Delving into Disney’s impact in the media and the realm of copyright and entertainment law offered me a new perspective on the company and the future of the media world. Market economies and capitalism will always call for success and failure in each industry, and Disney has work arduously to maintain their power and position. After releasing biases of positivity from my childhood I was finally able to view Disney as the corporation that it is. It is my understanding that Disney is not necessarily a monopoly of the entertainment industry, but one of three powerful media conglomerates (in addition to Viacom and Time Warner).
Of course I had to do some research there myself!
I think if one company is powerful it is better that it is an evolving company like Disney rather than a sex selling one like MTV or other stations. I have grown to appreciate and respect Disney in a whole new way, both for their fair paying when they do merge with companies and their poise in copyright laws. Although it can be said that original creators should benefit from their works, as a pre law student I know that Disney in all cases fairly owned the rights that artists signed away. The salient finding of my research is that Disney is definitely one of the most impactful and influential media groups in existence.
This is taken from a scene in the Disney Channel Original series “Dog with a Blog.” This show blends the media age and ideas like “blogging” in a format for children.
Youth today are living under very different circumstances than even I was just ten to fifteen years ago. Children today are living in a digital age, bombarded by advertisements and commoditization. Children see this not only in television and film, but also in video games and the internet. They even meet Disney and other major media representations on smart phones and tablets. Now, for children, it appears, “there can be only one kind of value, market value; one kind of success, profit; one kind of existence, commodities; and one kind of social relationship, markets” (Grossberg 2005).
It is estimated that Americans on average spend more than six hours a day watching video based entertainment, and will soon match those numbers of hours we spend sleeping. The American Medical Association estimates that, “the combined hours spent in front of a television or video screen is the single biggest chunk of time in the waking life of an American child (Hazen 1997). Those figures were from 1997, imagine where we are at today with Netflix and many new on demand features available on television and the internet. Children are the most vulnerable to this exposure, which Disney seems to have recognized as they have recently spent around $180 million to expand their video games online and for gaming devices. Each film released has corresponding video games in multiple formats.
The case from ABC Family’s “Secret Life of the American Teenager.”
The real question when it comes to Disney’s impact on youth today is if a corporate controlled society distorts the sensibility of children. Although Disney Channel and films do not offer information about sex, drugs and other adult topics that could corrupt a young intellect or direct actions, they own and operate networks that have come under fire for use of sex and violence. The ABC Channel has offered shows with intense storylines and adult matters like teen pregnancy in The Secret Life of the American Teenager and murder in Pretty Little Liars. The impact of these shows and digital age will be better viewed in ten years as this generation ages, but Disney will definitely have an impact stronger than any other media conglomerate.
Works Cited
Lawrence Grossberg, “Caught in the Crossfire: Kids, Politics and America’s Future,” (Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2005), p. 264.
Cited in Don Hazen and Julie Winokur, eds. “We the Media, “(New York: New Press, 1997),p. 64.
Many universities and scholastic groups have analyzed and criticized Disney’s depiction of woman. Typically, in Disney films women are portrayed as a princess, queen, or homemaker. Many films are adaptations of folk tales from centuries ago, which could explain set gender roles and the importance of help from men to save women in many plot lines. The Disney Princesses of Belle, Cinderella, Ariel, Jasmine and others are shown with extremely small waists, large breasts, stomach bearing outfits, and in need to be rescued by a Prince or other man. Each Princess appears to be a damsel in distress. Although their 2009 release of Tangled depicted an independent and passionate Rapunzel, she indeed would not have been able to succeed without Flynn, her romantic interest.
Frozen, Disney’s most recent animated film, has received praise for its use of feisty females and a strong princess. The film surrounds the adventures of two sisters who attempt to put an end to the endless winter of their kingdom. For so many other films the princesses are show sobbing with their heads down when problems occur (in fact a post on Buzzfeed, an online comic page, showed nearly a dozen cases of Disney females crying over and hiding their faces when problems climax!) and relying on the help of men. But, was this a result of controversy over misogynistic depictions, or of an evolving society?
