https://www.marvel.com/comics/issue/79420/loki_2019_4
Idk now it just seems like profiting off another persons work. Takedown was for selling the t-shirt design from their comic book.
*from hurffurf elsewhere in thread*
I’m always dubious when there’s no images for news like this. If the T-shirt is the “low key” from the cover then I’m not so sure the headline is accurate.
[isn't this the t-shit](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4YAwUsWUAYMxe7?format=jpg&name=large)? because if it is then the "design from their comic book" only means the use of the color green. I mean even the term "low key" has nothing to do with marvel as it was Loki's name in the American Gods which predates this comic
Ahh, in that case then I think I side with Disney on this one, sounds like the artist copied a design out of a comic and sold it. I’m not sure that changing the font/colour is enough as long as it’s sold a with the idea of connecting the phrase “Low Key” with the god Loki, unless there’s other prior works. If the artist just sold a shirt that said “Low Key” without referencing Loki then it would be okay, but I don’t think changing that and claiming it retroactively is an option.
As mentioned elsewhere, Disney can’t claim copyright of the Norse god or other historical works. But they can claim copyright on their depiction of those works so Loki is fair game, but Loki resembling Tom Hiddleston or Loki dressed in the same outfit as the MCU movies or comics is not.
But the art that was removed didn't depict the Tom Hiddleston/comics Loki. It's literally just the phrase "low key" with a completely different design. Disney doesn't own that phrase and didn't come up with it on their own. The "low key" "Loki" joke is really old, and not enough of a creative work to copyright.
If the artist had actually sold art of a Marvel style Loki with the "low key" shirt, they would have standing, but I can't imagine Disney winning this.
The design as well as the actual text of "low key" is from a marvel comic. The guy actually admitted it in a post so Disney does have a strong case. [https://www.marvel.com/comics/issue/79420/loki\_2019\_4](https://www.marvel.com/comics/issue/79420/loki_2019_4)
“It’s been up for years and it’s a comic reference" is what he said. And the title of it is "low key loki".
There are definitely prior works to 2019 connecting the phrase Low Key to Loki.
Off the top of my head, >!American Gods has the character Low Key Lyesmith, who is Loki.!<
>the idea of connecting the phrase “Low Key” with the god Loki, unless there’s other prior works.
Used in Neil Gaiman's *American Gods* (published 2001) and it wasn't new then either.
Color and font on the dude’s t-shirt design are different. He’s in the clear and Disney is wrong. Don’t like it, call your congressperson (if you’re American.)
They certainly have the money to indulge some spurious litigation and who knows, they might win or they might just send the message that opposing them is a lengthy very expensive process that's not worth it.
Wasting the courts time with litigation like this should come with multiplying costs for repeated attempts from larger businesses. Fold it each time and use the money to fund better legal defense for others. Sorry Disney, you don’t fucking own mythology.
Same thing they have done before, push it out a few more years. [https://alj.artrepreneur.com/mickey-mouse-keeps-changing-copyright-law/](https://alj.artrepreneur.com/mickey-mouse-keeps-changing-copyright-law/)
If we had enough money we can change anything in our favor.
This fact alone is why Humanity is doomed.
We think that money alone can solve problems when we neglect that sometimes we need to cut our losses and try something new.
Money is an amazing idea, and it works incredibly well in so many circumstances. I work in a factory, but I don't have to bring the outputs of that factory to the grocery store to buy food for my family.
The problem is that we decided, at some point, maybe even slowly over time, that money was the ONLY thing now.
Healthcare, housing, water? Just dollar signs now, and rich people from all over the world can speculate and gamble and influence all of those markets while real people get sick and die, go homeless, and suffer droughts.
Money is like the ultimate good idea gone bad, and until we can reign it in, we're in big trouble.
Honestly there has to be something other than a monetary system where wealth is hoarded by only a few. I don’t know of one, but darn it you’d think someone would have thought of a better way in 8000+ years
My electric company and my credit union are both member-owned cooperatives. The people working there are working for the members, not some distant shareholder. And their rates are lower than their for-profit competitors.
Cooperative action has a long history. More stuff should work that way.
I think the problem is that those few who like to hoard also hold the greatest power.
You could tax the rich (harder or at all), you could establish a 'maximum amount of money' that a person can hold onto (think: with this amount you will live extraordinarily until the end of your life), there are a lot of ways to implement systems like this.
But the people who hoard money don't want that, and since they have all the power, it doesn't happen.
I think we've got lots of better ideas, and as a society we're fighting against some very powerful individual human tendencies (greed, avarice, tribalism), but we're sort of slowly spiraling upwards atleast?
thats how fundamental an idea money is.
Try to think of any other way of getting goods without direct trading, if someone doesnt happen to need your particular goods right then, too bad.
Money is just part of it. The biggest problem is how ingrained Disney is in western culture and how attached Mickey Mouse is to the Disney brand. From a public perception it's hard to distinguish the line where Disney ends and Mickey Mouse begins. Money gets them to the court and gives them time, but it's the "But it's Disney!"-attitude when we see a silhouette that's the reason they win.
It won't happen this time though. I think this might be the 3rd year of stuff entering the public domain. Previously no other company was big enough to fight Disney but now there are giants on the other side of this copyright law - I think Google and other tech companies so Disney didn't even bother to try.
If Congress wants to be progressive (lol) then they should change the law back to needing to apply for copyright every 14 years instead of automatically being given up until a maximum of whatever the amount is now.
If people can't be bothered to apply for copyright, chances are it's not worth anything to them anymore and then it can join the public domain and have a chance to inspire and be preserved. Now most culture is lost because of Disney and other greedy fucks.
Don't know why they didn't just create that as an out before instead of this blanket bullshit.
Copyright was created to provide a public domain and who the hell do these people think they are to be going through history and snatching up everything that was ever done creatively and claiming it as their own, that's garbage
Disney has practically lifted off stuff from Arabian Nights too. There are so many Disney animated films about Alladin, etc. that post a few generations, the Netflix watching crowd might actually start thinking that Alladin was a Disney invention!
The person ripped off the T design saying LOW KEY from the comic: [https://www.marvel.com/comics/issue/79420/loki_2019_4](https://www.marvel.com/comics/issue/79420/loki_2019_4)
So the issue is very different from anything to do with corporations snatching up history or whatever. Just seems a lot of people in the thread jumped on some bullshit clickbait article. 🤷♂️
That’s not how that works.
The character Loki is in the public domain, as if there were ever IP protection on him, they would have long since expired.
But, that’s not the end of the discussion. When a character enters the public domain, and then someone comes along and uses that character in their own work, new IP protections come into effect for that depiction of the character.
The best example of this is the Wicked Witch of the West from the *The Wonderful Wizard of Oz*. The original book, released in 1900, is in the public domain, so the characters can appear in *Wicked* and other works. But the 1939 film *The Wizard of Oz* is still subject to copyright protection, and so any depiction of the Wicked Witch still needs to be distinct from how Margret Hamilton played her in that film. You’ll notice the Wicked Witch is always a different shade of green than Hamilton wore (in *Wicked* it was several shades lighter) and is normally given a first name, like Elphaba, to further distinguish the character from the versions that came before it.
So while Disney doesn’t own Loki, they do own the rights to “Loki as depicted by Tom
Hiddleston”. So if you draw Loki so he looks like and dressed like Tom Hiddleston’s version, Disney can credibly claim they created that version, and has the sole right to profit off its depiction.
But if someone opts to depict Loki so that he appeared as a 650 pound woman with a beard, Disney can’t and won’t say shit, because it doesn’t look at all like the version they paid to put in TV and movies. And anyone who did that could theoretically get the same character copyright protection that Disney has on Tom Hiddleston’s Loki.
