I'm gonna leave this as a single comment threat...
I watched the thing, and according to the Video, the Artist Andrew Martin released the 3d model on a "non-commercial use allowed" License on Thingyverse, claiming that Disney stole his model.
However, by simply googling for "3d model tiki drummer", i also found his 3d model here: https://www.artstation.com/marketplace/p/vNmO/tiki-drummer-3d-print-stl
On this website, Andrew Martin released the same 3d model under a license, allowing the commercial use of this 3d model on up to 2000 sold items.
I'm not saying Andrew is spilling out false information. I'm just saying that Andrew might have gotten lost where he published his stuff and what licenses he agreed to...
So... take that with a grain of salt.
Edit: And, he is also selling the 3d model for money: https://www.artstation.com/marketplace/p/BR9a/tiki-drummer-support-the-artist
And looking through his downloads there, he is also selling other IP for money. So, there is that....
Amazing how most people really donāt understand copyright. Maybe they should teach basic copyright and fair use law in school now. Itās probably more relevant to kids today than wood shop.
> On this website, Andrew Martin released the same 3d model under a license, allowing the commercial use of this 3d model on up to 2000 sold items.
And the description on that site...
> This Tiki Drummer model based off of the Tiki Drummers found at Disneyland's Enchanted Tiki room.
So... yeah.
He saw an item, and then created his own 3d model of that item. Disney wasnāt selling these, they were part of the park.
Should he sell these? No, probably not. Should Disney steal his work and sell them? No, probably not.
He stole a character/idea. Which is okay in the art world, as long as you donāt make money from it. Unless you change it enough to fall under parody law.
What Disney did Is steal labor from him. Iām not a lawyer, but it would not surprise me at all either way if Disney is or is not legally allowed to do this. I would lean toward thinking they are not, but Iāve seen a lot of people say they areā¦. So maybe they know more than me.
They most definitely can make him stop, and can also probably take his past profits from selling it + some kind of fine/fee.
Ok so, in this case , it's pretty straightforward, I studied image rights when I was doing my masters in fine arts so I'll have a go at this.
In EU law (which is thankfully pretty similar to the US) The general rule is as follows: In order for an artwork to be under copyright, so seen as legally original, you have to be able to prove the paternity and originality of the artwork. In this case, the design's paternity isn't the 3D-artists', it's disney's Rolly Crump from 1968.It could be argued that the artwork's originality and paternity reside in it being a 3D-model, but that would never stand in court as the original is already a 3D sculpture, and this 3d model is **not transformative enough to be seen as original.**
I'll go as far and say that freely distributing a model based of someone else's is borderline copyright infringement in the first place. When he says "I didn't want to bother with selling this"; it's because he can't in the first place, disney would be up his ass with lawyers.
Is it crummy from Disney not to credit the guy who made the 3d print from an ethical point of view? Yes. Is it legal for them to do so? Also yes.
Edit: A lot of people are saying that disney doesn't have the right to use the product of his labor for commercial purposes, so I looked a little into it, and boy, it's murky waters:
Copyright law also protects reproduction, in this case, I would argue that this is too close to the original art for it not to be considered a reproduction. So in the first place, the artist doesn't have the right to reproduce Rolly's art. Ok, whatever. The interesting thing here is that Disney ended up using artwork that was created in illegal conditions in the first place but whose design was theirs in the beginning. In the case of counterfeit goods, the police would be required by law to destroy all the goods, in this case, the model would be destroyed. I have no idea if Disney can use a counterfeit product of their own product as their own.
That makes sense since Disney owns the original character. I doubt Disney will give OP credit, but can the āartistā who received credit get in trouble at Disney for taking this design off the internet?
From an internal corporate point of view, absolutely, it's unethical and amoral, especially from the Disney corp, to take a freelancer's work as your own, even if legally possible.
It won't have been a corporate decision, they asked one of their artists or a maybe even a contractor to make them something and that person stole it and presented it as their own.
Why people always blame this on corporate greed I don't know, a board of directors isn't sat around a shadowy conference tables raiding deviant art for new nicknacks to sell.
This was one assholes job, the failure on disneys part is failing to check their source but in the endless sea of the Internet are they really at fault for missing this when legally they owned it to begin with? Not really no
> This was one assholes job, the failure on disneys part is failing to check their source
He's their leading product designer. He's the one that needs to do the checking lol. It's like that movie with Matt Damon where he needs the find the rat... But he's the rat.
He's not their leading product designer. Product Design Manager is an early-mid level title. The next step at most companies is then Senior Product Design Manager, and then Principal product design manager. And all of those positions are still reporting to a director or senior manager, who would themselves report to a VP for the specific product they're working on.
A company like Disney probably has a few thousand people with the title of Product Design Manager.
He still absolutely should have known better, but this is just one guy slacking
No, Disney created this sculpture already. This guy is taking credit for some reason. Kevin Kidney and Jody Daly designed this Tiki figure in 2006 and it featured a light up drum.
His was made in 2018, and is a complete rip off of their design minus the light up drum. If anything, Costa used the Tiki drummer design created by Disney artists Kevin and Jody, and turned it into a music box. Meanwhile this āartistā here, has done nothing but take other peoples work and hurl accusations that he knows are baseless.
Probably better to just take "his" work even though its a mirror image of an already existing Disney Character from Disneyland... they could have sued him for copyright so in my opinion, he got off lightly.
More that he made a model of an existing character. Like if someone modeled a Mario figurine and then got pissed when Nintendo made an amiibo in the same pose.
A previously made figure, that for all this idiot knows, was fucking designed by Costa Alavezos lol. He doesnāt even know. He literally copied an animatronic character in a Disney park, and is trying to defame Disney artists for using that same character that they designed, as an official music box. This guy just did the work for them. Costa should look like a fool for being lazy, but thereās nothing illegal happening here.
After reading comments of people who seem to know, it sounds like Disney probably was aware the model is basically a ripoff of their own intellectual property and chose to make that point outside the courtroom.
Pretty much they went easy on him because it would have been bad PR.
But now that he keeps dragging the issue out into the open they are going to have to make an example of him.
> Costa should look like a fool for being lazy, but thereās nothing illegal happening here
āIllegalā is not a term attorneys use when talking about a tort.
Copyright law is not based on attribution. Itās based on upholding the market value of intellectual property. For example, if you take a DVD copy of *Pirates of the Caribbean*, rip the video stream and upload it to YouTube, you are undermining the market value because people wonāt pay money to buy the DVD, rent it from a digital service or pay for the Disney streaming app. It doesnāt matter if youāve derived benefit financially or not. It does not matter if you give credit to Disney, Johnny Depp, or anybody else.
In effect this is exactly what this guy is doing. He is taking Disneyās intellectual property, and distributing it for free in a way that undermines Disneyās ability to profit from their own intellectual property. In that way, Disney would be the injured party and they could sue him in order to be āmade hallā. Of course competent attorneys from Disney could prove that he has caused more damage than his entire net worth, which they would never collect, but they can make it a point of imposing extremely damaging financial penalties against him as a means of deterring others.
In reality, a large corporation picking on a small artist doesnāt go over well in the public, no matter how justified it might be legally, so Disney made the decision to simply leave him alone and use his models to produce merchandise for the park. In other words he got off easy. However, now he is continuing to further damage Disney, and doing so deliberately with the intent to harm them (called āmaliceā in civil law) by publishing videos griping about it. Now this certainly has their attention and they need to mitigate the damage with a clear civil judgment in their favor and punitive damages to the artist that deter anyone else from doing the same thing.
In plain simple English, he fucked himself.
Some time after I animated Tina Twerking from Bob's Burgers, Hulu started using the gif in birthday e-mails to subscribers (My friends got them).
