copyright

Animators and the Law: Ideas

Animation /

This is the first in a series of posts that take a look at just some of the many legal aspects of the animation industry.

What is an idea?

An idea is at the most basic level, a concept conceived by an individual or group of individuals. It can be a story, a character, a plot, a setting, anything that can be imagined can be considered an idea.

Ideas in the legal sense only really cover original ideas (for the most part). In other words, if you wanted to write a film based on the Titanic told from the story of two people called Jack and Rose who fall in love, well, that’s already been done, and James Cameron may have something to say about it. That does not make your idea illegal, but the execution of it is at a much higher risk of infringing.

How does the law safeguard ideas?

The short story is, it doesn’t, at least not under the vast majority of circumstances. Because an idea is considered a concept that is not fixed, it is therefore open to individual interpretation. As a result, your idea for a flying superhero squirrel will be different from my idea for a flying superhero squirrel.

This is where copyright law comes into play (and will be discussed in tomorrow’s post). If the idea is in a fixed form, i.e. a sketch on paper or an image on a computer, then it is covered by copyright. If it’s just a thought in your head, it is not covered, and can be taken and developed by anyone else.

This also includes verbal and visual communication, so if you describe an idea to me without having created anything, I am free to develop it myself using my own imagination.

When it comes to your idea, it is best to get it in a fixed form and then develop it. The law is quite explicit on this and a number of lawsuits have been thrown out because the plaintiff did not sufficiently prove that they had created the idea prior to the defendant.

When it comes to pitching to a studio, it is wise to have your idea fully developed (and registered with the copyright office if you are truly paranoid). There have been countless lawsuits over the years pertaining to stolen ideas. Two that come to mind include the original ‘Cars’ lawsuit and the ‘Kung Fu Panda’ lawsuit.

The latter is still developing but the former was tossed out when the court determined that Pixar did not infringe on the plaintiff’s concept, even though the two shared many similarities.

It is advisable to develop ideas into concepts as much as possible before presenting them. This counts for two-sheets and concept pitches too.

It is also advisable (and recommended) not to send ideas to studios unsolicited. Such cases are quite likely to create legal headaches for studios in that they may well be developing the idea you just sent them. As a result, many studios won’t accept unsolicited ideas anyway, so what’s the point?

So, to sum up today’s lesson:

  • you cannot protect ideas, only executions of the idea
  • develop your idea before showing it to anyone

In tomorrow’s post we will have a look at copyright in more detail and how it affects the animation business.

PS. Happy 4th of July! “What better way to celebrate the founding of your country than by blowing up a small part of it!”

Animators and the Law: Ideas Read More »

How Mickey Mouse Beat The Shit Out Of Thomas Jefferson

Animation, Misc. /

Below is an excerpt from a piece posted over on Techdirt by Lloyd Kaufman on the subject of copyright, the public domain and the Founding Fathers. It’s a great post in its own right, but when it gets really interesting (for us) is when he starts talking about animation and how one company in particular seems to have been the driving force behind the various copyright extensions over the years.

It also serves as a nice preamble to an upcoming series of posts here on The Animation Anomaly dealing with the various legal dealings that animators should be aware of.

HOW MICKEY MOUSE BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF THOMAS JEFFERSON

In 1928, Mickey Mouse appeared in the first sound-synchronized cartoon, Steamboat Willie , which was a parody (in Disnenglish, a copyright infringement) of a Buster Keaton film, “Steamboat Bill, Jr.” Mickey Mouse became an instant star and Walt Disney’s meal ticket. By 1956, when “Steamboat Willie” was all set to enter the public domain, Disney had become a powerhouse corporation, and it interceded on little Mickey’s behalf:

Disney Executive: You see, Senator, if “Steamboat Willie” were to belong to the public, they would pretty much own Mickey Mouse, too. And we can’t let that happen.

Senator: No, no. We must protect Mickey.

Disney Executive: What we need, Senator, is an extension of the copyright law. That way, we can keep Mickey safe.

Senator: Yes, yes. We must protect Mickey.

Disney Executive: Yes, Senator, we must protect Mickey.

The Disney executive puts away his hypnotist materials, leaves a pile of cash on the table, and leaves. The hypnotized senator wakes up with the overwhelming urge to protect Mickey Mouse. Days later, copyright law is extended.

