Pixar/Disney in "Monsters Inc" Ownership Scuffle

blamanj writes "According to a SF Chronicle story this morning, Pixar has been sued by artist Stanley Mouse. Mouse created a movie treatment titled "Excuse My Dust", which was set in "Monster City," where the animated monster characters worked for the "Monster Corporation of America." One of the characters was a a green, wisecracking, ambulatory eyeball. Furthermore, the lawsuit claims that a story artist from Pixar visited Mouse in 2000, and discussed Mouse's work."

Comments

Don't Mess with Disney...

[Angry White Guy]

They're the real monsters out there

In other news...

[zyqqh]

Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse have discovered their real father, Stanley Mouse...

The irony here is amazing

[Anonymous Butthead]

If the above article is indeed factual, the irony presented is simply amazing. Here Disney is, along with the big movie buisness, lobbying for laws that stop consumers from performing the same act performed here.Does anyone else see somethign wrong with this?
Please stop it before I laugh myself into a heart attack, please stop it!

Re:The irony here is amazing

[Temsi]

Nothing new here. Disney has been stealing stories for years. For example, both The Lion King and Atlantis were ripped off from Japanese Anime. In fact both were ripped off from the same Japanese studio, which pretty much said "we can't sue, Disney has enough money to keep us in court until we're dead".
Now they rip off this guy without even acknowledging his work. It's pitiful. It's just awful what greed can do to people.

The saddest thing is that Disney hasn't had an original idea since before Walt was iced.

Re:The irony here is amazing

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

The saddest thing is that Disney hasn't had an original idea since before Walt was iced.

They weren't too chock-full of originalideas before this, either:

Snow White (tm)

Pinnochio (tm)

Cinderella (tm)

Sleeping Beauty (tm)

"Alice in Wonderland" (tm)

Jungle Book (tm)

The Parent Trap (tm)

Old Yeller (tm)

Winnie (he's NOT American, and DOES NOT SKATEBOARD) the Pooh (tm)

Disney has produced BEAUTIFUL work, in the craft - the art - of film animation. They have also always been a real hack-farm in terms of almost exclusively derivative content.

I think that originality in the "classic" Disney features can be relegated to Dumbo - and perhaps to Jungle Book, because they couldn't figure out what to do with the Kipling's story and ditched it for their own.

Fantasia has vividly original treatment of material exclusively derived from other sources.

Worse, in their derivation, Disney takes bagguette and makes WonderBread (tm).

Lessig is good at pointing out how Disney has raided the trove of publicly owned works, and seeks to keep that same body from enlarging for the benefit of others.

Re:The irony here is amazing

[Gaijin42]

Lion King was ripped from a Manga called Jungle Taitei. (Jungle Prince?)

Lead character : kimba. (To be fair, kimba/simba/timba and some others are african words for "cub" so its not like they ripped off a made up word)

However, some of the scenes were taken too, notable the cliff outcroping scene that is on all the lion king posters.

This was a huge controversy when lion king came out, Disney totally denied, said they had never even heard of the guys. Japanese guys said "We don't care, we take it as an hommage, and we ripped off bambi for our first picture anyway". Later, disney admited that several of the main animators were big fans, and had copies of the manga at their desks while making lion king.

This was also parodied in a great simpsons episode, with Lisa's mentor, (forget the first word) gums.

Gums was played by J.E. Jones, and after he died, they did this great thing where his ghost said a few words, then Darth vader said a few words, then mufasa said "Take care kimba.. I mean simba", and then JEJ said "This is CNN".

It was hilarious, and the number of people that would get the joke is really small.

Re:The irony here is amazing

[Gumber]

The real irony is that most of Disney's hits have been based on public-domain stories
(robin hood, snow white, sleeping beauty, etc), and yet Disney, by buying legislation to extend copyright terms indefinitely, are starving the public domain.

It is particularly Ironic, because the works that Disney based their works by people like Hans Christian Andersen and The Brothers Grim, were themselves derivitives of public domain works. They were tellings of folklore.