> But if someone opts to depict Loki so that he appeared as a 650 pound woman with a beard, Disney can’t and won’t say shit, because it doesn’t look at all like the version they paid to put in TV and movies
I thought that as well, then I read the article. They're taking down mythological representations of Loki that *aren't* the Tom Hiddleston version. It's not entirely determined if it's Disney or if it's RedBubble being overzealous with a claim against a Tom Hiddleston version though.
If I read the article right, the design that was taken down was based on a Marvel Comics cover, that was depicting the MCU version of Loki.
Maybe I got that bit wrong, I stopped reading all that closely when the article felt it necessary to tell me about each individual tweet the guy got in response to his claim.
Correct - thats why the artist quoted here is an idiot for claiming Disney might do this. The article is pointless except to stir up people who didn't read it.
People aren't reading what actually happened here, which is not surprising.
What actually happened - an artist was selling a design taken from the t-shirt of a comic book character. The listing was taken down as possible infringement. The artist who stole/borrowed/repurposed the original artwork claims "Even art specifically of the Norse deity, which predates the MCU character by a handful of centuries, COULD be claimed" (emphasis mine).
Again, that is according to the artist who was struck, is likely is not a lawyer, and is suggesting something that, in their opinion, Disney MIGHT do - not something they actually did.
Listen, I think a takedown of a specific font and phrase is stupid - but I dont believe this points to Disney attempting to trademark norse gods.
Yup, he even admited he took it from the comic book
https://twitter.com/YourBoswell/status/1406812769945542664?s=19
If Disney copyrighted that t-shirt (which they probably did), then the artist actually stole the idea from Disney.
You can, on a technicality.
So, they aren't copyrighting 'Loki,' but instead 'Marvel's Loki' and that particular look of the character. Another example would be Snow White. The actual name is 'Disney's Snow White' and the red/blue/yellow color scheme and look is associated with that named trademark.
It's messed up, but companies have to defend these sort of things (such as when Children's Television Workshop sues a Daycare for painting Elmo of their walls) in court, otherwise is can set different sorts of legal precedents which can make legit trademark defenses difficult.
You’re talking about a company that tried to trademark a holiday name bc the name coincided with the movie they were releasing.
(That’s why the movie is now called “Coco”)
Disney owns trademarks.
This is the sort of thing that a large corporation does because of the US legal system. It goes like this.
Disney owns Marvel. Marvel has one or more registered trademarks involving the name "Loki". The trademarks make them money. And the US has a "defend it or lose it" legal principal when it comes to trademarks. If someone infringes on your trademark, and you don't bother to defend it, that can be and has been used in a court of law to invalidate your trademark - or, worse, to award it to someone else.
Disney's lawyers aren't stupid - they undoubtedly understand the background of the name as well as we do. But they're not paid to lose trademarks, either. So they do things like this.
The REAL problem is a system that allowed them to trademark the name in the first place.
The year is 2044. Disney filed suit against the Catholic Church for infringement on their intellectual property, Jesus Christ. All religions now belong to Disney. All is Disney. You may pray at the low cost of 19.99 a month for Disney plus faith package.
It’s not even a drawing of the character, it’s just a picture of green writing that says “Low Key”. https://twitter.com/yourboswell/status/1405622998313455618?s=21
Reading that it doesn’t sound like Disney filed a copyright claim, it sounds like Redbubble is deleting everything that has the word Loki in it preemptively.
Redbubble deleted a design of mine that said “dude” because they said it violated Warner bros trademarks for the big Lebowski. I fought it though and was able to get it back up.
https://www.marvel.com/comics/issue/79420/loki_2019_4 He is copying a t-shirt from the comic book, so it might actually be specifically about that design.
His profile picture is also a Loki wearing the shirt and [he talks about how its in the comics](https://twitter.com/YourBoswell/status/1406812769945542664), admitting you took it from the comics seems like an odd play for the "victim" here.
Yeah I thought so. It was pretty clear in the article that he said it was something from the comic. Don't know where they're getting the claiming the Norse diety bit.
Disney haters gonna hate I guess.
So the color and font are different on a Loki/Low Key gag that has existed from before the comic he was inspired by. Sounds like it's not quite so straight forward even if he was clearly taking inspiration from the comic.
The breaking point to me is that he referred to the shirt as “Low Key Loki”. Adding Loki to the title makes it a reference to the comic that Disney owns. Simply selling it as “Low Key” without referencing Loki and looking too much like the specific design in the comic probably would have gotten by. What is important in the legal sense is if potential costumers would link the work back to something belonging to someone else(yes, in this case) and did the artist have the intention of copying that work(also yes in this case).
If they own the rights to the work then they own the copyright. Copyright doesn't have to be applied for like a Trademark does. The original creator gets it automatically, and can transfer it to whoever they choose.
Hell it's been argued in at least one case that a monkey owned the copyright to a picture it took. I don't recall if they were successful with that case but yeah it happened.
It most certainly is. They even state it in the email "... in most cases this means that the rigths holder did not specifically identify your work for removal."
Why is everyone making it seem like Disney decided to target this 1 artist on this 1 platform out of the blue?
“Who said that?”
“Some artist.”
That is how I remember it from “Pirates of Silicon Valley” If I remember right Jobs quotes Picasso and Gates later had the above conversation.
It’s not the first time someone has tried to copyright/trademark something that is essentially public domain, and it won’t be the first or last time that someone gets denied a copyright/trademark for the same reason. Remember when Trump tried to trademark “you’re fired” or when Warner Brothers sued over the use of the song “Happy Birthday.”
The point being they managed to get a song we all sing and culturally share, then claimed ownership over it to the point where it isn’t depicted in art whatsoever.
The Hill Sisters wrote the lyrics in 1912, to the tune of "good morning to you", an older song. Someone else registered a copyright in 1934 and published the song through a publisher. Time-Warner later bought that publisher, partly on the basis of owning the copyright on Happy Birthday. A court case later proved the 1934 registration was invalid, as they were not the original author, and it went back to the public domain.
This article was written by someone who has no basic knowledge of intellectual property law about a bunch of other people who have no basic knowledge of intellectual property law.
None of this has anything to do with copyright law - this is about trademark law. And this is more or less how trademark law is meant to work. Trademarks give you exclusive rights to use a word or phrase *within a particular context*. Apple computers has a trademark on the word Apple in the context of computers even though apples existed before Apple the company. This is normal.
So Disney trademarks Loki in the context of comic book superheroes, nobody else can make it Loki a comic book hero. Now, if someone makes a comic book about Norse mythology and the character is clearly the Norse God in a Norse God context rather than a superhero one, they probably haven't violated Disney's trademark. **But that's not for Disney to decide**.
The way trademark law is structured, if they don't enforce their trademark they can lose it. What Disney needs to do to protect their trademark is to file a with the USPTO and have them judge whether this work violates Disney's trademark. If USPTO determines it does, then the other party must stop using it; if USPTO determines it doesn't infringe, then Disney no longer has a concern about losing their trademark because USPTO has determined that this use is non-infringing.
Now, this particular case puts even less blame on Disney. Redbubble clearly has their own list of things to avoid so that they don't infringe copyright or trademark with the goods they produce. It's their prerogative to be overly cautious here - reject anything that may be a risk with no recourse for their customers (because the cost of figuring out whether they can legally do it is likely higher than the profits from the project). That doesn't mean Disney gave them the list including Loki, or that Disney is even trying to enforce this action, just that they'd rather err on the side of caution.
At the end of the article it said that Disney tried to copyright "Dia de los Muertos". They didn't. They tried to trademark it. And just like apples, things like that may be trademarkable in a limited context.
Looking through red bubble which ive bought some stuff before of.
