|
Kalman posted:If you still use the words grumpy and cat in association with it, that wordmark posted a bit up thread will come back to bite you. Even though I understand the pitfalls of asking, and I'm not going to use the design i posted to avoid any problems... as a person I still don't understand the derision behind it. Why the gently caress should any one be laughed at or sued if he's trying to be compliant after he sees there are copyrights he never knew existed? It's a loving cat and thousands of cats that look like that exist. It's like Firestone trying to sue me for a drawing a black tire. I don't mind people being aggressive when explaining how the law would work, but why the hell is this categorized as willful infringement when I'm trying to figure out what exactly constituted the infringement?
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 06:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:It's a loving cat and thousands of cats that look like that exist. It's like Firestone trying to sue me for a drawing a black tire. I understand when people don't want to say something incriminating, but that's some pretty false outrage there. It's hilarious and stupid that grumpy cat is copyrighted, but you don't think that design potentially infringes on Sanrio's property?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 07:06
|
|
|
It's similar but measurably different. I was taught that was fine. Different eyes, has a mouth, no head adornment like a bow or a flower. My outrage was aimed at what point similarities became too broad as to become all encompassing. Jet Ready Go fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Mar 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 07:12
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:My outrage was aimed at what point similarities became too broad as to become all encompassing. Again, it depends. Here are two New York cases where the court found substantial similarity for the purposes of copyright infringement:  vs  (Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures)  vs  (Boisson v. Banian) Note that even within the New York courts, there's no one clear test for copyright infringement. The test has previously been formulated as "total concept and feel" (Boisson), "whether an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work" (Steinberg), and whether an "ordinary observer, unless he set out to detect the disparities, would be disposed to overlook them, and regard [the] aesthetic appeal as the same." (Mannion v. Coors Brewing Co.) Maybe these mean different things, maybe they don't, but they sure don't provide clear guidance. This is why I've been emphasizing the uncertainty surrounding the whole situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 07:53
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:Nah I'm just going to change the elements of the design. I don't care that much about this cat. I was just loving around when designing it and thought it was cute. Dude... you don't get it... I'm not saying this in angry voice. I'm saying this in "DUUUuuude" kinda voice. I'm not mad at you, just grabbing your shoulders and turning you 180 and pointing in another direction. The vendor's lawyer doesn't give a poo poo about how different your cats are. Let's say you change it to a dog wearing polka dot overalls. They still don't care. Literally, that lawyer will lazily open their eyes to glance at your letter asking questions and different design, ball it up, and slam dunk it into their garbage can. ALL they care about, the only thing in the known universe that they want to see, is that you have a valid copyright on the material. That's it. That is literally the only thing that matters to them. So fairness, your happiness, using your design, doing good business, determining if grumpycat's objection is valid: NONE OF THAT MATTERS EVEN SLIGHTLY TO THEM. If your response to the lawyer includes anything except copyright or licensing documentation, they will not release your design for production. Think of that lawyer like a vending machine. You must insert a copyright or licensing document to get the goods. And we're watching you trying to jam pennies into it. So saying "OK guys, I get it, I'll change the design" is like now you're trying to jam dimes into the machine. That doesn't matter. You need to copyright the design and send the copyright documentation in. That's it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 12:43
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:This is presumably the mark you're allegedly infringing. The agent of record here is the same lawyer cc'ed on your letter, so the vendor likely got a threat from him and cc'ed him to let him know that they complied with his letter. It's actually this:  Armchair not-your-lawyer analysis time: Here's what I think your best argument would be regarding copyright: the cat itself isn't a protected work (nobody can claim authorship on the cat itself), so copyright is in what authorship went in to making the photo, namely, the composition of the photo. There's nothing about "frowning cat with that coloration" that's protectable in copyright. Having said that, you've said (and even without your admission, it's pretty clear) that you based the drawing on the picture, so maybe it is a derivative work anyway. However, even were you to succeed against a copyright claim, there's still a trademark issue. Now, their mark isn't actually registered yet, so there's only potential liability for a registered mark, but your drawing very well could be liable under the Lanham Act anyway: quote:(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which— Now, analyzing that claim is way beyond the scope of this post and is totally in Get A Lawyer territory. WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Mar 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 12:57
