It looks like Lil-Comforts is stealing art from Disney

[CrinkleDax]

The copy in question regards the 2 bears on either side of the blue bear that appears on the back of Lil Comfort's diaper. Specifically, the line art of the body is basically a draw over. Even the facial expressions and hand gestures are the same. The mouth on the pink bear is a copy paste of Minnie's mouth. Poses are fair game but this is line for line copying. It should not be kosher for companies to copy licensed line art while changing the head.

This is a pretty gross copy. It's unfortunate that Lil Comforts was unable to find original art for their diapers.

 

[Nat]

I thought it looked familiar. I still think they're cute though. 

 

[babykeiff]

It is difficult to state with certainity (due to legal reasons) that it is a copy of a Disney art. Although visually similar, it is possible that the images chosen by Lil Comforts designer(s) are more to do with the stance of a baby while stretching to crawl, sitting and crawling away while looking behind.

What I find is that the more well researched and life like an image is, the more likely it is to be similar to another companies depiction of that pose.

Disney, in most of what it does in anamorphic art, attempts to make an animal as close to a human as possible without removing the core details of the image of the animal. To make the animal seem younger or more acceptable to children, Disney increases the proportions of the animals eyes. It could be said that Disney is copying Anime (japenese art form of large eye cartoon charachters) or visa versa - but in reality, the larger eyes on an image / cartoon allows the artist / animators greater ease when trying to get the images to express emotions. It is part of our mental makeup / our inner pschye to look at a person / animal eye to eye wheere we feel insecure / unsure of a person who's eyes are hidden behing dark glasses / who have small recessed / pinhole eyes.

I think that it is unair to judge another company for doing what Disney have been doing for years. Also, what one is used to can easily be mistaken to be a copy.

Historic Info:-

Mickey Mouse, Disney created 1928

Anime created 1910 / 1917 at lease 10 years earlier than Disney.

Hello Kitty (Japan) 1974 based on Anime charachters of the father & grandfather of the creator.

Who is copying whom - or is it more likely that each are creating a cartoon based on the same key ideas and concepts and aiming at the same demographics... and since we are all the same, is it not obvious that people will duplicate the same ideas without needing to copy.

To quote - 'Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery' - but the misunderstood meaning of that phrase is not that copying another is flattery, more like that what you realised is the best for the demographic that you and I are aiming for is similar to what I created means that either both of us got it right or both of us got it wrong.

I refer you to the concept of music where Irving Berlin stated 'there is no such thing as an original melody'. With 7/8 notes in an octave (or 13 if you count incidentals), mathematically, nobody can write a piece of music that does not exist. If you start on one note, there is only 13 places you can go from that note... and someone hase been there already. Therefore, a new musical lyric wrote today is a copy of somethign from history. Is this copying / plagerisim or not. In the thousands of years that music has been created, that answer has never been given.

As a result, can a piece of art that is similar to another be a copy or not?

[Cute_Kitten]

I'm not sure it's an exact copy or copyright infringement.  Perhaps heavily inspired by or influenced by it, but I've noticed some differences. Minnie Mouse is at more of an angle while the pink bear is facing the viewer more and her head is tilted, and both Minnie and Pink Bear are smiling. Same thing with Mickey and Yellow Bear- Mickey is more sideways and with more body facing the viewer while Yellow Bear is at more of an angle. There are other subtle differences. It is very similiar, so I can see where one would think they were directly copying them. Maybe Lil Comforts should've switched the coloring on Pink Bear and Yellow Bear to further differentiate them? Perhaps Lil Comforts is toeing the line if they copied, or perhaps they know what they're doing and just went up to the line? Alas, I'm not a lawyer with expertise in copyright law (and I'm far, far too lazy to go into Westlaw database and dig through copyright cases to see how courts have ruled in the past to see what the current legal precedent is), so I really can't say. The poses and expressions are very similar, but there are some differences. I don't know if those differences are enough to say it's just inspired by, or if it's a copy with enough differences to be on the legal side of "just enough changes to NOT be a copy even though everyone knows it's a copy"? 

Either way, the design of the diaper is cute! And for me, when I see it, I don't automatically think of Mickey and Minnie Mouse. Then again, I'm not always familiar with the current prints on baby diapers so this did go over my head. 

