WDFA gets name change

Post by **ShyViolet** » June 20th, 2007, 7:13 pm

Not sure if this was reported or referred to, (apologies if it was) but the Brew posted it today:

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/disne ... e#comments

Of course I knew about the logo change--just not the name change.

Post by **Meg** » June 20th, 2007, 10:00 pm

Ooh, I like that! I've always liked the sound of "Animation Studios".

I think Floyd Norman hit the spot with his comment -

What does this design say? It says, Disney dammit! The opposite of the evil empire Eisner ran for over twenty years.

Little extreme, yah, but right nonetheless.

Post by **James** » June 20th, 2007, 10:55 pm

Couldn't find where we explicitly reported the name change on A-N, although we have been using the name in our disney stories for some time. It was mentioned over at A-V in the review of MTR. I like the name and the logo, though it is odd to have two disney production logos before the film.

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » June 20th, 2007, 11:02 pm

It's a cosmetic thing.

Color me impressed with the logo change after the films live up to the hype.

I've gotta admit I haven't been that impressed by animated features in the U.S. for a couple of years now. The CGI, funny animals, and enchanted forest/fairy tale stuff is really wearing thin.

And most of the trailers don't really do much to change my opinion of things, either! Nobody's really trying to do something different that has value -- good story, characters you care about, quality animation, etc. Way too much rehashing and sequelitis out there.

Maybe I'll feel better about Disney if the next wave of Treasures can live up to the earlier quality releases of that home video series -- otherwise, I haven't noticed a big change from the Eisner era.

Right now, all I hear and see are smoke and mirrors.

Post by **Ben** » June 21st, 2007, 8:46 am

Again, I was just writing a reply here and thought better of it. Check in at Tooning In tomorrow (Friday) for my take on all this.

Post by **Daniel** » June 21st, 2007, 5:16 pm

Ooh, I can hardly wait, Ben!

Also, I like the name change! It has a good ring to it.

Post by **Ben** » June 22nd, 2007, 4:33 am

As promised:
http://animated-views.com/2007/wdfa-bec ... ame-is-it/

Post by **James** » June 22nd, 2007, 11:17 am

The film version of the logo features a clip from Steamboat Willie above the text logo. One of my thoughts after seeing that was could they be trying to protect Mickey? The copyright protection almost lapsed on Mickey awhile back before Congress intervened and upped the number of years the protection applies. But corporate logos are different I believe and don't have a limit. By using that clip could they argue against Mickey slipping into the public domain? I'm no lawyer, this was just me spitballing here!

Post by **ShyViolet** » June 22nd, 2007, 1:24 pm

I loved "Walt Disney Feature Animation". It had such a grand, exciting sound to it. Makes me think of the early 90s, also my childhood. Makes me think of Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and Lion King all being released.

(I remember those "behind the scenes" little bits done that you'd see on Disney VHS tapes, they'd always show the "WDFA" sign in the studio lobby, etc...)

"Walt Disney Animation Studios" is so bland and lifeless. I also don't love that Mickey (what is this, the 1930's or something?) He's way too sharp-edged, yeah, I realise that's how he used to look, and I respect that as animation and Disney history, but I've never really liked that version of Mickey much. (Well, in the cartoons he's OK. I like him when he's moving. But whenever I see the old Mickey in stills I'm like

)

They could have AT LEAST used the Sorcerer Mickey from Fantasia. That would have been tons better. Colorful, and classic design everyone recognizes. But oh, wait, that's too reminiscent of the "Sourcerer hat" building that they're about to get rid of, and the "old regime", right? Brave New World is here.

I'm disappointed.

Post by **Ben** » June 22nd, 2007, 1:36 pm

The issue with Mickey is not that he would fall into the public domain, but that the shorts would.

Mickey is a TradeMark...he can't be copied at any time. The issue is with the cartoons, which as a creative work only last as long as the copyright until expiration. You can't TradeMark a cartoon short.

Now...what I don't get (about any of the copyright business)...

1) In the 1970s a lot of companies "renewed" their copyrights. In some cases, copyrights were bought up and renewed by other companies, which is how some Paramount pictures have ended up being owned and distributed by Universal (many Hitchcocks and Marx Brothers movies come to mind). Paramount made them...let the copyrights slip, and Universal renewed them. I'm not sure how this works and why companies can't just keep renewing their copyrights on older works.

2) Mickey, Bugs, Porky, Daffy, Donald, Goofy, etc, have all be TradeMarked as symbols of their respective corporations. What I don't understand is how people who offer public domain prints are not infringing the TradeMarks of those companies. Even if "Steamboat Willie" falls into the PD, that cartoon still features a likeness of The Walt Disney Company's TradeMark, Mickey Mouse. It's unclear to me how a cartoon, even in the PD, can be legally "sold" when it features a clear company TradeMark.

3) I don't see how later Popeye cartoons, for instance, have fallen out of copyright and into the PD, when the earlier ones remain the focus of intense negotiation. And I don't quite understand how content from the 1940s onwards has been made available through PD sources, since with a 75-99 year extension on the copyrights, how can these films not be owned by someone?