Frozen has also received praise from feminists because it was the first feature from Disney Animation to be directed by a woman. Although there has historically been much criticism of how the Walt Disney Company has portrayed women, Walt Disney himself has been recorded as supportive of women. According to archives of a speech given in 1941, Disney said, “If a woman can do the work as well, she is worth as much as a man. The girl artists have the right to expect the same chances for advancement as men and I honestly believe they may eventually contribute something to this business that men never would or could do” (Disney Studio Archives 1941).
Paula Sigman Lowery, an archivist and self proclaimed feminist, discussed Walt Disney’s history of statements on women. She reflected to the Los Angeles Times saying, “His point was that he was not bringing women into animation to take away men’s jobs at a lower rate, which was what there was some concern about. So here is Walt Disney (in this quote) very early on saying this is art done by artists, whether men or women. I like to point this out because people have a mistaken impression that animation at Disney was always a man’s world.” Lowery notes that films have evolved with the role of women in society, and that one should not judge 1940s films to the standards of current ideals.
Works Cited
Keegan, Rebecca. “72 years before ‘Frozen,’ Walt Disney Spoke on Women in Animation.” 29 December 2013. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/29/entertainment/la-et-mn-frozen-walt-disney-speech-on-women-animators-20131129
When I first began researching Disney’s potential as a monopoly I had to laugh because of course the board game “Monopoly,” had a Disney edition that would flood my searches. This fact alone is yet another example of how impactful and far fetching the reach of Disney truly is. It is no doubt that if Disney has monopolized the industry, it has earned this position. Although monopoly comes with a negative connotation, Disney does not appear to have acquired its power in a malicious manner. In fact, many on Wall Street feel that Disney is notorious for overpaying for mergers like Pixar and Lucasfilm.
Disney offered the first full length color animated film, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in 1937. It alone has earned close to $200 million since its release. In addition, Disney has redefined the theme park industry adding a magical and narrative emphasis to its amusements. Opening in 1955, Disneyland is recognized as the first “theme park,” rather than amusement park. Disney is also the most expansive researching Marvel Comics and all ABC Networks.
Disney is currently beating Time Warner and Viacom as the largest media company in the world. Yet, is this a point to come with concern or celebration? If not Disney, wouldn’t another company take over? Isn’t the fact that there are three in close competition companies proof Disney does not have a monopoly on the entertainment and media world? Many feel that Disney, with terms I’ve already discussed like “Disneyization,” has sterilized and formatted animated films and entertainment. Some consider the company as manipulative of mass media, harming a free thinking society. However, Disney hold a wholesome image, if one company is to be in power, why not one of happily ever afters?
The debate of Disney as a monopoly is muddled with bias in my mind. Disney is so innocently embedded and weaved into my thoughts of childhood. I have fond memories of waiting in the snow for the premiere of Toy Story, of the joy I felt when I stepped on Disney ground for the first time and even have pictures dressed in a Princess Jasmine nightgown when I was three. Just last year I visited Disneyland Paris during my time abroad and felt that same rush of magic. Disney essentially sells dreams; they sell the warm, fuzzy sensation of requited love, peace and escape. It is for this reason I struggle with removing positive views of them in order to look at them critically. I found attempts by the anti Disney Mouse Liberation Front to be frivolous, and extreme. I do think Disney is powerful, perhaps together with Viacom and Time Warner share a monopoly, but with a lacking of poor practice in my research this comes to me as respect. Or, perhaps their influence is so strong on the media that there are no strong criticisms released?
Works Cited
“Walt Disney News.” The New York Times. Accessed November 14, 2013. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/walt_disney/
Disney has become a diverse and powerful company since its inception nearly half a decade ago. They now own and operate not only theme parks, but also various movie studios, cruise ships, product factories and the entire ABC Network. Contrary to popular belief behind major motion pictures, Disney’s cable networks are a strong factor in their earnings. In fact, according to Forbes, cable networks owned by Disney are responsible for nearly 57% of the company’s total operating income (Forbes 2012). ESPN perhaps provides the most powerful punch of profit, which when combined with the revenue of Disney Channel generates more profit than everything else Disney offers combined.