[ValentinesStuff]

It's also possible that they just contracted an artist and never noticed the similarities. 

[WBDaddy]

Disney wouldn't try to claim copyright over what it appears as fetish wear unless there was outright usage of Disney character properties.  They'd prefer not to acknowledge the existence of said industry. 

Even if the poses are "copied", it's not enough to rise to infringement, because no reasonable person would think that the Lil Comforts diaper in any way was made or licensed by Disney.  

[babykeiff]

On 7/19/2023 at 11:11 PM, WBDaddy said:

Disney wouldn't try to claim copyright over what it appears as fetish wear unless there was outright usage of Disney character properties.  They'd prefer not to acknowledge the existence of said industry. 

Even if the poses are "copied", it's not enough to rise to infringement, because no reasonable person would think that the Lil Comforts diaper in any way was made or licensed by Disney.  

They are nice points, but also very apt. 

1. Disney does not want to associate itself with ABDL world.

2. 'no reasonable person would think'...

These translates as it is not comercially viable or socially advantagous for Disney to bring a case against Lil Comforts as the chance that Disney would win the case outright is low (i.e. settled in quiet out of court), as a result the associated publicity might damage (in Disney's view) the Disney brand.

BTW - Lil Comforts diapers are functional, not just fetish wear, but we on DD are aware of that... unlike Disney, so that point is also very well made.

[ValentinesStuff]

If Disney believes that this violates their Copyright, then they have to take action to protect their IP. Otherwise some mainstream company will steal Disney IP and use this as evidence that Disney is not protecting their IP.

[WBDaddy]

3 hours ago, ValentinesStuff said:

If Disney believes that this violates their Copyright, then they have to take action to protect their IP. Otherwise some mainstream company will steal Disney IP and use this as evidence that Disney is not protecting their IP.

But that's the whole point.  They can't copyright character *poses* - only the characters.  Otherwise every possible pose has already been covered by WB and Disney in the first 30 years of them making feature-length cartoons. 

There is no IP violation here.  Just some subtle mimicry that Lil Comforts knew their intended audience would pick up on.

[OddlyEnough]

Sorry, this is a ridiculous post. Of course they're imitating a popular namebrand design. That's the whole point. That's why ABU's AlphaGatorz look like Pampers Cruisers from the mid 00s and Little Kings resemble Baby Dry. Triggers nostalgia. 

Nothing here is illegal. They're different characters in similar poses. 

[ValentinesStuff]

4 hours ago, WBDaddy said:

But that's the whole point.  They can't copyright character *poses* - only the characters.  Otherwise every possible pose has already been covered by WB and Disney in the first 30 years of them making feature-length cartoons. 

There is no IP violation here.  Just some subtle mimicry that Lil Comforts knew their intended audience would pick up on.

I agree, there isn't.

My point was simply that Disney isn't going to ignore the ABDL community if they believe there is IP theft. No they can't copyright a pose, but if those bodies had been identical tracings of the original art, then they might have a case, but they aren't.

[Alyeskabird]

Looks to be enough diferences not to be a huge issue. Depends on if Disney gets on it, they got the lawyers to burn folks. Lets be honest here, Disney has actualy used to lawyers to claim stuff from artists in the past, just out right stealing.

That being said, the poses are rather generic, and pretty common, I am sure if you look there are a lot that are simular. Still, would not be suprised to find that the disney art was used as insperation. Its not a direct trace over,  heads are in diferent postions, hands are diferent, and more, but, they might want to change that before there next iteration.

[Babygeebee]

I think you guys have buried the lead here. Look how cute the model is in that diaper! 😍

[WBDaddy]

On 7/21/2023 at 6:27 PM, Babygeebee said:

I think you guys have buried the lead here. Look how cute the model is in that diaper! 😍

I 100% agree.  Everyone's trying to gotcha this creator over some really cute diapers and some really outstanding modeling compared to what we're used to seeing from ABU, Rearz, Bambino, et al. 

[spark]

On 7/21/2023 at 2:54 AM, ValentinesStuff said:

If Disney believes that this violates their Copyright, then they have to take action to protect their IP. Otherwise some mainstream company will steal Disney IP and use this as evidence that Disney is not protecting their IP.

Disney is not afraid to fight copyright infringement.  They are notoriously litigious and have a very strong legal team.   If this is a true infringement, the legal team will act promptly.   

