This means Disney could use the creative contributions of the users without having to compensate the creators, or even recognise them as authors. Under the terms of service, TikTokkers also waive their “ moral rights”: anyone who uses their work doesn’t need to attribute them as authors, which they would normally have to do in Australia. For stars like Charli D'Amelio, TikTok clearly tolerates - or has agreed to - some commercial uses.) (It seems even sponsored posts could be contrary to the terms of service, despite being so widespread. In addition, TikTokkers specifically renounce the right to remuneration for their creativity except as provided for in the terms of service. It’s not clear from the terms exactly what this personal use would cover.
Ratatouille tiktok license#
This licence is non-exclusive so (in theory) TikTokkers could license their videos to others, such as Disney - but the terms imply that users can only access and use any TikTok content for “personal, non-commercial use”. These terms are complex and hard to navigate - but it appears users grant TikTok a very broad irrevocable, perpetual, sublicensable right to copy, modify and share their content on a royalty-free basis. But who can get paid?Įven though the TikTok users own their copyright, as a condition of participating on the platform, they agree to the terms of service.
In a statement, the company told the New York Times “we love when our fans engage with our stories”. Mind you, as long as the collaborations stay on TikTok, it seems unlikely Disney will sue. Infringement would turn on whether a “substantial part” has been copied - something difficult to assess as it’s a matter of degree. Here, characters themselves are not protected by copyright, but aspects could be protected under the broader copyright encompassing the movie’s story and artwork. This is more complicated in places like Australia, where at least one eager TikTokker, Gabbi Bolt, is crafting songs for the musical.
In the United States and some other jurisdictions, it is possible to assert copyright in fictional characters. This means there might be potential, (as unlikely as it seems,) for Disney to sue the TikTokkers for their use of Remy. Because creators are located all around the world, different copyright and contract laws come into play.Īnd these creators are not only building on each other’s creations, they are also building off Disney’s original movie. Working out authorship is only the first hurdle. Copyright also allows for joint authorship, but it usually requires the authors to have been working together on a common aim - could this be said of TikTok creators who take and build on each others’ works sequentially? Generally speaking, anyone who makes their own song or dance on TikTok automatically owns the copyright. Even Disney has picked up the enthusiasm, with the Disney Parks TikTok account posting their own contribution - a Hamilton-esque rap about Remy’s culinary ambitions.īut what if Disney wanted to bring this collectively written musical to stage? Could they? And could Ratatouille The Musical be a ticket to riches for these gifted Gen Zers? Who owns the copyright? Others imagined the rehearsal process and the artistic director’s notes. Soon others joined in: writing songs, crafting choreography and designing sets, costumes, makeup, puppets - and even the playbill. Adding strings, trumpets, additional vocals and French horn, he turned it into a big musical number, capturing the imagination of thousands of TikTok users. Jacobsen’s clip was then transformed by Daniel Mertzlufft, a composer and arranger, who revamped the song. It began when US-based schoolteacher Emily Jacobsen wrote a “ love ballad” in honour of Remy, the anthropomorphic rat with an acute sense of smell and taste who dreams of becoming a chef. Thousands of TikTok users have been creating a musical based on Disney/Pixar’s 2007 film Ratatouille under the hashtag #ratatouillemusical.