Why the Government Would Not—and Should Not—Stop Disney from Making Remakes

The recent discussion around Disney’s remakes of classic animated films has sparked a debate about the role of the government in controlling such creative decisions. It’s important to understand why the government, particularly in democratic nations, would not—and, in fact, should not—interfere with a company making its own legal creative choices.

Why the Government Cannot Stop Disney

The government had no authority to stop Disney from making live-action remakes. Disney owns the rights to the original movies, and as such, is entirely within its legal rights to produce these remakes. This decision is neither illegal nor a matter for government intervention. If Disney wishes to extend their intellectual properties (IP) into a new format or medium, that is their prerogative.

Government Regulator Role

While the government does have regulatory roles, such as ensuring the safety of consumer goods or enforcing fair labor laws, these responsibilities do not extend to controlling the creative output of businesses. There is a clear distinction between regulating the actions and practices of companies and making creative decisions for them.

Legal and Constitutional Considerations

The government’s inability to stop Disney is a direct result of legal and constitutional protections. In the United States, for instance, the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, which includes creative expression. This means that individuals and corporations have the right to produce and distribute content as they see fit, free from government interference.

This principle is often applied to intellectual property and creative works, such as movies. Intellectual property rights are granted to creators to incentivize the creation of new works. These rights include the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and adapt the work. Therefore, if Disney has the right to make these remakes, individuals and corporations worldwide should have similar protections under their respective laws.

Why the Government Should Not Be Involved

There are several reasons why the government should not be involved in creative decisions like remakes:

Efficiency: Allowing companies to make creative decisions without government involvement is more efficient. Creative processes require flexibility, and government intervention could stifle innovation and creativity. Consumer Freedom: Consumers decide what they watch and enjoy. Governments should not dictate the availability of content. Instead, they should ensure that there is a diverse range of content available for consumers to choose from. Market Dynamics: The marketplace, including competition and consumer preferences, determines which content is successful. Government intervention in creative decisions would disrupt these natural dynamics and could lead to less supply of quality content.

Comparing Different Regulatory Frameworks

It’s important to note that while the United States protects intellectual property and creative rights strongly, other countries have different regulatory frameworks. Some nations might have more stringent regulations regarding creative content, such as laws against remakes or restrictions on certain types of content.

However, these regulations are generally focused on protecting consumers, workers, and the overall public interest, rather than preventing creative companies from exercising their rights. For example, a government might intervene to protect against monopolistic practices, ensure workplace safety, or protect against discriminatory policies, but not to prevent a company from making a remake of its own content.

Conclusion

In a democratic system, the government’s role is to protect and enforce the rights of individuals and corporations to exercise their creative freedom. Ensuring that companies like Disney can make remakes is a fundamental aspect of this protection. While the government has other important roles, such as ensuring safety and protecting the public, it should not interfere in the creative decisions of businesses—it is not the government’s job to tell companies what they can or cannot produce.