Works linked with Disney but not owned by them?

[alquackskey]

This is something that's been on my mind for a while now; we've all seen Disney's many, many acquisitions and what now counts as a 'Disney property' - what I'm interested in looking at here is works that Disney have a connection with, but don't own.

An example of what I have in mind would be the likes of Studio Ghibli; up until 2011, Disney held the international distribution rights for their works. Disney Japan helped to co-fund some of Ghibli's works, and Disney were responsible for the English dubbing of many of the works in question.
In that sense, they're linked - as Disney had a somewhat significant role in either the creation of the work or its being made available in English-speaking regions.

Are there any other interesting examples of this sort?
It's a topic that I'm interested in looking at, but I've never quite known how to phrase it 

(Also, unrelated to the post, it's been a while since I've posted - lots going on and I've been struggling a little. I stepped back a bit, but I couldn't stay away from this place for too long! Glad to be back, missed this place and the people in it - hope y'all have been doing well! )

[Matilda]

Jan 11, 2022 20:46:32 GMT alquackskey said:

This is something that's been on my mind for a while now; we've all seen Disney's many, many acquisitions and what now counts as a 'Disney property' - what I'm interested in looking at here is works that Disney have a connection with, but don't own.

An example of what I have in mind would be the likes of Studio Ghibli; up until 2011, Disney held the international distribution rights for their works. Disney Japan helped to co-fund some of Ghibli's works, and Disney were responsible for the English dubbing of many of the works in question.
In that sense, they're linked - as Disney had a somewhat significant role in either the creation of the work or its being made available in English-speaking regions.

Are there any other interesting examples of this sort?
It's a topic that I'm interested in looking at, but I've never quite known how to phrase it 

(Also, unrelated to the post, it's been a while since I've posted - lots going on and I've been struggling a little. I stepped back a bit, but I couldn't stay away from this place for too long! Glad to be back, missed this place and the people in it - hope y'all have been doing well! )

Missed you, too, alquackskey, glad to see you back in the conversation! And sorry you've been having a hard time; I hope the new year gets easier. Your commentary enriched my re-watch of Cool Runnings!

But I can't think of anything that fits the criteria, except for Oswald the Rabbit between 1928 and 2006.

[That Duckfan]

Jan 11, 2022 20:46:32 GMT alquackskey said:

This is something that's been on my mind for a while now; we've all seen Disney's many, many acquisitions and what now counts as a 'Disney property' - what I'm interested in looking at here is works that Disney have a connection with, but don't own.

An example of what I have in mind would be the likes of Studio Ghibli; up until 2011, Disney held the international distribution rights for their works. Disney Japan helped to co-fund some of Ghibli's works, and Disney were responsible for the English dubbing of many of the works in question.
In that sense, they're linked - as Disney had a somewhat significant role in either the creation of the work or its being made available in English-speaking regions.

Are there any other interesting examples of this sort?
It's a topic that I'm interested in looking at, but I've never quite known how to phrase it 

(Also, unrelated to the post, it's been a while since I've posted - lots going on and I've been struggling a little. I stepped back a bit, but I couldn't stay away from this place for too long! Glad to be back, missed this place and the people in it - hope y'all have been doing well! )

I've missed you around, alquackskey! Hope you're doing better now.

Funny enough I'm researching my way through Disney's many, many properties at the moment, trying to figure out where to draw some good lines.

I've thought up an interesting one. Back in the '30s, when Disney was just getting popular, they produced a few animated scenes for other studios. I don't think they own the shorts --- they never turned up the Disney Treasures sets. That said, these movies are extremely obscure, even to seasoned researchers. They include:
Around the World in 80 Minutes with Douglas Fairbanks (United Artists, 1931) -> owned by Sony, sale to Amazon pending
Hollywood Party (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1934) -> owned by Sony, sale to Amazon pending
Servants' Entrance (Fox Film, 1934) -> owned by Disney since 2019
Cri-Cri il grillito cantor (Producciones Carlos Amador, 1963) -> owned by the heirs of Carlos Amador Martinez?

There's plenty of stuff Disney was associated with but has since sold off, but as far as I know not much that pertains to "the brand". But most of what you can find online is about the production companies --- their catalogs are a often different, and much murkier question. If there's any hint of financial gain, sometimes things can get stuck in legal hell for years.

