SO....IDW is publishing ORIGINAL Marvel Kids stories....

[WebLurker]

I can see that you haven't addressed any of the points I made in my last post.

I can't really respond to speculation; there's no data to examine and compare, no facts to utilize, not argument to refute. There's less substance to this then to a rainbow.

You already know that Disney is a ruthless company that cares little for original ideas. Walt Disney made his fortune by ripping-off old fairytales and children's books in the public domain and little has changed today.

Adapting pre-existing stories is not "ripping off." Heck, by that logic, Peter Jackson ripped off Lord of the Rings rather then making art. Besides, Disney has plenty of original work to it's name. Beyond the Mickey Mouse characters (created long before Disney was "ripping off" pre-existing stories, you've got Fantasia, The Cat From Outer Space, The Absent-Minded Professor (actually a whole ton of live-action stuff from several decades ago, the Tron movies, The Lion King, Dinosaur, Lilo and Stitch, Home on the Range, the Pirates of the Caribbean series, Bolt, Zootopia, Moana, etc. In any event, it's neither here nor there if Disney makes a lot of adaptations in regards to Marvel's comic line.

Modern Disney only bought Marvel because they wanted to use the IP and existing source material for the movies.

You might want to get your head out of your echo chamber; the only movie based on a Marvel IP that Disney has made in the years since the sale is Big Hero 6 (and it was completely divorced from Marvel my request of Marvel itself).

Strictly speaking, if Disney sees no value in further stories from Marvel then there is no point in publishing new comics.

Maybe, but this has yet to be seen, much less have any proof to make it a worthwhile consideration.

This IDW Avengers is a great example, a generic rehash, more then enough to please Disney's investors.

Have you even read this thing in the first place or are you just guessing blindly? Maybe more to the point, why are you so invested in seeing Marvel fail?

[Gaastra]

Anything to get new readers is a plus. My nephews love the archie marvel books and i'll pick some of these up for them. I wish marvel would let idw reprint the marvel micronauts and rom comics also. (funny thing is I was annoyed at other studios reprinting marvel stuff, even did a thread about it but now not only am I fine with it, i hope we get more movie and tv based marvel stuff.)

Some more covers.

[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]

[Kintor]

Adapting pre-existing stories is not "ripping off." Heck, by that logic, Peter Jackson ripped off Lord of the Rings rather then making art. Besides, Disney has plenty of original work to it's name. Beyond the Mickey Mouse characters (created long before Disney was "ripping off" pre-existing stories, you've got Fantasia, The Cat From Outer Space, The Absent-Minded Professor (actually a whole ton of live-action stuff from several decades ago, the Tron movies, The Lion King, Dinosaur, Lilo and Stitch, Home on the Range, the Pirates of the Caribbean series, Bolt, Zootopia, Moana, etc. In any event, it's neither here nor there if Disney makes a lot of adaptations in regards to Marvel's comic line.

Disney is a company that steals ideas and repackages them into new formats. Just ask the Japanese creators of Kimba the White Lion what they think about the 'originality' of the Lion King before you start to defend the dubious ethics of Disney as a company. The only thing that Disney desired from Marvel was the existing source material, the core narratives and archetypal characters that could be endlessly recycled until all value has been stripped from Marvel as a company. The rapid degradation of acquired IPs like Star Wars is the usual course Disney takes. The fact that Marvel still remains profitable to Disney so many years after acquisition is something of a small miracle itself.

[WebLurker]

Disney is a company that steals ideas and repackages them into new formats.

As noted before, adaptation is not stealing.

Just ask the Japanese creators of Kimba the White Lion what they think about the 'originality' of the Lion King before you start to defend the dubious ethics of Disney as a company.

Dude, that myth was busted a long time ago.

The only thing that Disney desired from Marvel was the existing source material, the core narratives and archetypal characters that could be endlessly recycled until all value has been stripped from Marvel as a company.

Once again, Disney has only used Marvel for source material a grand total of once since the buyout. Everything else has been purely Marvel-based productions.

The rapid degradation of acquired IPs like Star Wars is the usual course Disney takes.

Pixar would beg to disagree with you. In any event, Star Wars has factually not degraded under Disney; of the four movies produced so far, they've had a 75% success streak, with TFA and TLJ in particular not only being extremely well-received, but also the highest-grossing movies of their releases years period.

The fact that Marvel still remains profitable to Disney so many years after acquisition is something of a small miracle itself.

You want to make a case, actually use facts to back yourself up; all you've proven is that you have a Disney bias and are willing to make stuff up to "prove" your point. It doesn't make for good discussion.

[Fairyprincess]

So..... Why can't panini comics publish new stories with the marvel uk characters in Britain?????

[Kintor]

As noted before, adaptation is not stealing.