|
|
|
Basically, moral of the story is that this isn't a simple "oh, they're full of poo poo" situation, so either fold your cards or get a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 13:05
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:Even though I understand the pitfalls of asking, and I'm not going to use the design i posted to avoid any problems... as a person I still don't understand the derision behind it. You shouldn't be laughed at or sued for trying to avoid infringement. You should be laughed at or sued for asking the lawyer for the person who is potentially suing you for help. It is not their job. Not only is it not their job, there are at least two ethical problems in their providing that help, absent their client having directed them to do so. Their interest is not in you getting as close as you can without going over the line - their interest is in you staying as far away as possible. Additionally, contacting the other party's lawyer directly opens you up to them contacting you, which normally they try not to do and are barred from doing if you're represented by counsel. We mock people who talk to cops voluntarily or who call the other side's lawyers because we are trying to get across that these are categorically bad ideas. Now, the actual question in your post: Willful just means you knew of the work you were infringing and continued to do so. Belief that you aren't infringing can matter... but typically it matters when you have a lawyer telling you you are okay in this specific instance, not when your gut says so. It doesn't have anything to do with whether you intended to infringe in the first place or any sort of negative motivation. If they can show you knew about it and continued to infringe, they will ask for a willfulness enhancement. Which triples damages. The notice they sent us probably enough, but a phone call would basically lock it in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
You were totally trying to copy grumpy cat. Just drop it and move on. It would be amazing you came up with a design that looks exactly like grumpy cat with the exact meme saying its known for completely on your own. If I saw that image without any prompting I would think it was suppose to be grumpy cat and anyone else familiar with grumpy cat would think the same.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
Alterian posted:You were totally trying to copy grumpy cat. Just drop it and move on. It would be amazing you came up with a design that looks exactly like grumpy cat with the exact meme saying its known for completely on your own. If I saw that image without any prompting I would think it was suppose to be grumpy cat and anyone else familiar with grumpy cat would think the same. http://nozomionline.com/dumb/Nope%20Kitty%2002.jpg http://www.knowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Grumpy-Cat-Happiness1.jpg Don't even bother trying to rescue this one, drop the concept and come up with something original.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
That's very likely not copyright infringement, it's maybe arguably infringing on the design mark but ehh. We don't know how he described it, but he specifically mentioned doing it again and naming it something other than "grumpy cat", so there is a pretty good chance that he was infringing on the word mark. Jet Ready Go posted:It's a loving cat and thousands of cats that look like that exist. It's like Firestone trying to sue me for a drawing a black tire. Because they're presumably going after you for trademark infringement instead of copyright infringement, it's more like pepsi going after you for making a shirt with a cartoon soda bottle and advertising it as a PEPSI shirt. EAT THE EGGS RICOLA fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Mar 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
