[austenallred]

I have worked with Disney's intellectual property teams in the past, and I'm blown away that this slipped under the radar. They are very up-tight about protecting their own IP and the brand of their princesses. If this were somebody selling a T-Shirt on eBay I would say, "Don't worry about it," but this is Disney. They know better. Their entire business model is based on intellectual property.

Time to lawyer up.

[jconley]

I have had similar experiences with the Disney IP teams. They mean serious business in all directions, from protecting IP to ensuring they are not infringing. They make sure everyone in the company or affiliated is very aware of IP issues. If the painting is indeed the original work and it somehow found its way onto some merchandise, I'm sure Disney will be amicable.

[madaxe]

Amicable like they were over simba the white lion?

Disney rip-off left, right and centre. Yes, they aggressively protect their IP, but that doesn't mean they won't trample all over everyone else's. they have a history of this behaviour.

[aidenn0]

I've heard the kimba/simba thing before, but don't see it myself. Simba is the swahili word for lion, the plots are not at all similar and they don't look anything alike:

http://theafictionado.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/lionking46...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bd/ReallyKimbaThe...

[sdoering]

Well. OK; they really do not look alike. ;-) I have no idea, how far the stories match up, but coming from a literature background, I can only say, that a lot of stories are a lot alike, when they tell anything in the same genre.

I mean, look at a lot of forensic women in thrillers. But that is just meant as a bit background-info on literature. There is even a "scientific" way of saying, some (very) old author copied from someone else:

Intertextuality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertextuality

But as a side-note: Don't the ears of the white lion remind anyone of Mickey Mouse? Just saying... ;-)

[axx]

"But as a side-note: Don't the ears of the white lion remind anyone of Mickey Mouse? Just saying... ;-)"

* Mickey Mouse: First appearance - Steamboat Willie (1928)

* Kimba The White Lion: [..]Kimba the White Lion, is an anime series from the 1960s. Created by Osamu Tezuka and based on his manga of the same title which began publication in 1950

[Osmium]

There's some more info here:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1378/did-disneys-em...

I wanted to link to another article, but can't find it right now, but it had a comparison of specific shots that were alleged to have been plagiarised. I remember it being quite striking, but these things are usually in the eye of the beholder.

Regardless, on the general point, for those who believe in "remix" culture there's nothing ethically wrong with this kind of direct inspiration provided credit is given where it is due.

[datagramm]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that the Lion King is basically just an adaptation of Hamlet...

[pyre]

Were there "mysterious" injuries during production though?

[jayfuerstenberg]

Yes KIMBA, err.. I mean SIMBA.

[gregcohn]

The first thing that occurred to me is that the Disney artists (or contractors) probably came across the image on Tumblr or Pinterest or some similar social image-sharing network, stripped entirely of its original attribution.

It's entirely plausible that someone would have thought it was a Disney-owned image originally, and in circulation in violation of copyright.

If that's true, it's not an excuse for using someone else's work without permission, but it would be a sad and ironic commentary on the sharing and re-mixing economy.

[stevewilhelm]

Disney's consumer merchandise is sourced by third party suppliers (see below).

It is most likely one of these suppliers claimed to have created or licensed the image.

The artist will probably end up negotiating with the handbag maker.

https://www.disneyconsumerproducts.com/Home/display.jsp?cont...

[DannyBee]

No, they won't. Whether or not it was provided by a third party supplier is irrelevant. It does not make disney any less infringing if they are the ones selling it.

It just means you can sue disney, and then disney can turn around and attempt to recover the damages you win from the next guy up the chain.

You absolutely, positively, do not need to sue the people all the way up the chain.

I am an IP lawyer (though this is not legal advice, just an explanation of general concepts :P)

[gregcohn]

I'm sure their licensing contract requires the 3rd parties to warrant intellectual property ownership and indemnify vs. any claims related to it.

So the artist may end up negotiating with the handbag maker, but they might benefit from starting out making a claim against Disney.

[thaumasiotes]

If Disney is the one selling the bags, surely they are the only party it would make sense for the artist to make a claim against?

If I, A, lie to you, B, and as a result you take a supposedly-harmless action which is in fact a tort against aggrieved party C, I would expect you to be liable to C, and myself to be liable in turn to you. What did I do to C?

[robbyking]

I also think it's important for the artist to remember that Disney doesn't have a team of employees surfing the web looking for ideas to steal. The more likely scenario was a single designer was having trouble with a project and got desperate.

It's not excusable, but also isn't as conspiratorial.

[polymatter]

Spare me the violins. This is a billion dollar global enterprise not a Mom and Pop. Its Disney's responsibility to make sure they have the requisite licences and in this case they appeared to have failed in that duty.

[phreanix]

Disney works with 3rd party contractors and design agencies. If a design was claimed to be original artwork by one contractor, there's only so much that Disney can do. I'm not in any way defending them, but the possibility is there that this was either an honest mistake or a 3rd party that cut corners. I'm fairly certain there will be repercussions internally and externally due to this.

[jenskanis]

Disney has to take responsibility for the actions of their third parties and contractors.

[Millennium]

Why? So long as there are proper repercussions against the person who did the deed, if that person wasn't a part of Disney, what could Disney have reasonably done? If there turns out to be nothing it could reasonably have done, then whence comes responsibility?

[GoofballJones]

Which lends to the theory that it did indeed fall through the cracks. The bigger you are, the more you miss.

My theory is that it was from a 3rd party contractor and it just slipped through.

[clarkevans]

Why assume the worst? Wouldn't it be a bit easier to just find the relevant group and ask them how they'd like to resolve it? If they want to be jerks, sure, lawyer up. However, it might be a very simple conversation with a much more positive outcome.

[scott_s]

The difficulty if you don't "lawyer up" is that then you are a non-lawyer talking to lawyers - because the people on Disney's side who you would talk to would be lawyers. That is not in your favor.

If you need to talk about the law, then you want a lawyer.

[MichaelApproved]

You need a professional to make sure you get everything that you're entitled to and someone who knows how to negotiate so she gets the most appropriate terms.

For example, if she does this on her own, she might be well compensated but also unknowingly give up her copyrights in te deal. A good lawyer will be her advocate and make sure she understands everything she is about sign.

[tibbon]

I agree that assuming the worst isn't the best idea- but I have to wonder how Disney's legal would react in the reverse situation? Would they assume the worst?

[chris_wot]

Disney would immediately lawyer up if the shoe was on the other foot. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Disney can't have it both ways!

[mistercow]

A company like Disney doesn't really ever lawyer up, because that would imply that they are ever lawyered down. I have to agree with scott_s on this. You're in a bad enough situation pitting the lawyer you can afford against Disney's team. If you try and face them by yourself, you're going to get screwed.

[mayneack]

Because by this time they have already seen this and are lawyered up.

[PAULHANNA84]

They're always lawyered up because they have lawyers on payroll.

[cardine]

They are always lawyered up.

[Fargren]

I'm pretty sure Alice is not a Disney Princess.

[engtech]

The Disney wiki confirms that Alice is not a Disney princess. Leia Organa isn't a Disney princess either (yet).

http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Disney_Princess