sign in sign up
<<
Home , Song of the South

Intertext

Volume 26 Issue 1 Article 16

2018

The Disney Effect

Adam Dvorak Syracuse University

Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/intertext

Part of the Nonfiction Commons

Recommended Citation Dvorak, Adam (2018) "The Disney Effect," Intertext: Vol. 26 : Iss. 1 , Article 16. Available at: https://surface.syr.edu/intertext/vol26/iss1/16

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Intertext by an authorized editor of SURFACE. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Dvorak: The Disney Effect

n 1928, a young, up-and-coming car- Company. Despite a rocky and unpopular toonist named approached start, the cartoon mouse hit its stride in the his boss, Charles Mintz, at Universal third short, Steamboat Willie, one of the most Studios looking for a budget increase iconic Mickey cartoons ever made. Fast for- Ifor his popular cartoon, Oswald the Lucky Rab- ward 90 years, and The Walt Disney Com- bit. Mintz informed Disney that not only pany, more commonly known as “Disney,” would his budget not get an increase, it would has become more of a media titan than even be getting a cut, and most of the animation Walt Disney could have imagined. Disney has staff working on the Oswald cartoons had al- managed to expand its influence into almost ready signed the paperwork agreeing to their every aspect of entertainment, including film, new budgetary constraints. To make matters television, radio, publishing, theme parks, and worse, even though Disney had created the much more. All under the logo of Mickey character, Universal owned Oswald, which Mouse, a character created to spit in the face meant if Disney were to leave the studio, he of the establishment, Disney has become the would also leave the rabbit. Angry and un- second largest media conglomerate in the willing to play by Universal’s rules, Disney world. But despite all its power and influ- left Oswald behind and decided to start fresh ence, some things never change, and the Dis- by opening a new animation studio, one that ney crusade to hold onto its icons still rages. would give Disney complete control of his Ever since Walt Disney had to relinquish characters. Later that year, after several rounds Oswald to Universal in 1928, control of in- of trial and error, the first Mickey Mouse car- tellectual property became a fixation of his, toon short was released by The Walt Disney something which has continued long after his

Published58 by SURFACE, 1

Disney_4-3-18.indd 2 4/17/18 12:02 AM Intertext, Vol. 26 [], Iss. 1, Art. 16

T H E

E F F E C T ADAM DVORAK

death. As a result, how and where to sell, lease, or lend the has become extremely reliant on copyright to work; to perform the work publicly if it defend its famous characters. According to is a literary or dramatic work; to display Siva Vaidhyanathan, “At its simplest, copy- the work publicly if it is a picture or right is the exclusive right to copy” (18). Of sculpture; and to transmit a sound re- course, this is purposefully vague, much like cording over digital networks.” the copyright laws themselves, which exist (Vaidhyanathan 18) to protect the creator of intellectual prop- While the work is still subject to fair use laws, erty. Copyright law is based on the idea that where it can still be used freely for educational by making anything original in a “tangible and parody purposes, the creator is the only medium of expression” (Vaidhyanathan 19), one who can reap its benefits monetarily. whether that be a book, poem, film, character, After the life of the copyright has ended, etc., a creator has essentially made an invest- the work passes into the public domain and ment. Due to this investment, whether that be can be used by anyone for free. Public domain time or money, the creator deserves to run a works can take life in a variety of mediums, monopoly on his or her creation for a limited whether it be as straightforward as using a amount of time. This gives the creator the public domain song in a movie or adapting sole right to existing characters into new stories and me- “reproduce the works; to produce what diums. One of the most famous examples of are called derivative works, such as sequels, public domain characters is Sherlock Holmes, toys, clothes, lunchboxes, and other who made his first appearance in 1887 by

Layout by Madelaine Zoldan. by Layout products inspired by the work; to decide Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Recently, Sher-