What Disney does is not adaption it's outright steeling, denying profits to the rightly holders of the original IP. Take Peter Pan for example, the author of the book J. M. Barrie setup his will so that all future profits from adaptions would go a children's orphanage. Unfortunately, animated films did not exist at the time his will was written so they were exempt from this law. As such, Walt Disney was able to make millions from Peter Pan and never give a cent to the orphanage. You read that right, Disney steals from orphans if they think they can get away with it. Really it's just lucky Marvel's lawyers had the IP locked down tight otherwise Disney would've done exactly the same thing and left Marvel with nothing.

[SuperiorIronman]

What Disney does is not adaption it's outright steeling, denying profits to the rightly holders of the original IP. Take Peter Pan for example, the author of the book J. M. Barrie setup his will so that all future profits from adaptions would go a children's orphanage. Unfortunately, animated films did not exist at the time his will was written so they were exempt from this law. As such, Walt Disney was able to make millions from Peter Pan and never give a cent to the orphanage. You read that right, Disney steals from orphans if they think they can get away with it. Really it's just lucky Marvel's lawyers had the IP locked down tight otherwise Disney would've done exactly the same thing and left Marvel with nothing.

That only applies to the United Kingdom. It does not apply to the United States and it does not cover the first appearance of the characters. The copyright that GOSH holds is largely for things post-first appearance. What's more is that GOSH only holds the rights to the original works excluding first appearances. Which means GOSH does not hold any claim to derivative works as they only have the book and stage play. Not to mention that Peter Pan's is public domain everywhere except the United States until 2023. Meaning if you're in Spain, Mexico, Canada or whatever you can legally produce Peter Pan material without having to pay the hospital a cent due to the way copyright laws work. The hospital can also only collect royalties and have no control over what is produced with said works. So it can be anything that doesn't apply with the original book(s) or stage play, meaning that Lost Girls, the pornographic work by Alan Moore only had to pay royalties to the hospital but otherwise could produce it in the United Kingdom or really anywhere no problem.

Disney also does pay the hospital and ran into problems in 2003 because of this as merchandising for the then film in 2002 was of course marketed in the United Kingdom and the hospital wanted a new agreement and Disney said no.

From the Hospital's own website; https://www.gosh.org/about-us/peter-...%20perpetuity?

Walt Disney Corporation were licensed exclusive animation rights by Great Ormond Street Hospital in 1939 and the animated film came out in 1953. Their own sequel, Return to Neverland, came out in 2002, also under licence from Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity.
--------------------------------------
The original contract (as was standard at the time) did not include these since they did not exist in 1939 so the hospital or charity was not entitled to any royalties from DVDs or toys or any other merchandise.

Over the years, Disney have been very supportive of the work of the hospital. Since 2008, when Disney partnered with Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity, they have raised more than £10 million towards the hospital's vital redevelopment programme and continue to support the hospital and charity with fundraising events and donations.

[WebLurker]

What Disney does is not adaption it's outright steeling, denying profits to the rightly holders of the original IP. Take Peter Pan for example, the author of the book J. M. Barrie setup his will so that all future profits from adaptions would go a children's orphanage. Unfortunately, animated films did not exist at the time his will was written so they were exempt from this law. As such, Walt Disney was able to make millions from Peter Pan and never give a cent to the orphanage. You read that right, Disney steals from orphans if they think they can get away with it. Really it's just lucky Marvel's lawyers had the IP locked down tight otherwise Disney would've done exactly the same thing and left Marvel with nothing.

I was going to point out that my understanding was that Peter Pan is in public domain outside of the UK, but SuperiorIronman did a better job of replying then I ever could.

So, myth busted.

[Kintor]

I was going to point out that my understanding was that Peter Pan is in public domain outside of the UK, but SuperiorIronman did a better job of replying then I ever could.

No offense but it seems you’re unfamiliar with the difference between 'the intent of the law' and 'the letter of the law', to show why what Disney is doing is stealing. Basically, Disney wants to sell products outside America and this means that they should be behold to the laws of those nations. Disney is not above the laws of the United Kingdom and nor should you be praise Disney when they violate the intent of those laws to deny much needed resources to children. Had Peter Pan been published under modern copyright laws Disney would've never been able to exploit the IP without having to pay compensation and you know it.

[mrbrklyn]

No offense but it seems you’re unfamiliar with the difference between 'the intent of the law' and 'the letter of the law', to show why what Disney is doing is stealing. Basically, Disney wants to sell products outside America and this means that they should be behold to the laws of those nations. Disney is not above the laws of the United Kingdom and nor should you be praise Disney when they violate the intent of those laws to deny much needed resources to children. Had Peter Pan been published under modern copyright laws Disney would've never been able to exploit the IP without having to pay compensation and you know it.

