Design was by Peter Saville and it was a modification of an image found in an astronomy encyclopedia.  http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue10/outoftheblue.htm

Right, so actually its Joy Division that did the ripping off! :)

Exactly Joy Division totally ripped it off.

It isn't "ripping off" when the image is public domain.

It is my strong suspision that the figure is NOT in the public domain. I know for a fact that the Cambridge Encylcopedia of Astronomy is not. The album cover is a rip off, Disney's use appears to inspired by rather than a direct copy. Now, based on some recent UK case law in which a judge found a photo in the style of another to infringe, it might be a problem.

But I think this illustration was created in 1919?

Aw come on... Disney are famous for their cheerful appropriation of the public domain (see the numerous "fairy stories" they've "created", for example). Shame they refuse to admit that it's a two-way street.

They must have feared a legal challenge though or why else would they have pulled the shirt from sale..?

Sorry, Eric.  Disney's legal department is one of the most ferocious in the copyright/entertainment industry. It was certainly not of "fear" of a lawsuit that they took it down. :-)

Joy Division were the ones who ripped off the design. But I don't expect an American blogger to bother doing some research before clicking on the "publish" button. I know, I know, you have more important things to do. Like check your Twitter followers count.

You should read the article.  Oh and also the article title (it's the part at the top in bold).

It doesn't matter that Joy Division "ripped it off", fools. They took a very plain and relatively uninteresting graphic and made it into a symbol of something hip and dark and memorable.

 

The ONLY reason Disney used it was because of the Joy Division association. Get it?

 

 

Copyright also applies to "very plain and relatively uninteresting graphic" works.

Not when the image in question is in the Public Domain....

nastysoundrecordings.com

What person who buys that shirt even knows who Joy Division are? sorry to burst the bubble but yeah they were a great band but they have no rights to carry on like this and the headline is total sensationalism like the tabloids.

They only made the shirt because of the Joy Division album cover, at least if you believe the listing they had on the Disney site with the t-shirt before they took it down: "Inspired by the iconic sleeve of Joy Division's Unknown Pleasures album, this Waves Mickey Mouse Tee incorporates Mickey's image within the graphic of the pulse of a star. That's appropriate given few stars have made bigger waves than Mickey!"

Disney 'rips off' joy division with a public domain image. who owns what now?

The more I read about these types of reaqction, the more I think artists DESERVE to get ripped off. 

Sheesh, Joy Division might actually sell a few more records with Disney doing this, instead they get pissed off.  What dopes.  Just because Disney is a bunch of hypocrites doesn't mean stupidity should be condoned.  Do they WANT to sell records or not?  Seems like not.

Anyone familiar with JD's legacy (which you are clearly not), understands that Disney's design and their cheery disposition are totally antithetical to Ian Curtis's outlook and JD's identity as a band. THAT, more than any alleged copyright infringement, is the issue here. This is a transgression against a band's artistic legacy way more than a copyright issue. It's Disney's willingness to trade off of that legacy and cheapen it that's so galling and appalling (and completely not surprising). At least they had the decency to remove the product once they realized that. Shame on the JD fan in the Disney art dept. who thought it'd be funny. Fail, dude.

do you think the artist Fatin-Latour is happy that his painting of roses was later used to sell a commercial product (Power Corruption & Lies)? New Order's music/themes contrast FL's conservative & pretty pictures.

How do you know they contrast? Please substantiate this claim.

please substantiate your claim that the disney image is in contrast to JD's 'legacy'. (my 'claim' holds as much water as your 'claim'.)

"Anyone familiar with JD's legacy (which you are clearly not), understands that Disney's design and their cheery disposition are totally antithetical to Ian Curtis's outlook and JD's identity as a band. THAT, more than any alleged copyright infringement, is the issue here."

First off, don't assume I know nothing about JD's "legacy". If anything JD tarnished Warsaw's image.

Second, why should I give a flying fuck about their outlook and "identity"?  I might see some empathy for that viewpoint if the other side of the shirt was an image of Mickey Mouse dangling from a rope, but that would be more in the realm of bad tatse that trying to tarnish an artist's image.  They can't possibly be tarnishing and image if they are creating interest in said artist.