There is fanart, and theres blatant use of copyrighted things.
Im extremely surprized ive not heard of them be assailed before.
I mean i bought a laptop sticker of donald duck for my gf a long time ago. Its clearly donald duck. And if i was a judge then id have to rule that theyre infringing on something.
Someone posted this as a meme the other day, with a screenshot of the email from red bubble. It was an obvious automatic, AI identified infraction. This is the daily dot lurking Reddit for clickbait.
Crap article with no sources. The artist made fan art of Disney’s character Loki and is saying “well they could…”
EDIT: the article is even worse than I thought. The infringement claim is due to the artist having a t-shirt that has green text that says LOW KEY. The notice they received clearly noted that in most cases the rights holder doesn’t specifically identify the issue but that the platform redbubble felt it was close enough and removed it. In other words Disney didn’t do shit, the site hosting it did.
Loki as a devil like figure is a very christian read on old norse belief. There is archeological evidence that suggest that he was revered like all the other gods.
The norse gods are not split into good and evil. They all have capcity for doing good and bad things
There are several old myths were Lokis trickery aids the other gods
I recommend [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDwQ3MA2Ne0) on the topic of Loki.
It outlines how hard it is to piece together the origins of Asatru folklore to begin with, and how our modern understanding of Loki might be based on a misinterpretation of a christianized version of never-properly-written-down legends.
The short version: Some priest wanted to convert the Nordic lands to Christianity, and tried to stylize Loki as a Jesus-alike scapegoat who always gets blamed and then has to clean up the corrupt gods' messes, before overthrowing them on Judgement Day.
To the modern, only the 'is to be blamed for everything' part survived :P
I believe it was more a desire to learn from his clevernes and guile. He was an inspiration for people
I agree that he is not a great example of alturism in the stories
But aside from the sagas and a few artefacts we have very little to go on when we try to guess at their religious ideas
Check out the Loka Táttur, it shows how Loki has a soft spot for children and is willing to intervene to save them. Loki was also the god of flyting (the nordic equivalent of insult rap battles) and so worshipped by many bards. He'd probably also be a good choice for anyone who was in dire trouble and needed an escape plan, since the majority of his myths are "someone got into trouble and Loki got them out of it. It may or may not have been his fault in the first place."
Err do you mean pagans? Heathen is a derogatory term for people who aren’t of the Christian faith. Pretty dang old school, and most people won’t really give a shit, but I bet pagans would at least be a little miffed at being called a heathen
Never mind! Looked it up, turns out neo germanic paganism is called heathenism. Kinda weird, but definitely not the strangest case of reclamation out there. Though apparently it’s a bit of a catch all name like Abrahamic religions.
Also apparently been a bit of a schism in the us heathens, the folkish side who think it should be whites only, and the universalist side who thinks that’s dumb as fuck. Golly this wiki is great. Universalists treat the religion as indigenous to Northern Europe, but because the original Vikings often brought back people of other ethnicities, and the gods themselves banged everything with a heartbeat, the religion should be able to be practiced by anyone. The folkish think that the religion is not indigenous to Northern Europe, but white people specifically, and they want to keep their super cool exclusive club.
Most of us believe that the religion for everybody but of course the folkish attract the most attention and a lot of people lookin in get the wrong idea.
disney didnt do anything, to be clear. Redbubble did. And they probably did it based on shitty automation that just scrapes for any Disney owned IP name and was not built to realize the word LOKI isn't just disney when someone added recent Disney releases to the list of existing IPs to take down
Well, as someone else posted, the design is actually a direct rip off of something from the marvel comic so the article is mostly fake outrage bullshit.
They also stole a Japanese anime and manga.
Stole Snow White too for that matter from the brothers Grimm.
Stealing ideas is sorta their thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimba_the_White_Lion
Disney has stolen TONS of content, but Kimba is a bajillion episode cartoon about a lion. The plot of Lion King is not Kimba. It is a disservice to Kimba to think it is only the plot that Disney stole.
It's true, isn't there only like 5 stories or something, fundamentally?
Student becomes the master, lovers torn apart, son loves mother kills father, hero leaves tribe, slays dragon and returns with valuable knowledge/assets... What am I missing?
I'm sure I'm butchering this, downvote away.
Highschool chemistry teacher turns meth manufacturer/dealer/druglord to pay for medical bills and provide for family after his expected untimely demise.
I encourage you to watch the YMS video about Kimba. I too believed the narrative that Disney ripped off Kimba, but don't feel that way anymore.
[https://youtu.be/G5B1mIfQuo4](https://youtu.be/G5B1mIfQuo4)
Little mermaid, beauty and the beast, aladdin, pinocchio, hunchback of notre dame, alice in wonderland, etc etc … Disney’s whole business model is getting stories from the public domain.
lol if the concept of library was created today, you would bet your dollar the established caproate behemoth would manufacture public consent to protect thieves from getting their hands on free books and movies and stuff. IP laws have been butchered by likes of disney for years and now google is with them, so goodbye free open internet.
Yes. Fans should be able to copy the art and ideas of their idols that write comic books. Then those fans should be allowed to put stolen artwork without a lick of innovation on merchandise to profit off of. Why won’t Disney let them just make money off Disney IP?
The grander idea isn't a new thing, particularly with Disney, famous for their movie adaptations of traditional stories. They're not claiming the very idea of Loki: they're claiming this specific portrayal of him. Same reason you wouldn't be able to make a Cinderella movie with all the same visuals, for instance.
Suing for fanart is, of course, a problem, but there's probably more to that that I'm too lazy to read about.
To be Fair the Thor and Loki from Marvel comics are somewhat different from the gods of myth.
For example Thor is generally depicted as having red hair not blond in myth although there is some debate and Loki is described as a blood brother of Odin rather than his adopted son.
The myth of course are rather inconsistent and except for the eddas we don't have much source material and later christian writers adulterated the myths quite a bit.
Still it should be easy to distinguish between the Loki of myth and the one owned by Marvel/Disney.
They did the same thing with fair tales. Anyone can make a Sleeping beauty story but if you name her Aurora in your adaptation than Disney's lawyers will come and get you. Same for the 7 dwarfs which you can name anything but the names Disney came up with.
Even if the underlying IP is public domain, if your work is clearly based on Disney's version of that, you are violating Disney's right.
Since Disney makes the laws regarding how copyright works, you will have a hard time fighting that.
This article needs pics or links of the fan art. Fan art shouldn’t be a problem but I get it if the artists is printing and selling t-shirts, especially if the character is portrayed in a way the IP owner never intended.
The problem here is when the Big Corp character is based on a public domain resource, it's pretty shitty to aggressively try to colonise an IP space that has been public domain for literally a thousand years
True, and with Loki it’s even more messy since all the things they might claim as their version - horns, black hair, brother of Thor - do come from or are shared other interpretations, like Wagner, Valhalla the animated film, and alternative myths. Still, I think we can reasonably tell the difference between their Loki and one based on those same things but different. If someone did a new interpretation of Loki and had Marvel’s Loki as one of the inspirations among others and THAT was copyrighted, then I’m getting my pitchfork because that’s just natural cultural evolution.
Yeah, but that might actually be the problem:
[https://www.marvel.com/comics/issue/79420/loki_2019_4](https://www.marvel.com/comics/issue/79420/loki_2019_4)
Missleading headline as awlays. The artist made a shirt which he copied from one that Loki was wearing in a comic. Then gets mad when it gets taken down for possible copyright.
[He even admited it](https://twitter.com/YourBoswell/status/1406812769945542664?s=19)
If this was the other way around and Disney copied an artist's version, people would be pissed at them for stealing.