Re:The irony here is amazing

[orulz]

OK, what are you doing here? If you're accusing Disney of plagarizing these stories, you're completely wrong to do so. Why, you even state yourself that they are "publicly owned works."

So that's not it. What is it, then?

I understand that you can be frustrated and dislike the Disney company, and I hold many negative sentiments towards the company myself. Their overly blatant commercialism and in my opinion often shoddy work of late is disappointing to say the least, coming from a company with such a prestigious history. The way they compromise the integrity of both their original and non-original stories by writing insipid sequels is saddening. Then, there's their often predatory defense of their near monopolistic grasp on the animated film market. (Miyazaki, anyone?) These practices should anger everyone.

However, you are wrong to criticize Disney for a lack of original stories in each of these cases. Disney was not attempting to pass the stories off as original, nor did the company try to seize control of them in any way. Rather, Disney adapted and produced these often age-old tales--many that he had read and loved as a child--as animated films. While the Disney adaptations may stray more from the original stories than some may prefer, there is nothing wrong with the concept morally or legally. Disney has not "raided the trove of publicly owned works," but rather, retold the stories in a way meant to be enjoyed by those who have read the original stories and those who haven't alike.

The Lion King? I don't know. Atlantis? I don't know either. Those might be plagarism to some extent, I haven't seen the works they were supposedly derived from myself so I won't claim to know anything about the subject. But the examples that you point out are just plain wrong.

And, by the way, when on earth does Winnie the Pooh ever ride a skateboard? I've seen quite a few Pooh cartoons and to the best of my recollection there weren't any skateboards, certainly not as a running theme. And while I'm at it, when did Disney ever claim that the story was American? Once again- they're just producing a cartoon out of an age old children's story, and something which they certainly have the right to do and frequently do very well.

When I rant about Disney, (the company or the man) I don't rant about the masterful films that they have made from familiar fairy tales and children's stories. Instead, I rant about their faults.

Re:The irony here is amazing

[puppet10]

The point is that Disney has been spearheading repeated extentions to the terms copyrighted materials enjoy to keep their material from falling into the public domain, while largely benefiting and deriving their profits from works which were allowed to pass into the public domain.

This doesn't include outright dervitives of others currently copyrighted works, which if someone else had done anything remotely like this to a Disney story they would come down on them like a ton of bricks since they are very active in protecting their copyrights and have immense capital with which to persue lawsuits.

Re:The irony here is amazing

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Hey!

I'm not accusing Disney of anything...

I am illustrating that imaginitive and substantive content has never been a Disney/Buena Vista trait. This was in the context of a poster who bemoaned the lack of creative story work since Walt got Cryo-ed.

Pooh and friends are dubbed in American English- every Saturday morning on U.S. television. Doing all kinds of distressingly un-Pooh like things, and telling maudlin, pseudo-theraputic stories. Really awful!

Pooh dates from the 'Twenties, and has an author that still--living people can remember in conversation and deed. I hope that doesn't qualify as "age-old"!

I'm just sorry - a little - that my own kids will probably never be able to know Milne's Pooh as I did. It will be, instead, co-mingled with "Extreme Sports" and commercial fruit-flavored drinks, etc. Therefore, more like most of the other things they encounter - rather than less. It is representative of the cultural and intellectual entropy where all culture acheives a uniform lukewarm temperature...

Re:The irony here is amazing

[Simon Garlick]

Disney benefits from the fruits of public domain works. They take a known story, improve it, and release to the public for profit.

If you think Disney's "Winnie the Pooh", or Disney's "The Jungle Book", is an improvement on the original, I have a bridge you may be interested in.

Re:The irony here is amazing

[hawkestein]

Winnie (he's NOT American, and DOES NOT SKATEBOARD) the Pooh (tm)

Just to swerve way off topic here, but as a Canadian, I think it's worth mentioning that the actual bear that inspired A.A. Milne to write Winne the Pooh was a Canadian bear that he saw in a zoo. In fact, that bear's name was indeed "Winnie", short for Winnipeg.

I don't think Milne was Canadian, though. British, right?

Mouse bites Disney...