[alquackskey]

Jan 11, 2022 21:19:44 GMT Matilda said:

Jan 11, 2022 20:46:32 GMT alquackskey said:

This is something that's been on my mind for a while now; we've all seen Disney's many, many acquisitions and what now counts as a 'Disney property' - what I'm interested in looking at here is works that Disney have a connection with, but don't own.

An example of what I have in mind would be the likes of Studio Ghibli; up until 2011, Disney held the international distribution rights for their works. Disney Japan helped to co-fund some of Ghibli's works, and Disney were responsible for the English dubbing of many of the works in question.
In that sense, they're linked - as Disney had a somewhat significant role in either the creation of the work or its being made available in English-speaking regions.

Are there any other interesting examples of this sort?
It's a topic that I'm interested in looking at, but I've never quite known how to phrase it 

(Also, unrelated to the post, it's been a while since I've posted - lots going on and I've been struggling a little. I stepped back a bit, but I couldn't stay away from this place for too long! Glad to be back, missed this place and the people in it - hope y'all have been doing well! )

Missed you, too, alquackskey, glad to see you back in the conversation! And sorry you've been having a hard time; I hope the new year gets easier. Your commentary enriched my re-watch of Cool Runnings!

But I can't think of anything that fits the criteria, except for Oswald the Rabbit between 1928 and 2006.

Glad to hear from you too, Matilda! 
I'm definitely coming around, it's just been a very confusing patch!
And thank you - I've been meaning to get back to the live-action thread, that was a lot of fun!

Oswald pre-2006 definitely fits the idea I have in mind; there probably isn't a more influential example than him, though I'm interested in seeing what can be found!

Jan 11, 2022 21:46:16 GMT That Duckfan said:

Jan 11, 2022 20:46:32 GMT alquackskey said:

This is something that's been on my mind for a while now; we've all seen Disney's many, many acquisitions and what now counts as a 'Disney property' - what I'm interested in looking at here is works that Disney have a connection with, but don't own.

An example of what I have in mind would be the likes of Studio Ghibli; up until 2011, Disney held the international distribution rights for their works. Disney Japan helped to co-fund some of Ghibli's works, and Disney were responsible for the English dubbing of many of the works in question.
In that sense, they're linked - as Disney had a somewhat significant role in either the creation of the work or its being made available in English-speaking regions.

Are there any other interesting examples of this sort?
It's a topic that I'm interested in looking at, but I've never quite known how to phrase it 

(Also, unrelated to the post, it's been a while since I've posted - lots going on and I've been struggling a little. I stepped back a bit, but I couldn't stay away from this place for too long! Glad to be back, missed this place and the people in it - hope y'all have been doing well! )

I've missed you around, alquackskey! Hope you're doing better now.

Funny enough I'm researching my way through Disney's many, many properties at the moment, trying to figure out where to draw some good lines.

I've thought up an interesting one. Back in the '30s, when Disney was just getting popular, they produced a few animated scenes for other studios. I don't think they own the shorts --- they never turned up the Disney Treasures sets. That said, these movies are extremely obscure, even to seasoned researchers. They include:
Around the World in 80 Minutes with Douglas Fairbanks (United Artists, 1931) -> owned by Sony, sale to Amazon pending
Hollywood Party (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1934) -> owned by Sony, sale to Amazon pending
Servants' Entrance (Fox Film, 1934) -> owned by Disney since 2019
Cri-Cri il grillito cantor (Producciones Carlos Amador, 1963) -> owned by the heirs of Carlos Amador Martinez?

There's plenty of stuff Disney was associated with but has since sold off, but as far as I know not much that pertains to "the brand". But most of what you can find online is about the production companies --- their catalogs are a often different, and much murkier question. If there's any hint of financial gain, sometimes things can get stuck in legal hell for years.

Thanks That_Duckfan!

Those are some golden examples - indeed, I wasn't aware of these segments, and it's legitimately fascinating to hear about them!
I'm surprised that I wasn't aware of Hollywood Party; that's one I definitely need to see ASAP!

To add to the topic myself, another example occurred to me - Escape From Tomorrow
It was filmed in Walt Disney World without Disney's permission, even in areas that don't actually allow filming or photography.
Obviously, being set in Walt Disney World, it's definitely related to the brand; Disney themselves opted to ignore the film, though they have officially acknowledged it.

[CobyCat]

Former Disney animators who left Disney but kept working in a similar style. Most famously Ub Iwerks and Don Bluth.

