←back to thread

Alice's adventures in a differentiable wonderland

(www.sscardapane.it)
235 points tosh | 4 comments | 30 Apr 24 17:03 UTC | HN request time: 2.27s | source
Show context
Eduard ◴[30 Apr 24 18:50 UTC] No.40214712[source]▶
better remove all the Disney-based Alice in Wonderland character intellectual property from the book.
replies(2): >>40217683 #>>40224731 #
1. astrodust ◴[30 Apr 24 23:23 UTC] No.40217683[source]▶
I was just thinking that's "cease and desist" bait right there.
replies(1): >>40221717 #
2. iainmerrick ◴[01 May 24 11:06 UTC] No.40221717[source]▶
Alice in Wonderland (the book) is in the public domain. The old Disney movie is still in copyright, and the cover image does look very much like it's from the movie, but that character design is from John Tenniel's illustrations which are also in the public domain.
replies(1): >>40223901 #
3. astrodust ◴[01 May 24 14:39 UTC] No.40223901[source]▶
The character design is. The image, however, is clearly Disney flavoured if not traced directly.

His version, for example, does not have the distinctive bow. The art style is also completely different.

replies(1): >>40224907 #
4. iainmerrick ◴[01 May 24 15:44 UTC] No.40224907{3}[source]▶
True - it would be a good idea to use a Tenniel piece instead.

Edit to add: I was mostly trying to push back on the implication that Disney owns Alice in Wonderland (and Peter Pan, Winnie the Pooh, etc). Now I re-read the original comment, they did specify "Disney-based", so maybe I'm over-reacting!