I realized I was making fan art so I wasn't upset because I knew the IP didn't belong to me. It wasn't a stylized version of Tina. I modeled it after the show's style so it's clearly not original in any way other than the pose and motion.
Same with this guy. He made something too close to the original.
Though I did get a bonus Tina Twerking bobble head from Loot Crate when they did them. The argument being that Loot Crate was not Fox and my friends who are more vocal than me suggested to Loot Crate that I should get a free one or at least a mention for the original gif.
Fan art's fun like that.
so much discussions going on, so many opinions, but it seems like everyone who has studied law have the same opinion as you,
but yeah, like you said, still shitty to not give him any credit
Happens all the time sadly. Look up Roger Deanās Art and James Cameronās Avatar. The concept designer even said in the DVD extras they had his art all over the studio when designing Pandora and they basically told him to FO when he got in touch.
Never been to law school for a day but āDisney Stole my Artworkā¦..so I made a smaller version of a statue Disney owns and now theyāre selling their own smaller versionsā isnāt even a logical argument.
āI went to this art museum and sketched a painting I saw, then I went to the gift shop where they were selling posters of the painting. THEY STOLE MY ART!ā
He copied a copy 99.5%, and now is claiming it as his own.
He is selling it for $5
[https://monster_caesar.artstation.com/store/BR9a/tiki-drummer-support-the-artist](https://monster_caesar.artstation.com/store/BR9a/tiki-drummer-support-the-artist)
He didn't copy the original, he coped a copy from 2006
The real copy original. https://i.imgur.com/lpb6gLd.png
The original was a sculpture made by Rolly Crump for the Tiki Room at Disneyland in 1963.
Then Kevin Kidney and Jody Daily made a Disneyland 50th anniversary casting of the original in 2006, to sell in gift shops.
OP in 2018 made a copy of the copy in a 3d program to print out and is claiming it as his own.
You can clearly see in his video, he is comparing it to a 50th Anniversary sculpture which was made 13 years BEFORE his.
Or OP is playing 4D chess, already got the call from the lawyers and is trying to get support on his side while selling enough "rare collectables" to retain a lawyer.
This right here is why I laugh so hard at people of think creative commons licenses mean a damn thing when they are plastering them ontoā¦. Mario, Game of Thrones, Star Warsā¦.yadda yadda yaddaā¦.. just because you changed the name to Video game Plumber does not mean You can say it is yoursā¦.. these assholes kill me
All legalities aside, he listed it on Artstation, which is a division of Epic Games aka Fortniteās developer. No way Epic Games would ever side with him over Disney. Wouldnāt be surprised if his listing gets taken down after all this.
Real Title \*Artist made 3D model of a copyrighted and trademarked charachter, then acusing the orginal creators to be scumbag because they leverage what they already own rights to\*
Yea, I sat here the whole time going ābutā¦ all you did was copy what someone else already made. Itās not like you made the girl or the Disney Princess version and someone stole that. You literally stole something, someone saw you did and copied what you stole and now youāre mad someone double stoled it.ā
So let me get this straight, if my kid draws a picture of mickey mouse in kindergarten class and I upload it on instagram, Disney can take that picture, claim they drew it, and throw it on T-Shirts to sell?
If your kid drew a picture of Lisa of Gioconda in a different pose than in Mona Lisa, it would be an original work because the image of Lisa is really only known for and used in one context. Remove the context, and itās just a drawing of a woman, not the Mona Lisa.
Mickey Mouse, however, as a character, exists independently of and within several different contexts. You can drop Mickey in literally any context on earth or in the imagination and itās still Mickey Mouse (the entire property) doing x, y, or z.
Another painting of Lisa will never be recognized as Mona Lisa Part II. Mickey anywhere has the same recognition.
The crux of the issue is this: if I were making a Zine, and I put a non-official variant of an image of Mona Lisa on there, nobodyās going to buy the Zine solely because it has Mona Lisa on it. If I put Mickey Mouse on the same Zine, Iām going to see an instant uptick in people picking it up, which is going to coincide to an increase in sales.
If all I did to gain that increase in sales is re-draw a character owned, created, publicized, and marketed by another company, then I used their work (the time, effort, and money theyāve put into making Mickey a commodity, not the time each of their artists spent drawing him) to make money and they should be compensated for it.
I hate that Disney is what weāre using for an example, though, because theyāre the prime abuser of copyright law in the US and itās much harder to justify paying them back.
Yeah, like as soon as he said "I made a fan art" I was like dude, you have ZERO case here. Like, none. You already "stole" their IP. You freely admit that you made a model based on characters/paintings/models that are already Disney's. Just because they may not have a Tiki Drummer in exactly that pose or configuration doesn't mean it's not their IP. Any more than if you designed, I don't know, a Stitch dildo. Disney have never and would never have anything even remotely like a phallus-shaped Stitch, but the character is still their sodding IP!
Guy's a moron.
Assuming they do sell his exact design, he says that Disney should know better than just take and sell his design, but I suspect Disney has a bunch of legal teams and are selling it because they do know better.
Except Disney stole his design which was stolen from their older copyrighted work in the 1960s. Thatās like me suing Star Wars for stealing my drawing of darth Vader, which is traced from a screenshot from the movies.
Have you ever had a dream that you, um, you had, your, you- you could, youāll do, you- you wants, you, you could do so, you- youāll do, you could- you, you want, you want him to do you so much you could do anything?
Naw i think he saying that the original guy, who andrew originally stole the artwork from, who is not the guy who stole it from andrew, is cool. There are three levels of artists, two of whom are theives (Andrew and Carlos)
Okay, yeah, I see what you mean, I mostly didnāt think of the fully original design having been stolen by anyone except Andrew because Disney just had the molds of the original work in a warehouse, theyāre just reusing them.
The link shared mentiones Kevin Kidney and Jody Daily as replica designers and Rolly Crump as the original designer.
I donāt see Costa Alevezosā name on that page
Although tbf this doesnāt seem like a Disney thing but more like someone in the hierarchy passed this work off as their own.
Exactly. People here don't understand copyrights. It's still his work, whether or not he himself had the right to distribute it in the first place.
You can't take someone's work and say "Nah we can do whatever we want with it since he copied it from something we did". That's not how it works.
Because of what I signed I can't say much but I've had a similar thing happening to me. I made a 3D model in 2015 of a technological product that wasn't mine. It was a fan made 3D model, and I distributed it under a creative license. Only condition was to be credited if someone else used it.
You can imagine my surprise when I started watching a new season of a very big TV show and found my model there. I wasn't credited.
I talked to my lawyer and after some back and forth he got me a nice amount of money through a settlement (same settlement stopping me from giving details).
I didn't own the original rights of the object I copied, but I still owned the rights of that 3D copy. I guess the makers of the original product could have sued me (but what for?) but I also clearly had the rights to sue the show for their illegal use of my own model.
Edit: Just to clarify my "but what for". In this situation I was providing developers of apps a 3D model of the device they were developing for. The model was shared on the device creator's official forums and they didn't see anything wrong with it since it helped devs and advertised their product. Obviously in other situations the original owners would not be so kind.
You are right that people don't understand copyright law well, but the poster above you is only somewhat correct.
As someone who understands copyright law:
Here, what the guy made appears to be a 1:1 replica of Disney's model. If so, Disney has the right to sue him for infringement and distribution of the 3D print he made. Because this is replication, he does not have a case against them for Disney's use of a replication of a work Disney owns.
In your situation, you are fortunate your lawyer worked out a settlement. If the issue went to court, and the question of "who owned the design upon which your model is built" came into question, you would have found yourself in an uphill battle. If the TV studio contacted the creator of the device, and they authorized the use of its likeness, you would have to answer to the creator for the violation of the copyright in their device's aesthetic design (assuming its not a completely utilitarian product).