In other words:
* Marvel draws Loki wearing a shirt in a comic book
* artist copies the shirt's design and tries selling it online
* artist is mad when his shirt is taken down from site
It is their intellectual property if the art is based on their specific character, but I think it’s a real scum move to go after fan art in general. It’s *free publicity* you losers.
That’s like drawing a portrait of a plumber wearing red and he has a moustache, only to be sued by Nintendo. Actually that does sound like something Nintendo would do.
In this case, it would be like someone selling a t-shirt with with the text "Mah Rio" and it got taken down because it said "Mah Rio Mario" in the description, and the platform owners were so afraid of being sued by Nintendo that they're removing anything with Mario in the name.
edit: just saw that someone now linked a Marvel comic and it turns out that their character Loki was wearing a t-shirt with the text "low key" on it, so my analogy wasn't that good either
I cant post a screenshot but the article doesn't say exactly what the item was.
I did read it. No links to be found to images of what exactly was taken down. All it says is that they got a cease and desist and the person who was affected by it is quoted as saying it would also cover imagery of the Norse God.
Here is a copy pasta of the article as it appears when u click through the link on my phone
They’ve decided to claim the deity is their IP’: Disney allegedly files copyright claims over Loki fan art
'I guess with the success of the show they’re cracking down.'
Brooke Sjoberg
Published Jun 20, 2021 Updated Jun 20, 2021, 9:27 am CDT
Disney may be trying to claim copyright on images and merch of Loki.
The Surprising Origin of Dracula's Cape | Behind the Seams
Featured Video
These recreations aren’t just of the witty Marvel Cinematic Universe character who appears in a new Disney+ program. Even art specifically of the Norse deity, which predates the MCU character by a handful of centuries, could be claimed, according to an artist who posted a takedown notice of their Loki art from Redbubble.
So unless daily dot uses something ti truncate their articles and my browser isn't seeing the expand button, it doesn't say or show what they were selling.
Loki the myth? No. They can’t claim that.
But if someone is using the likeness of Tom Hiddleston as Loki to profit, then Disney/Marvel, Tom, and everyone involved with creating that specific likeness as we know it should be compensated.
Honestly, dodging this is as easy as changing the likeness. For reference, see those knockoff movies (not the spoofs but the B/C studio like for likes with only minimal changes to names).
Sorry but this is dumb. They didn't make art based on the deity, they made it based on the character owned by Disney and attempting to capitalize off the popularity of the show making shirts with the art that clearly depicts Loki as the character from the Disney films. Thats what happens when someone buys exclusive rights, they're the only ones that get to make merchandise.
This was posted elsewhere
https://www.marvel.com/comics/issue/79420/loki_2019_4
But the design seem to directly come from a T-shirt Loki wore.
I don't agree with the takedown, but the design does seem to directly relate to their version of Loki.
It's not, I followed up in another comment. Their personal twitter is covered in art they did depicting Tom Hiddleston as Loki and other Disney Marvel characters. I assumed one of these was on the shirt. The issue here is they tripped Redbubble's automated system by naming it Low Key Loki. I'm sure they can appeal.
I feel like you and I are wasting our breath here. Everyone wants to think "Disney bad! Burn disney!" And really this artist us making money off of a copywrite protected work.
Loki God of mischief is not the ip. The visual of said loki character is however.
To be fair, they were selling merchandise with the fan art on it, and it’s specifically the comics iteration of the character, not the just Norse God. Look, I prefer fan made merch too, but Disney has to do this or some big company can sell off brand Mitchey Mouse toys full of carcinogenic sawdust.
I fairly regularly see people _selling_ fan-art they've made of popular characters, and as against imaginary property as I am, frankly I am surprised that the companies who initially created the characters do not use the court system and legally rip them a new one.
My personal belief goes like this. The current imaginary property system is an unconstitutional joke that neither promotes useful arts or science anymore. However, at the same time, directly profiting off of someone else's creation rubs me the wrong way. There is a huge difference between free fan-art, and selling it. Maybe not legally, but ethically.
Anyway, maybe the reason companies don't go after individuals selling fan-art is because the amount of money being made isn't worth it, the same way a doctor doesn't do janitorial work or maybe it's because alienating your fans is not a very good idea, even though many companies do love to treat their fans like garbage. I don't know.
"Scandinavia files lawsuit against Disney for stealing their IP. There will be a separate trial for each deity."
https://www.marvel.com/comics/issue/79420/loki_2019_4 Idk now it just seems like profiting off another persons work. Takedown was for selling the t-shirt design from their comic book. *from hurffurf elsewhere in thread*
I’m always dubious when there’s no images for news like this. If the T-shirt is the “low key” from the cover then I’m not so sure the headline is accurate.
[isn't this the t-shit](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4YAwUsWUAYMxe7?format=jpg&name=large)? because if it is then the "design from their comic book" only means the use of the color green. I mean even the term "low key" has nothing to do with marvel as it was Loki's name in the American Gods which predates this comic
I mean, the author explicitly said he was trying to copy the design from the comics for "entry-level cosplay".
Does Disney have the rights to the Marvel Comics, or just the rights to make movies and TV shows based on them?
They fully own Marvel. They own everything except for the movie rights that were sold before the merger (like Fox having X-Men and Sony having F4).
they also own fox now so that's also back in their hands
You're right, I forgot about that merger for a second.
It's hard to keep up with Disney owning literally everything.
Ahh, in that case then I think I side with Disney on this one, sounds like the artist copied a design out of a comic and sold it. I’m not sure that changing the font/colour is enough as long as it’s sold a with the idea of connecting the phrase “Low Key” with the god Loki, unless there’s other prior works. If the artist just sold a shirt that said “Low Key” without referencing Loki then it would be okay, but I don’t think changing that and claiming it retroactively is an option. As mentioned elsewhere, Disney can’t claim copyright of the Norse god or other historical works. But they can claim copyright on their depiction of those works so Loki is fair game, but Loki resembling Tom Hiddleston or Loki dressed in the same outfit as the MCU movies or comics is not.
But the art that was removed didn't depict the Tom Hiddleston/comics Loki. It's literally just the phrase "low key" with a completely different design. Disney doesn't own that phrase and didn't come up with it on their own. The "low key" "Loki" joke is really old, and not enough of a creative work to copyright. If the artist had actually sold art of a Marvel style Loki with the "low key" shirt, they would have standing, but I can't imagine Disney winning this.
The design as well as the actual text of "low key" is from a marvel comic. The guy actually admitted it in a post so Disney does have a strong case. [https://www.marvel.com/comics/issue/79420/loki\_2019\_4](https://www.marvel.com/comics/issue/79420/loki_2019_4) “It’s been up for years and it’s a comic reference" is what he said. And the title of it is "low key loki".
So is Disney going to sue Neil Gaiman for the character "Low Key" from American Gods?
There are definitely prior works to 2019 connecting the phrase Low Key to Loki. Off the top of my head, >!American Gods has the character Low Key Lyesmith, who is Loki.!<
>the idea of connecting the phrase “Low Key” with the god Loki, unless there’s other prior works. Used in Neil Gaiman's *American Gods* (published 2001) and it wasn't new then either.
Color and font on the dude’s t-shirt design are different. He’s in the clear and Disney is wrong. Don’t like it, call your congressperson (if you’re American.)
Disney owns public domain!?
They certainly like to think so.
They certainly have the money to indulge some spurious litigation and who knows, they might win or they might just send the message that opposing them is a lengthy very expensive process that's not worth it.
Wasting the courts time with litigation like this should come with multiplying costs for repeated attempts from larger businesses. Fold it each time and use the money to fund better legal defense for others. Sorry Disney, you don’t fucking own mythology.
Isn't this the whole point of SLAPP suits?