It's a minefield and a very interesting subject to swot up on...I had to go through European Union and US TradeMark officies to secure our "Ginja Ninja" marks for a variety of content and products, and it's all carefully worded to protect the author.

In my humble opinion it should be clear as day...a person writes/creates/records something...and they should own it outright. Why is it fair that it slips into the public domain? If someone wants to make a film of a book, have that person negotiate for the rights to the book. Just as Warners have to contend with JK Rowling for Harry Potter, why shouldn't others have to deal with the estates of the original authors to make their films?

Post by **James** » June 22nd, 2007, 1:53 pm

I don't agree that things shouldn't fall into the public domain after a lengthy bit of time. Imagine all the great stories written in the 1800s that could not be used if they were still protected. And imagine all the movies Disney would not have been able to make without the public domain!

Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs
Pinocchio
The Adventures Of Ichabod And Mr. Toad
Cinderella
Alice In Wonderland
Sleeping Beauty
The Sword In The Stone
Robin Hood
The Great Mouse Detective
Oliver & Company
The Little Mermaid
Beauty And The Beast
Aladdin
The Hunchback Of Notre Dame
Hercules
Mulan
Treasure Planet
Chicken Little

Post by **Kinoo** » June 22nd, 2007, 2:04 pm

ShyViolet wrote:I loved "Walt Disney Feature Animation". It had such a grand, exciting sound to it. Makes me think of the early 90s, also my childhood. Makes me think of Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and Lion King all being released.

(I remember those "behind the scenes" little bits done that you'd see on Disney VHS tapes, they'd always show the "WDFA" sign in the studio lobby, etc...)

"Walt Disney Animation Studios" is so bland and lifeless. I also don't love that Mickey (what is this, the 1930's or something?) He's way too sharp-edged, yeah, I realise that's how he used to look, and I respect that as animation and Disney history, but I've never really liked that version of Mickey much. (Well, in the cartoons he's OK. I like him when he's moving. But whenever I see the old Mickey in stills I'm like )

They could have AT LEAST used the Sorcerer Mickey from Fantasia. That would have been tons better. Colorful, and classic design everyone recognizes. But oh, wait, that's too reminiscent of the "Sourcerer hat" building that they're about to get rid of, and the "old regime", right? Brave New World is here.

I'm disappointed.

I'm not surprised..

And FYI, Sorcerer Mickey is already the icon of Walt Disney Imagineering.

Post by **Daniel** » June 22nd, 2007, 2:14 pm

Well, I agree about the name sounding bland, but I love that Mickey!

Post by **ShyViolet** » June 22nd, 2007, 2:29 pm

Well there's so many Mickeys they could have used. Any one of those would be better.

I forgot that about Imgineering, but so few people even see that logo anyway. Why not use Sorcerer Mickey for something the public might actually experience?

Personally I like this one:

In contrast, the "old Mickey" look just reinforces the feeling that Disney is of the old school, and not in the good sense either. Like something from a long time ago that is just not relevant to today.

I didn't even notice how off Walt's sig was, but i HATE that "Animation Studios" lettering. That looks like the cover for a college paper.

I think the new logo Mickey is the second one on the above poster. Why not just use the black and white Steamboat Willie one?

(*sarcasm*)

I just don't understand what was "wrong" with this, or the "Mickey at the drawing board" thing they had going.

Post by **ShyViolet** » June 22nd, 2007, 2:45 pm

I don't agree that things shouldn't fall into the public domain after a lengthy bit of time. Imagine all the great stories written in the 1800s that could not be used if they were still protected. And imagine all the movies Disney would not have been able to make without the public domain!

But we don't even know who exactly wrote those fairy tales. Cinderella, Snow White and Sleeping beauty were fables that circulated around for centuries, then cleaned up a bit in Perrault's French court, then livened up by the Grimm brothers. But neither the Grimms nor anyone in the French court (or their ancestors) can claim ownership, as NO ONE knows who really, originally wrote these.

(On the other hand we know exactly who produced, directed, wrote, and drew Disney animation, Mickey cartoons, Popeye cartoons, etc....I'm not sure if Windsor McKay's family has ownership over "Gertie the dinosaur" (as she's not all that well known anyway

) but either way...they should. He created her, and his family should have the rights.)

Interesting about Oliver Twist, Hunchback of Notre Dame and The Little Mermaid however. I guess they didn't have copyrights in those days. (or at least movie copyrights, as there were no movies.

) But if they did.....I think Victor Hugo's family, Dickens' family, and Christian Anderson's family should all have some kind of ownership.

With Mr. Toad/Wind in the Willows...that's weird. So Kenneth Graham's book was NEVER copyrighted? Weird, and Winnie the Pooh was.

Also, The Great Mouse Detective was public domain? I thought it was based on the book "Basil of Baker Street"? Didn't they have to deal at all with the author or his family?

What does this design say? It says, Disney dammit! The opposite of the evil empire Eisner ran for over twenty years.

I have to disagree with him. I don't see Disney at all. At least not the Disney I want.