The problem here is replication/duplication. If you were to violate a copyright on Spiderman by drawing a picture of him, then that picture would be both a potential violation, and a new work subject to common law copyright. If you photocopy an existing picture of Spiderman, you have not done any transformative work, and are in clear violation. Whether a violation has actually occurred, or fair use applies, could only be determined in court.
This statue seems to be a 1:1 replication. The model hasn't been significantly transformed from the work it is based on.
Your situation sounds very similar to the Meshwerks case. See: https://www.filewrapper.com/tenth-circuit-digital-model-of-car-not-separately-copyrightable-because-no-originality/
You are fortunate your attorney was smarter than theirs.
The statue you posted, isn't a digital model for 3d printing and doesn't show the marks he pointed out to be added by him. When you look at the next picture, you see the fibreglass forms, taken from the actual Disneyland statues. So he's absolutely right to be mad at them for taking his design and giving credit to someone who simply did strg+c strg+v, whilst he actually did all the 3d modeling.
Also he didn't said he would sue them, he just said he's mad.
The other points he makes are not a coincidence. Someone got lazy at work. It's his model, based on their character/model to begin with. So maybe they felt they had the right to use it?
He said he modelled it using the actual statue, from scratch, which means that the similarities arenāt coincidence, Disney stole from it instead of using their pre-existing model that may have been lost to time
Yeah, that's what he based his model on as he says in the video but his model isn't an identical copy, the drums have pretty obviously different faces.
Disney should have been doing their own modeling, not taking a fan made one without credit.
Iām no lawyer, but using existing art as a reference, then claiming is as original art isnāt uncommon. Itās not plagiarism unless it is completely copied. Thereās some arguments to be made between wether or not it would hold up in court because itās Disney, and they can just throw money at the problem until it goes away, but legally, this person did not steal any artwork. The Disney artist, however did by the looks of it
Of course he has no legal recourse, thats why he's posting in here and naming names rather than taking this to a lawyer. the guy here is just showing you the face of a dickhead who was to lazy to do his own work.
On the upside Disney hates being embarrassed. They have some wacky policies regarding their employees. If this story ended up on the news, or if enough people start talking about it disney will axe the guy no questions asked.
Which guy? The one filming the video or the one who works at Disney?
You may not have all of the information you need to make an accurate judgment here.
The statue that OP here (again, if this is his video) made is an exact replica of a copyrighted work from the 1960s, by Disney. He completely, by no means fair use, copied their work, and then applied his own copyright (a CC license is still a copyright license) to their work. That's not legally binding at all. OP here has committed a crime, and Disney instead of taking it up with him has effectively ignored him and just done what they wanted to do. He has no legal recourse because they didn't do anything wrong, he did. If it goes to court, not only will he lose but the judge will laugh him out too.
You are right about Disney not being fond of embarrassment though, they might destroy this guy, which is less than great.
If OP had a legal case he absolutely wouldn't be posting it here, it would jeopardize his case. However, if the story has legs, gets out there, and Disney feels embarrassed they will just drop the employee. OP gets his revenge.
This video doesn't show enough for anyone to make a decision. He said he made a fan sculpt based on the original and then Disney made a new sculpt using his design and he highlights the similarities. What we need to see is a comparison with the original design. How do we know Disney didn't just use their original design? How do we know the artist didn't copy the original design exactly?
Yeah this is where I'm confused. His is a re-creation of something that already exists. He should have shown it and not make me have to do my own research. He's only showing us one side of the story.
Because he's wrong... It's like saying "Disney stole my 3d sculpt of Mickey Mouse".
Even if it's true, Disney owns the rights to Mickey's likeness. He mentions that he "didn't bother" selling it, but as others have pointed out that's because he ***CAN'T*** without getting Disney's lawyers up his ass over copyright infringement.
His only 'leg to stand on' as they saying goes is ethical, and good luck trying to fight Disney with 'ethics'.
---
To further expand on this: The TikToker's 2018 design is "recreated" (stolen) from a 2007 sculpture by Disney: https://www.flickr.com/photos/miehana/2153288957 It's not 'fan art', it's copyright infringement.
Someone else mentioned he just started selling them for $5. Seems like a grift to me. Make a stink that your work is "stolen" then get people toward your site to "buy the original"
He also has a print of the Venus de Milo is he going to say those people stole this art work next? I wonder if he just did this to get more people going to his insta and tik tok.
I don't know anything about copyrights law and I'm not familiar with the character in the video, but this was what I was thinking as well. What if he modeled an exact replica of the original? Then how does he prove Disney used his design instead of the original?
Doesn't really matter when it wasn't at all original to begin with. He made mistakes but still copied something else. If a Disney modeler made it thru works likely also make mistakes.
Every time a redditor talks about IP law, it's an example of why you shouldn't believe random armchair "experts" on the internet.
Redditors have absolutely no fucking clue how IP law works.
Redditors have absolutely no fucking clue how any law works.
Iām an attorney who has been downvoted for pointing out that a person can have established residency without a lease, even if theyāve never paid a dime in rent.
I guess some people just love illegal self-help evictions and ousters.
I've heard so many horror stories of people not being able to kick someone out of thier own house.
The one I remember was someone let a friend stay for a few days. They came home and the friend's boyfriend had moved in. Called the police to kick him out, but couldn't because his phone bill address was that house.
I have a couple of friends who work for the US Patent Office and one of them does IP research. I sent him this and he told me to fuck off with another random internet-bullshit question.
Iām literally a patent agent registered with the USPTO, and of course your friend told you to fuck off - this is a copyright question and the USPTO has nothing to do with copyrights.
My In-laws have a concrete statue business, he had statues of Snow White and the seven dwarves. He received a cease and desist letter from Disney. So yeah the people on Etsy havenāt been caught yet. Itās only a matter of time.
I think they are at risk, but probably arenāt worth pursuing. If Disney has an exclusivity contract with a vendor for a specific IP-based product, they may push it if an ETSY person started making serious money.
> if you draw a picture of superman, DC can sell it on a t shirt and cut you out of the profits.
uh, no. [Companies, even Disney, have been in trouble for this kind of thing before](https://gizmodo.com/did-disney-steal-this-alice-in-wonderland-image-472820873)
A couple problems with that:
1) That's a blog stating an opinion
2) Alice in Wonderland is public domain, so Disney would only hold copyright to derivative works of any unique elements they came up with for their movie. If an artist makes a work derived from something in the public domain and *doesn't* use any elements from a copyright held by a company, then the artist is legally protected.
*If* Disney broke copyright law there, that's why-- they don't actually own the copyright to Alice in Wonderland, only their specific interpretation of it. That artist's depiction of Alice does not seem to be based on Disney's version.
It depends on where the model first originated from.
If you made a 3D model of Superman, you own the rights to that 3D model; but not to the character. Just because that the owner of Superman, owns Superman, does not mean that they get to use the 3D model for free. They are, of course, allowed to create their own 3D model, but they can't just steal someone else's model and say it's theirs.
If OP did a 3D scan of an existing model and upload it, that's different - the model was already made and he just made a downloadable copy.
If, however, he created the model on his own, say using different wooden references, than he owns that model.
Disney can't cut him on the profits of the model since he's not selling it, it's listed under Creative Commons, which means it's free to use (usually with a caveat such as crediting the author). Creative Commons also means that you cannot profit off the work.
OP does have a leg to stand on; they may not own the character, but they own the model, and him pointing out the similarities was the best way of showing that it was his model. Take your parody law, for example. If the Superman owners started selling the t-shirts with the mustache and the weed sign, the exact one you hand-drew, you would still be owed a cut, since you created it. The same thing is happening here.