Disney purchased ABC (and Capital Cities) back in 1996 for close to $20 billion. That purchase was the second largest merger in United States history, according to Forbes. Former Disney CEO Michael Eisner spoke to the New York Times regarding the merger and acquisition of ESPN stating, “We know that when we lay Mickey Mouse of Goofy on top of products, we get pretty creative stuff. ESPN has the potential to be that kind of brand. ABC has never had our resources, and we haven’t had ESPN. Put the two together and who knows what we get.” He was right, the merger immensely expanded ESPN to the point that it became a powerhouse profit maker for Disney.
Currently ESPN has a second network ESPN2, one dedicated to college sports entitled ESPNU and even has a magazine ESPN The Magazine. Disneyland theme parks now feature restaurants that offer video games and activities such as rock climbing in a chain called ESPN Zone. However, there is still room for improvement. There has yet to be a real, strong successful integration of ESPN into Disney’s parks or products. ESPN Zone restaurants were really only successful when located on park grounds at their Anaheim location. Disney as a whole is worth close to $85 billion, with ESPN ranging in at $40 billion. The value of sports on television continues to increase, with ESPN on the forefront.
Works Cited
The above is the official trailer for one of Pixar’s most recently released films Monster’s University. It follows as a prequel to their film Monsters Inc., which was very successful and since 2006 has even become a ride in Disneyland’s California Adventure.
Disney bought Pixar in a $7.4 billion deal back in 2006. The Pixar Studio was at that time led by deceased Apple co founder Steven Jobs. Jobs discussed the merger saying, “Disney and Pixar can now collaborate without the barriers that come from two different companies with two different sets of shareholders” Jobs added, “Now, everyone can focus on what is most important, creating innovative stories, characters and films that delight millions of people around the world.” Under this deal, Jobs also became a board member of Disney. The creative director at Pixar had previously worked at Disney.
Disney CEO Robert Iger remarked on the merger as well stating, “The addition of Pixar significantly enhances Disney animation, which is a critical creative engine for driving growth across our businesses.” Pixar has never released a film flop as far as box office records are concerned. With Pixar, Disney now has the opportunity to expand its computer generated animated movies. Former Disney CEO Michael Eisner had a strained relationship with Jobs, thus this merger was not possible before Iger assumed the position.
Pixar, with distribution provided by Disney even before 2006, had explored a mastered an element of the entertainment world. Although Disney, with film such as Stuart Little, has produced its own computer generated films. However, its success has not been at the same level as those films of Pixar. By 2006, its films had grossed nearly $4 billion alone. With Disney’s acquisition of Pixar, yet again critics are weary of the possibility of a monopoly. Although other theme parks such as Six Flaggs, and other companies such as Dreamworks, try to contend with Disney, the fact is Disney has and may very well always be an entertainment supergiant.
Kathleen Kennedy, co-chairwoman of Lucasfilm, states, “I don’t think we could be at a better home.” George Lucas follows with this saying, “We are doing this so that the films have a longer life.” Although both seem to support the merger, which is quite the contrast to relations with Marvel, to many it seems to represent a corporate takeover by Disney. Many accuse Disney of trying to monopolize the animated and entertainment industry.
Disney purchased Lucasfilm, George Lucas’s company which is responsible for the Star Wars franchise and blockbuster sensations, for $4 billion dollars. Lucas receives 40 million Disney shares thanks to the deal, making him the second largest non institutional shareholder of Disney according to Bloomberg News. His share is second only to deceased Apple co founder Steve Jobs (USA Today). Lucas, who mentioned in the above videos he plans to still be somewhat involved in the creative process of future Star Wars films, claims he plans to retire. Disney CEO Robert Iger stated, “This is one of the great entertainment properties of all time, one to the best branded and one of the most valuable, and it’s just fantastic for us to have the opportunity to both buy it, run it and grow it.”
This deal is the fourth largest ever for Disney, following ABC/Capital Cities, Pixar and Fox Family. It is a larger deal than that with Marvel in fact. Kathleen Kennedy, co-chairman of Lucasfilm, will report to Walt Disney Studios Chairman Alan Horn. Kennedy, who produced Schindler’s List and War Horse, will become the new studio president and be executive producer on the new films (USA Today).
Works Cited
Alexander, Bryan, Marco Della Cava, Matt Krantz and Mike Snider. “Disney Buys Lucasfilm for $4 billion.” USA Today. Accessed November 2, 2013.
