[xsmasher]

The cosmetics bag looks like a straightforward copyright violation.

The second example, where no artwork was copied but there may have been some influence, is more complicated. How do you prove the inspiration came from the "stolen" art, and not Disney's own film or the original story?

http://www.cornel1801.com/disney/Alice-Wonderland-Painting-R...

[potatolicious]

> "How do you prove the inspiration came from the "stolen" art, and not Disney's own film or the original story?"

And even if you did prove it, is it illegal, and should it be illegal?

All art is a derivation of something that came before it. Can someone reasonably claim ownership to "girl painting roses with paint brush as viewed from behind"?

[xsmasher]

The entire idea? No.

But under US law, someone can claim ownership to derivative works.

I think we agree that the artist has an uphill battle proving that the second drawing is a derivative work.

[weareconvo]

And didn't she, in turn, steal the idea of Alice from Lewis Carroll?

[jerf]

Doesn't matter; all works of Lewis Carroll's are in the public domain. As far as I know, this is true in all jurisdictions. The traditional Tennyson illustrations are also public domain. Compare with https://www.google.com/search?q=tennyson+illustrations+alice... .

[weareconvo]

I didn't mean legally, I meant morally. Don't her complaints about having her work co-opted by Disney when that work co-opted Alice wholesale ring a little false to anybody else?

[jerf]

I think that if you took the time to try to carefully define "co-opted" you'd have a hard time really nailing down what exactly is so wrong that no further explanation is necessary by the mere invocation of the word. "Co-opting" happens all the time, every which way. There's no new ideas under the sun.

There's a perfectly clear line here; assuming her account is correct, what she did was legal, and what Disney did is not legal. Legal is not always equal to moral, but with the particulars of this case I'm not feeling the need to draw some sort of complicated distinction. Legality is the entire point here.

[ludston]

You're suggesting there is some sort of equality between her own actions and Disney's, but they are not equal. Disney is making money from of her effort and she is not making money from her effort.

[jnazario]

if you're citing lewis carroll's (well, Tennyson's graphics) work as the artist's inspiration then why not a line from LC to Disney, bypassing the artist entirely?

[jerf]

I'm not 100% sure I can parse your question, but the answer is that the handbag appears to be an exact copy on the inside, with some Disney graphics on the outside. The Disney painting is, as others have observed, much more ambiguous and would be harder to prove (although perhaps not impossible, given the presence of the handbag, if for instance the same "artist" did both).

(In fact, the handbag is quite bad as a result of this mixture, if I say so myself as a rather poor judge of design. The tone of Katie Woodger's work and the tone of the original Disney animated piece are at odds with each other, and the juxtaposition is rather less than the sum of the parts.)

[jnazario]

thanks for the clarification.

didn't like the downvotes for a question but whatever. i by no means want to see artists ripped off, i was just asking about an alternative explanation and its plausibility.

[xsmasher]

That's exactly the question: was the t-shirt was inspired by the artist in question, or not. And I'm starting to come around.

The dress of T-shirt Alice bears more resemblance to the artist's original than it does to the Disney version: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnarc6bdBm1qfkdyso1_500.gi...

The arm/hand position seems nearly identical as well. http://25.media.tumblr.com/0266dadc485f9ffa5a1fee696fd8a32c/...

Before you say "that could be a coincidence" - of course it could. The question at hand is "is it coincidence, or did Disney copy the artist's work?"

[xsmasher]

The Alice stories are long out of copyright, So you're comparing apples to oranges.

[__david__]

I don't think the second one is more complicated at all. It's straight up non-infringement.

But I agree, the bag is straightforward copyright infringement.

[gillianseed]

Yes, the first one is without doubt a copyright violation, the second however I can't agree with.

If so then we'd have an insane amount of art that is stolen. The pose is the same, but this is totally different art in a totally different style with ha different dress etc. I personally don't think that should constitute as a copied/derived work, but that's just my opinion.

The first one however, clear cut copyright infringement, it IS the same artwork. Will be interesting to see how Disney spins this given how they forced daycare centers to paint over murals with Disney characters over trademark infringement.

[warfangle]

Cosmetic bag looks like someone re-sketched it and added characters.

It might actually fall under the "significantly modified" arena. Same with the tshirt - while it's the same pose, it's clearly a different drawing.

Besides which, she may have actually been the one infringing Disney's trademark.

These kinds of ambiguities outline how fucking important it is to reform our copyright system.

[swalsh]

If the "painting" idea is stolen, then it would seem the "Alice" idea is stolen as well.

The bag though, that is straight up theft.

[astrodust]

Alice in Wonderland the story is in the public domain. Specific renditions may be copyrighted.