https://surface.syr.edu/intertext/vol26/iss1/16 INTERTEXT 2018 | 59 2

Disney_4-3-18.indd 3 4/17/18 12:02 AM Dvorak: The Disney Effect

lock Holmes has found new life in the 2009 potential for renewal. If renewed, the holders and 2011 Warner Bros. movies, the BBC of the copyright would receive an additional show Sherlock, the CBS show Elementary, and 28-year extension, adding up to a grand total various books, video games, and short films. of 56 years, after which the copyright could Even Disney has used the character, featur- no longer be renewed, and would enter the ing him in the film The Great Mouse Detective public domain. To avoid an experience simi- and a cameo in the television show Phineas lar to Oswald and Universal, Disney extend- and Ferb. These adaptions have allowed Sher- ed the copyright of Mickey Mouse in 1956, lock Holmes to remain current and culturally which provided protection through 1984. relevant, long after his creation. Additionally, As 1984 crept closer, the company began these creations have granted both the artists to get anxious about the idea of turning over and the entertainment companies with funds the character who had laid the foundation that allow them to continue to create material of the entire Disney empire to the public do- and add to the world’s cultural capital. This main. Despite Walt’s death nearly a decade would not be possible if not for a plethora earlier from lung cancer, the company set out of artists and creators, who otherwise would in the early 70s to defend his creation with the not be able to afford the license to adapt him same vigor that Disney would have himself. and share their own takes with the world. The main difference between Disney in 1928 However, many corporations fail to see and The Walt Disney Company in the mid- the public domain as a well of inspiration to 70s was millions, if not billions of dollars, foster art and creativity and see it more as an which could be used in lobbying to change the infinite black void coming system itself. As a result, to poach their characters with a considerable nudge and profits. Disney, em- from Disney’s dollars, the blematic of this second 1976 Copyright Act was view, has fought tooth and passed, further expand- nail to keep its own char- ing the lifespan of copy- acters locked in its vaults, right. Now, rather than away from third party cre- 56 years after creation, all ators. In this herculean ef- American creations would fort, Disney has been able receive the lifespan of the to change copyright law in creator plus an additional its favor, thus changing the entire world of in- 50 years, a practice that was already common tellectual property. In 1928, when Mickey was in Europe. However, these extensions only ap- born, the duration of copyright law was very plied to works published after the bill in 1976. different and was governed by the 1909 Copy- As a compromise, all American works pub- right Act. Under this law, all creators possessed lished after 1922 would get a 19-year copy- a monopoly over their creations for 28 years right extension, which meant protection for 75 starting at their initial appearance, with the years. Mickey was now safe until 2003, buy-

Published60 by SURFACE, 3

Disney_4-3-18.indd 4 4/17/18 12:02 AM Intertext, Vol. 26 [], Iss. 1, Art. 16

ing Disney some short-lived peace of mind. es, corporations sought to limit the entrance Again, as the end of their copyright grew of work into the public domain by hiding near, and with far less time to waste, Dis- business interests under the guise of owner- ney had absolutely no intention of letting ship via authorship. Ultimately, the favor was their mouse fall into the wrong hands and found to lie with Donaldson, a Scottish book- set out to further expand the life of a copy- seller who had been publishing books that right. The Disney Company found hope have passed into the public domain and were in a new bill in the mid-1990s, the Copy- previously owned by Becket and other Lon-

While Disney has crusaded to make itself exempt from copyright laws, it has drawn heavily from the public domain for its own production.

right Term Extension Act. Originally spear- don booksellers who owned the copyrights headed by Sonny Bono, a congressman and and ran monopolies. singer who passed away several months ear- Unlike Donaldson v Becket, in 1998 the lier, the act fought to expand the copyright Copyright Term Extension Act was found to length with much support from Disney. The be in the best interest of intellectual property main argument of the bill was that it would and the United States entertainment industry provide significant benefits by substan- and was voted into law by the Senate. Under tially harmonizing U.S. copyright law this new law, the 50-year copyright after the into that of the European Union while creator’s death was now extended to 70 years, ensuring fair compensation for American and already published works received an ad- creators who deserve to benefit fully from ditional 20. Mickey, whose copyright was in- the exploitation of their works. Moreover, tended to expire in 2003, was now extended by stimulating the creation of new works out until 2023, buying Disney some more and providing enhanced economic in time. The passage of this law was considered centives to preserve existing works, such such a large victory for Disney that in popular an extension will enhance the long-term culture it has been nicknamed the “Mickey volume, vitality, and accessibility of the Mouse Protection Act,” due to Disney’s out- public domain. (S. Rep. No. 104-315, 1995) spoken and financial support for its legislation. This bill was remarkably similar to the 1774 As it currently stands, this is the most current Donaldson v Becket case, in which “The princi- version of America’s copyright law, but it begs ple in question was whether literary property the question, where does Disney go from here? was a statutory right, a limited creation of the Now in 2018, Disney has five more years to State, or a common-law right and therefor ab- figure out a way to hang onto its rodent icon solute and perpetual” (Rose 21). In both cas- before he passes into the public domain.