If there was a case, Disney would already have acted, and those would have pulled very quickly.  As @Alyeskabirdsaid, Disney will outright steal material that they think is derivative of their own property. 

IMO- this isn't worth their time.  As for the complaint- it looks like original art to me, and petty cool diapers.

[tommyneedsdiapers90]

i doubt disney will do anything about this. but then again i think they used to go after ebay sellers that made adult onsies with disney character printed material. now that could be just a rumor but i think its why you dont see many disney ABDL handmade clothes anymore. 

[MegaChar]

If i even cant see the similarities then its not copyright infringement. The Tykables Coda Bears is right on the line but this isnt even close to that

[Alyeskabird]

1 hour ago, tommyneedsdiapers90 said:

i doubt disney will do anything about this. but then again i think they used to go after ebay sellers that made adult onsies with disney character printed material. now that could be just a rumor but i think its why you dont see many disney ABDL handmade clothes anymore. 

 

I hate to point this out, but Disney has been known to sue childrens hospitals cause a nurse ran off copys of a disney colouring book for the kids in the hospital. There are a number of examples of this happening. This was a serious issue when I worked at the print shop at a childrens hospital, nurses would show up all the time wanting me to run off copys of colouring books, trying to browbeat or threaten me to copy disney stuff. If I had copyed a single page for them, I would have been fired, on the spot, and sued.

As for folks making stuff with disney art on it in the past, most of them where not using legal sources.  You have to look at the licensing for the verious bits that people where using, a lot are licensed for self use, not for comercial use. They where legal, untell they sold there products. The embrodery paterns sold for home use are not licensed for comercial use. They sell commercial licenses but they are hella expensive. Most actualy come with a clause that Disney has to get a percentage or a set fee per item made/sold.

The problem comes in that a lot of people selling stuff on etsey or other places had no clue about the licensing for what they used to make there products.

[ValentinesStuff]

7 hours ago, Alyeskabird said:

 

I hate to point this out, but Disney has been known to sue childrens hospitals cause a nurse ran off copys of a disney colouring book for the kids in the hospital. There are a number of examples of this happening. This was a serious issue when I worked at the print shop at a childrens hospital, nurses would show up all the time wanting me to run off copys of colouring books, trying to browbeat or threaten me to copy disney stuff. If I had copyed a single page for them, I would have been fired, on the spot, and sued.

As for folks making stuff with disney art on it in the past, most of them where not using legal sources.  You have to look at the licensing for the verious bits that people where using, a lot are licensed for self use, not for comercial use. They where legal, untell they sold there products. The embrodery paterns sold for home use are not licensed for comercial use. They sell commercial licenses but they are hella expensive. Most actualy come with a clause that Disney has to get a percentage or a set fee per item made/sold.

The problem comes in that a lot of people selling stuff on etsey or other places had no clue about the licensing for what they used to make there products.

IIRC Disney went after Daycares for having images painted on the walls. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1989-04-27-8904070716-story.html

 

 

[spark]

4 hours ago, ValentinesStuff said:

IIRC Disney went after Daycares for having images painted on the walls. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1989-04-27-8904070716-story.htmlIf you 

Disney has gone after teachers for playing their movies during class parties.  Disney is brutal in their response to intellectual property rights.   

If you recall the scene in Goodfellas where Henry Hill was arrested, and he said- if it was the mob, I'd already be dead.

If Lil Comforts really did violate Disney's copyright, Disney lawyers would have their asses on a platter and have moved to dessert.  Their legal team is legendary in their brutality.

[babykeiff]

There are millioons of nurseries, daycare centers and childrens hospitals worldwide. A large proportion of them have Disney, Warner Bros, Hello Kitty, Muppet charachters etc painted on the walls of the rooms - and these companies are not being prosocuted by Disney / Warner Bros etc. The core reason is that although  Disney etc are somewhat aware of the popularity of their charachters, if they went to prosocute everyone for every violation in relation to Disney etc charachters, all they would be doing is spending time in court and not running their business.

In relation to the news article linked to by @ValentinesStuff, the Daycare was already in public view due to to size of the charachters and was already fighting with local council re same. Disney's action ended any confusion on whether the charachters could stay or not.