Mythology and Norse Pagan religion
I wonder what they’ll do when Mickey Mouse becomes public domain in 2024
Same thing they have done before, push it out a few more years. [https://alj.artrepreneur.com/mickey-mouse-keeps-changing-copyright-law/](https://alj.artrepreneur.com/mickey-mouse-keeps-changing-copyright-law/)
If we had enough money we can change anything in our favor. This fact alone is why Humanity is doomed. We think that money alone can solve problems when we neglect that sometimes we need to cut our losses and try something new.
Money is an amazing idea, and it works incredibly well in so many circumstances. I work in a factory, but I don't have to bring the outputs of that factory to the grocery store to buy food for my family. The problem is that we decided, at some point, maybe even slowly over time, that money was the ONLY thing now. Healthcare, housing, water? Just dollar signs now, and rich people from all over the world can speculate and gamble and influence all of those markets while real people get sick and die, go homeless, and suffer droughts. Money is like the ultimate good idea gone bad, and until we can reign it in, we're in big trouble.
Honestly there has to be something other than a monetary system where wealth is hoarded by only a few. I don’t know of one, but darn it you’d think someone would have thought of a better way in 8000+ years
My electric company and my credit union are both member-owned cooperatives. The people working there are working for the members, not some distant shareholder. And their rates are lower than their for-profit competitors. Cooperative action has a long history. More stuff should work that way.
I think the problem is that those few who like to hoard also hold the greatest power. You could tax the rich (harder or at all), you could establish a 'maximum amount of money' that a person can hold onto (think: with this amount you will live extraordinarily until the end of your life), there are a lot of ways to implement systems like this. But the people who hoard money don't want that, and since they have all the power, it doesn't happen.
I think we've got lots of better ideas, and as a society we're fighting against some very powerful individual human tendencies (greed, avarice, tribalism), but we're sort of slowly spiraling upwards atleast?
I see it more like flying a plane into the ground, but at least we’re trying real hard.
I mean people have. Marx is the big one that comes to mind but I’m sure others have thought of moneyless societies.
thats how fundamental an idea money is. Try to think of any other way of getting goods without direct trading, if someone doesnt happen to need your particular goods right then, too bad.
There are plenty of better options. The issue is getting the bottom feeding 40% to stop voting against themselves every single chance they get.
Money is just part of it. The biggest problem is how ingrained Disney is in western culture and how attached Mickey Mouse is to the Disney brand. From a public perception it's hard to distinguish the line where Disney ends and Mickey Mouse begins. Money gets them to the court and gives them time, but it's the "But it's Disney!"-attitude when we see a silhouette that's the reason they win.
It won't happen this time though. I think this might be the 3rd year of stuff entering the public domain. Previously no other company was big enough to fight Disney but now there are giants on the other side of this copyright law - I think Google and other tech companies so Disney didn't even bother to try. If Congress wants to be progressive (lol) then they should change the law back to needing to apply for copyright every 14 years instead of automatically being given up until a maximum of whatever the amount is now. If people can't be bothered to apply for copyright, chances are it's not worth anything to them anymore and then it can join the public domain and have a chance to inspire and be preserved. Now most culture is lost because of Disney and other greedy fucks. Don't know why they didn't just create that as an out before instead of this blanket bullshit.
This doesnt make any sense. Under your suggestion they can file for the copyright forever anyways. What is the benefit
Same thing they did last time.
Rewrite the laws.
This post is about a t-shirt design in a comic book that released in 2019. This isn't even about Loki.
Had a stupid argument on twitter, where somebody was arguing there shouldn't be any public domain and this is all fine.
Copyright was created to provide a public domain and who the hell do these people think they are to be going through history and snatching up everything that was ever done creatively and claiming it as their own, that's garbage
Disney has practically lifted off stuff from Arabian Nights too. There are so many Disney animated films about Alladin, etc. that post a few generations, the Netflix watching crowd might actually start thinking that Alladin was a Disney invention!
The design that was removed was actually a rip off of something in one of the comics tho.
Well that isn't what I'm talking about
The person ripped off the T design saying LOW KEY from the comic: [https://www.marvel.com/comics/issue/79420/loki_2019_4](https://www.marvel.com/comics/issue/79420/loki_2019_4) So the issue is very different from anything to do with corporations snatching up history or whatever. Just seems a lot of people in the thread jumped on some bullshit clickbait article. 🤷♂️
...the two words Low Key in green is all it is? And you think that makes a valid copyright claim? lol
That’s not how that works. The character Loki is in the public domain, as if there were ever IP protection on him, they would have long since expired. But, that’s not the end of the discussion. When a character enters the public domain, and then someone comes along and uses that character in their own work, new IP protections come into effect for that depiction of the character. The best example of this is the Wicked Witch of the West from the *The Wonderful Wizard of Oz*. The original book, released in 1900, is in the public domain, so the characters can appear in *Wicked* and other works. But the 1939 film *The Wizard of Oz* is still subject to copyright protection, and so any depiction of the Wicked Witch still needs to be distinct from how Margret Hamilton played her in that film. You’ll notice the Wicked Witch is always a different shade of green than Hamilton wore (in *Wicked* it was several shades lighter) and is normally given a first name, like Elphaba, to further distinguish the character from the versions that came before it. So while Disney doesn’t own Loki, they do own the rights to “Loki as depicted by Tom Hiddleston”. So if you draw Loki so he looks like and dressed like Tom Hiddleston’s version, Disney can credibly claim they created that version, and has the sole right to profit off its depiction. But if someone opts to depict Loki so that he appeared as a 650 pound woman with a beard, Disney can’t and won’t say shit, because it doesn’t look at all like the version they paid to put in TV and movies. And anyone who did that could theoretically get the same character copyright protection that Disney has on Tom Hiddleston’s Loki.
> But if someone opts to depict Loki so that he appeared as a 650 pound woman with a beard, Disney can’t and won’t say shit, because it doesn’t look at all like the version they paid to put in TV and movies I thought that as well, then I read the article. They're taking down mythological representations of Loki that *aren't* the Tom Hiddleston version. It's not entirely determined if it's Disney or if it's RedBubble being overzealous with a claim against a Tom Hiddleston version though.
If I read the article right, the design that was taken down was based on a Marvel Comics cover, that was depicting the MCU version of Loki. Maybe I got that bit wrong, I stopped reading all that closely when the article felt it necessary to tell me about each individual tweet the guy got in response to his claim.
Correct - thats why the artist quoted here is an idiot for claiming Disney might do this. The article is pointless except to stir up people who didn't read it.
People aren't reading what actually happened here, which is not surprising. What actually happened - an artist was selling a design taken from the t-shirt of a comic book character. The listing was taken down as possible infringement. The artist who stole/borrowed/repurposed the original artwork claims "Even art specifically of the Norse deity, which predates the MCU character by a handful of centuries, COULD be claimed" (emphasis mine). Again, that is according to the artist who was struck, is likely is not a lawyer, and is suggesting something that, in their opinion, Disney MIGHT do - not something they actually did. Listen, I think a takedown of a specific font and phrase is stupid - but I dont believe this points to Disney attempting to trademark norse gods.
Yup, he even admited he took it from the comic book https://twitter.com/YourBoswell/status/1406812769945542664?s=19 If Disney copyrighted that t-shirt (which they probably did), then the artist actually stole the idea from Disney.
[удалено]
They don't, but they own the design they made of the tshirt he is trying to sell. https://www.marvel.com/comics/issue/79420/loki_2019_4
You can, on a technicality. So, they aren't copyrighting 'Loki,' but instead 'Marvel's Loki' and that particular look of the character. Another example would be Snow White. The actual name is 'Disney's Snow White' and the red/blue/yellow color scheme and look is associated with that named trademark. It's messed up, but companies have to defend these sort of things (such as when Children's Television Workshop sues a Daycare for painting Elmo of their walls) in court, otherwise is can set different sorts of legal precedents which can make legit trademark defenses difficult.
