sported that the Lion King was a completely original idea, it is hard to believe when looking at the side by side footage (found in the link above) of the Lion King next to Kimba the White Lion and the Jungle Emperor. Yes, you read that correctly; the title itself is even arguably synonymous with the Lion King. 

The story of Kimba is an orphan white lion cub that must fight to reclaim back his father's legacy of his jungle home from destruction. The plot is based around the importance of life and nature, and the balance that must be maintained in the ecosystem if the world is going to live in harmony.... where have we heard that before? Perhaps a more clever summation of that idea could be stated as the circle of life? 

Though, naturally, Disney denies ever hearing about Kimba, this is clearly a lie. Not only was Tezuka a well-known fan and proclaimed animator in Japan, but the story of Kimba was a booming sensation in all of Asia. There is no way a global presence such as Disney was oblivious to that fact. Also, despite that the two main lion cubs' names are only one letter off (who in their right mind can call coincidence on that), there are claims that Simba's earliest drawings depicted him as white as well.There are even further claims of typos in script that refer to him as Kimba. It is also ironic that Disney claims to be unaware of the existence of Kimba when voice actor of Simba, Matthew Broderick, said in an interview that he had heard of Kimba. 

The similarities from the name of the main character, title, and animal troupe in both films, it is apparent that the ideas are too closely similar to be coincidental. The thing is, to Western audiences, the Lion King was fresh and new. Most were not familiar with material produced in Eastern countries, so Disney marketing the Lion King as unique and original was true with them because until then, they were unfamiliar with the story. It did not set well with Japanese audiences, however. They felt the ideas were clearly stolen, however, Tezuka's animation studio did not press charges against Disney due to money. They were a much smaller studio and did not have the budget to go into the lawsuit. Instead, Disney tried to flag them for copyright after they released a follow- up film of the Jungle Emperor showing Kimba all grown up with his own cub that came after the Lion King even though the production of that film began before the production of the the Lion King. Not to mention the obvious fact that they had created the story of Kimba long before Disney ever touched the idea of the Lion King. 

While the story of Kimba is by far the most blatant and heard of copyright issue involving Disney, this is not the first time Disney has been accused of this. The mega-hit release of 2014 Frozen was accused of stealing a whole short film for their teaser trailer. 

In 2009, there a short film release titled the Snowman showed a cute scene of a snowman with a carrot nose trying to keep the woodland animals from eating it, specifically a group of rabbits. The whole clip shows these rabbits at odds with this snowman on a frozen lake. Both parties are scrambling to be the first ones to get to the carrot on the slippery ice and using cartoon ingenious ways to get there. Eventually, the rabbits get there first, but they have a change of heart and give back the carrot nose to its rightful owner. It is a sweet, simple, light-hearted short film.

Flash forward to the first teaser trailer for Frozen. It shows the cute and lovable Olaf frolicking in the woods to only come across the equally lovable Sven the reindeer. Once Sven sees the carrot nose, he is ready to chow down. The mad scramble for the carrot takes places on a frozen like with both parties engaging in cartoon theatrics to be the first ones to the carrot. In the end, Sven gives back the carrot nose to Olaf. 

After reviewing the two films, this case is not as obvious as the Kimba one. Yes, it does appear ironic that the setting was the same place, the main character was practically the same, and the plot was identical, and there are even claims that the shots themselves are identical, but there it is still merely considered speculation. For one, the idea of a living snowman is not unheard of, and the woodland animals were not the same, rabbits versus reindeer. This is why this claim of copyright got no traction. There was no incriminating evidence, just all speculation.  

It is not Disney alone that has had the fingers pointed at that them for copyright. Disney/Pixar has been accused also. Two beloved films, Toy Story and Monsters Inc., have both been accused of stealing unoriginal content from other older films. 

Toy Story is often considered Pixar's first major hit, and what put Pixar on the map. However, this clever little idea of toys coming to life was not first their own. While the idea is not too far fetched, and I am sure thousands of little kids imagined it before, Pixar was not the first to put this idea into a film format. The Christmas Toy was created by Muppets producer, Jim Henson in 1986.

The story behind the Christmas Toy is generally the same; the toys come to life when there is no one around. The main difference here being that the toy loses its ability to be alive if it is caught moving and out of place by a human. The setting for this movie takes place at Christmas time with the main toy, Rugby the tiger which is the child's personal favorite, thinking he will get to be wrapped and open again like last year. Once he realizes that new toys are arriving, specifically new fancy space toys, he becomes jealous.

So they are not identical, but overall idea is. It is  just the toys and time period changed. A jealous toy not wanting the new space toy to take his place... its just hard to think that Pixar did not jump on the idea to make that story their own and to make it better. But because the ideas are the only thing similar and the execution was starkly different, this case was overlooked.

Trailer

Another example of this was seen with the 1989 film, Little Monsters. Again, the idea of monsters hiding under the bed is not exclusive; it is a common theme. However, the film Little Monsters touched on a secret world of monsters that get their access to the human world from under the child's bed. In the clip provided above in the link, the main monster even talks about the stairs in the monster world that lead up to different bedrooms to the human world. Monsters Inc. just traded stair for an organized factory system of closet doors. The story revolves around this secret plot the monsters have and use children to their agenda, with one evil monster kidnapping children for their own evil purpose. While the two agendas are different in each movie, the idea that monsters from another world come to the human world because they need human children for a grand scheme is the again the same idea. And unlike Toy Story with the toys and setting being completely different, the fact that the main monster is blue and has horns like the beloved Sully of Monsters Inc. was another argued fact added to this case.  One source described it as this,

 "a kid played by Fred Savage (of course) meets a friendly monster named Maurice, who is basically a low-budget human version of Sully from Monsters, Inc.: It's just Howie Mandell with blue/purple makeup, blue hair and plastic horns on his head." Source


Regardless that one could argue the quality that Pixar brought to these 80s films was far above what they could ever want to achieve, that is not the point. It does not matter whether Pixar or Disney took an idea and made it better. It is the fact that they took the idea. That is where the copyright issue comes into play. This issue is, when it comes to Disney, they are a money tycoon. Their multi-billion dollar company is hard to combat with when they can afford the best lawyers in the world. Often these issues of copyright either get ignored, or Disney will settle an agreement in court out of the public eye. Low-key as to not hurt their reputation of producing original timeless classics for children everywhere. Disney is exclusive. It like many other large corporate companies has its fair share of copyright infringement. And it, like many other large companies that can afford it, settle the issue (if they have to often it is overlooked and deemed "speculation") in court. This payment is nothing more than a small fine for them and most importantly paying for the silence of the other party on the matter.