So why haven't we heard of any Disney responses to the mass appropriation of their characters for completely unregulated "kids" entertainment?
It's not even trying to bootleg, it's blatantly characters they hold the copyright to.
There are literally thousands of these videos each with MILLIONS of views, some with really disturbing imagery, all clearly aimed at kids. What the fuck is up with this shit?
Why is Elsa cleaning a toilet? She's a literal ice queen for god's sake.
Samuel Gomez
probably protected under Parody laws, that and it'd take too much money and time to go after all of them, so they try to ignore them when possible(which is what all companies should do)
James Johnson
To be fair, the "Disney copyright monster" meme seems to have died in the last decade, maybe they just have too much economic security now to care for shit like this
Also, holycrap! They even do stop motion now? All the other channels gain much more subs with cheap costumes and Indian sweatshops workinh with flash, why put soo money and time into it? How they plan to compete?
theyre taking down porn like crazy, they will have your tumblr shut down
James Myers
the weird part is that claymation is expensive so it can't make profits from clickbait
Dylan Butler
This claymation looks pretty basic a low budget to me. We aren't talking corpse bride or Mr. Fox tier stop motion, we're talking playdoh and toys.
Ryder Martin
What I wanna know is why the clay videos are so oddly well done. It's actually kinda fucking frightening.
Adam Moore
Doesn't matter. Try to make one of those yourself. See you in a a month.
Jacob Ross
>Not knowing that this is mind control experimental videos sanctioned by Disney
Lucas Jones
What the fuck.
Dominic Sanchez
The less our culture is controlled by money interests, the more weird unexpected things can be made. This is good.
Logan Ramirez
Woah...so this... is the power....of claymation.... Why the fuck would you waste your talent doing this? It's not anything amazing but claymation is really hard and not something you can put little effort into without it being obvious
Mason Gutierrez
This channel is great >Mikey Mouse Baby Getting a Shit in the Pants wew, does the uploader not know english? youtube.com/watch?v=lCcjauwzB5Y
Aaron Harris
Disney probably views it as free media exposure. The more kids are thinking about and consuming media based on their intellectual property, the more Disney benefits from this non-official entertainment.
Dylan Phillips
Bab man must be getting paid like crazy to succumb to this
Actors in general don't give a fuck. They'll bark like a dog or cluck like a chicken on command, and they'll enjoy it far more than their regular dialogue.
Zachary Hernandez
I've only seen this shit through h3h3. It's some bizarre, surreal, fucked up shit.
Jayden Taylor
Rogue AIs have enslaved animators and actors, and are forcing them to create videos based on scripts that were written by their algorithm of popular search terms.
Eli Gonzalez
...Wait so, Tay?
Caleb Ortiz
I'm actually worried, the views imply that there are parent that leave their kids to watch this shit for hours and hours.
I'd like to think it's just a bunch of asians or indians shitting out these movies to make a quick buck out of whatever it's popular, but my inner /x/ tells me is something creepier, like a new developed AI or maybe some brainwashing shit. Seriously, parent can't tell the difference between that and Peppa the Pig.
John Hill
1) Fair Use 2) Disney RARELY writes a new story. Its all old fairytales that people love already. Instant success!
Christopher Lopez
Claymation is cheap, it just take a lot of work
Justin Cox
Because some guy on drugs making claymation isnt losing them any money and they know that.
Colton Lewis
>the views imply that there are parent that leave their kids to watch this shit for hours and hours. A decade or two's worth of children were raised by television, this is no different. Only problem is, there are guidelines to what's shown on telly.
These videos remind me of girlgames.com I'd recommend everyone here to check it out. If you frequent Sup Forums, then you've probably seen these before. Just have a scroll through.
Juan Morris
Probably a pajeet.
Adam Carter
It's called parody you dumbfuck.
Bentley Campbell
There is a difference between using a free story and using characters made from Disney for that story.
Levi Perez
>Only problem is, there are guidelines to what's shown on telly.
This. Can verify that unrestricted access to ren and stimpy, simpsons and south park usually turns a normal child into a Sup Forums user.
Alexander Bailey
It's not the greatest claymation in the world, but it's still decent which is more than I'd expect from these kinds of videos.
Josiah Hill
you can get away with using basically any characters as long as you call it a parody
Levi Diaz
> >There is a difference between using a free story and using characters made from Disney for that story. Refer to #1
Blake Butler
Such things would not be considered parody (it would need to make substantive critique of the subject), but neither would most fan art. This kind of infringement is usually civil, and copyright holders can exercise their rights at their discretion.
The decision not to go after these guys is pragmatic, likely based on how difficult they would be to locate and prosecute, the desire not to give them any more publicity through the Streisand effect, criticism of past legal overreach (such as suing hospitals for murals), and insignificance of the profits involved.
The likely technical answer is that there is currently no technology to automate DMCAs for visual material as there is for sound. This is a judgement call, requiring human input, and perhaps not a worthwhile pursuit to Disney.
That said, if I were at Disney I would at least recommend DMCAs to remove them from Youtube. Outside of time, it's pretty much free to do, and it's almost unconscionable not to act upon this material when they go after music infringement with much more zeal.
Andrew Martin
>1) Fair Use
This would not qualify for fair use at all. The internet has a much broader definition of what is "fair" than the courts.
It's not substantially educational, it's not humorous or critical of the original subject matter (which is necessary to qualify for parody), it's for profit, and it does not use the characters in a minimal way.
>2) Disney RARELY writes a new story.
New adaptations of pre-existing material also receive copyright protection, over elements original to the new adaptation. That includes the physical design of these characters. These are clearly based on Disney's version of the Snow Queen fairy tale, not the original version.
