Whenever I, as a student, have to write a paper that involves sources, I have to cite all of those sources or else I am committing copyright infringement, or plagiarism, which is not good. So when it comes to the idea of knockoff films – films advertised and boxed to trick people into buying them instead of the much-higher-budgeted film that the knockoff is ripping off – one might think this is clearly a copyright issue and a no-brainer. Knockoffs typically have remarkably similar plotlines and characters to the films they are copying. However, this is a more complicated ethical issue than that, as shown in one case where The Walt Disney Company sued Good Times Entertainment for this very act, as I will now explain. It begs the question: is it ethical to market your products specifically to confuse your customers?
In 1993 Disney sued Good Times, citing that the packaging for a Goodtimes version of the story of Aladdin was far too similar to the packaging for the Disney’s Aladdin, which had just come out on VHS from being in the movie theatres, and that this similarity in packaging was causing too much confusion with consumers and therefore stealing their sales (Nichols). They also claimed that Good Times Entertainment had done this in the past as well with other films. The court ended up ruling in favor of Good Times Entertainment, saying that a similarity in packaging was not a good enough reason to blame Good Times for any dearth in sales on Disney’s part. The story of this case has come up again fairly recently in the media because since Disney ended part of a contract with Netflix, Netflix has taken it upon themselves to now have many of the knockoffs available for viewing (Geigner).
The 1976 U.S. Copyright Law states that it covers “original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture,” according to the Copyright.gov website. However, it does not cover names or ideas. Some names are held under trademark law, like Disney itself, but not all names. This means that if you are writing, say, fanfiction for a movie you like, you have to give credit to the original author, but if you just happen to reuse the first name of one the characters because you like it, you do not have to give credit to the author you got the idea from. This also means that in terms of this situation in which one company seemingly copied from another company, Good Times Entertainment was within their rights to use whatever colors they wanted in advertising and to name the movie whatever they wanted to name it – including something suspiciously similar to a recent blockbuster. It should also be noted that many of the stories Disney cited as being ripped off were public domain stories, like Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast. While this is all true, this does not tell whether it is ethically sound. Deceiving customers with false advertising is wrong, but seeing as movies are art, and therefore subjective, one could still argue that it is just up to the audience to decide whether the knockoff film is good. That is, except for the fact that each of these films were specifically created to feed off of the hype of major blockbuster productions via their deceiving advertising and graphics as well as the similar naming of the films. It cannot be caught by the law, but it is a bit abusive of people’s trust. So really, in my opinion, it is just extremely annoying, especially since people who write fanfiction such as myself cannot get the same rights for writing a derivative tale usually. The power seemingly goes to the people who have money.
In short, this particular case may have ruled that Disney cannot claim copyright infringement based on a similarity of ideas and vaguely similar imagery, but it seems the case could have easily gone for an infringement of truth in advertising and/or infringement on trademark – if only that was what they were being specifically charged with. It also seems to clash with what I know about how similar works of writing would be handled. It may have been declared legal, but it would have been better if there did not seem to be loopholes in the law just for these situations.
Works Cited
Geigner, Timothy. Techdirt. “Netflix Provides 'Knock-offs' After Contract With Disney Ends.”
Floor64, 2012, www.techdirt.com. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814 /05472720016/netflix-provides-knock-offs-after-contract-with-disney-ends.shtml. Accessed 16 November 2016.
Edwards, C. “The Ultimate Guide to Animated Mockbusters.” Cartoon Brew, 2014,
www.cartoonbrew.com. http://www.cartoonbrew.com/dvd/animated-mockbusters-list-94032.html. Accessed 17 November 2016.
“What Does Copyright Protect? (FAQ)” U.S. Copyright Office, 2016, www.copyright.gov.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html. Accessed 19 November 2016.
Nichols, Peter M. “Home Video.” The New York Times company, 1993, www.nytimes.com.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/10/arts/home-video-218293.html?pagewanted=all. Accessed 19 November 2016.
Picture credit: http://www.cartoonbrew.com/dvd/animated-mockbusters-list-94032.html