Alterian posted:You were totally trying to copy grumpy cat. Just drop it and move on. It would be amazing you came up with a design that looks exactly like grumpy cat with the exact meme saying its known for completely on your own. If I saw that image without any prompting I would think it was suppose to be grumpy cat and anyone else familiar with grumpy cat would think the same. I may not have a clear understanding of how to certain laws work, but copying and homages are very different things. I am very aware that although comparisons can be made to MY design and the Grumpy Cat Cat.. they are NOT physically the same and are very much measurably different. It's like saying that ALL pictures of ORANGE CATS on blogs are Garfield and they should ALL be sued. How else do you sell Garbage Pail Kids or Wacky Packages? You think those guys got expressed written permission from the companies involved? EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:That's very likely not copyright infringement, it's maybe arguably infringing on the design mark but ehh. Yeah. That's what I was thinking. I still like my design, but I'll be making a lot of changes to it (and I don't mean just doing a color flip or anything) because I still LIKE the idea of having a cute upset cat going NOPE on a shirt. It'll just look drastically different. And I'm NOT aiming this at you ETER but some of you guys getting on my case.. get some fuckin' perspective.. most of you only JUST NOW learned that Grumpy Cat even HAD a copyright. Don't loving step up like you guys knew ALL along and telling me I should have known better. You guys are loving mental by trying to suggest I'm out of bounds by wanting to make an upset cat design as if Grumpy Cat now owns the monopoly on emotional cats or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:Don't loving step up like you guys knew ALL along and telling me I should have known better. We knew all along and you should have known better. If you're going to be producing art and selling it, you need to be well-versed on copyright. You should assume that your work will draw infringement claims from bigger fish. You should assume your work will be stolen by smaller fish. Protecting your work is as important as creating it. I'll repeat, since like most of our recent visitors you're more interested how you're treated than listening: Changing your design means NOTHING to your vendor unless you COPYRIGHT it. I love you jet ready go. I want your business to succeed. There is one, and only one, way for you to survive: CLICK HERE.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Changing your design means NOTHING to your vendor unless you COPYRIGHT it. Holy poo poo. Clearly you guys are misinterpreting SOMETHING along the lines here. Maybe you guys are too used to dealing with stubborn morons? Or dealing with people who always think they are right? OR SOMETHING? I don't KNOW. Basically the way I'm seeing this conversation is like this: Jet: Hey guys, can I do this? Everyone: Looks like you can't. Jet: What if I recolor it? Everyone: Might not help. Jet: Okay, I'll do something else then... which will also involve a cat. Random Rageheads: HAHAHA YOU CAN'T DO THAT EITHER! COPYRIGHTS! VENDORS! DON'T YOU SEE?! Jet: But I just said I'm doing everything differently. Random Rageheads: LALALALALA! GO SUCK EVERY PENIS YOU ENCOUNTER! It's a very VERY weird circular argument where even when I say I'm NOT going to be using that design and making something completely different.. that you guys still seem to be stuck on something I've already said I wasn't going to be doing. I've got NOTHING against gaining a copyright but holy crap you guys I'm dropping the design, coming up with a new one, using different colors. The only thing they'll share in common is animal species and frowning.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
I know that's what I was alluding to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
Your grumpy cat isn't a parody or satire of the grumpy cat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
Its also a cartoon drawing, which I believe real cats are not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
You also do not understand the difference between copyrightand trademark infringement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
FYI guys, this is what criminal lawyers do every day, just after the fact. I was only salvaging copper. From where? Houses That is illegal But they are abandoned Still illegal No one owns them I promise you someone owns them What if I only took pipe?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
So what's your opinion on these: EDIT: ^^^ What a beautiful way to make it sound like you have a point. What the argument SHOULD read is: nm posted:FYI guys, this is what criminal lawyers do every day, just after the fact. Jet Ready Go fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Mar 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
nm posted:FYI guys, this is what criminal lawyers do every day, just after the fact. Hey, I just rewatched my cousin Vinnie last night, I know the sorts of shenanigans you public defenders get into! You just need a hot, wise-rear end relative to be an expert witness. A truly serious question, nm: have you ever actually heard someone in a court ask the judge permission to treat someone as a hostile witness?