INTERTEXT 2018 | 61 https://surface.syr.edu/intertext/vol26/iss1/16 4

Disney_4-3-18.indd 5 4/17/18 12:02 AM Dvorak: The Disney Effect

While it does seem that many authors and To make matters worse, while Disney has creators would be in favor of having their crusaded to make itself exempt from copy- works protected, this is far from the case. Many right laws, it has drawn heavily from the feel that Disney has done irreparable damage public domain for its own productions. In his to the public domain and will only continue to essay “The Ecstasy of Influence,” Johnathan do so if not stopped. In its nearly 100-year his- Lethem discusses the practice of helping texts tory, despite creating some of the most iconic find a second life, and how Disney’s action works of our time, Disney has managed not to has made the task more difficult. Lethem contribute a single piece to the public domain. at one point calls Disney out by name, say- Additionally, because of Disney, according to ing “The Walt Disney Company has drawn James Boyle, author, law professor and owner an astonishing catalogue from the works of of the twitter account @thepublicdomain, others: and the Seven Dwarfs, Fan- “we are the first generation to deny our cul- tasia, Pinocchio, , , Song of the South, ture to ourselves” because “no work created , Alice in Wonderland, Robin Hood, during your lifetime will, without conscious , , , Sleeping action by its creator, become available for you Beauty, The Sword in the Stone, The Jungle Book, to build upon” (@thepublicdomain, 2009). and, alas, , a legacy of cultural Single-handedly, Disney has paid its way to sampling that Shakespeare, or De La Soul, nearly triple the time it takes for a work to be- could get behind. Yet Disney’s protectorate come free to use. Because of the industry-wide of lobbyists has policed the resulting cache of cultural materials as vigilantly as if it were We as citizens and Fort Knox” (65). Lethem goes on to refer to this practice as “imperial plagiarism,” based writers must use on the profiteering of Disney from cultural our voices and our works. While I don’t see Lethem’s point as written word to fight incorrect, I believe a better term would be any future expansions “cultural poaching,” where they pick and to copyright. choose works simply to lock them down as their own, effectively taking them out of the scope of their actions, it is difficult to imag- public domain while contributing nothing. ine just how much damage they have caused, Based on a crowdsourced list on the web- both creatively and monetarily. Had it not site “Medium.com,” Disney has created over been for Disney and the 1998 Copyright Act 40 films since their founding based on works we would have some incredible properties in that were free to use. While it should be won- the public domain including Batman, Super- derful that these old stories have new life man, the Wizard of Oz, and Mickey himself. breathed into them, just as Lethem encour- It is impossible to say what could be done with ages, the hypocrisy of the company making these characters in the hands of the public, these movies taints them. In addition to the but based on the success of Sherlock Holmes, films in Lethem’s list, some more recent films I am sure some of the works would be great. include and , both of which

Published62 by SURFACE, 5

Disney_4-3-18.indd 6 4/19/18 9:54 AM Intertext, Vol. 26 [], Iss. 1, Art. 16

were free to the public and made millions of be in jeopardy, and Disney will surely try dollars, with Frozen making over a billion. In to find a way to keep him in their grasp. making a fortune off free works, Disney has Then we will have the opportunity to make the bonus of adding them to its own copyright ourselves heard, fight their creative oppres- repertoire. Disney may not be able to copy- sion, and keep the public domain public. right the original stories that its adaptions are based on, but they can copyright their own Work Cited adaptions. This can greatly limit access to the Boyle, James (@thepublicdomain). “Here source material for outside parties, seeing as are 2 points I wish people would under Disney can sue if they feel any other versions stand. 1.) We are the first generation to infringe upon their own, and based on prior deny our own culture to ourselves.” 7 predatory behavior, it is safe to say they will. Aug 2009, 8:47 AM. Tweet. All of this leads back to one important “2.) No work created during your lifetime question: What about Mickey? While Disney will, without conscious action by its has done significant damage to the creative creator, become available for you to build world, much of it was collateral damage in upon.” 7 Aug 2009, 8:48 AM. Tweet. pursuit of protecting its icon. Back when Khanna, Derek. “Disney Works Based copyright was created, the state of the en- On Public Domain.” Medium, 26 Jan. tertainment industry was very different, with 2014, medium.com/@derekkhanna/ no such thing as a massive international disney-works-based-on-public-domain- multimedia conglomerate, especially ones eb49ac34c3da. that rely on mice as their symbol. It is very Lethem, Jonathan. The Ecstasy of Influ- true Mickey is the cornerstone of the Dis- ence. Vintage, 2013. ney brand, and to allow anyone to use him Rose, Mark. “The Author as Proprietor: would damage the brand identity. The argu- Donaldson v. Becket and the Genealogy ment could be made for the state of copy- of Modern Authorship.” Representa- right that everyone would be better off if we tions, 1988. provided specific protection for extremely Schlackman, Steve. “How Mickey Mouse important characters as a way of limiting Keeps Changing Copyright Law.” Artre- collateral damage. It certainly is strange to preneur, Orangenius Inc., 18 Oct. 2017, imagine a world where Batman is no longer atp.orangenius.com/how-mickey-mouse- exclusive to DC, Ironman is no longer ex- keeps-changing-copyright-law/. clusive to Marvel, and Mickey is no longer United States, Congress, Judiciary Commit- exclusive to Disney. We might all be better tee, and Orrin Hatch. “S.483 - Copyright off to find ways to make cultural allowances Term Extension Act of 1996.” S. Rept. to avoid making the whole picture worse. 104-315. Until then, we as citizens and writers must Vaidhyanathan, Siva. Intellectual Property: use our voices and our written word to fight A Very Short Introduction. Oxford Uni- any future expansions to copyright. In just versity Press, 2017. a few short years, Mickey will once again

https://surface.syr.edu/intertext/vol26/iss1/16 INTERTEXT 2018 | 63 6

Disney_4-3-18.indd 7 4/17/18 12:02 AM