The Disney Corporation earned a great deal of money through the film and through the sale of a wide variety of products related to the film, including the book in republished form with Disney illustrations. Salten, who died in 1945, earned very little in the arrangement.
Salten's daughter Anna (Wyler), however, who inherited Salten's holdings and renewed the copyright in 1954, entered into more satisfactory arrangements with the Disney Corporation. After her death the rights passed to her husband who sold the rights to an organization named Twin Books. Twin Books, in turn, feeling that it was owed more than the Disney company would give, brought Disney to court. At that time, Disney brought out that the copyrighted publication of 1926 was, in fact, not the first publication. Felix Salten had published the story earlier in 1923, but in that original publication had not included a copyright notice. Disney, thus claimed that the book entered into the public domain in 1923. Disney further claimed that even if the 1923 publication were found to be protected, that Disney had the rights anyway as Ms. Wyler had not renewed the copyright until 1954 which would be after the deadline if the 1923 origination date were found to be valid. The court upheld the Disney claim.
In 1996 however, on appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed the decision.
http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/paschons/language_http/essays/salten.htmlIMO it does not make a good impression when we taunt the misinformed. Our best offense is to make use of the truth.
I disagree. People who are willfully ignorant should be treated as such, and often.