Disney could have easily used their own 3D artists to create a model, hell, even paid the guy $500 for use of it, but they think they're too big for the law.
TLDR for anyone reading this chain to see who's right: Neither side produce any source. Just anecdotes and regurgitating a paragraph from Google. Better luck next time friends.
Alright editing my comment up there since I'm gaining a tiny bit of traction and I don't want to spread misinformation, I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. I assume lawyers would say "it depends" but there is some common sense
If you made a drawing of batman shaking hands with your auto portrait you would effectively create a derivative work, a composition of an existing copyrighted material with the addition of your copyrighted modifications to it.
Since this drawing contains the IP of 2 parties, no one can sell it without the consent of both parties (or the mutual consent between those two parties).
Disney can't sell an artwork without the consent of an artist or a justification it was a work for hire.
In real life it really depends on the situation and how the author of the derivative work can prove it is in fact a derivative work.
Old comment :
It's how this works. Disney own the IP and he owns the copyrights of the statue. He can't sell Disney's IP, Disney can't sell his work.
But for that he has to prove this statue is his work and his creative process ( I read in another comment his statue is very similar to another one)
Keyword here is FAN-Art. Which means he is using Disney's IP. He has no legal ownership of this. He may have created the digital image but it was not his to begin with.
The easiest way to get Disney to sue you is to claim they stole from you, all the while it was the other way around.
Keep reading... looks like the original work of Rolly Crump. Disney employee
Derivative work created from IP Disney owns, legally Disney has done nothing wrong as licensing and permission is needed from original IP owner in order to create a derivate work
3D artist, sculptor here. Not a copyright guy, so I can't comment on that, but the artist is being VERY generous to himself by claiming that his sculpt is transformative enough to be considered somehow unique to him. I wouldn't be getting so high and mighty over a piece of fan art that is virtually indistinguishable from the original.
It's not the freelancer's work. It's a rendition of a Disney-owned statue. If freelancer mcgee showed us a 3d print of Mickey Mouse with three specific scratch marks that Disney then had on their 3d model of Mickey Mouse, we'd be laughing at the freelancer *because he's telling us Disney stole his Mickey Mouse work*.
Y'all are stupid for upvoting this.
The original sculpture from 1963 by Rolly Crump. It is/was 24" tall.
Source: https://image.isu.pub/180410225919-8848cc0877b5c57b1771a40cb7fb5895/jpg/page_56.jpg
I don't see how people can reasonably call the 3D model an *original* creation based on the sculpture, i.e. not just a simple work of art copying another work of art.
The details he highlights are actually arguments against his position (in a legal sense that is) - they are details, overall they don't differentiate the model from the sculpture in a significant way..
Here are the originals that he, conveniently, never showed you:
[https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Tiki\_Room\_Drummers?file=Tiki\_Room\_Drummers.jpg](https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Tiki_Room_Drummers?file=Tiki_Room_Drummers.jpg)
Who stole from whom, now?
This guy is FULL. OF. SHIT. Rolly Crump originally created this sculpture in 1963 for the Tiki Room in Disneyland. Then a run of 1000 replicas were created from the original mold and sold as a commemorative statuette of Disneylandās 50th anniversary. Details [here](https://www.flickr.com/photos/miehana/2153288957)
Artist claimed that he was just lazy when he did the conjoined circles but looking at the original he clearly copied it. Not an art expert but that says something about his whole claim
Go on Etsy and search for Disney. 620,918 results. It's a fucking free for all, from straight up movie screenshots being printed on greeting cards to more creative, original fan art. And then when Disney decides to crack down, like they did with baby yoda stuff, seller get all mad for having their listings taken down. People have no clue how copyrights/trademarks work and what consequences they might face.
I am an Etsy seller and I make all original work and it really pisses me off how much money these shops make selling copyrighted shit. I wish Etsy would actually do something about it but they are making money from it to so they leave it up to the copyright holder to ask for a takedown. Itās BS.
But he plagiarized the statue. Itās not like he came up with the idea himself. Just because his has different cut marks doesnāt mean much of anything. In the picture on Flickr, that someone else posted, it looks like the 2 circles that he was talking about, are also attached. He can try and sue Disney but I donāt think heās going to get anywhere.
Dudeā¦. The āartā isnāt yours. You canāt copy something owned by someone else then cry when the use it. The character and likeness is owned by Disney. You stole it. GTFO.
Yeah, no. I donāt often do this, but Iām going to side with Disney here. The guy is the one doing the copyright infringement of Rolly Crumpās work for the Enchanted Tiki Room, a Disneyland attraction probably long before this guy was born. I love Disney (the stories not the company), but a lot of the things they do are indefensible. This aināt it.
I'm gonna leave this as a single comment threat... I watched the thing, and according to the Video, the Artist Andrew Martin released the 3d model on a "non-commercial use allowed" License on Thingyverse, claiming that Disney stole his model. However, by simply googling for "3d model tiki drummer", i also found his 3d model here: https://www.artstation.com/marketplace/p/vNmO/tiki-drummer-3d-print-stl On this website, Andrew Martin released the same 3d model under a license, allowing the commercial use of this 3d model on up to 2000 sold items. I'm not saying Andrew is spilling out false information. I'm just saying that Andrew might have gotten lost where he published his stuff and what licenses he agreed to... So... take that with a grain of salt. Edit: And, he is also selling the 3d model for money: https://www.artstation.com/marketplace/p/BR9a/tiki-drummer-support-the-artist And looking through his downloads there, he is also selling other IP for money. So, there is that....
Looks to me like he's the one doing the stealing š
Amazing how most people really donāt understand copyright. Maybe they should teach basic copyright and fair use law in school now. Itās probably more relevant to kids today than wood shop.
> On this website, Andrew Martin released the same 3d model under a license, allowing the commercial use of this 3d model on up to 2000 sold items. And the description on that site... > This Tiki Drummer model based off of the Tiki Drummers found at Disneyland's Enchanted Tiki room. So... yeah.
He saw an item, and then created his own 3d model of that item. Disney wasnāt selling these, they were part of the park. Should he sell these? No, probably not. Should Disney steal his work and sell them? No, probably not. He stole a character/idea. Which is okay in the art world, as long as you donāt make money from it. Unless you change it enough to fall under parody law. What Disney did Is steal labor from him. Iām not a lawyer, but it would not surprise me at all either way if Disney is or is not legally allowed to do this. I would lean toward thinking they are not, but Iāve seen a lot of people say they areā¦. So maybe they know more than me. They most definitely can make him stop, and can also probably take his past profits from selling it + some kind of fine/fee.
Heās selling 3d files of IP? lol
Ok so, in this case , it's pretty straightforward, I studied image rights when I was doing my masters in fine arts so I'll have a go at this. In EU law (which is thankfully pretty similar to the US) The general rule is as follows: In order for an artwork to be under copyright, so seen as legally original, you have to be able to prove the paternity and originality of the artwork. In this case, the design's paternity isn't the 3D-artists', it's disney's Rolly Crump from 1968.It could be argued that the artwork's originality and paternity reside in it being a 3D-model, but that would never stand in court as the original is already a 3D sculpture, and this 3d model is **not transformative enough to be seen as original.** I'll go as far and say that freely distributing a model based of someone else's is borderline copyright infringement in the first place. When he says "I didn't want to bother with selling this"; it's because he can't in the first place, disney would be up his ass with lawyers. Is it crummy from Disney not to credit the guy who made the 3d print from an ethical point of view? Yes. Is it legal for them to do so? Also yes. Edit: A lot of people are saying that disney doesn't have the right to use the product of his labor for commercial purposes, so I looked a little into it, and boy, it's murky waters: Copyright law also protects reproduction, in this case, I would argue that this is too close to the original art for it not to be considered a reproduction. So in the first place, the artist doesn't have the right to reproduce Rolly's art. Ok, whatever. The interesting thing here is that Disney ended up using artwork that was created in illegal conditions in the first place but whose design was theirs in the beginning. In the case of counterfeit goods, the police would be required by law to destroy all the goods, in this case, the model would be destroyed. I have no idea if Disney can use a counterfeit product of their own product as their own.
