Silly Symphonies - Flowers and Trees Mashup (1932)

[@sylviahacker6695]

Fun Facts: This was originally done in Black and White, but mid-production technicolor was perfected. Walt decided to scrap the original footage and shoot the cartoon in color. It won the first Oscar for Animated Short films.

[@xXJosephxneXx]

this is one of my childhood cartoons!!

[@zovalentine7305]

1st cartoon to receive an Academy Award (I read in Poetey Foundation 2day, 30 July 2022) 🏆

[@zovalentine7305]

Rest in powerful peace Walter Elias Disney 🙏 5 December 1901 ~ 15 December 1966⚘

[@MikeVeis-d4c]

This was almost the height of the Great Depression.

[@Pant_roboCat]

Ωραίο Ιάσονα μπράβο

[@tennified6600]

This is a comment about the beats and music.

[@KartikPatel-nt4ff]

😅😅😅😅😊well information good show you can get 😅😅

[@boileroomtoon182]

This is of domain public now? Except the original music? thanks

[@ThePublicDomain]

I believe that's how it goes, it's not public domain. It's fair use until 2027 when it will officially enter the public domain... but artists like myself are entitled to use shorts like this for remixing purposes. Do you go to other youtube channels that make remixes and question them on the law or is it just mine? All my mashups where I mix cartoons and music together qualify as a Derivative Work by law which ultimately gives me (the creator of this mashup) the copyright of the mashup, ESPECIALLY once the short enters the Public Domain in 2027. According to the law once in the public domain... derivative works don't even matter because the underlying media isn't copyrightable. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

[@ThePublicDomain]

Even if a work is found to be an unauthorized derivative work, an alleged infringer can escape liability via the defense of fair use. For example, in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., the Supreme Court found that although a parody of the song "Oh, Pretty Woman" by 2 Live Crew was an unauthorized derivative work, fair use was still available as a complete defense. This case marked the Supreme Court's pointing to transformativeness as a major clue to application of the fair use defense to derivative works. (This Case directly applies to this mashup as a precedent)

[@ThePublicDomain]

ANYWAYS. I believe that copyright laws need to be changed to suit this digital era we are now in. Producing new media is becoming easier and easier for everyone to do because of the increase in the power of technology. Major coporations squabbling over 90 year old media isn't a good look. YES old media should be respected because it was harder for them to produce. Hand drawn animation is art but we live in a digital era and will probably never go back to hand drawn animation. What do you suppose will happen to copyright law when artificial intelligence is pumping out cgi movies based on nothing but prompts (cause that's where all of this is heading)

[@ThePublicDomain]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_use In United States copyright law, transformative use or transformation is a type of fair use that builds on a copyrighted work in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original, and thus does not infringe its holder's copyright. Transformation is an important issue in deciding whether a use meets the first factor of the fair-use test, and is generally critical for determining whether a use is in fact fair, although no one factor is dispositive. Transformativeness is a characteristic of such derivative works that makes them transcend, or place in a new light, the underlying works on which they are based. In computer- and Internet-related works, the transformative characteristic of the later work is often that it provides the public with a benefit not previously available to it, which would otherwise remain unavailable. Such transformativeness weighs heavily in a fair use analysis and may excuse what seems a clear copyright infringement from liability. In United States patent law, the term also refers to the test set in In re Bilski: that a patent-eligible invention must "transform a particular article into a different state or thing".

[@ThePublicDomain]

Let me recap here. Fair Use applies to the remix. It enters the Public Domain in 2027 where the original short and original audio is no longer copyrightable UNLESS you produce a derivative work from the original such as this mashup. This derivative work being copyrighted by me. You really have to try to make something new and fresh using old material and people can tell that you tried. I look at public domain material (including a slew of silent films) as this a a digital blob of clay that you can reshape into any figure you like and even run stop motion techniques to give that clay blob life. Right?

[@thomaspayton-tb9oj]

first olor movie ever

[@rosangelaatanasio5971]

💚🥰

[@ThePublicDomain]

Please DO NOT comment about the beats in the music. If you don't like something or need to give constructive criticism you can always PM me.

[@ThePublicDomain]

@Greglinski *facepalm*

[@ThePublicDomain]

It's such a weird thing to ask. That's like asking why there's milk in chocolate milk.

[@Anntrix]

​@Greglinski I think is for copyright, so KZbin algorithm won't find it and we can watch it

[@ThePublicDomain]

I study copyright law.... it's most public domain music. This track is.

[@tennified6600]

Why?

[@ma.jeanettereyes8435]

What is the title of the music

[@ThePublicDomain]

Abe Lyman - March Wind and April Showers Bert Ambrose - Who's Been Polishing the Sun

[@emmarose4234]

This just made it onto the National Film Registry. After 89 years. 🥲