Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
|
i am trying to understand your arguement
according to wikipedia
Quote:
The first volumes were much criticized because, although they were called "Children's Tales", they were not regarded as suitable for children, both for the scholarly information included and the subject matter.[1] Many changes through the editions – such as turning the wicked mother of the first edition in Snow White and Hansel and Gretel to a stepmother, were probably made with an eye to such suitability.
|
even if you were correct (which the scholarly information proves your not) and brothers Grimm didn't combine 3 different stories into there own revision, it is a proven fact that stepmother version was a re written version of the original story (first published)
you argued that disney had a right to take the final step mother version of the story. The one re-written from the oral story first published (assuming your completely false assessment)
now your argueing that disney re-written VERSION deserves copyright protection.
i am just asking you to explain why brothers grimm re-written version is not worth of protection but disney's is.
i know the true answer, grimms re-written version (both the merged story, and the unique re-write) were copyrighted work. The copyright expired and that why disney could legally use it, no stealing it.
your the one who is arguing it was always public domain, your just not explaining why the grimm re-write was not copyright worthy.