In relation to 'ebay sellers being sued for making ABDL clothes with disney charachters etc'... that has no grounding. The raw clothing with disney print being available allows the owner / purchaser of the cloth to convert it into any piece of clothing they wish. Also, any clothing that one owns can be sold / given to / disposed of freely by the item owner. Again, Disney has no say on this. Disney lawers KNOW this, and are not that thick to bring case against another that Disney has little to no chance of winning while ruining disney's reputation.

Disney etc will not, due to common sense, sue everyone for having a copy of the Disney charachters. If they started, very shortly there would be a virtual fire where all disney charachters would be burnt.... along with Disney the company. If Disney is to legally enforce that no-one can have a Disney charachter unless sold by them, we would be watching Disney burn up and fade away.

In marketing, a comany normally spends 10% of its revenue on growing the company. To do this, they create a instanly recognisable logo / icon / image / phrase. 60%+ of the marketing exposure that the company gets is from people mimicing one or more of the companies images be the logo / icon / image / phrase. This type of subcontious 'mimicing' can easily be seen by the crowd as they are leaving after watching a film etc as people repeat the catch phrases / action sequence from the movie. Jokes etc are also wrote following the release of a movie etc. This is all involved in the promotion and growth of a film / company.

This means that every public item that is produced, so will copies etc. be... but since the copies count is normally a factor of 10 to 50 times greater than the original, it is the copies that driving the marketing.

Disney, like all large companies, are fully aware that copies exist... but these copies are 'marketing investment' made by the copy company at a gain to the large company. This means that Disney is gaining from the existance of a copy of it charachters. Usually large companies earn more return from a copy that they didn't create as compared to what Disney actually paid for and created. It is well evaaluated decisions at bord level that decide what copy to leave and what copy to get rid of.

Sony Music made the mistake to agressively shut down Napster - but at that time, Napster was the only TORR music sharing site. From a comercial basis, Napster was not even covering its server hosting costs - so if Sony had left napster alone, it would eventually have faded into oblivion. Instaed, Sony force closed Napster. Today, there are over 1000 music sharing sites, and ney ones coming online every hour.

RESULT = Sony closed one company at a huge cost to its reputation (that it will never recover from) and the market etc shifted. The number of tracks being sold today as compared to in 1985 - 1995 (era of napster) has never been lower. More people were buying more records etc when Napster existed than are buying today.

The obvious (and implementing legal rights etc) action is not by default the smartest choice. People do not like being forced to do somethig / go somewhere etc. When people are forced into a situation, they react with a solution that is benificial to the occupant.

 

 

[Alyeskabird]

Odd as it may be, but Disney is actualy quite good at alowing day cares and the like to use disney stuff, the childrens hospital thing was cause of phtocopying the stuff. If they would have asked Disney would have quite happily sent them tons of colouring books. Same thing with all of the daycares and other such things. They do not mind people using the stuff, they just want/need people to get permission, do to legal shit.

Disney litteraly sales the artwork to put up on the walls themselves now,  thus eliminating a lot of the reasons that Disney used to sue people over things like that. It is not that Disney is against people having there trademark up on the walls and stuff. It is that they want people to do it the legal way, wich protects there copywrites and trademarks.

[spark]

On 7/28/2023 at 2:34 PM, Alyeskabird said:

Odd as it may be, but Disney is actualy quite good at alowing day cares and the like to use disney stuff, the childrens hospital thing was cause of phtocopying the stuff. If they would have asked Disney would have quite happily sent them tons of colouring books. Same thing with all of the daycares and other such things. They do not mind people using the stuff, they just want/need people to get permission, do to legal shit.

Disney litteraly sales the artwork to put up on the walls themselves now,  thus eliminating a lot of the reasons that Disney used to sue people over things like that. It is not that Disney is against people having there trademark up on the walls and stuff. It is that they want people to do it the legal way, wich protects there copywrites and trademarks.

I want to make sure we don't go on a side track, and focus on the original post.  If Lil' Comforts really did copy from Disney's IP, the Disney Lawyers would be on it like white on rice.

[eatenbywo1ves]

My stretch Armstrong figure broke on this topic

[Diapeered]

Even if the posing is similar enough the question is is the image changes enough to not be a issue, but it could be said that they used their images as pose reference for their own design.