• Ub Iwerks, who designed Oswald & Mickey and worked on most early shorts, did a lot of shorts during the time he left Disney. Flip the Frog, Willie Whopper, …
• Some of Don Bluth's movies are owned by Disney, but they probably won't be able to acquire the whole set (if they'd even want to).

---

Tangential acquisition-related stuff:

Indiana Jones and Star Wars were linked to Disney through the parks before the acquisitions of 20th Century Fox and Lucasfilm, but Paramount still retains distribution rights to the existing Indiana Jones movies.

The Muppets franchise is owned by Disney now, but there are still other Henson franchises.

[Spectrus]

Some Italian stuff from the 2000s springs to mind. I really am not too knowledgeable about it but I think the inventors of W.i.t.c.h. have managed to gain some control over these characters, since they are their own creation and have nothing to do with the classic Disney universe anymore. There were some more series like these, most notably Kylion and Monster Allergy. They are associated with Disney to a degree but I certainly know the latter is totally independent.

[alquackskey]

Jan 14, 2022 9:48:57 GMT CobyCat said:

Former Disney animators who left Disney but kept working in a similar style. Most famously Ub Iwerks and Don Bluth.

• Ub Iwerks, who designed Oswald & Mickey and worked on most early shorts, did a lot of shorts during the time he left Disney. Flip the Frog, Willie Whopper, …
• Some of Don Bluth's movies are owned by Disney, but they probably won't be able to acquire the whole set (if they'd even want to).

---

Tangential acquisition-related stuff:

Indiana Jones and Star Wars were linked to Disney through the parks before the acquisitions of 20th Century Fox and Lucasfilm, but Paramount still retains distribution rights to the existing Indiana Jones movies.

The Muppets franchise is owned by Disney now, but there are still other Henson franchises.

Ahh, those are pretty interesting!
Flip the Frog, in particular, is a character I'll be looking into - these kinds of character histories are just fascinating!

Although I'm kind of glad that Disney only got the core Muppets, it's kind of sad; when I think of "The Muppets", Sesame Street and Fraggle Rock go hand in hand with the idea.
Sadly, I don't think we'll be getting Muppet Family Christmas re-released any time soon... 

Jan 14, 2022 17:11:06 GMT Spectrus said:

Some Italian stuff from the 2000s springs to mind. I really am not too knowledgeable about it but I think the inventors of W.i.t.c.h. have managed to gain some control over these characters, since they are their own creation and have nothing to do with the classic Disney universe anymore. There were some more series like these, most notably Kylion and Monster Allergy. They are associated with Disney to a degree but I certainly know the latter is totally independent.

Ah, I think I remember W.I.T.C.H. actually - I didn't know that Disney had co-produced it!
Looking into it, it's a really interesting rabbit hole; I'll definitely be looking into it more in-depth when I get the chance!

[That Duckfan]

I saw W.I.T.C.H. and Monster Allergy somewhere in the list of Disney's former properties. Well, their parent companies. Seems like a good place to start, if you're interested in what's not owned by them *any more*.

[Pim]

Jan 15, 2022 21:41:34 GMT That Duckfan said:

I saw W.I.T.C.H. and Monster Allergy somewhere in the list of Disney's former properties. Well, their parent companies. Seems like a good place to start, if you're interested in what's not owned by them *any more*.

What makes you conclude from this list that Disney does not own the W.I.T.C.H. rights anymore? There were even W.I.T.C.H. comics sold last year with the Disney comics logo prominently on top of it.

[That Duckfan]

Jan 16, 2022 10:37:03 GMT Pim said:

Jan 15, 2022 21:41:34 GMT That Duckfan said:

I saw W.I.T.C.H. and Monster Allergy somewhere in the list of Disney's former properties. Well, their parent companies. Seems like a good place to start, if you're interested in what's not owned by them *any more*.

What makes you conclude from this list that Disney does not own the W.I.T.C.H. rights anymore? There were even W.I.T.C.H. comics sold last year with the Disney comics logo prominently on top of it.

My mistake, I was doing some research on Disney-owned production companies and saw it on a list in a production that Disney no longer owns. This is the correct list, by the way. Disney acquired Saban Entertainment in 2001 and still owns its pre-acquisition backlog under a separate holding, but sold the studio and acquired a 49% minority share the following year. So it was my understanding that the post-2001 shows (Gadget and the Gadgetinis, What's with Andy?, The Tofus, and W.I.T.C.H.) were not owned by Disney, but the reality turns out to be more complex. It wasn't clear to me what the distinction was between Saban Entertainment, Saban International Paris, and SIP Animation.

