The link I provided is a researched study of the case through the University of St. Thomas, Minnesota...
Good info there. I had skimmed over that link on my first look.
The "technicalities" you've noted are great, don't know where you found/heard/read them, I haven't seen any papers/sources/records backing up your statements (other than what you've said/posted previously).
The LA Times story I linked to earlier has a section devoted to this case, but even if you discount that source, the paper you linked to still lays out the facts of Disney's legal argument in essentially the same way I understood them.
"Felix Salten had published the story earlier in 1923, but in that original publication had not included a copyright notice. Disney, thus claimed that the book entered into the public domain in 1923. Disney further claimed that even if the 1923 publication were found to be protected, that Disney had the rights anyway as Ms. Wyler had not renewed the copyright until 1954 which would be after the deadline if the 1923 origination date were found to be valid. The court upheld the Disney claim. In 1996 however, on appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed the decision."
This is basically in line with what I said Disney argued. They tried to invalidate a copyright renewal that was filed in a timely fashion because the original publication of the book had come 3 years earlier without a copyright. (The article doesn't mention that no copyright protection was required in the book's original country of publication, which the Times article asserts.)
Two different courts heard this argument and came to two different conclusions. So the idea that it was a cut-and-dry case in favor of Disney seems to ignore the fact that they lost this argument on appeal.
sittle said:
Walt Disney Co. rightfully defended their claims and in the process the company Twin Books went belly up.
Well...you say I use colorful phrases to inject my opinion, and then you write this, which is basically your opinion of the case.
I don't think there's anything "rightful" about Disney's approach here, personally, which wasn't just to protect their OWN rights, but to claim that the publisher in fact had NO rights to the work by trying to invalidate a copyright that was 70 years old at the time, based on a technical case that contrasted 1920s European copyright law with American copyright law. Disney wasn't just playing defense here, they went on the offensive to try to strip the plaintiffs of any right to the character at all.
You seem to side with the Saltens using colourful phrases like "bled dry with legal fees" & "bankrupted the original publisher" which are incorrect statements of the facts.
Point conceded. It was the publisher who had later acquired the rights who was bled dry and bankrupted. I misinterpreted a passage in the LA Times story (which was worded correctly, so the fault is mine). I don't see how this really makes Disney's position look much better, though.
Your link also notes that Felix Salten died without receiving much of anything from Disney, and that it was only after his death that the company decided to forward more royalties from the film to his estate.
So...other than one correction on which publisher was actually bankrupted by Disney's attempts to strip them of copyright, my interpretation of the facts are pretty much in line with yours. We disagree in the conclusions drawn from those facts, but then, so did two courts, so that's not necessarily a shock.
I maintain my original position as to Disney's hypocrisy. Disney tried to invalidate a 70-year-old copyright to keep Bambi's publishers from having any stake in the story by resorting to technicalities. They argued that a 1923 German publication of the story required a copyright, even though German law required no such thing at the time.
They then turned around and threatened to sue a college student for even publicizing the
opinion that a similar technicality, involving the placement of Walt Disney's name in relation to the copyright notice in the Steamboat Willie title card, invalidated Disney's copyright on that cartoon. (This is all laid out in the LA Times story.)
If that's not a textbook example of trying to have it both ways, I don't know what would be.
Unless you have some more corrections as to my interpretation of the facts involved, I'm going to let that be my final word on this. My opinions are what they are, and I feel they're based on a pretty solid grasp of the factual issues. If you reach a different conclusion, it's your prerogative.