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:I may not have a clear understanding of how to certain laws work, but copying and homages are very different things. I am very aware that although comparisons can be made to MY design and the Grumpy Cat Cat.. they are NOT physically the same and are very much measurably different. Had I known Grumpy Cat was a thing, I could have told you it had a copyright. Everything does without need for formality - you only need to formalize it to prove it or sue someone. So, actually, yes, I did know all along and you should have known better. Copying and homages are NOT very different things - that's the essence of the problem. They're the metaphorical two sides of the same coin. They're measurably different? You don't know what the legal measuring stick is, so how would you know? We could talk substantial similarity and all that, but you don't seem interested in listening to people who do it for a living telling you that it's not as simple as "it was a homage you guys!" We could talk about abstraction and protectable elements and the New Yorker cover and all sorts of fun other things that go into determining whether something is infringing even if its not a literal copy (hint: go up thread and look at those two magazine covers). We could tell you things about willful infringement and the standards for non-copying infringement (and by the way, all of this discussion would not help your case, since access and knowledge would be easier to prove). And then we could talk trademark, where standards get even fuzzier and remote similarities can kill you. But ultimately, if you want to make shirts with grumpy cats on them, you should probably look into a lawyer who can explain to you how to avoid your grumpy cat being seen as Grumpy Cat in the eyes of the law. We are not mocking you because it's fun or because we are full of rage - we are mocking you because you are quite literally nm's pipe-stealing crack head. You keep trying things and we keep telling you "no, that's probably not going to help" and then you get mad at us for telling you how it works.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:I may not have a clear understanding of how to certain laws work, but copying and homages are very different things. I am very aware that although comparisons can be made to MY design and the Grumpy Cat Cat.. they are NOT physically the same and are very much measurably different. Stop taking this so personally. You asked for advice, and you're getting good advice. Nobody's mental for thinking you're out of bounds in wanting to make an upset cat design for a t-shirt. You are out of bounds in wanting to make an upset cat design for a t-shirt. That's just fact. Why? Because the people who own the copyright on and a Trade Mark Application for Grumpy Cat think you are, and they are vigilant and well represented. Welcome to intellectual property, where common sense and justice for the little guy are on permanent vacations. You might be able to get away with it (but it's goddamn unlikely). But, even if you could, you're going to have to go through a very expensive hearing process and possibly even to court to find out (this is assuming you don't copyright your design like woozle wuzzle is telling you to and that the owners of Grumpy Cat are serious about this, which you have to assume they are). Do you want to go to court over a t-shirt? Didn't think so. Assume you're out of bounds, and stop putting grumpy-looking cats on t-shirts. It is not worth the grief coming your way if you continue. Bitch all you want about it, but your problem is with how intellectual property works, not the people telling you how it works. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Mar 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 06:25
|
|
|
Kalman posted:We are not mocking you because it's fun or because we are full of rage - we are mocking you because you are quite literally nm's pipe-stealing crack head. You keep trying things and we keep telling you "no, that's probably not going to help" and then you get mad at us for telling you how it works. No, I'm getting mad because I said I'm NOT USING THE DESIGN AT ALL and you guys are going above and beyond CONTINUING trying to prove I shouldn't use it. Edit 1: HELL.. looking back.. I've been saying I wasn't going to be using it since YESTERDAY. Out of everyone on this page the only person that seems to understand the GIST of what I'm saying was Baruch Obamawitz. My claim is that I can draw ANY UPSET CAT I want because Grumpy Cat does not OWN the rights to an FROWNING CAT. If it's a blue loving cat with 3 eyes, 2 tails, 5 legs and a BIG loving FROWN on his face I can draw it and sell it ALL i want because.. while it is loving GRUMPY it is not THE grumpy cat. It's no wonder there's so many loving lawsuits in America... even people who know the law can't read. Edit 2: VVVV - I'm getting frustrated because I AM listening to the advice AND I'm not using the design.. but when I ask questions to help clarify just "how far" the reach of copyright/trademark extends.. I'm met with accusations of copyright and trademark theft instead. Essentially my questions were formed in TWO stages.. but no one is allowing the first stage to be over despite me already being over it. They've convinced me it's not worth pursuing, and I didn't say they were wrong.. but they are CONTINUING to try to win an argument I ALREADY agree with. Jet Ready Go fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Mar 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 06:29