Marvel Comics, a comic book company originally founded in 1939 under the name Timely Comics, became most famous for characters such as Spider-Man, X-Men, the Fantastic Four, Iron Man and Hulk. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were two prominent members of the company responsible for creating some of its most successful characters. In 2009 Disney bought Marvel Comics and now owns the rights to its characters, which caused immense uproar amongst Marvel creators, namely Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.
By October 2012, Stan Lee and his media group sued Disney for billions over the rights to the Marvel characters. Lee claimed that he gave the rights of his characters to Marvel and that Disney did not publicly revealed or documented Marvel’s agreement with himself at the United States Copyright Office. Lee and others had tried multiple times to gain ownership of the characters. Lee is often regarded as the creator for several famous Marvel Comics, and is thus very adamant about acquiring rights to their images.
According to a federal judge, the Walt Disney Company does indeed own the rights to the Marvel characters created by Stan Lee. United States District Judge William J. Martinez granted with prejudice Disney’s dismissal of Stan Lee Media’s multibillion dollar lawsuit. Martinez expressed almost annoyance at the case. He wrote, “Plaintiff has tried time and again to claim ownership of those copyrights; the litigation history arising out of the 1998 agreement stretches over more than a decade and at least six courts” (Martinez 2012). He further supported his decision because Lee in fact assigned Disney the copyrights to his characters and those he would create in the future.
Works Cited
Official Transcript of Stan Lee Media, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company. http://www-deadline-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/disney-stan-lee-media-motion-to-dismiss__130906000300.pdf
“About Us.” The Official Marvel Website. http://marvel.com/
This is an image of O’Neill at work on “Air Pirates.”
In 1979 O’Neill gathered a group of various artists to form a secret organization known as the Mouse Liberation Front. The Mouse Liberation Front put on an art show in New York, Philadelphia and San Diego. O’Neill helped compose and deliver The Mouse Liberation Front Communiqué #2 to Disney Studios, which he in fact delivered in person. In it, Mickey Mouse was sitting at an animation table smoking a joint in Walt Disney’s office. Disney finally had enough. Disney finally settled the very expensive and ongoing case against the Air Pirates. Disney dropped the contempt charges and did not enforce any other measures as long as the Pirates no longer infringed copyright laws. The case remains one of the most controversial among comics and first amendment right protectors. O’Neill purposely continued to aggravate Disney in a way idiotic to most, yet showed zeal to counterculture enthusiasts. Was O’Neil out of line, or simply the only one speaking out about Disney’s practices?
Works Cited
Air Pirates Funnies Vol. 1, No. 1, July 1971.
Levin, Bob. The Pirates and the Mouse: Disney’s War Against the Counterculture. (2003) Fantagraphics Books.
This is a panel from “Air Pirates,” depicting Mickey and Minnie Mouse.
“Air Pirates,” featured a lot of cursing and adult situations with Disney characters.
There were strong sexual undertones throughout the series.
In 1971 a group of cartoonists created two editions of underground comics entitled Air Pirates. Founder Dan O’Neill regarded Mickey Mouse as, “a symbol of conformist hypocrisy in American culture” (Levin 2004). The comics focused on Disney characters and included depictions of Goofy, Donald Duck, Minnie and Mickey Mouse doing drugs, performing lewd sexual acts and cursing. He kept the original names of all Disney characters so as to not, “dilute the parody” (Levin 2004).
O’Neill aimed to attack Disney’s consumerism and adoption of dozens of European and American folklore and tales. Just months after Air Pirates released, Disney sued for copyright infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition. O’Neill was very defiant throughout the suit because he had strong distaste for Disney’s control of the media. All of the other creators and distributors settled with Disney on O’Neill’s advice. The irony of the situation is O’Neill and others began selling original artwork, mostly of Disney characters, to pay for their lawyers and defense. O’Neill and company violated restraining orders set against them by Disney by continuing to create inappropriate Disney looking characters. The court, through appeals and all surrounding the case, continued to support Disney.
Works Cited
Disney’s War Against the Counterculture. Reason: Free Minds and Free Markets. December 2004 Issue.
Happily Never After 