[EnlightenmentFan]

...it had to happen.

A green eyeball?

[SexyKellyOsbourne]

Disney's version wasn't an eyeball -- it was a talking testicle!

This suit is frivolous!

Re:A green eyeball?

[mrpuffypants]

the worst part about that story is that in my hometown we have a church that actually talks that way

they have half the city going there, so if you're one of the other 50,000 then you're with.....oh, who could it be....

oh yes!

SATAN

Oedipus Mouse?

[RobertB-DC]

Oh, man... all this time I thought that Mickey and Minnie weren't actually related, or were perhaps cousins at the most. I mean, he gives her flowers, right?

So are they like these ones you hear about on the news that fall in love and then find out that they're long-lost siblings? Or have they known all along... eeewwww!

I'm glad I'm an only child.

Oh, crap.

[shuffles through drawers for wife's birth certificate]

Re:This isn't the first time...

[tiltowait]

You mean this episode. But here's a real-life example.

Sounds bogus.

[AJWM]

The problem with these sorts of lawsuits is that writers, artists, etc are exposed to the same sorts of ideas (memes, if you like) and so similar stuff tends to pop up at the same time. (Like two simultaneous major movies about asteroids hitting earth a couple of years ago, etc.) Sure, sometimes it's a ripoff, sometimes it's coincidence.

The "Toy Story 2" DVD had a "sneak preview" of "Monsters, Inc" featuring Mike and Sully. The file date on the disc is Sept. 14, 2000. That clip was likely in production and preproduction for a long time before that. In time for an artist visiting Mouse to be heavily influenced by what he saw there? Maybe, but I'm doubtful.

And regarding "[t]he lawsuit claims that Disney and Pixar also appropriated the "buddy" relationship theme from Mouse's work" -- oh, please, like there's never been a prior "buddy" movie? Abbott and Costello? Hope and Crosby? Laurel and Hardy? Hello? You want to see a rip off of that (in particular, Hope and Crosby), see Dreamworks' "The Road To El Dorado". (Actually I'd call that more a tribute to, what with the "Road To ..." title and all.)

Not that I'm sorry to see Disney get a taste of their own medicine, but really...

Re:Sounds bogus.

[kill-hup]

The "Toy Story 2" DVD had a "sneak preview" of "Monsters, Inc" featuring Mike and Sully. The file date on the disc is Sept. 14, 2000.

If you read the article, you'll see that some of Mouse's prior art dates back to the 1960's:

Drawings attached to the complaint, dating from the early 1960s, pair a small, two-legged eyeball with a large, dull-witted monster character in a "buddy" relationship. The lawsuit claims that Disney and Pixar also appropriated the "buddy" relationship theme from Mouse's work.

Unless Disney has been working on this story for 40 years, I think Stanley Mouse has a case.

Classic Rock

[DeadBugs]

Stanley Mouse has got to be one of the best album cover artists. Back in the days of records he did covers for Journey, The Grateful Dead and Steve Miller among others.

It's a shame now that the packaging for CD's generally is pretty boring.

Developers, developers, developers, developers

[davidsansome]

...the animated monster characters worked for the "Monster Corporation of America." One of the characters was a a green, wisecracking, ambulatory eyeball.

Anyone else see the reference to Steve Ballmer here? ;-)

Don't worry.

[Moofie]

Disney will just countersue the poor guy and take away his name.

Gosh, I hope I'm joking.

Stanley Mouse

[Skjellifetti]

Mouse did a lot of work for the Grateful Dead back in the day. The Europe '72 cover art was his. He also won a Grammy for the cover art for one of Steve Miller's albums. Mouse's original work goes for a pretty penny these days and I doubt he is hurting for cash. He may well believe he has a legit complaint. Bio...

As to the ambulatory eyeball, variations of that (usually a flying eyeball) were a common theme in hippie art of the '60s. The motif goes back to Ancient Egypt and are a hot rod staple. Maybe if you combine the eyeball with a Monsters, Inc motif, Mouse would have something, but the monster eyeball alone isn't enough.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion