Copyright Law for Animators [The Animation Industry: Preparing for a Career - Unit04]

Copyright Law for Animators

24/01/25 - 25/01/25

Steamboat Willie (1928)

Introduction

This page explores the key concepts of copywrite law, intellectual property (IP) and public domain. It will also explore how these concepts apply to animators and what they need to be aware of with regards to ownership when they create ideas and outcomes. This blog post will study the knowledge from the module lecture, analyse a copywrite case or issue and reflect on how you can better protect your IP in today's digital landscape.

Lecture Notes

The key concepts explored in the 'Copyright Law for Artists and Animators' lecture (Williams, 2013) were :

• Copywrite is not only the ownership of IP by the creator and the right to reproduce or recreate it. Essentially you have the rights to animate and work with a character you have created in multiple animations because you own the copywrite, however, somebody else wouldn't be able to without your permission. 
• You can use the copyright symbol next to your signature to demonstrate that you own the copyright, however, it is not strictly necessary. Once you create something you then own the copywrite to that IP. Ideas cannot be copyrighted, in order to gain the copyright you must create it physically or digitally. 
• Somebody could take your copywrite if you agree to sign it away, essentially transferring ownership of the IP. 
• If you work for another company, you will sign an employment contract and within that contract will be a copyright section that states the work you create is owned by the company. This is because you're carrying out labour in receipt of payment to carry out the the relevant creative work the company requires.
• Whilst employed, your employer does not own the work you create in your own time even if it states so in your contract. This would not stand up in a court of law. However, you need to ensure that you do not create your own work during your work hours or using their equipment because the company could then lay claim to copyright.
• If you're working with someone on a freelance contract it can become a little muddled who owns the copyright. In these cases its better to discuss this in the preliminary discussions and clearly outline who will retain the copyright.
• If you create a project with a friend then you will hold the copyright jointly. This is similar to the indie game 'Squishy Sports' I've worked on with a programmer friends - we both own the copyright of this product.
• When you sell a piece of artwork the copyrights still remain with the creator even though the physical object has transferred ownership. The original creator could  reproduce and sell another copy of the same artwork. This is similar to when you purchase a game, you don't own the copyrights to that game - just the right to play the game. 
• Copyright lasts for the lifetime of the artist plus 70 years. Patents only last 7 years. This is similar to when 'Steamboat Willie' became public domain. Public domain means that the copyright has lapsed and means that you have the rights to do whatever you want with that IP.
• IP or Copyright lawyers can help you protect your IP more formally - you may consider doing this if your IP is particularly valuable or you want to make sure it is officially logged and protected.

Inside Out Copyright Lawsuit

Muscaro (2020) reports on a lawsuit between Disney and Carla Jo Masterson regarding the Inside Out (2017). The claim was from Materson and centred around the use of characters that represent emotions from her works in poetry and film scripts that were created prior to the creation of Inside Out (2017) which development began in 2010. However, the judge ruled in favour of Disney to suggest that you cannot copyright the idea of creating characters that represent emotions or the use of colours to represent emotions. This links to the theory discussed in the lecture (Williams, 2013) exploring that an idea cannot be copyrighted. This suggests that whilst there may be similarity between the ideas of the characters, the design of the characters is different and therefore not not infringing any copyright.

For animators, this means that you can still draw inspiration from various sources provided that the characters you design are unique and your own. Therefore, another studio could make a film about anthropomorphising emotions and using similar colours to present similar emotions. However, the design of specific characters such as Joy or Anger could not be copied and would need to be distinctly different. Disney has represented emotions in their own way and they would hold the copyrights to this version of these characters. In this case, the judge has ruled fairly because the initial case was too broad. Another example of this could be seen in the games industry where the concept of a platformer or a first-person shooter cannot be copyrighted because they are types of games with similar common mechanics. In animation this would be similar to try and copyright the idea of producing a comedy animated film - this idea is broad and would stifle creativity and ultimately damage the film industry as a whole.

SteamBoat Willie and the Public Domain

One of the most recent popular IP's that have entered the public domain has been Steamboat Willie (1928). The concern for Disney here is that this rendition of their beloved character, Mickey Mouse, is now available to be used by anyone. Disney typically produce family friendly content and their mascot could by placed by other creators in less family friendly content, such as horror movies. Gibson (2024) explores the legal issues surrounding such an iconic character entering the public domain. He explores that copyright protection is continuously evolving through acts such as Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 that allow IP owners to extend their copyrights beyond the standard laws. It also explores the complications of IP entering the public domain that also has an existing trademark. In the case of the Mickey Mouse character, it is the Steamboat Willie (1928) version of this character that has entered the public domain and not the character itself. Therefore, creators using this public domain IP will need to ensure they use the "exact image of Mickey from "Steamboat Willie"..." or they could face legal challenges.

This example is particularly interesting because it is a character whose design is constantly being iterated and still very much used today. Gibson (2024) explores that in cases like this the creator's rights need to be protected but also there is an opportunity for creative development through accessible culture. There is also a question of how ethical it would be right to take the Steamboat Willie (1928) character and place them in a product that would achieve a higher age rating. Animator's can learn that whilst something enters the public domain they will still need to execute caution when using public domain IP, particularly with an ever evolving character like Mickey. It also demonstrates when creators may need to formally trademark their characters to protect themselves rather than relying solely on copyright law itself.

Copyright and Artificially Generated Content

Copyright has previously been a relatively straight forward affair of proving who created the IP and therefore owns the copyrights. However, with the recent rise of artificially generated content (AI) the water have been muddied with who owns the outcomes AI produces. The question around what AI sources to produce outcomes is where legalities around copyright become very difficult to determine (Appel, Neelbauer, and Schweidel, 2023). If you feed the AI your own work to train it and use  algoritihims to produce new outcomes then arguably this is another way of reproducing your own work. However, many AI systems may draw from imagery and information available on the wider internet and therefore the copyrights of AI generated content are more difficult to prove. 

Appel, Neelbauer, and Schweidel (2023) demonstrate a range of lawsuits where a creator is suing the owner of an AI system for copyright infringements. The article goes on to discuss that it is then the job of the court to determine whether copyright has been infringed or whether it is classed as derivative work that allows another person to use "copyrighted work to be used without the owner’s permission “for purposes such as criticism (including satire), comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research...” This highlights potential legal loopholes that can be exploited to justify the use of AI generated content that references work others have creatively and skillfully crafted.

Therefore, the most important legal factor for AI developers to consider is how their AI system source's it's data and whether they can prove that it isn't sourcing unlicenced content( Appel, Neelbauer, and Schweidel, 2023). The article also goes on to suggest that AI generated content should improve it's transparency with how it was created such as "recording the platform that was used to develop the content, details on the settings that were employed, tracking of seed-data’s metadata, and tags to facilitate AI reporting, including the generative seed, and the specific prompt that was used to create the content. " This would then make it easier to understand how the image was created and therefore whether the right to reproduce that same image, once created, would infringe copyright laws.

On the other hand, creators need to be more vigilant with how they protect their own IP and may need to take additional steps to protect their content (Appel, Neelbauer, and Schweidel, 2023). Therefore, we may see a rise in people using IP/copyright lawyers to protect their IP. Furthermore, creators will need to be more vigilant with observing content and potentially identifying where copyright may have been infringed, particularly if an AI generated image is less transparent with how it was created. Creators will also need to be aware of any terms of service that they sign when sharing imagery. For example when an image is shared on a social media platform, creators need to check whether they are agreeing for their work to be used in AI data training sets and whether this could harm their claims to copyright of the IP.

To further highlight the significance of this legal challenge the United Kingdom (UK) government is holding a consultation, ending 25th February 2025, to inform new legislation in the interest of benefitting both AI developers and creators to benefit both AI and creative industries (GOV.UK, 2024). It reiterates a lot of the challenges that Appel, Neelbauer, and Schweidel (2023) outlined such as the transparency of how AI generated content was created, who owns the copyright to the outcomes but also looks at how creators can be appropriately paid when they agree for their IP to be used by AI developers. It recognises that AI has developed quickly but also the legal challenges from both sides that are currently stifling growth of both sectors and therefore, the need to create new legislation to benefit both creators and AI developers. 

There is a common fear that creative industries will falter because AI can create outcomes faster and with less creative and technical skill by the user. However, it is good to see the U.K. government (GOV.UK, 2024) recognise the need for both sectors to thrive and benefit from new technology rather than become replaced. The goal of this consultation is to achieve a harmonic symbiosis where both AI developers and creative industries can both benefit from new licensing laws that protect and benefit each industry. 

Animation studios fall within the creative sector and therefore will need to consider how their imagery is being used by AI developers. Content such as characters, environments, specific art styles, narrative design, sound design, dialogue and other creative outputs is all content that an AI could potentially source to train it's data set. The UK government's consultation (GOV.UK, 2024) will benefit animation studios to understand whether suspected copyright infringed AI content has been used as well training data sets through approved licensing of their IP for appropriate financial benefit.

AI has quickly developers and has the power to do things that were previously unfathomable. This has caused problems for both creators and AI developers and the questions surrounding copyright has exposed a range of legal challenges that need to be resolved before both industries can evolve and benefit. It is refreshing to see governments tackle these concerns in the interest of benefitting both creators and AI developers. Improved transparency of how images were created will benefits audiences as well as developers and creators. However, it will be interesting to see how much control creators have with licensing to ensure that they are appropriately financially benefitting from the licensing of their IP.

Conclusion

Animators can better protect their work through a variety of means. The most pressing concern is the retention of copyright to protect against the unlicensed use of content to train AI systems. Creators need to be aware of what they might be signing or agreeing to when these use particular software or where they share their work online because they may be giving away their rights. Creators and AI developers will both need to be aware of legislation changes to AI generated content so they they can understand who owns the copyright to the content and how they can benefit from this financially through increased transparency. Animators should also consider trademarking characters that have become particularly successful and may be used and evolved in the future. They should also be very aware when taking inspiration from the works of others, for example whether you are inspired by the idea of a character or whether you are inspired by the design of the character themselves.

Animators should also be aware of the Creative Commons Licenses (About CC licenses, 2023) to understand how others can use your work. These licenses outline whether or not permission must be granted prior to use; whether the work can be used commercially and what adaptions can be made. These different licenses must be chosen and clearly communicated in your work to make others aware of how they can use the work. These licenses allow for greater nuance within copyright and allow the creator to decide how a piece of work can be used by others.

The most interesting element of this research was the governments consultation into legislation regarding ownership of AI generated content and how they are looking to support both creators and AI developers. With the emergence of AI generators, many creatives AI poses a massive threat to their jobs and livelihoods. If the government can ensure that creators can financially benefit from transparent licensing of their IP then this should strengthen both industries by ensuring a symbiotic relationship between the two industries. It will be interesting to see the legal resolutions achieve and whether this is achieved globally or nationally. As a creative myself I believe that whilst AI will be able to produce astonishing outcomes, creative humans will also be needed to produce fresh content that audiences love. AI is essentially reprocessing existing data therefore there is a ceiling of limitation with it's potential, at least for now!

Learning Outcomes

• Understand the basic principles of copyright law and how it applies to animators.
• Identify how to protect your work and respect the intellectual property rights of others.
• Reflect on how copyright considerations affect the animation industry.

Reference List

1. About CC licenses (2023) Creative Commons. Available at: https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/ (Accessed: 25 January 2025). 
2. Appel, G., Neelbauer, J. and Schweidel, D.A. (2023) Generative AI Has an Intellectual Property Problem. Available at: https://hbr.org/2023/04/generative-ai-has-an-intellectual-property-problem(Accessed: 24th January 2025).
3. Appel, G., Neelbauer, J. and Schweidel, D.A. (2023) Generative AI Has an Intellectual Property Problem. Available at: https://hbr.org/2023/04/generative-ai-has-an-intellectual-property-problem (Accessed: 24th January 2025).
4. Gibson, A. (2024) Navigating the Intricacies of Copyright and the Public Domain: The Case of “Steamboat Willie”. Available at: https://andrewggibson.com/2024/01/02/steamboat-willie-public-domain-entry/ (Accessed: 24th January 2025).
5. GOV.UK (2024) 'UK consults on proposals to give creative industries and AI developers clarity over copyright laws', 17th December [Press release]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-consults-on-proposals-to-give-creative-industries-and-ai-developers-clarity-over-copyright-laws (Accessed: 24th January 2025).
6. Inside Out [film] (2017). Milano: Walt Disney studios home entertainment. Steamboat Willie [film] (1928). Walt Disney Studios.
7. Muscaro, T.J. (2020) Court Sides With Disney in ‘Inside Out’ Copyright Lawsuit. Available at: https://insidethemagic.net/2020/08/inside-out-copyright-lawsuit-tm1/ (Accessed: 24th January 2025).
8. Steamboat Willie [film] (1928) Walt Disney Studios. 
9. Williams, A. (2013) 'Copyright Law for Artists and Animators' [Video Lecture], 7WCT2011-0105-2024: The Animation Industry: Preparing for a Career. University of Hertfordshire. 26th August.