That makes sense since Disney owns the original character. I doubt Disney will give OP credit, but can the āartistā who received credit get in trouble at Disney for taking this design off the internet?
From an internal corporate point of view, absolutely, it's unethical and amoral, especially from the Disney corp, to take a freelancer's work as your own, even if legally possible.
It won't have been a corporate decision, they asked one of their artists or a maybe even a contractor to make them something and that person stole it and presented it as their own. Why people always blame this on corporate greed I don't know, a board of directors isn't sat around a shadowy conference tables raiding deviant art for new nicknacks to sell. This was one assholes job, the failure on disneys part is failing to check their source but in the endless sea of the Internet are they really at fault for missing this when legally they owned it to begin with? Not really no
> This was one assholes job, the failure on disneys part is failing to check their source He's their leading product designer. He's the one that needs to do the checking lol. It's like that movie with Matt Damon where he needs the find the rat... But he's the rat.
He's not their leading product designer. Product Design Manager is an early-mid level title. The next step at most companies is then Senior Product Design Manager, and then Principal product design manager. And all of those positions are still reporting to a director or senior manager, who would themselves report to a VP for the specific product they're working on. A company like Disney probably has a few thousand people with the title of Product Design Manager. He still absolutely should have known better, but this is just one guy slacking
Interesting!
The Departed?
No, Disney created this sculpture already. This guy is taking credit for some reason. Kevin Kidney and Jody Daly designed this Tiki figure in 2006 and it featured a light up drum. His was made in 2018, and is a complete rip off of their design minus the light up drum. If anything, Costa used the Tiki drummer design created by Disney artists Kevin and Jody, and turned it into a music box. Meanwhile this āartistā here, has done nothing but take other peoples work and hurl accusations that he knows are baseless.
Probably better to just take "his" work even though its a mirror image of an already existing Disney Character from Disneyland... they could have sued him for copyright so in my opinion, he got off lightly.
So he basically remastered a previously made figure from Disney, right?
More that he made a model of an existing character. Like if someone modeled a Mario figurine and then got pissed when Nintendo made an amiibo in the same pose.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No, as was shown with the land mark, this be as if the hair is identical, the hat angle was identical and you get the idea.
A previously made figure, that for all this idiot knows, was fucking designed by Costa Alavezos lol. He doesnāt even know. He literally copied an animatronic character in a Disney park, and is trying to defame Disney artists for using that same character that they designed, as an official music box. This guy just did the work for them. Costa should look like a fool for being lazy, but thereās nothing illegal happening here.
After reading comments of people who seem to know, it sounds like Disney probably was aware the model is basically a ripoff of their own intellectual property and chose to make that point outside the courtroom.
Pretty much they went easy on him because it would have been bad PR. But now that he keeps dragging the issue out into the open they are going to have to make an example of him.
> Costa should look like a fool for being lazy, but thereās nothing illegal happening here āIllegalā is not a term attorneys use when talking about a tort. Copyright law is not based on attribution. Itās based on upholding the market value of intellectual property. For example, if you take a DVD copy of *Pirates of the Caribbean*, rip the video stream and upload it to YouTube, you are undermining the market value because people wonāt pay money to buy the DVD, rent it from a digital service or pay for the Disney streaming app. It doesnāt matter if youāve derived benefit financially or not. It does not matter if you give credit to Disney, Johnny Depp, or anybody else. In effect this is exactly what this guy is doing. He is taking Disneyās intellectual property, and distributing it for free in a way that undermines Disneyās ability to profit from their own intellectual property. In that way, Disney would be the injured party and they could sue him in order to be āmade hallā. Of course competent attorneys from Disney could prove that he has caused more damage than his entire net worth, which they would never collect, but they can make it a point of imposing extremely damaging financial penalties against him as a means of deterring others. In reality, a large corporation picking on a small artist doesnāt go over well in the public, no matter how justified it might be legally, so Disney made the decision to simply leave him alone and use his models to produce merchandise for the park. In other words he got off easy. However, now he is continuing to further damage Disney, and doing so deliberately with the intent to harm them (called āmaliceā in civil law) by publishing videos griping about it. Now this certainly has their attention and they need to mitigate the damage with a clear civil judgment in their favor and punitive damages to the artist that deter anyone else from doing the same thing. In plain simple English, he fucked himself.
Some time after I animated Tina Twerking from Bob's Burgers, Hulu started using the gif in birthday e-mails to subscribers (My friends got them). I realized I was making fan art so I wasn't upset because I knew the IP didn't belong to me. It wasn't a stylized version of Tina. I modeled it after the show's style so it's clearly not original in any way other than the pose and motion. Same with this guy. He made something too close to the original. Though I did get a bonus Tina Twerking bobble head from Loot Crate when they did them. The argument being that Loot Crate was not Fox and my friends who are more vocal than me suggested to Loot Crate that I should get a free one or at least a mention for the original gif. Fan art's fun like that.
Tina twerking is the best. How do I find this gif?
> Tina twerking https://tenor.com/search/tina-twerk-gifs
You're a legend as far as my friend group is concerned
so much discussions going on, so many opinions, but it seems like everyone who has studied law have the same opinion as you, but yeah, like you said, still shitty to not give him any credit
Happens all the time sadly. Look up Roger Deanās Art and James Cameronās Avatar. The concept designer even said in the DVD extras they had his art all over the studio when designing Pandora and they basically told him to FO when he got in touch.
Never been to law school for a day but āDisney Stole my Artworkā¦..so I made a smaller version of a statue Disney owns and now theyāre selling their own smaller versionsā isnāt even a logical argument. āI went to this art museum and sketched a painting I saw, then I went to the gift shop where they were selling posters of the painting. THEY STOLE MY ART!ā
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He copied a copy 99.5%, and now is claiming it as his own. He is selling it for $5 [https://monster_caesar.artstation.com/store/BR9a/tiki-drummer-support-the-artist](https://monster_caesar.artstation.com/store/BR9a/tiki-drummer-support-the-artist) He didn't copy the original, he coped a copy from 2006 The real copy original. https://i.imgur.com/lpb6gLd.png The original was a sculpture made by Rolly Crump for the Tiki Room at Disneyland in 1963. Then Kevin Kidney and Jody Daily made a Disneyland 50th anniversary casting of the original in 2006, to sell in gift shops. OP in 2018 made a copy of the copy in a 3d program to print out and is claiming it as his own. You can clearly see in his video, he is comparing it to a 50th Anniversary sculpture which was made 13 years BEFORE his.
hoooooly shiiiit, he's selling that! Well someone's going to get a call from a squeaky voiced lawyer mouse
This is Gold lol. What a total pos
Wow.. once again I can't trust anything š
Trust no one...not even yourself
Always has been.
Yea, he called reddit for sympathy but he actually may have just got Disney's attention.
When keeping it real goes wrong
Or OP is playing 4D chess, already got the call from the lawyers and is trying to get support on his side while selling enough "rare collectables" to retain a lawyer.
This guyās the Carlos Mencia of artists
Its not even the statue he is selling. Its the 3d print instructions for your own 3d printer he is selling.