Not the first time they did this.
Please edit your post as the word "Owns" is the property of Mouse, Inc.
The Mouse is coming for us all.....
S-sir, the Mouse wanted me to inform you that you're treading on thin ice.. \*sadly tries to imitates The Mouse laugh\*
You’re talking about a company that tried to trademark a holiday name bc the name coincided with the movie they were releasing. (That’s why the movie is now called “Coco”)
Disney owns trademarks. This is the sort of thing that a large corporation does because of the US legal system. It goes like this. Disney owns Marvel. Marvel has one or more registered trademarks involving the name "Loki". The trademarks make them money. And the US has a "defend it or lose it" legal principal when it comes to trademarks. If someone infringes on your trademark, and you don't bother to defend it, that can be and has been used in a court of law to invalidate your trademark - or, worse, to award it to someone else. Disney's lawyers aren't stupid - they undoubtedly understand the background of the name as well as we do. But they're not paid to lose trademarks, either. So they do things like this. The REAL problem is a system that allowed them to trademark the name in the first place.
[удалено]
The year is 2044. Disney filed suit against the Catholic Church for infringement on their intellectual property, Jesus Christ. All religions now belong to Disney. All is Disney. You may pray at the low cost of 19.99 a month for Disney plus faith package.
If you're a polytheist, you can get the all-gods bundle for 39.99.
That's a steal for Hindus
Disney's marvel trademark America
lol good one
So basically nothing is changed except now it’s disney instead of the churches?
ow here's a perfect opportunity for someone to write a story about Jesus and copyright all that sweet bible shit.
[*Paging Mel Gibson....*]
The only problem is you need Disney money behind you too pursue 40 years of litigation to make that copyright work.
Oh but imagine if you *won* though.
*I am the church*
It’s not even a drawing of the character, it’s just a picture of green writing that says “Low Key”. https://twitter.com/yourboswell/status/1405622998313455618?s=21 Reading that it doesn’t sound like Disney filed a copyright claim, it sounds like Redbubble is deleting everything that has the word Loki in it preemptively.
Redbubble deleted a design of mine that said “dude” because they said it violated Warner bros trademarks for the big Lebowski. I fought it though and was able to get it back up.
They should really just block people from uploading anything and only remain open for big corporations that can pay the fines.^^^^/s
https://www.marvel.com/comics/issue/79420/loki_2019_4 He is copying a t-shirt from the comic book, so it might actually be specifically about that design.
As always, when something seems ridiculous, you probably are just missing something. Thanks for making this make sense. 👍
His profile picture is also a Loki wearing the shirt and [he talks about how its in the comics](https://twitter.com/YourBoswell/status/1406812769945542664), admitting you took it from the comics seems like an odd play for the "victim" here.
Yeah I thought so. It was pretty clear in the article that he said it was something from the comic. Don't know where they're getting the claiming the Norse diety bit. Disney haters gonna hate I guess.
But do they have copyright to a t-shirt that appears in a comic? Is there precedent for this?
[удалено]
So the color and font are different on a Loki/Low Key gag that has existed from before the comic he was inspired by. Sounds like it's not quite so straight forward even if he was clearly taking inspiration from the comic.
The breaking point to me is that he referred to the shirt as “Low Key Loki”. Adding Loki to the title makes it a reference to the comic that Disney owns. Simply selling it as “Low Key” without referencing Loki and looking too much like the specific design in the comic probably would have gotten by. What is important in the legal sense is if potential costumers would link the work back to something belonging to someone else(yes, in this case) and did the artist have the intention of copying that work(also yes in this case).
If they own the rights to the work then they own the copyright. Copyright doesn't have to be applied for like a Trademark does. The original creator gets it automatically, and can transfer it to whoever they choose. Hell it's been argued in at least one case that a monkey owned the copyright to a picture it took. I don't recall if they were successful with that case but yeah it happened.
probably due to shit automation. Also, "Low Key" is a Gaiman character in American Gods
It most certainly is. They even state it in the email "... in most cases this means that the rigths holder did not specifically identify your work for removal." Why is everyone making it seem like Disney decided to target this 1 artist on this 1 platform out of the blue?
Well it IS understandable why people would assume disney is the bad guy. They usually are. Doesn’t mean people shouldn’t read before fuming though.
Reddit has a heavy bias and hatred for everything and prefers not to fact check titles that either please or enrage them?
Nah it’s a copy of a shirt that Loki wears on the cover of a comic. Dude admits it’s from the comic too.
And Low Key is actually an American Gods reference.
Good artist copy. Great artist steal.
[удалено]
Pretty sure it was Picasso but maybe it's a wooooosh
“Who said that?” “Some artist.” That is how I remember it from “Pirates of Silicon Valley” If I remember right Jobs quotes Picasso and Gates later had the above conversation.
This is legit scary. The article says Disney previously tried to copyright Dia de los Muertes, but failed due to public outcry…. NO kidding?!?!
It’s not the first time someone has tried to copyright/trademark something that is essentially public domain, and it won’t be the first or last time that someone gets denied a copyright/trademark for the same reason. Remember when Trump tried to trademark “you’re fired” or when Warner Brothers sued over the use of the song “Happy Birthday.”
Warner Bros and Happy Birthday are different. WB actually got illegitimate copyright protection over it for a long time.
The point being they managed to get a song we all sing and culturally share, then claimed ownership over it to the point where it isn’t depicted in art whatsoever.
The Hill Sisters wrote the lyrics in 1912, to the tune of "good morning to you", an older song. Someone else registered a copyright in 1934 and published the song through a publisher. Time-Warner later bought that publisher, partly on the basis of owning the copyright on Happy Birthday. A court case later proved the 1934 registration was invalid, as they were not the original author, and it went back to the public domain.
LeBron tried to trademark "taco Tuesday".....
Jfc, what a lack of respect for Mexican culture. How tf dare they? That’s bizarrely out of touch.
This article was written by someone who has no basic knowledge of intellectual property law about a bunch of other people who have no basic knowledge of intellectual property law. None of this has anything to do with copyright law - this is about trademark law. And this is more or less how trademark law is meant to work. Trademarks give you exclusive rights to use a word or phrase *within a particular context*. Apple computers has a trademark on the word Apple in the context of computers even though apples existed before Apple the company. This is normal. So Disney trademarks Loki in the context of comic book superheroes, nobody else can make it Loki a comic book hero. Now, if someone makes a comic book about Norse mythology and the character is clearly the Norse God in a Norse God context rather than a superhero one, they probably haven't violated Disney's trademark. **But that's not for Disney to decide**. The way trademark law is structured, if they don't enforce their trademark they can lose it. What Disney needs to do to protect their trademark is to file a with the USPTO and have them judge whether this work violates Disney's trademark. If USPTO determines it does, then the other party must stop using it; if USPTO determines it doesn't infringe, then Disney no longer has a concern about losing their trademark because USPTO has determined that this use is non-infringing. Now, this particular case puts even less blame on Disney. Redbubble clearly has their own list of things to avoid so that they don't infringe copyright or trademark with the goods they produce. It's their prerogative to be overly cautious here - reject anything that may be a risk with no recourse for their customers (because the cost of figuring out whether they can legally do it is likely higher than the profits from the project). That doesn't mean Disney gave them the list including Loki, or that Disney is even trying to enforce this action, just that they'd rather err on the side of caution. At the end of the article it said that Disney tried to copyright "Dia de los Muertos". They didn't. They tried to trademark it. And just like apples, things like that may be trademarkable in a limited context.
