Alexander A.

Ferencin
Ms. Sarah Heidebrink-Bruno
ENGL 002 021
15 April 2015
Once Upon a Time
The market for fairy tale products, stories, and movies are at an all-time high.
Companies like Disney, DreamWorks, and other have popularised them beyond imagination.
The problem with these tales being reintroduced to the public is that, if these tales are very
old (some cant be dated at all), who owns them? Do the companies own them, since they are
the ones re-popularising them? Do the original authors of the tales own them, since they
created them, or at minimum were the first to put them to ink? Does everyone own them,
since they are a part of a national or public identity? These are tough questions; these
questions have been around since the modern idea of ownership first came about. By looking
at some instances, specifically having to do with Disney, we can see that these tales should be
considered, at least in part, to be a part of a larger cultural identity, and should fall out of the
reach of copyright laws.
The best way to look at this is through a brief rundown of how copyright laws came to
be how they are today. The principles of copyrights and ownership are derived from the
Constitution, in Article 1 Section 8, that Congress can [secure] for limited times to authors
and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.1 This was first
put into law in the Copyright Act of 1790, which allowed authors and inventors to secure
copyrights for fourteen years with a possible fourteen year extension. This was intended to
allow them and them alone to profit off their own work for a given period of time. Fast
forward two hundred and twenty-eight years and, in 1998, this copyright term gets extended

1 Qtd in Association of Research Libraries

Ferencin 2
to the life of the author plus 70 years, and a 95 years for corporations.2 This meant that
anything published in 1923, under this law, would not fall into the public domain until 2019.3
This egregious expansion of the copyright term is what many critics cite as the problem with
how the United States deals with intellectual property, and is precisely where these laws lose
my support as well.
It is important to have protections for ones work; this is very clear to see. If I published a
paper tomorrow saying that up is down or some similarly revolutionary idea, I would want it
protected so that I am the only one who can reproduce my work. Naturally, others could cite
my thoughts to bolster their own new ideas, but I should be able to profit off of my unique
idea before anyone else. I want to make it clear that I will not be arguing that we should
eliminate copyright laws. The issue is that, under the current system, nobody can produce
work that is similar to another, with an extremely long term of prohibition. It is a matter of
having your cake and eating it too. The current system cannot work with having both tight
control over what can be reproduced and an inordinate amount of time with which it cannot
be copied. It must be one or the other.
Now, this issue of copyrights can be seen very clearly in how fairy tales are dealt
with. The original stories were published many years ago, at a point where no copyright
could possibly cover their works. However, with the rash of reproductions by Disney, the
ownership of the stories comes into question. I think the main issue lies with the images
associated with the films. Since stories like Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty are hundreds of
years old, nobody could try to claim ownership of the stories. These images from films based
on fairy tale adaptations should, as a rule, fall under copyright laws and their associated
protections. However, the period of time with which the protections apply must be reduced to
be fair to the public.
2 Association of Research Libraries
3 Wikipedia

Ferencin 3
After a certain amount of time, some things become public knowledge. In the early
twentieth century, the revelations of Einstein, Bohr, and the like were cutting edge. Nobody
knew about the physical principles of our universe like they did. At that point, they should
definitely be benefitting from the publication of their own work. However, under our current
laws, Einsteins book The Evolution of Physics can be protected under copyright law until
2025.4 Maybe this is me being well-read on physics, but I think it is fair to say that most
people dont need to buy his book to know E=mc2. There needs to be a shorter time period
with which these kinds of things are considered to enter common knowledge, and likewise
the public domain.
Very similarly, things such as the visual representation of fairy tale characters, such as Snow
White and Sleeping Beauty, are now part of a greater collection of works that help to form an
American culture. Like I said earlier, I would be hard-pressed to find someone who doesnt
know Cinderella. I think it would also be fair to say that few people wouldnt recognise
Cinderellas look as well. It is interesting that, even though these images are easily recognised
and are, what I would consider, part of public knowledge, these are the things that Disney and
corporations like it hold on to the closest. However, it may be that this kind of attitude is
changing for the better.
Chris Osterndorf, in an article describing how Disney monopolises their brands and
walks heavy carrying a heavier stick in exercising their rights, he says that there may be some
light at the end of the tunnel for people who wish to use their artistic and creative gifts in
relation to copyrighted material. He shows us that even though the animated movie Frozen
(based loosely on The Snow Queen by Hans Christian Andersen) is the highest grossing
animated movie ever, Disney has loosened the reins on the applicable copyrights. There are
thousands upon thousands of pieces of art, videos, and written tributes to the movie, none of

4 Einstein

Ferencin 4
which Disney has sought litigation against.5 This move, while likely a very calculated and
strategic move to get fans to help advertise for them, still represents a step forward in
allowing copyrighted material to be used outside of the normal parameters.
Here, in how Disney dealt with Frozen, we can see the true intent of copyrights: the author
or creator gets to profit off of their work. When someone posts a piece of art relating to a
movie, book, or other copyrighted work, especially on the internet, there is a very low chance
that the mimic will profit directly off of it. Even if the fan does benefit off of the copied work,
it would pale in comparison to how Disney would benefit off of the original. I recognise that
it is a delicate balancing act which needs to take place between the rights of the creator and
the rights of people to fairly copy that work; I also recognise that some would heartily
disagree with what I am about to say. However, I think that, if it is done in a manner which
will not significantly impact the profitability of the work to the creator and does not tarnish or
defame the original work, anyone should be able to copy the work.
While dealing with copyrights can be tedious and, at times, seem obscene, they it is an
absolutely necessary part of our legal system. I used the example before that if I were to
publish a paper, I would want it protected. I still hold firmly by that. To have a society where
every idea one has can be used by everyone as if everyone thought of it, is preposterous.
However, given the right circumstances (especially over time), the works can be seen as a
part of a collective knowledge base which can be drawn from at any time and for any
purpose. This is also an essential part of the process, otherwise people could own ideas
indefinitely; this could stifle the creativity and intellectual process which is necessary for
both innovation and for new works, which a new author can profit from, to be created.

5 Osterndorf

Ferencin 5
Works Cited
"Copyright Timeline: A History of Copyright in the United States." Association of Research
Libraries. Web. 14 Apr. 2015.
"Copyright Term Extension Act." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 15 Apr. 2015.
Einstein, Albert, and Leopold Infeld. The Evolution of Physics: The Growth of Ideas from
Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1938. Print.
Osterndorf, Chris. "How 'Frozen' Fandom Changed Disney's Stance on Copyright
Infringement." The Daily Dot. 30 May 2014. Web. 15 Apr. 2015.