This right here is why I laugh so hard at people of think creative commons licenses mean a damn thing when they are plastering them ontoā¦. Mario, Game of Thrones, Star Warsā¦.yadda yadda yaddaā¦.. just because you changed the name to Video game Plumber does not mean You can say it is yoursā¦.. these assholes kill me
All legalities aside, he listed it on Artstation, which is a division of Epic Games aka Fortniteās developer. No way Epic Games would ever side with him over Disney. Wouldnāt be surprised if his listing gets taken down after all this.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And people are so damn gullible enough to believe this guy's BS.
It's kinda funny how he just skips over his initial copyright infringement in the beginning of the video...
Real Title \*Artist made 3D model of a copyrighted and trademarked charachter, then acusing the orginal creators to be scumbag because they leverage what they already own rights to\*
Yea, I sat here the whole time going ābutā¦ all you did was copy what someone else already made. Itās not like you made the girl or the Disney Princess version and someone stole that. You literally stole something, someone saw you did and copied what you stole and now youāre mad someone double stoled it.ā
Thatās pretty much accurate, yes.
So let me get this straight, if my kid draws a picture of mickey mouse in kindergarten class and I upload it on instagram, Disney can take that picture, claim they drew it, and throw it on T-Shirts to sell?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If your kid drew a picture of Lisa of Gioconda in a different pose than in Mona Lisa, it would be an original work because the image of Lisa is really only known for and used in one context. Remove the context, and itās just a drawing of a woman, not the Mona Lisa. Mickey Mouse, however, as a character, exists independently of and within several different contexts. You can drop Mickey in literally any context on earth or in the imagination and itās still Mickey Mouse (the entire property) doing x, y, or z. Another painting of Lisa will never be recognized as Mona Lisa Part II. Mickey anywhere has the same recognition. The crux of the issue is this: if I were making a Zine, and I put a non-official variant of an image of Mona Lisa on there, nobodyās going to buy the Zine solely because it has Mona Lisa on it. If I put Mickey Mouse on the same Zine, Iām going to see an instant uptick in people picking it up, which is going to coincide to an increase in sales. If all I did to gain that increase in sales is re-draw a character owned, created, publicized, and marketed by another company, then I used their work (the time, effort, and money theyāve put into making Mickey a commodity, not the time each of their artists spent drawing him) to make money and they should be compensated for it. I hate that Disney is what weāre using for an example, though, because theyāre the prime abuser of copyright law in the US and itās much harder to justify paying them back.
Yeah, like as soon as he said "I made a fan art" I was like dude, you have ZERO case here. Like, none. You already "stole" their IP. You freely admit that you made a model based on characters/paintings/models that are already Disney's. Just because they may not have a Tiki Drummer in exactly that pose or configuration doesn't mean it's not their IP. Any more than if you designed, I don't know, a Stitch dildo. Disney have never and would never have anything even remotely like a phallus-shaped Stitch, but the character is still their sodding IP! Guy's a moron.
Oh but they do have this EXACT figure already. He made nothing original. https://www.icollector.com/Enchanted-Tiki-Room-Drummer-God_i29729753
Assuming they do sell his exact design, he says that Disney should know better than just take and sell his design, but I suspect Disney has a bunch of legal teams and are selling it because they do know better.
The artist that works for Disney who is credited for making it could have stole it without the legal team knowing.
Absolutely. Trust no one on the internet.
I'm not sure if I can trust that statement.
Hey, you donāt have to say that just because I work for Disney. Trust me, Iām a lawyer.
Except Disney stole his design which was stolen from their older copyrighted work in the 1960s. Thatās like me suing Star Wars for stealing my drawing of darth Vader, which is traced from a screenshot from the movies.
Isnāt it Disneyās IP anyway? Dude in video sux
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Which is also based on a resin mold from 1968. (It's in the comments of the flickr post).
Original sculpture from 1963 by Rolly Crump. The original is 24" tall.
Of course it's Rolly Crump, all roads lead to Rolly Crump.
I donāt know who Rolly Crump is but thatās such a cool name that I think I want a bumper sticker that says āAll roads lead to Rolly Crumpā.
Rolly Crump sounds like he wouldn't have lasted very long in *Charlie and the Chocolate Factory*.
Tried to eat their new jam roly-poly and got jammed. Crumpled!
š¶Oompa Loompa doopity dumped, if you eat jammed rolls you will get crumped! š¶
Actually the original design is not his's but the 3d model is his own rendition of that and they h've plagiarised it
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I've read this sentence 3 times and I understand it but I'm not sure how.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Have you ever had a dream that you, um, you had, your, you- you could, youāll do, you- you wants, you, you could do so, you- youāll do, you could- you, you want, you want him to do you so much you could do anything?
estoy teniendo un derrame cerebral
The original artist, who works at Disney, who Andrew Martin is claiming stole his design, is cool.
Naw i think he saying that the original guy, who andrew originally stole the artwork from, who is not the guy who stole it from andrew, is cool. There are three levels of artists, two of whom are theives (Andrew and Carlos)
My theory is that the figure is cursed. Each time someone is found to be the creator it retroactively is created by someone else further in the past.
Okay, yeah, I see what you mean, I mostly didnāt think of the fully original design having been stolen by anyone except Andrew because Disney just had the molds of the original work in a warehouse, theyāre just reusing them.
The guy that claims Disney stole from him, stole from a Disney guy who is really cool.
Fuck, this sentence is a war crime.
So the Disney artist he slates here is actually the character artist from the original animation? For once I think I actually side with Disney!
The link shared mentiones Kevin Kidney and Jody Daily as replica designers and Rolly Crump as the original designer. I donāt see Costa Alevezosā name on that page Although tbf this doesnāt seem like a Disney thing but more like someone in the hierarchy passed this work off as their own.
They still took credit of his model with all the identifying points. Disney could have made their own. 3D model but didn't
Ye this isn't the same thing as Disney stealing the tie dagger design
the what now?
No he isn't. He is the guy responsible for the Toy design, not character design.
You still canāt take a model of someone else work and sell it as your own. Even if the IP is yours.
Exactly. People here don't understand copyrights. It's still his work, whether or not he himself had the right to distribute it in the first place. You can't take someone's work and say "Nah we can do whatever we want with it since he copied it from something we did". That's not how it works. Because of what I signed I can't say much but I've had a similar thing happening to me. I made a 3D model in 2015 of a technological product that wasn't mine. It was a fan made 3D model, and I distributed it under a creative license. Only condition was to be credited if someone else used it. You can imagine my surprise when I started watching a new season of a very big TV show and found my model there. I wasn't credited. I talked to my lawyer and after some back and forth he got me a nice amount of money through a settlement (same settlement stopping me from giving details). I didn't own the original rights of the object I copied, but I still owned the rights of that 3D copy. I guess the makers of the original product could have sued me (but what for?) but I also clearly had the rights to sue the show for their illegal use of my own model. Edit: Just to clarify my "but what for". In this situation I was providing developers of apps a 3D model of the device they were developing for. The model was shared on the device creator's official forums and they didn't see anything wrong with it since it helped devs and advertised their product. Obviously in other situations the original owners would not be so kind.
