The argument, as I understand it is that the "theft" is in quotes because it's not literally copyright infringement, but fair use of an old public-domain folk tale that ends up consuming the latter.

Today, when kids know "Aladdin" they know the copyrighted/trademarked Disney character, not the traditional folk tale- that's the "theft" that happened.

▲

cortesoft 36 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Doesn't this mean that anyone can make a competing Aladdin story, though? Since they don't own the source IP?

	▲	bigfishrunning 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It does! but you can't use anything Disney added (the tiger, the talking bird, etc..) and your production values would have to be super high to avoid looking like a store-brand knockoff. It's hard to deny that the Disney version does damage the original story in some way

▲

an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

khuey an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you subscribe to any concept of the public domain this is surely in it.

▲

altmanaltman 27 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Would most kids around the world even know Aladdin if it wasn't for the Disney copyrighted movie?

	▲	the_af 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Very likely yes. I was very familiar with this story, and other "Arabian" tales, well before Disney made the original animated version. We also had Grimm's fairy tales, which I loved reading, and nowadays am reading to my daughter, to her delight. Yes, with beheadings and child-eating monsters and witches.