Disney would have just paid for copyright on the cheap and then used its laywers to retain control. The idea that copyright protects creators is laughable. The copyright on anything more than 30 years is stupid anyway.

[Kintor]

Disney would have just paid for copyright on the cheap and then used its laywers to retain control. The idea that copyright protects creators is laughable. The copyright on anything more than 30 years is stupid anyway.

That's true but I think even buying the rights on the cheap would be more ethical then what Disney has actually done with Peter Pen. The movie Hook was actually the first Hollywood production to give profits to the United Kingdom rights holders. Everything Disney did with Peter Pan before then was not compensated.

[mrbrklyn]

What Disney does is not adaption it's outright steeling, denying profits to the rightly holders of the original IP. Take Peter Pan for example, the author of the book J. M. Barrie setup his will so that all future profits from adaptions would go a children's orphanage. Unfortunately, animated films did not exist at the time his will was written so they were exempt from this law. As such, Walt Disney was able to make millions from Peter Pan and never give a cent to the orphanage. You read that right, Disney steals from orphans if they think they can get away with it. Really it's just lucky Marvel's lawyers had the IP locked down tight otherwise Disney would've done exactly the same thing and left Marvel with nothing.

First of all - copyright is for a limited amount of time. Secondly, copyright doesn't include every kind of derivative works and that is a good thing. The less restrictive copyright is, the better it is for everyone.

What in your mind makes you think that someone should write a book and that the books publications and derived comics, and movies and songs should be restricted for all of time? That would destroy Western Civilization. Disney making profits from Peter Pan is not the problem. Disney's use of its legal muscle to extend copyright law with the Sony Bono act and the DMCA, now that is how Disney steals from the public.

As far as Marvel is concerned.... have zero doubt about it. It is Disney owned copyright, and more importantly for Disney, they own the trademarks.

And please, let us not pretend that Peter Pan was an origianl idea, BTW.

[mrbrklyn]

That's true but I think even buying the rights on the cheap would be more ethical.

It is not. Review the history of this, particularly, for example, the development of Television. And go back and find John Lennons quotes about trying to get the rights to the Beatles lyrics back from EMI (I think). Record lables and publishers have been rolling over artists for centuries. They would be better off without any copyright at all.

[mrbrklyn]

That's true but I think even buying the rights on the cheap would be more ethical then what Disney has actually done with Peter Pen. The movie Hook was actually the first Hollywood production to give profits to the United Kingdom rights holders. Everything Disney did with Peter Pan before then was not compensated.

There is nothing unethical about allowing the copyright to expire and using works that fall into the public domain. Dinsey has done quite well using works in the public domain including Snow White, Pinocheo, Mary Poppins.

What is screwed is that they won't let Mickey Mouse fall into the public domain after nearly 100 years.

[mrbrklyn]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/derekkh...public-domain/

Do you think you know Disney? Many of your favorite classic films were based on public domain stories (works whose copyright has expired). Much of the success of the Disney Corporation is a result of building upon the great works of the past.

A movie, song or book enters the public domain when copyright on that work expires (or when it never received copyright to begin with). For most of American history, copyright durations were short which meant that all works would eventually enter the public domain so that other creators could remix and build them.

The list

(There is no definitive list, this is based upon a Medium crowdsourcing project and will be updated. List should not be cited as authoritative source.):

1. Adventures of Huck Finn (1993) based on Mark Twain's book (1885)

Revenue = $24.1 million (revenue figures listed where available - based on wikipedia data).

2. Tom and Huck (1995) based on The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain (1876)

Revenue = $23.9 million

3. Aladdin (1992) from a folk tale in One Thousand and One Nights (1706)

Revenue = $504 million

4. Alice in Wonderland (1951) based on Lewis Carroll's book (1865)

5. Alice in Wonderland (2010) based on Lewis Carroll's book (1865)

Revenue = $1.02 billion

6. Around the World in 80 Days (2004) based on Jules Verne's book (1873)

Revenue = $72.2 million

7. Atlantis (2001) from the Legend of Atlantis (Socratic Dialogues “Timaeus” & “Critias” by Plato ~360 BC.)

8. Beauty and the Beast (1991) by G-S Barbot de Villeneuve's book (1775)

Revenue = $425 million

9. Bug’s Life (1998) from Aesop’s Fables

Revenue = $363.4 million

10. Cinderella (1950) from Charles Perrault's folk tale (Grimm’s Fairy Tails) (1697)

Revenue = $85 million

11. Chicken Little (2005) from the folk tale

Revenue = $314.4 million

12. Christmas Carol (2009) from Charles Dickens (1843)

Revenue = $325.3 million

13. Fantasia (1940) scored and based on Bach, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven & other classical compositions (however, “ The Rite Of Spring” was licensed)

Revenue = $83.3 million (22nd highest-grossing film of all time as adjusted for inflation)