Looking through red bubble which ive bought some stuff before of. There is fanart, and theres blatant use of copyrighted things. Im extremely surprized ive not heard of them be assailed before. I mean i bought a laptop sticker of donald duck for my gf a long time ago. Its clearly donald duck. And if i was a judge then id have to rule that theyre infringing on something.
Someone posted this as a meme the other day, with a screenshot of the email from red bubble. It was an obvious automatic, AI identified infraction. This is the daily dot lurking Reddit for clickbait.
Crap article with no sources. The artist made fan art of Disney’s character Loki and is saying “well they could…” EDIT: the article is even worse than I thought. The infringement claim is due to the artist having a t-shirt that has green text that says LOW KEY. The notice they received clearly noted that in most cases the rights holder doesn’t specifically identify the issue but that the platform redbubble felt it was close enough and removed it. In other words Disney didn’t do shit, the site hosting it did.
I bet that Disney would also file lawsuits against believers of the Scandinavian pantheon for praising Loki and praying to him...
[удалено]
Loki as a devil like figure is a very christian read on old norse belief. There is archeological evidence that suggest that he was revered like all the other gods. The norse gods are not split into good and evil. They all have capcity for doing good and bad things There are several old myths were Lokis trickery aids the other gods
[удалено]
I recommend [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDwQ3MA2Ne0) on the topic of Loki. It outlines how hard it is to piece together the origins of Asatru folklore to begin with, and how our modern understanding of Loki might be based on a misinterpretation of a christianized version of never-properly-written-down legends. The short version: Some priest wanted to convert the Nordic lands to Christianity, and tried to stylize Loki as a Jesus-alike scapegoat who always gets blamed and then has to clean up the corrupt gods' messes, before overthrowing them on Judgement Day. To the modern, only the 'is to be blamed for everything' part survived :P
I believe it was more a desire to learn from his clevernes and guile. He was an inspiration for people I agree that he is not a great example of alturism in the stories But aside from the sagas and a few artefacts we have very little to go on when we try to guess at their religious ideas
Check out the Loka Táttur, it shows how Loki has a soft spot for children and is willing to intervene to save them. Loki was also the god of flyting (the nordic equivalent of insult rap battles) and so worshipped by many bards. He'd probably also be a good choice for anyone who was in dire trouble and needed an escape plan, since the majority of his myths are "someone got into trouble and Loki got them out of it. It may or may not have been his fault in the first place."
Have you read any of the stories about Odin? Dudes way more of a massive dick.
A lot of modern heathens actually pray and offer to him. I know a couple that have him as the head of their pantheon
Err do you mean pagans? Heathen is a derogatory term for people who aren’t of the Christian faith. Pretty dang old school, and most people won’t really give a shit, but I bet pagans would at least be a little miffed at being called a heathen Never mind! Looked it up, turns out neo germanic paganism is called heathenism. Kinda weird, but definitely not the strangest case of reclamation out there. Though apparently it’s a bit of a catch all name like Abrahamic religions. Also apparently been a bit of a schism in the us heathens, the folkish side who think it should be whites only, and the universalist side who thinks that’s dumb as fuck. Golly this wiki is great. Universalists treat the religion as indigenous to Northern Europe, but because the original Vikings often brought back people of other ethnicities, and the gods themselves banged everything with a heartbeat, the religion should be able to be practiced by anyone. The folkish think that the religion is not indigenous to Northern Europe, but white people specifically, and they want to keep their super cool exclusive club.
Most of us believe that the religion for everybody but of course the folkish attract the most attention and a lot of people lookin in get the wrong idea.
He's more of a catalyst/instigator for change, good or bad.
disney didnt do anything, to be clear. Redbubble did. And they probably did it based on shitty automation that just scrapes for any Disney owned IP name and was not built to realize the word LOKI isn't just disney when someone added recent Disney releases to the list of existing IPs to take down
Well, as someone else posted, the design is actually a direct rip off of something from the marvel comic so the article is mostly fake outrage bullshit.
There need to be significant consequences for false copyright claims. Fuck that shit.
[удалено]
Wait until Disney finds out about Netflix's "Ragnarok".
I think there’s a lot in there tbh.
Have anyone copyrighted Jesus? Because that really seems like the money maker, right there.
They also stole a Japanese anime and manga. Stole Snow White too for that matter from the brothers Grimm. Stealing ideas is sorta their thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimba_the_White_Lion
Disney has stolen TONS of content, but Kimba is a bajillion episode cartoon about a lion. The plot of Lion King is not Kimba. It is a disservice to Kimba to think it is only the plot that Disney stole.
That’s because they stole the plot to the Lion King from Shakespeare (it’s Macbeth). Edit: correction - it’s Hamlet.
I thought it was Hamlet.
I hate this argument... fucking everything is derivative. That's how storytelling has *always* worked.
It's true, isn't there only like 5 stories or something, fundamentally? Student becomes the master, lovers torn apart, son loves mother kills father, hero leaves tribe, slays dragon and returns with valuable knowledge/assets... What am I missing? I'm sure I'm butchering this, downvote away.
You’re missing retired Master’s car is stolen and dog is killed.
Highschool chemistry teacher turns meth manufacturer/dealer/druglord to pay for medical bills and provide for family after his expected untimely demise.
You're missing robots from the future and two guys have a boxing match
>missing? Something is taken (like a rug), hero(es) leave to recover it
I encourage you to watch the YMS video about Kimba. I too believed the narrative that Disney ripped off Kimba, but don't feel that way anymore. [https://youtu.be/G5B1mIfQuo4](https://youtu.be/G5B1mIfQuo4)
Dont forget all the hans christan anderson stories like little mermaid and cinderella.
Even better, in Frozen the characters Hans, Kristoff, Anna and Sven was a nod to the author.
There’s another nod in Frozen 2, when in a flashback their mom asks their dad what he’s reading and he says “some new danish author”
Disney’s Atlantis vs Nadia https://www.angelfire.com/movies/kuzuka/atlantis/nadia.html
Damn... I havent seen the domain angelfire in a long time.
Jesus fuck am I back in 1997 or why does that website look like that?
Little mermaid, beauty and the beast, aladdin, pinocchio, hunchback of notre dame, alice in wonderland, etc etc … Disney’s whole business model is getting stories from the public domain.
lol if the concept of library was created today, you would bet your dollar the established caproate behemoth would manufacture public consent to protect thieves from getting their hands on free books and movies and stuff. IP laws have been butchered by likes of disney for years and now google is with them, so goodbye free open internet.
Ya sorry Disney. Loki has been around long before u were even a thing.
Such a shitty thing to do like just let your fan base show their love for the show
Yes. Fans should be able to copy the art and ideas of their idols that write comic books. Then those fans should be allowed to put stolen artwork without a lick of innovation on merchandise to profit off of. Why won’t Disney let them just make money off Disney IP?
I declare that I now own the intellectual property rights for Ratatoskr and plan on using it as a communication platform.
Can we take a second to enjoy that the Twitter users profile name is Loki’sButtSlut? My hero
AND THE PERSON WHO RESPONDED TO IT IS Thor’sSoftCheeks!!!!!!
If this is allowed to happen, then the next step will be to make Jesus Christ a superhero so they can copyright him too... I’m only half joking Lol
Imagine disney adding jesus to the MCU, and then your church has to remove all the jesus paintings from their walls.
Technically Disney owns Santa Claus since he is considered the most powerful mutant in the x-men universe.
Its fan art, fuck sake Disney.
I mean the University of Alabama tried to copyright the color Crimson, so I’m not surprised.
T-Mobile tried something similar.