Buster Keaton, however, continues to receive food stamps.

This scene is repeated in 1984 and 2003. “Steamboat Willie” will remain the intellectual property of Disney until 2023, almost 100 years after it was created and many, many years after the last person who worked on it became snail food. And at some point before 2023, I’m guessing the copyright laws will be extended once again.

An interesting little twist to this whole story, which was sent to me by steamboat4eva@hotmail.com, is that someone at Disney discovered in the 1990s that “Steamboat Willie” may actually be in the public domain already. This was due to a mistake in the wording of the original copyright. A law student at Arizona State University investigated this claim and agreed [article link for the curious]. Then another law student at Georgetown wrote another paper confirming the claim. At this point, Disney threatened to sue the student and the claim hasn’t been uttered since.

How Mickey Mouse Beat The Shit Out Of Thomas Jefferson Read More »

Get Re-Educated on Copyright With The Happy Tree Friends!

2 Comments / Animation /

So if I embed the video, is that copyright infringement?

I’m going to say no, although it is an area where the law is not exactly clear and why the video above has a some pretty serious limitations. Besides, the video preaches to the choir (and I’m sure Google knows this) and it’s quite likely to have been put out as a result of pressure from the content companies.

Want to watch a far better video? How about this one from Nina Paley (of Sita Sings the Blues fame)

Get Re-Educated on Copyright With The Happy Tree Friends! Read More »

There’s a Good Chance You Weren’t Aware of This Documentary on Animation.

Animation, TV /

There’s no picture for the simple reason that I couldn’t find any! So instead, here’s the theme tune, courtesy of the composer, Mark Pringle.

[audio:http://animationanomaly.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/tv_stay_tooned_theme.mp3|titles=BBC Stay Tooned Theme]

It was called Tooned In and I watched this series when it was originally broadcast way back in the day on the BBC. It was a good thing I did because it would seem that with all the usual copyright nonsense that seems to lie around these kind of shows like a pair of concrete shoes, the series will never see the light of day again. It hasn’t been re-run at any point and even the internet is turning up a blank. It would appear that ripping a VHS tape takes a bit more work than a DVD.

Which is a tremendous shame because I certainly remember, as do others on the internet, that it was a fantastic little retrospective show that was broadcast on Saturday evenings. I particularly remember the Hanna-Barbera episode but there were others on Tom and Jerry, Tex Avery, Betty Boop and of course, the Looney Tunes.

If you think about it, the fact that the show even exists is spectacular. Now, granted, it was produced by a public broadcaster with a remit and all that, but I cannot imagine one of the major TV networks or even one of the cable networks over here in the States deciding to produce a documentary series on animation, and broadcast it during primetime on a Saturday evening!

Sadly, extremely little info seems to exist out there so it is a shame that I cannot share more with you on this apparently great show.

 

There’s a Good Chance You Weren’t Aware of This Documentary on Animation. Read More »

The Legal Pitfalls That Animators Must Navigate

1 Comment / Uncategorized /

I would love to go into much more detail on the topic but unfortunately, I don’t have that long a lunch break to knock one out. So instead, here’s a quick run-down of what animators should be aware of when it comes to their work.

For the record, I am not a lawyer and the following should not be construed as legal advice. If in doubt, consult a legal professional, preferably one with a Bar Association logo on their newspaper ad.

When it comes to animation, there are a variety of laws that animators must concern themselves with. Perhaps most prominent is contract law and labour laws, which naturally help determine how long you work and how and when you are paid.

I read numerous stories that pop up fairly frequently regarding various setups that invariably involve the production of animation without pay. These can take the form of a competition, test or and “internship”. I use inverted commas because no internship as defined by law allows the intern to actually undertake anything even resembling work without due compensation.

Another aspect is overtime. Again, it is worth having an inside-out knowledge of your working contract. Bear in mind that for some, this may be in the form of an agreement that the union may have with the company. I’ve found that the TAG Blog to be a good source for explanations in this regard.

Besides the various labour laws, the second big grouping of legislation that animators run up against is copyright. In general, if you create work for a studio or otherwise entity that compensates you for the work created, you do not have rights to said work. In other words, it is created under a “for-hire” arrangement. For most studio employees, this is the nature of their work.