14. Fantasia 2000 (1999)

Revenue = $90.9 million

15. Frozen (2013) from Hans Christian Anderson’s Ice Queen (1845)

Revenue = $810.3 million

16. Hercules (1997) from the Greek myth

Revenue = $252.7 million

17. In Search of the Castaways (1962) based on Jules Verne novel (1868)

Revenue = $21.7 million

18. John Carter (2012) based on A Princess of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs (1917)

Revenue = $284 million

19. Kidnapped (1960) by Robert Louis Stevenson (1886)

20. Little Mermaid (1989) by Hans Christian Anderson (1837)

Revenue = $211.3 million

21. Lt. Robin Crusoe U.S.N. (1966) based on Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe (1719)

Revenue = $22.5 million

22. Mulan (1998) from the Chinese Legend of Hua Mulan

Revenue = $304.3 million

23. Oliver & Company (1988) based on Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens (1839)

Revenue = $74 million

24. Return to Neverland (2002) based on Peter Pan by J.M. Barrie (1904)

Revenue = $109.9 million

25. Pinocchio (1940) by Carlo Collodi (1883)

Revenue = $84.3 million (39th highest grossing box office gross as adjusted for inflation)

26. Pocahontas (1995) from the life and legend of Pocahontas

Revenue = $346 million

27. Princess and the Frog (2009) from the Brothers Grimm folk tale The Frog Prince

Revenue = $267 million

28. Return to Oz (1985) from L. Frank Baum’s books

(When original Oz film was made it was under copyright. Disney purchased rights to all the books. But when Return to Oz was made it had entered the public domain.)

29. Rob Roy the Highland Rogue (1953) based on the Rob Roy by Sir Walter Scott (1817)

30. Robin Hood (1973) from the English folk tales

Revenue = $87 million

31. Sorcerer’s Apprentice (2010) from the poem by Johann Goethe (1797)

Revenue = $236.9 million

32. Snow White (1937) from the Brothers Grimm folk tale (1857)

Revenue = $416 million (10th highest grossing film as adjusted for inflation)

33. Sleeping Beauty (1959) from the Charles Perrault folk tale (1697) (also with music/characters from Tchaikovsky’s 1890 ballet)

Revenue = $51.6 million) (31st highest grossing film as adjusted for inflation)

34. Swiss Family Robinson (1960) by Johann David Wyss (1812)

Revenue = $40 million (83d highest grossing film as adjusted)

35. Tangled (2010) from the Brothers’ Grimm fairy tale Rapunzel (1812)

Revenue = $591.8 million

36. Tarzan (1999) from Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs (1914)

Revenue = $448.2 million

37. The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949) based on the Legend of Sleepy Hollow by Washington Irving (1820) and Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame (1908)

38. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) from Victor Hugo’s Book (1831)

Revenue = $325.4 million

39. The Lion King (1994) from Hamlet (1603) and inspired from a 1960s Japanese animated series called Kimba the White Lion

Revenue = $987.5 million

40. The Jungle Book (1967) by Rudyard Kipling (1894 copyright, movie released just one year after copyright expired)

Revenue = $205.8 million (30th highest grossing film with inflation)

41. The Jungle Book (1994 live action version) by Rudyard Kipling (1894)

Revenue = $43 million

42. Three Musketeers (1993) by Alexandre Dumas (1844)

Revenue = $53.9 million

43. The Reluctant Dragon (1941) based on the story by Kenneth Grahame (1898).

44. The Sword in the Stone (1963) from the Arthurian Legends

Revenue = $22.2 million

45. Treasure Planet (20002) based on Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson (1883)

Revenue = $109.6 million

46. Muppet Treasure Island (1996) based on Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson (1883)

Revenue = $34.4 million

47. Treasure Island (1950) based on Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson (1883)

48. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954) by Jules Verne (1870)

Revenue = $28.2 million

49. White Fang (1991) by Jack London (1906)

Revenue = $34.8 million

50. White Fang 2: Myth of the White Wolf (1994) based on book by Jack London (1906)

Revenue = $8.8 million

(Find an error? Tweet me at @DerekKhanna or join the Medium conversation).

What Happened to the Public Domain?:

The public domain of the future cannot be protected without constrains on prospective copyright duration. The Founders' copyright was for 14 years. But today, copyright terms have been regularly extended, quiet conveniently to ensure that the works of the Disney Corporation could never enter the public domain (and also keeping out thousands of other works). Current copyright law is life of the author plus 70 years.

But this is only part of the situation as copyright has been continually expanded to ensure that new works wouldn't enter the public domain, what some have called "perpetual copyright on the installment plan." Essentially while Disney's empire was created in large part from the public domain, it has ensured that other future competitors could not re-use their material. This can be most clearly seen in this graphic created by Tom W. Bell.