Third, how the fuck can JD's identity be tarnished - it isn't even THEIR isdentity since the original work wasn't even theirs?  Seems like Disney is tarnishing a scientist's "art" if anything. 

Fo

 

Actually Peter Hook had a slightly different, more reflective take on this (from Rolling Stone).

"The fact that Joy Division only existed for three years, from 1977 to 1980, and we can still make international headlines has to be more than a compliment," he says. "But it's an odd situation we find ourselves in as Joy Division and New Order, because when we originally started out, we didn’t believe in self-promotion of any kind – we never got involved with merchandise."

Still, he adds: "We’ve always been one of the most bootlegged bands in history, particularly Joy Division. But it’s a hell of a compliment to be bootlegged by someone like Disney."

 

Whoa.  Baaad Disney.

Converse: Disney learned today that even legal use doesn't mean you aren't ripping someone off.

like

How about focusing on a great example of cooperative licensing: Wilco's new Dawned On Me music video, which features the first hand-drawn Popeye animation since the '80s. See www.wilcospinach.com and click on the bass.

JD didn't make the cover, saville did; saville didn't make the original image,  the scientist did.

If Disney is guilty, JD/Saville is just as guilty. (and fwiw saville often referenced other art and imagery -- Aice Tremlow (design/art critic) wrote "...he would directly and irreverently "lift" an image from one genre—art history for example—and recontextualize it in another")

Is Disney really ripping Joy Division off?

Didn't Andy Warhol do the same thing...recontectualizing images that weren't necessarily seen as art, and then turning those images into art...?

 

So the moral of the story is:

If you're gonna make someone else's design, make sure you're the first to do so...

Art is supposed to inspire people.  Every idea is built on top of the ideas that came before it.

This is like saying Joy Division is ripping off The Beatles becasue they played drums, bass, and guitar, and used vocals in their songs.  How dare they rip off (aka be inspired by) the creative output of those who came before them.

What I find most funny about this story is that from where I sit it looks more like Disney is trying to rip off the Radiohead bear logo, which is in turn a rip off of the Mickey Mouse logo.

And thus, "The Circle of the LIFE!!!!!"

"Art is supposed to inspire people. Every idea is built on top of the ideas that came before it."

Apparently not in the UK: "In a shock ruling in the UK this Tuesday, a photo was found to be in violation of the copyright monopoly of another photographer. There’s only one hitch with this ruling: the infringing copy was not a copy at all, but another original with a similar composition."

source: http://falkvinge.net/2012/01/26/copyright-monopoly-goes-insane-non-copy-judged-as-infringing/

Wow... um... well that is sort of scary.  I hope the UK has a reasonable Court of Appeals .

What I'm talking about is that regardless of who took the photo first, the things in the photo had to be built by someone else before they could be captured in the picture.  Those pictures stand on the shoulders of the architects who built Big Ben, the designers who invissioned and built the double-decker bus, and the scientists who researched the optics in the lenses of the camera.

LOL. That site is totally bat-shit crazy. What a nutcase.

Here's a more reasonable source if you want to read the details: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_face_copyright_threat_after_shock_ruling__news_311191.html

FWIW, I think personally I would have let the other designer off, but it wasn't a completely insane decision by the judge, and I can see why he came to that conclusion.

Sorry, link was too long. Try this: http://bit.ly/xao15y

Though smidgens of utility were lost by removing this shirt overall the net present value (adjusted for inflaton and currency exchanges averaged for 10 years) and economic gain to all participants has been net-worth positive. 

Someone at Disney is cool.

A mouse, a t-shirt, a 30-year-old LP (ask your parents) and the 1st Pulsar fingerprint.  Copyright is tricky.

Disney showing new found interest in post punk Mancunian design classics.

This is a trademark issue

I still can't believe we're talking about Mickey Mouse and Joy Division in the same breath. Although I'm really still not sure why anyone at Disney would want their product associated with any images of Joy Division - the meaning behind their art, let alone the reason they picked the name Joy Division in the first place, it's cool that people are talking about the band - brilliant!

Disney + Joy Division, what?!?!

Funny how many people suddently attack Disney in favor of a third party's IP...!