Help with unique Disney item

[paperandphotocollection]

 

 

 

I have another unique Disney (if you saw my last post) that I need help with. It’s a group of photos negatives, parts of the Alice In Wonderland Story. Almost looks like someone photographed some of the original art cells? Again these came from the estate of a gentleman that drew for Disney for a few decades, 80s, 90s, Donald Duck. 
I’m really having a hard time listing these, title, or even the worth as it is such a unique piece. Thank you for any thoughts! 

[tobaccocardyahoo]

I would be happy that it is creating difficulty in listing. It could lead to a serious copyright infringement action against you by Disney, who is noted for aggressive IP protection.

Even posting them here could.

I would definitely not list these images online for any purpose.

[ccomic]

Knowing nothing about the law, I wonder if there would be any copyright issues?

[tools*]

How do you know he was a gentleman?

[paperandphotocollection]

I went to his estate, after he passed they sold a lot of his items. 

[paperandphotocollection]

How does the infringement differ from selling other Disney items though, people sell animations cells, tons of pieces that were never intended for sale. Recognize Disney could go after them as well, but photos of the items not the items themselves?

[gloryglorygifts]

Those are pretty cool! Have you considered reaching out to Disney to see if anyone there can help you? That may be safer than just asking on here.

My bro and sil have a collection of cels from a friend of theirs that used to draw for Disney. I don't believe they are worth much, but they are priceless to them. Who knows tho?

[tobaccocardyahoo]

The photos of the items reflect the intellectual content of the items, just as a xerox copy of a book does. The copied book is also illegal to sell. The images are protected by copyright. These negatives were likely to not have been the property of Disney and unlikely to have any documentation of their transfer if they were. 

These images do not qualify for the "fair use" exemption. 

I am not a lawyer, I am a business person who has a working knowledge of when I am likely to violate the law. I also have the ability to judge what companies are highly likely to enforce their IP rights, and Disney is high on that list.

A recent commercial I saw made use of footage from Steamboat Mickey which is no longer protected by copyright. The number of disclaimers to prevent any accusation of violating Disney trademarks and other still in effect IP rights was dramatic once I stopped laughing.

[paperandphotocollection]

This makes sense. I don’t sell anything that I would worry about this issue. My vintage Disney items are mostly all park souvenirs. 

[chapeau-noir]

I agree with contacting Disney. 

[tobaccocardyahoo]

@chapeau-noir 

That may be comparable to walking into the lion's den. Disney legal probably has quotas given the number of IP actions they take. And your question may be answered by a paralegal with no authority to do anything but tell you to cease and desist.

Keeping a low profile can save you tens of thousands of dollars.

[ten_o_nine]

There are no laws against selling the physical negative strips themselves, primarily due to the "first-sale doctrine". This legal principle states that once a copyrighted item (a physical copy) has been lawfully sold or transferred for the first time, the new owner can generally sell, lend, or give away that specific physical item without the copyright owner's permission.
However, the crucial distinction is that selling the physical item does not transfer the copyright. The Walt Disney Company still owns the intellectual property (the characters, images, and film content) embodied in those negatives.
Here are key points regarding the sale:
You can sell the physical film strips: You are selling a piece of physical property that you lawfully own, which happens to embody copyrighted works. This is similar to selling a used book, a DVD, or an original painting.
You cannot reproduce or distribute copies: You do not have the right to make copies of the negatives (e.g., scan them and sell prints, or post high-resolution images online for download) for commercial gain. The exclusive right to reproduce the work belongs to the copyright holder, Disney.

[tobaccocardyahoo]

The first sale doctrine does not permit the sale of items which violate copyright law or trademark law.

If these negatives were never the property of Disney, they are ip violations and the first sale doctrine is a red herring.

Furthermore, the First Sale Doctrine is primarily case law, with lots of conflicting precedents. One is unlikely to get a lawsuit dismissed based on the First Sale Doctrine, and the costs of legal representation are such that most people who infringe settle because if the case goes to trial, the legal costs could reach $250k. Even a greedy lawyer will recommend a settlement to his client.

[paperandphotocollection]

If I’m understanding correctly I was thinking I was ok to sell the negatives themselves but could not produce images of the negatives and then sell those. Which makes sense to me. 

[1786davycrockett]

@paperandphotocollection 

Just a theory, and nothing else:  Since the original owner has been identified as a former Disney illustrator, these might simply be the artist's own personal working record of his contributions to the 1951 animated film, "Alice In Wonderland" -- kind of a fall-back reference that he may have for similar work in the future.

Unfortunately, I don't see any potential value to these negatives.