If you are creating your own stuff, then it is owned entirely by you unless you sell or otherwise transfer ownership and/or rights to another party. This would be the case of you pitched a TV show idea to a network who subsequently purchased it.

It is important to remember that you are responsible for monitoring your work. In other words, if someone is plagarising your work, it is your responsibility to notify the responsible party in order to rectify the situation. A while back, an animator I know had issues with someone on YouTube outright copying his work without due recognition. After failing to rectify the situation through communication, he simply contacted YouTube and had the video removed.

having said that, keep in mind that fan-art or personal art featuring personal interpretations of copyrighted material may still fall under trademark law, where the rights are assigned to a particular character and not the individual piece of work.

In today’s modern, internet-crazed age, many animators are rightly eager to get their films online for all to see. This is encouraging, yet I wonder how many are familiar with the single most important law regarding the internet and copyright? In the US, it is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (wikipedia link) and it outlines certain conditions regarding the uploading and availability of copyrighted content on the internet.

For instance, it outlines the concept of safe havens for ISPs and website owners in relation to user content and outlines the nature by which content can be considered infringing. Animators should be keenly aware of this, especially if you would like to upload films you produced under contract, studio employment or otherwise “for-hire” work. It should be especially noted that even inclusion in a demo reel is grounds for a takedown notice. A few months back, Berlin-based David OReilly found this out when the U2 video that he made was yanked off You-Tube for copyright violation by Universal Records. This should serve as a stark reminder that although he posted it as a way to inform and display his own talents, the copyright owner thought differently.

If in doubt, get everything in writing and consult with a legal professional before signing any contracts. Read through any contracts and be aware of your obligations before signing, you will not have any excuses later on. If you are considering putting a video online whose copyright or other rights do not belong to you, get clearance first or better yet, negotiate a clause in your contract that allows you to publicize your creations.

If anyone out there has any other advice, please add it to the comments. This is all I could come up with in half an hour.

The Legal Pitfalls That Animators Must Navigate Read More »

Mickey Mouse’s Copyright Law

4 Comments / Animation, Opinion /

How old is Mickey Mouse? Well, he’s about 82 years if he’s a day. So why is he still under copyright while other early cartoon stars are not? Well, for one, plenty of companies from that era went out of business long ago and their associated copyrights are either forgotten about or expired.

Yet Mickey’s has not. He is still fully owned, and will continue to be owned, by the Walt Disney Company for the foreseeable future at least. Consistent enforcement of copyright is part of it. Disney is still very much in business, and is certainly enforcing its legal rights regarding infringement.

So why exactly does Mickey Mouse have his own copyright law? Well for one, it isn’t really his, its Sonny Bono’s (the guy with the bomb in Airplane, also he was a singer of some sort in the 60s). The act itself extended copyright terms in the US for 20 more years, on top of the life plus 50 years already offered. Corporate authorship is now 120 years, increased from 75 years.

The reason it’s called the Mickey Mouse law is the presumption, and possibility, that it was the looming date on which Mickey Mouse would enter the public domain, that coerced the Disney company to begin lobbying for such an extension.

What advantage does this serve? Well for one, it means Disney can continue to extract license fees for the old films for a start. It also prevents anyone else from making similar or derivative works based on the films.

Is this a good thing? Well for the copyright holder? Yes, they can continue to make money. Personally, I think this is a bad thing. OK, so you continue to own the character, but if he is freely available, then even more people can enjoy him, It may even push up demand for the films that are almost as old but still covered by copyright.

If you think about it, if the public domain was such a bad thing, publishers wouldn’t be publishing all those Jane Austin or Charles Dickens novels. Sure you can read them online for free, and yet people still buy the books, and publishers still make a profit from them, even though they aren’t covered by any copyright! Amazing isn’t it?

Do you think Disney would lose a ton of money just because a few films from the 20s and 30s enter the public domain? Unlikely. When was the last time you seen one of those films? For me it’s been a number of years.

So there you go. Mickey Mouse has his own law, and the company behind it is all the worse for it.

Mickey Mouse’s Copyright Law Read More »