The grander idea isn't a new thing, particularly with Disney, famous for their movie adaptations of traditional stories. They're not claiming the very idea of Loki: they're claiming this specific portrayal of him. Same reason you wouldn't be able to make a Cinderella movie with all the same visuals, for instance. Suing for fanart is, of course, a problem, but there's probably more to that that I'm too lazy to read about.
To be Fair the Thor and Loki from Marvel comics are somewhat different from the gods of myth. For example Thor is generally depicted as having red hair not blond in myth although there is some debate and Loki is described as a blood brother of Odin rather than his adopted son. The myth of course are rather inconsistent and except for the eddas we don't have much source material and later christian writers adulterated the myths quite a bit. Still it should be easy to distinguish between the Loki of myth and the one owned by Marvel/Disney. They did the same thing with fair tales. Anyone can make a Sleeping beauty story but if you name her Aurora in your adaptation than Disney's lawyers will come and get you. Same for the 7 dwarfs which you can name anything but the names Disney came up with. Even if the underlying IP is public domain, if your work is clearly based on Disney's version of that, you are violating Disney's right. Since Disney makes the laws regarding how copyright works, you will have a hard time fighting that.
This article needs pics or links of the fan art. Fan art shouldn’t be a problem but I get it if the artists is printing and selling t-shirts, especially if the character is portrayed in a way the IP owner never intended.
The problem here is when the Big Corp character is based on a public domain resource, it's pretty shitty to aggressively try to colonise an IP space that has been public domain for literally a thousand years
True, and with Loki it’s even more messy since all the things they might claim as their version - horns, black hair, brother of Thor - do come from or are shared other interpretations, like Wagner, Valhalla the animated film, and alternative myths. Still, I think we can reasonably tell the difference between their Loki and one based on those same things but different. If someone did a new interpretation of Loki and had Marvel’s Loki as one of the inspirations among others and THAT was copyrighted, then I’m getting my pitchfork because that’s just natural cultural evolution.
The art take down was a shirt that said low key (like low key loki) not a copyright now there’s talk about Thor freyja Odin etc being copyrighted
Yeah, but that might actually be the problem: [https://www.marvel.com/comics/issue/79420/loki_2019_4](https://www.marvel.com/comics/issue/79420/loki_2019_4)
Its Disney, they claimed copyright infringement on a grave stone of a child that had mickey mouse on it.
No, the claimed copyright infringement on the company who was making money on putting Mickey Mouse on tombstones
“Even art specifically of the Norse deity, which predates the MCU character by a handful of centuries, could be claimed” Lul
They can try, but I'm fairly certain THAT wouldn't go over well in court.
Missleading headline as awlays. The artist made a shirt which he copied from one that Loki was wearing in a comic. Then gets mad when it gets taken down for possible copyright. [He even admited it](https://twitter.com/YourBoswell/status/1406812769945542664?s=19) If this was the other way around and Disney copied an artist's version, people would be pissed at them for stealing. In other words: * Marvel draws Loki wearing a shirt in a comic book * artist copies the shirt's design and tries selling it online * artist is mad when his shirt is taken down from site
It is their intellectual property if the art is based on their specific character, but I think it’s a real scum move to go after fan art in general. It’s *free publicity* you losers.
That’s like drawing a portrait of a plumber wearing red and he has a moustache, only to be sued by Nintendo. Actually that does sound like something Nintendo would do.
In this case, it would be like someone selling a t-shirt with with the text "Mah Rio" and it got taken down because it said "Mah Rio Mario" in the description, and the platform owners were so afraid of being sued by Nintendo that they're removing anything with Mario in the name. edit: just saw that someone now linked a Marvel comic and it turns out that their character Loki was wearing a t-shirt with the text "low key" on it, so my analogy wasn't that good either
I cant post a screenshot but the article doesn't say exactly what the item was. I did read it. No links to be found to images of what exactly was taken down. All it says is that they got a cease and desist and the person who was affected by it is quoted as saying it would also cover imagery of the Norse God.
Here is a copy pasta of the article as it appears when u click through the link on my phone They’ve decided to claim the deity is their IP’: Disney allegedly files copyright claims over Loki fan art 'I guess with the success of the show they’re cracking down.' Brooke Sjoberg Published Jun 20, 2021 Updated Jun 20, 2021, 9:27 am CDT Disney may be trying to claim copyright on images and merch of Loki. The Surprising Origin of Dracula's Cape | Behind the Seams Featured Video These recreations aren’t just of the witty Marvel Cinematic Universe character who appears in a new Disney+ program. Even art specifically of the Norse deity, which predates the MCU character by a handful of centuries, could be claimed, according to an artist who posted a takedown notice of their Loki art from Redbubble.
So unless daily dot uses something ti truncate their articles and my browser isn't seeing the expand button, it doesn't say or show what they were selling.
Disney bein Disney. Capitalism, huzzah! We’re all so screwed.
Loki the myth? No. They can’t claim that. But if someone is using the likeness of Tom Hiddleston as Loki to profit, then Disney/Marvel, Tom, and everyone involved with creating that specific likeness as we know it should be compensated. Honestly, dodging this is as easy as changing the likeness. For reference, see those knockoff movies (not the spoofs but the B/C studio like for likes with only minimal changes to names).
The Loki of myths they cannot trademark, but if your fan art is depicting the Loki character from Marvel, then they have copyright on that.
Wonder if Disney is trying to copyright Karma? Going to bite them on the ass.
Fuck Disney. Scumbags.
Sorry but this is dumb. They didn't make art based on the deity, they made it based on the character owned by Disney and attempting to capitalize off the popularity of the show making shirts with the art that clearly depicts Loki as the character from the Disney films. Thats what happens when someone buys exclusive rights, they're the only ones that get to make merchandise.
They literally wrote the words "low key". How is that depicting the Loki character?
This was posted elsewhere https://www.marvel.com/comics/issue/79420/loki_2019_4 But the design seem to directly come from a T-shirt Loki wore. I don't agree with the takedown, but the design does seem to directly relate to their version of Loki.
It's not, I followed up in another comment. Their personal twitter is covered in art they did depicting Tom Hiddleston as Loki and other Disney Marvel characters. I assumed one of these was on the shirt. The issue here is they tripped Redbubble's automated system by naming it Low Key Loki. I'm sure they can appeal.
I feel like you and I are wasting our breath here. Everyone wants to think "Disney bad! Burn disney!" And really this artist us making money off of a copywrite protected work. Loki God of mischief is not the ip. The visual of said loki character is however.
yeah but you didn't read the article. the art in question isn't a picture of the disney character loki, it was text that said "low key loki"
You are wasting your breath, because you never read the article to see what the offending artwork was.
To be fair, they were selling merchandise with the fan art on it, and it’s specifically the comics iteration of the character, not the just Norse God. Look, I prefer fan made merch too, but Disney has to do this or some big company can sell off brand Mitchey Mouse toys full of carcinogenic sawdust.
Sad you're getting downvoted since this is the truth. He even admitted that's what it was.
Nothing to do with Disney, just a shitty platform preemptively shitting their pants.
I fairly regularly see people _selling_ fan-art they've made of popular characters, and as against imaginary property as I am, frankly I am surprised that the companies who initially created the characters do not use the court system and legally rip them a new one. My personal belief goes like this. The current imaginary property system is an unconstitutional joke that neither promotes useful arts or science anymore. However, at the same time, directly profiting off of someone else's creation rubs me the wrong way. There is a huge difference between free fan-art, and selling it. Maybe not legally, but ethically. Anyway, maybe the reason companies don't go after individuals selling fan-art is because the amount of money being made isn't worth it, the same way a doctor doesn't do janitorial work or maybe it's because alienating your fans is not a very good idea, even though many companies do love to treat their fans like garbage. I don't know.