No doubt people our age will remember these shows airing on Fox Kids / Jetix, which was majority owned by Disney following their purchase of Fox Family Worldwide in October 2001, which Saban was a subsidiary of. If I read the Wikipedia article correctly, only W.I.T.C.H. remains a Disney property, because it was an adaptation of the Italian comic series.

Other TV animation studios Disney have purchased include Jumbo Pictures and its show Doug, Baby Einstein (which they don't own any more), and DIC Entertainment from 1996 to 2000, of which they own bits and bobs (it's complicated).

It seems that Disney never actually owned Monster Allergy at all, so I'm not sure where I found that. Surprisingly, it also originated as a comic series by the same team that did W.I.T.C.H.

I actually went in to this rabbit hole because you asked me about the The Wild comic book adaptation a while ago. Which is actually the brainchild of C.O.R.E. Digital Pictures, an independent studio, and Disney co-produced it. The Wild is one of a small number of animated productions produced and released by Disney, but not actually animated by a Disney studio. The others that I know of include Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Enchanted. (Ignoring live-action/CGI productions)
The latter are mentioned in lists of 'canon' Disney animated production*, albeit outer canon**, while The Wild has been gradually wiped from the record (despite it being released on home video under the Walt Disney Classics logo).

*for instance on Wikipedia and in the Disney encyclopedia, although the former includes Saving Mr. Banks to the list (for the Tinkerbell animation in the Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Color segment) and the latter includes the two Skellington Productions, The Nightmare Before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach, as well as the Pixar movies.

**you'll see the term "hybrid" pop up for movies that feature both live-action and animation. This one falls apart a little once you realize that should include every movie with a storybook opening, like Snow White and The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, as well as Chicken Little (featuring the boulder scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark, to my knowledge the first Carl Barks contribution to a Disney feature since 1942) and WALL-E (for the Fred Willard scene).


alquackskey , this is thread is great for attracting extreme pedantry! What a heck of 1000th post!

[Spectrus]

Jan 16, 2022 14:49:13 GMT That Duckfan said:

Jan 16, 2022 10:37:03 GMT Pim said:

What makes you conclude from this list that Disney does not own the W.I.T.C.H. rights anymore? There were even W.I.T.C.H. comics sold last year with the Disney comics logo prominently on top of it.

My mistake, I was doing some research on Disney-owned production companies and saw it on a list in a production that Disney no longer owns. This is the correct list, by the way. Disney acquired Saban Entertainment in 2001 and still owns its pre-acquisition backlog under a separate holding, but sold the studio and acquired a 49% minority share the following year. So it was my understanding that the post-2001 shows (Gadget and the Gadgetinis, What's with Andy?, The Tofus, and W.I.T.C.H.) were not owned by Disney, but the reality turns out to be more complex. It wasn't clear to me what the distinction was between Saban Entertainment, Saban International Paris, and SIP Animation.

No doubt people our age will remember these shows airing on Fox Kids / Jetix, which was majority owned by Disney following their purchase of Fox Family Worldwide in October 2001, which Saban was a subsidiary of. If I read the Wikipedia article correctly, only W.I.T.C.H. remains a Disney property, because it was an adaptation of the Italian comic series.

Other TV animation studios Disney have purchased include Jumbo Pictures and its show Doug, Baby Einstein (which they don't own any more), and DIC Entertainment from 1996 to 2000, of which they own bits and bobs (it's complicated).

It seems that Disney never actually owned Monster Allergy at all, so I'm not sure where I found that. Surprisingly, it also originated as a comic series by the same team that did W.I.T.C.H.

There were some shenanigans in that era. I know this is the reason why Francesco Artibani stopped writing for Topolino for about a decade.

I think the inventors of W.i.t.c.h. got shared copyright with Disney, or something like that.

Note that I was only referring to the comics, I had forgotten that there were animated versions of both series.

[That Duckfan]

Jan 16, 2022 19:12:41 GMT Spectrus said:

Not that I was only referring to the comics, I had forgotten that there were animated versions of both series.

And I had forgotten there were comics.