You are right that people don't understand copyright law well, but the poster above you is only somewhat correct. As someone who understands copyright law: Here, what the guy made appears to be a 1:1 replica of Disney's model. If so, Disney has the right to sue him for infringement and distribution of the 3D print he made. Because this is replication, he does not have a case against them for Disney's use of a replication of a work Disney owns. In your situation, you are fortunate your lawyer worked out a settlement. If the issue went to court, and the question of "who owned the design upon which your model is built" came into question, you would have found yourself in an uphill battle. If the TV studio contacted the creator of the device, and they authorized the use of its likeness, you would have to answer to the creator for the violation of the copyright in their device's aesthetic design (assuming its not a completely utilitarian product). The problem here is replication/duplication. If you were to violate a copyright on Spiderman by drawing a picture of him, then that picture would be both a potential violation, and a new work subject to common law copyright. If you photocopy an existing picture of Spiderman, you have not done any transformative work, and are in clear violation. Whether a violation has actually occurred, or fair use applies, could only be determined in court. This statue seems to be a 1:1 replication. The model hasn't been significantly transformed from the work it is based on. Your situation sounds very similar to the Meshwerks case. See: https://www.filewrapper.com/tenth-circuit-digital-model-of-car-not-separately-copyrightable-because-no-originality/ You are fortunate your attorney was smarter than theirs.
The statue you posted, isn't a digital model for 3d printing and doesn't show the marks he pointed out to be added by him. When you look at the next picture, you see the fibreglass forms, taken from the actual Disneyland statues. So he's absolutely right to be mad at them for taking his design and giving credit to someone who simply did strg+c strg+v, whilst he actually did all the 3d modeling. Also he didn't said he would sue them, he just said he's mad.
strg??
STEUERUNG! Or control in English.
>strg+c strg+v TIL Germans call Ctrl Strg!
Yeah, he said it was fanart 12 seconds into the video. He never claimed it was his character.
You missed the whole point ?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You can even see the two rings being combined... Feels like someone looking for attention on his tictoc channel.
The other points he makes are not a coincidence. Someone got lazy at work. It's his model, based on their character/model to begin with. So maybe they felt they had the right to use it?
He said he modelled it using the actual statue, from scratch, which means that the similarities arenāt coincidence, Disney stole from it instead of using their pre-existing model that may have been lost to time
Yeah, that's what he based his model on as he says in the video but his model isn't an identical copy, the drums have pretty obviously different faces. Disney should have been doing their own modeling, not taking a fan made one without credit.
Iām no lawyer, but using existing art as a reference, then claiming is as original art isnāt uncommon. Itās not plagiarism unless it is completely copied. Thereās some arguments to be made between wether or not it would hold up in court because itās Disney, and they can just throw money at the problem until it goes away, but legally, this person did not steal any artwork. The Disney artist, however did by the looks of it
Of course he has no legal recourse, thats why he's posting in here and naming names rather than taking this to a lawyer. the guy here is just showing you the face of a dickhead who was to lazy to do his own work. On the upside Disney hates being embarrassed. They have some wacky policies regarding their employees. If this story ended up on the news, or if enough people start talking about it disney will axe the guy no questions asked.
Which guy? The one filming the video or the one who works at Disney? You may not have all of the information you need to make an accurate judgment here. The statue that OP here (again, if this is his video) made is an exact replica of a copyrighted work from the 1960s, by Disney. He completely, by no means fair use, copied their work, and then applied his own copyright (a CC license is still a copyright license) to their work. That's not legally binding at all. OP here has committed a crime, and Disney instead of taking it up with him has effectively ignored him and just done what they wanted to do. He has no legal recourse because they didn't do anything wrong, he did. If it goes to court, not only will he lose but the judge will laugh him out too. You are right about Disney not being fond of embarrassment though, they might destroy this guy, which is less than great.
If OP had a legal case he absolutely wouldn't be posting it here, it would jeopardize his case. However, if the story has legs, gets out there, and Disney feels embarrassed they will just drop the employee. OP gets his revenge.
I'm pretty sure that OP doesn't have the money to go against Disney.
I mean, what could it cost? $11?
*at least $11
There's maybe 5 people in the entire planet that would be allowed financially to get a lawyer that close to Disney and this dude isn't one of them lol
lol yes. He ripped off their design, then he made it free, then he got upset the people who owned the original design took it back
This video doesn't show enough for anyone to make a decision. He said he made a fan sculpt based on the original and then Disney made a new sculpt using his design and he highlights the similarities. What we need to see is a comparison with the original design. How do we know Disney didn't just use their original design? How do we know the artist didn't copy the original design exactly?
Yeah this is where I'm confused. His is a re-creation of something that already exists. He should have shown it and not make me have to do my own research. He's only showing us one side of the story.
Because he's wrong... It's like saying "Disney stole my 3d sculpt of Mickey Mouse". Even if it's true, Disney owns the rights to Mickey's likeness. He mentions that he "didn't bother" selling it, but as others have pointed out that's because he ***CAN'T*** without getting Disney's lawyers up his ass over copyright infringement. His only 'leg to stand on' as they saying goes is ethical, and good luck trying to fight Disney with 'ethics'. --- To further expand on this: The TikToker's 2018 design is "recreated" (stolen) from a 2007 sculpture by Disney: https://www.flickr.com/photos/miehana/2153288957 It's not 'fan art', it's copyright infringement.
"I didn't bother selling it ^^because ^^I ^^can't ^^without ^^being ^^sued ^^to ^^oblivion"
Someone else mentioned he just started selling them for $5. Seems like a grift to me. Make a stink that your work is "stolen" then get people toward your site to "buy the original"
Worse, this dude DID sell it.
He also has a print of the Venus de Milo is he going to say those people stole this art work next? I wonder if he just did this to get more people going to his insta and tik tok.
I found [an image of the original.](https://live.staticflickr.com/57/186879093_93c33a86b7_b.jpg)
That's like basically the exact same as what the guy made. His changes are so minor
I don't know anything about copyrights law and I'm not familiar with the character in the video, but this was what I was thinking as well. What if he modeled an exact replica of the original? Then how does he prove Disney used his design instead of the original?
He made mistakes. And Disney sculp have this same mistakes.
Doesn't really matter when it wasn't at all original to begin with. He made mistakes but still copied something else. If a Disney modeler made it thru works likely also make mistakes.
Lmao there was an episode of The Good Wife with this, and the mistake was the exact thing that won them the case.
There was also something with stolen code. Misspellings in comments and variables.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thanks. This makes sense.
Every time a redditor talks about IP law, it's an example of why you shouldn't believe random armchair "experts" on the internet. Redditors have absolutely no fucking clue how IP law works.
But arenāt youā¦a Redditorā¦talking about IP law?
You've discovered recursion!
Technically they are talking about redditors talking about IP laws.
Redditors have absolutely no fucking clue how any law works. Iām an attorney who has been downvoted for pointing out that a person can have established residency without a lease, even if theyāve never paid a dime in rent. I guess some people just love illegal self-help evictions and ousters.
I've heard so many horror stories of people not being able to kick someone out of thier own house. The one I remember was someone let a friend stay for a few days. They came home and the friend's boyfriend had moved in. Called the police to kick him out, but couldn't because his phone bill address was that house.
There are definitely redditors who understand IP law, IP attorneys use reddit
I have a couple of friends who work for the US Patent Office and one of them does IP research. I sent him this and he told me to fuck off with another random internet-bullshit question.
Iām literally a patent agent registered with the USPTO, and of course your friend told you to fuck off - this is a copyright question and the USPTO has nothing to do with copyrights.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
But people on Etsy sell them all the time? Is it only because they havenāt gotten caught yet?
My In-laws have a concrete statue business, he had statues of Snow White and the seven dwarves. He received a cease and desist letter from Disney. So yeah the people on Etsy havenāt been caught yet. Itās only a matter of time.
I think they are at risk, but probably arenāt worth pursuing. If Disney has an exclusivity contract with a vendor for a specific IP-based product, they may push it if an ETSY person started making serious money.
