Did Disney/Pixar steal this woman’s art?

[Tony the Tigger]

Honestly, just pay the lady. What’s so hard? I’m sure she would have been thrilled with a little cash and a credit. Now she’s suing.

Artist Sues Disney, Pixar Over Unicorn-Adorned Van in ‘Onward’

An artist named Sweet Cecily Daniher on Monday sued Disney, Pixar and 'Onward' producer Kori Rae for creating an animated doppelgänger of her "Vanicorn" without permission.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[larryz]

This doesn't look good for Disney. I imagine they'll settle.

 

[Nemo14]

They'll argue that one is a unicorn and the other a Pegasus, and the case will be dropped. Then they'll throw her a few fastpasses and a couple of cupcakes and brag about how magical they are.

 

[larryz]

They'll argue that one is a unicorn and the other a Pegasus, and the case will be dropped. Then they'll throw her a few fastpasses and a couple of cupcakes and brag about how magical they are.

In the article, a Pixar rep admitted that they borrowed the van to copy the concept. That's going to cha-ching big time in court.

They'll settle... live by the copyright, die by the copyright.

 

[Creathir]

Honestly, just pay the lady. What’s so hard? I’m sure she would have been thrilled with a little cash and a credit. Now she’s suing.

Artist Sues Disney, Pixar Over Unicorn-Adorned Van in ‘Onward’

An artist named Sweet Cecily Daniher on Monday sued Disney, Pixar and 'Onward' producer Kori Rae for creating an animated doppelgänger of her "Vanicorn" without permission.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

While it certainly is similar, since when are purple vans with mythical horses painted on them copyrightable intellectual property? They are not even the same type of mythical horse...

I’d just be flattered that my van and art became the inspiration for a (presumed) character in a movie and leave it at that.

But no, she wants a fast buck. What inspired her unicorn? The lawyers for Lisa Frank might be knocking on her door soon... maybe she’ll slide it open to answer.

 

[Heppenheimer]

Am I inventing this memory, or were fanciful van paintings rather common in the 70s and 80s? Her design may not be as unique as she thinks.

 

[goofyyukyuk]

Am I inventing this memory, or were fanciful van paintings rather common in the 70s and 80s? Her design may not be as unique as she thinks.

Nope, you’re completely correct. I looked up “van paintings 1970s” and found tons of van paintings in a similar style as the vans in Onward and this woman’s van.

 

[powerfulpuffin]

The interactions with Pixar folks will be the crux of the issue - the copyright for her design is likely inconsequential since the "Onward" van design is different enough (and Pixar can document dozens/hundreds of other similarly airbrushed vans over the decades).

 

[Minthorne]

Seriously? I hope this gets thrown out of court.

 

[sedati]

If she consulted with them, then maybe she's due a fee.
But otherwise no.
Did they pay Marc and Alice Davis for their house inspiring the one in "UP!"
Pixar was sued by someone over "Monsters Inc" when an author claimed they created the idea of monsters in a child's close/under bed.
Disney was sued over Bowler Hat Guy from "Meet the Robinsons" by someone who claimed they created the very cliche mustache twirling villain type.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

The interactions with Pixar folks will be the crux of the issue - the copyright for her design is likely inconsequential since the "Onward" van design is different enough (and Pixar can document dozens/hundreds of other similarly airbrushed vans over the decades).

I agree. I think her case would be more flimsy if she had no interactions with Pixar, and just claimed they must have seen it on the freeway or on social media.

The fact that Pixar actually rented the vehicle for an event, with a written contract that said it would be used only for that event, and then a remarkably similar thing turned up in their movie? Something isn't right, there.

Knowingly changing it a bit to make it "not an exact copy" is shady, if that's what happened. But they didn't even go to much effort to make it different - even the colors are similar.

If I painted my truck with an original design, and they rented it and wanted to use the design in a movie, I'd be happy with a credit and a couple hundred thou. I'm guessing court will cost more than that.

On the flip side, if I painted my truck with an unauthorized Disney design, I bet they'd do something about it if they ever got wind of it, or if I ever tried to sell it. Goose. Gander.

 

[Creathir]

I agree. I think her case would be more flimsy if she had no interactions with Pixar, and just claimed they must have seen it on the freeway or on social media.

The fact that Pixar actually rented the vehicle for an event, with a written contract that said it would be used only for that event, and then a remarkably similar thing turned up in their movie? Something isn't right, there.

Knowingly changing it a bit to make it "not an exact copy" is shady, if that's what happened. But they didn't even go to much effort to make it different - even the colors are similar.

If I painted my truck with an original design, and they rented it and wanted to use the design in a movie, I'd be happy with a credit and a couple hundred thou. I'm guessing court will cost more than that.

On the flip side, if I painted my truck with an unauthorized Disney design, I bet they'd do something about it if they ever got wind of it, or if I ever tried to sell it. Goose. Gander.

You actually are able to do that.
Go to a comic book convention and see the various pieces of art which are for sale with Marvel and Star Wars characters.

It’s considered fair use given its an individual piece of art.

Where you’d be in trouble is if you started mass producing magnetic stick ons with the Disney design. That they would have a problem with.

 

[mary2013]

I agree. I think her case would be more flimsy if she had no interactions with Pixar, and just claimed they must have seen it on the freeway or on social media.

The fact that Pixar actually rented the vehicle for an event, with a written contract that said it would be used only for that event, and then a remarkably similar thing turned up in their movie? Something isn't right, there.

Knowingly changing it a bit to make it "not an exact copy" is shady, if that's what happened. But they didn't even go to much effort to make it different - even the colors are similar.

If I painted my truck with an original design, and they rented it and wanted to use the design in a movie, I'd be happy with a credit and a couple hundred thou. I'm guessing court will cost more than that.

On the flip side, if I painted my truck with an unauthorized Disney design, I bet they'd do something about it if they ever got wind of it, or if I ever tried to sell it. Goose. Gander.

Pixar rented her van in 2018. How long have they been working on Onward? I would think the van design must have been finalized long before the 2018 event.

 

[erasure fan1]

They'll settle... live by the copyright, die by the copyright.

I am normally extremely pro artist from a copyright standpoint. But this should have zero merit. As others have said, this style was extremely common back in the day. I bet Disney will throw her a little cash to shut her up, but they should do nothing. I just don't see any copyright issue here. Inspired by and copyright are not the same.

 

[Cosmic Commando]

You can't deny the similarity, but the story about the producer calling the artist sounds super fishy. If true, Disney legal needs to have a loooong talk with them. If you work for a big company and someone is accusing you of something lawsuit-worthy, you really shouldn't immediately contact that person and tell them not only is their claim true, but you were lying to them all along.

 

[Tony Perkis]

I could have sworn Pixar stole much of Onward from Dreamworks.