[Mesterius]

Jan 16, 2022 14:49:13 GMT That Duckfan said:

Jan 16, 2022 10:37:03 GMT Pim said:

What makes you conclude from this list that Disney does not own the W.I.T.C.H. rights anymore? There were even W.I.T.C.H. comics sold last year with the Disney comics logo prominently on top of it.

My mistake, I was doing some research on Disney-owned production companies and saw it on a list in a production that Disney no longer owns. This is the correct list, by the way. Disney acquired Saban Entertainment in 2001 and still owns its pre-acquisition backlog under a separate holding, but sold the studio and acquired a 49% minority share the following year. So it was my understanding that the post-2001 shows (Gadget and the Gadgetinis, What's with Andy?, The Tofus, and W.I.T.C.H.) were not owned by Disney, but the reality turns out to be more complex. It wasn't clear to me what the distinction was between Saban Entertainment, Saban International Paris, and SIP Animation.

No doubt people our age will remember these shows airing on Fox Kids / Jetix, which was majority owned by Disney following their purchase of Fox Family Worldwide in October 2001, which Saban was a subsidiary of. If I read the Wikipedia article correctly, only W.I.T.C.H. remains a Disney property, because it was an adaptation of the Italian comic series.

Gadget & the Gadgetinis isn't owned by Disney either -- and the reason for that is, it was never owned by Saban to begin with. Saban International Paris produced the show in collaboration with DiC Entertainment, which owned the Inspector Gadget license; and as such, DiC also owned Gadgetinis. Disney only held international distribution rights to Gadgetinis for a while, through their 2001 purchase of Fox Family Worldwide and the Fox Kids cable channels. But those distribution rights have long since reverted to the owner, today WildBrain.

Jan 16, 2022 14:49:13 GMT That Duckfan said:

Other TV animation studios Disney have purchased include Jumbo Pictures and its show Doug, Baby Einstein (which they don't own any more), and DIC Entertainment from 1996 to 2000, of which they own bits and bobs (it's complicated).

Actually it isn't all that complicated, the problem is that the Wikipedia article you link to here includes some gross misinformation. Specifically this sentence, which is a complete mess:

Many of DIC's shows that were not re-acquired back by DIC Entertainment, including most shows produced by DIC's French division which are part of the Créativité et Développement library, are currently owned by The Walt Disney Company through BVS Entertainment.

Wrong. The company Créativité et Développement - aka C&D - was never a "French division" of DiC. It was a wholly separate studio that DiC's French founder, Jean Chalopin, started after he left DiC in late 1986/early 1987. Then a few years later, C&D ended up with the international distribution rights to DiC's series (through a deal with Saban, who had aquired those rights from DiC)... and I suspect that's why a lot of people see C&D as a "French division" of DiC. But DiC and C&D were not the same company, and as such, their productions always had different owners. Distribution rights and ownership are not the same thing.

As for C&D's shows - including The Bots Master, The Adventures of T-Rex, Twins of Destiny etc - the reason they are owned by Disney today has nothing to do with DiC. It's because Jean Chalopin closed down C&D and sold it off to Saban in 1995-96. Through that purchase Saban got both full ownership of C&D's productions and the non-U.S. distribution rights to DiC's 80s library, which of course came in handy in the creation of the worldwide Fox Kids cable channels.

And as for DiC: as far as I know, not ONE DiC show is owned by Disney today. In fact, Disney hasn't had actual ownership of any DiC-produced shows since they sold off DiC in 2000.

[That Duckfan]

Thanks for that. Guess that's what I get for trusting Wikipedia!

[Mesterius]

Jan 20, 2022 21:29:45 GMT That Duckfan said:

Thanks for that. Guess that's what I get for trusting Wikipedia!

Wikipedia really is frustrating. On the one hand, it can be a great source of collected information , especially if it links to proper sources. But even if it DOES link to sources, you need to check them yourself if you want to truly verify the information. Things can be wrongly sourced too.

...which brings us to the other side of the spectrum: Wikipedia has SO MUCH MISINFORMATION. Always has, always will. And yet, if something just manages to get onto Wikipedia and stay there for a little while, people WILL start seeing it as fact. It's really annoying when you see something you know is wrong, yet at the same time you know tons of others believe it to be true, because "everybody" by default trusts Wikipedia. It's just too much work to look up other sources of information, if there are other sources at all. (I'm speaking from experience here as well; it's so easy to fall into the trap of just skimming through Wikipedia and call it a day.)