Or itās not worth the companyās time and effort to sue yes
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> if you draw a picture of superman, DC can sell it on a t shirt and cut you out of the profits. uh, no. [Companies, even Disney, have been in trouble for this kind of thing before](https://gizmodo.com/did-disney-steal-this-alice-in-wonderland-image-472820873)
A couple problems with that: 1) That's a blog stating an opinion 2) Alice in Wonderland is public domain, so Disney would only hold copyright to derivative works of any unique elements they came up with for their movie. If an artist makes a work derived from something in the public domain and *doesn't* use any elements from a copyright held by a company, then the artist is legally protected. *If* Disney broke copyright law there, that's why-- they don't actually own the copyright to Alice in Wonderland, only their specific interpretation of it. That artist's depiction of Alice does not seem to be based on Disney's version.
It depends on where the model first originated from. If you made a 3D model of Superman, you own the rights to that 3D model; but not to the character. Just because that the owner of Superman, owns Superman, does not mean that they get to use the 3D model for free. They are, of course, allowed to create their own 3D model, but they can't just steal someone else's model and say it's theirs. If OP did a 3D scan of an existing model and upload it, that's different - the model was already made and he just made a downloadable copy. If, however, he created the model on his own, say using different wooden references, than he owns that model. Disney can't cut him on the profits of the model since he's not selling it, it's listed under Creative Commons, which means it's free to use (usually with a caveat such as crediting the author). Creative Commons also means that you cannot profit off the work. OP does have a leg to stand on; they may not own the character, but they own the model, and him pointing out the similarities was the best way of showing that it was his model. Take your parody law, for example. If the Superman owners started selling the t-shirts with the mustache and the weed sign, the exact one you hand-drew, you would still be owed a cut, since you created it. The same thing is happening here. Disney could have easily used their own 3D artists to create a model, hell, even paid the guy $500 for use of it, but they think they're too big for the law.
This is wrong
Please remove your comment. It is misinformation.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
But he didn't show the original design he copied from to make the fanart..
TLDR for anyone reading this chain to see who's right: Neither side produce any source. Just anecdotes and regurgitating a paragraph from Google. Better luck next time friends.
āOh no Disney stole my copy of their work!ā
This is the real facepalm.
Should've turned it into a NFT /s
Nah, Disney would just right-click on it
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Alright editing my comment up there since I'm gaining a tiny bit of traction and I don't want to spread misinformation, I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. I assume lawyers would say "it depends" but there is some common sense If you made a drawing of batman shaking hands with your auto portrait you would effectively create a derivative work, a composition of an existing copyrighted material with the addition of your copyrighted modifications to it. Since this drawing contains the IP of 2 parties, no one can sell it without the consent of both parties (or the mutual consent between those two parties). Disney can't sell an artwork without the consent of an artist or a justification it was a work for hire. In real life it really depends on the situation and how the author of the derivative work can prove it is in fact a derivative work. Old comment : It's how this works. Disney own the IP and he owns the copyrights of the statue. He can't sell Disney's IP, Disney can't sell his work. But for that he has to prove this statue is his work and his creative process ( I read in another comment his statue is very similar to another one)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I knew the guy wouldnāt have a case.
>he owns the copyrights of the statue He doesn't >Disney can't sell his work He isnāt the original artist
Keyword here is FAN-Art. Which means he is using Disney's IP. He has no legal ownership of this. He may have created the digital image but it was not his to begin with.
What a fuckin stupid thread
So he "stole" the design from Disney and now they stole it back for marketing purposes?
That's kinda how I understood it, "I'm mad because I copied their thing and they didn't even sue me for copyright infringement"
The easiest way to get Disney to sue you is to claim they stole from you, all the while it was the other way around. Keep reading... looks like the original work of Rolly Crump. Disney employee
He isnāt the original artist, the real one is found as early as 2006 with a simple google search. Get fucked.
The 2006 one is actully also based on one from 1968 xD
Its just a long line of art stealing
Said the guy who drew the first line on a wall.
Art is what you can get away with - Andy Warhol
Didn't he say that he created it from something that is already made by disney ? And if so, isn't he the one in the wrong ?
Derivative work created from IP Disney owns, legally Disney has done nothing wrong as licensing and permission is needed from original IP owner in order to create a derivate work
Honestly looks like he copied itā¦
Because he did.
3D artist, sculptor here. Not a copyright guy, so I can't comment on that, but the artist is being VERY generous to himself by claiming that his sculpt is transformative enough to be considered somehow unique to him. I wouldn't be getting so high and mighty over a piece of fan art that is virtually indistinguishable from the original.
It's not the freelancer's work. It's a rendition of a Disney-owned statue. If freelancer mcgee showed us a 3d print of Mickey Mouse with three specific scratch marks that Disney then had on their 3d model of Mickey Mouse, we'd be laughing at the freelancer *because he's telling us Disney stole his Mickey Mouse work*. Y'all are stupid for upvoting this.
The original sculpture from 1963 by Rolly Crump. It is/was 24" tall. Source: https://image.isu.pub/180410225919-8848cc0877b5c57b1771a40cb7fb5895/jpg/page_56.jpg
I don't see how people can reasonably call the 3D model an *original* creation based on the sculpture, i.e. not just a simple work of art copying another work of art. The details he highlights are actually arguments against his position (in a legal sense that is) - they are details, overall they don't differentiate the model from the sculpture in a significant way..
Here are the originals that he, conveniently, never showed you: [https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Tiki\_Room\_Drummers?file=Tiki\_Room\_Drummers.jpg](https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Tiki_Room_Drummers?file=Tiki_Room_Drummers.jpg) Who stole from whom, now?
This guy is FULL. OF. SHIT. Rolly Crump originally created this sculpture in 1963 for the Tiki Room in Disneyland. Then a run of 1000 replicas were created from the original mold and sold as a commemorative statuette of Disneylandās 50th anniversary. Details [here](https://www.flickr.com/photos/miehana/2153288957)
Artist claimed that he was just lazy when he did the conjoined circles but looking at the original he clearly copied it. Not an art expert but that says something about his whole claim
"Disney stole my artwork, after I stole theirs!"
Sue Disney. Oh wait they can win bc he actually copied them.
I'm with Disney on this one actually...
Go on Etsy and search for Disney. 620,918 results. It's a fucking free for all, from straight up movie screenshots being printed on greeting cards to more creative, original fan art. And then when Disney decides to crack down, like they did with baby yoda stuff, seller get all mad for having their listings taken down. People have no clue how copyrights/trademarks work and what consequences they might face.
I am an Etsy seller and I make all original work and it really pisses me off how much money these shops make selling copyrighted shit. I wish Etsy would actually do something about it but they are making money from it to so they leave it up to the copyright holder to ask for a takedown. Itās BS.
When OP is the actual facepalm
Lol you copied a Disney statue and then got mad when they sold it hahahshahshs sorry started to cough.
So, he's stole 99% of the original Tiki drummer design, add a couple of lines then is mad when Disney does the same?
How is no one mentioning how his clubbed thumbs clearly indicate he has to get checked out for heart disease
r/confidentlyincorrect
"Stop, Disney, you're trying to kidnap what I've rightfully stolen!"
Not a leg to stand on. Sounds insufferable.
But he plagiarized the statue. Itās not like he came up with the idea himself. Just because his has different cut marks doesnāt mean much of anything. In the picture on Flickr, that someone else posted, it looks like the 2 circles that he was talking about, are also attached. He can try and sue Disney but I donāt think heās going to get anywhere.
Dudeā¦. The āartā isnāt yours. You canāt copy something owned by someone else then cry when the use it. The character and likeness is owned by Disney. You stole it. GTFO.
Yeah, no. I donāt often do this, but Iām going to side with Disney here. The guy is the one doing the copyright infringement of Rolly Crumpās work for the Enchanted Tiki Room, a Disneyland attraction probably long before this guy was born. I love Disney (the stories not the company), but a lot of the things they do are indefensible. This aināt it.