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:No, I'm getting mad because I said I'm NOT USING THE DESIGN AT ALL and you guys are going above and beyond CONTINUING trying to prove I shouldn't use it. Dude, people become lawyers because they're the type of person who must win every conversation. If you're not going to use the design at all or listen to any of the advice just  and go cry that the internet lawyers were mean to you. Nothing good can come of continued arguing in the thread, especially emotional arguing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:No, I'm getting mad because I said I'm NOT USING THE DESIGN AT ALL and you guys are going above and beyond CONTINUING trying to prove I shouldn't use it. No, everybody understands you want to use a completely different design. They're just telling you that the vendor's lawyer doesn't give a wet fart how different the design is, all he wants to see is copyright documentation for it. They're telling you that if you don't get some proof of copyright for whatever design you go with, it is never going to appear on a t-shirt from this vendor. quote:My claim is that I can draw ANY UPSET CAT I want because Grumpy Cat does not OWN the rights to an FROWNING CAT. That's maybe less that totally fair. But you're going to have to deal with it. quote:If it's a blue loving cat with 3 eyes, 2 tails, 5 legs and a BIG loving FROWN on his face I can draw it and sell it ALL i want because.. while it is loving GRUMPY it is not THE grumpy cat. quote:It's no wonder there's so many loving lawsuits in America... even people who know the law can't read. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Mar 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 06:41
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:No, everybody understands you want to use a completely different design. They're just telling you that the vendor's lawyer doesn't give a wet fart how different the design is, all he wants to see is copyright documentation for it. They're telling you that if you don't get some proof of copyright for whatever design you go with, it is never going to appear on a t-shirt from this vendor. Of course it still can. The vendor needs documentation for that specific design. Each design is considered a separate entity. I'm locked out of my initial design but going forward the vendor is still accepting my designs. Smudgie Buggler posted:Not how IP actually works, chum. Explain to this grumpy cat below how my NEW design infringes on anything now. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 06:52
|
|
|
Well, to start with, you labelled it "Grumpy Cat" e: if that's your design, you're hosed. ee: (yes I know that's from a real, early, Garfield strip) The point is, it doesn't need to be explained to you how it does infringe on anything. All your vendor's lawyer is interested in is proof that you design doesn't infringe on anything. It doesn't matter if you're submitting whatever you're going with as a new design. If it involves a less-than-cheerful cat, the lawyer is going to want to see some papers showing you own it. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 06:59 on Mar 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
Maybe that's what was misunderstood. The vendor is only asking for the paperwork for that one design. No other designs are affected and I'm not resubmitting anything to replace that design. But BA BAM.. I present to you.. Grumbly Feline.. ANGRY from being misunderstood and a freak of nature. He has exactly one too many of most of his features. He has a whole foot growing out of his one of his three assholes. That might make anyone feel a little bit.... GRUMPY! 
Jet Ready Go fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Mar 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 07:10
|
|
|
You drew Tard. Come up with a brand new idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 07:13
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:Dude, people become lawyers because they're the type of person who must win every conversation. Prove it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 13:13
|
|
|
This series of posts makes me happy I work at a larger firm representing mostly commercial entities where we generally only have to communicate with in-house counsel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
Cocoa Ninja posted:Hey, I just rewatched my cousin Vinnie last night, I know the sorts of shenanigans you public defenders get into! You just need a hot, wise-rear end relative to be an expert witness. They're all hostile witnesses. But no. Technically what would happen is tht you start leading them on direct, the other side objects, and when you go to sidebr, you'd say hostile witness or some poo poo. Never seen it happen. DAs do try to led everyone all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:Maybe that's what was misunderstood. The vendor is only asking for the paperwork for that one design. No other designs are affected and I'm not resubmitting anything to replace that design. You do not understand the difference between copyright infringement and trademark infringement. The words "Grumbly Feline" might be confusingly similar to "Grumpy Cat" no matter what kind of stupid cat you attach them to. The Garfield example you made literally has the words "Grumpy Cat" on it. You did the equivalent of drawing a shoe and writing "Adidas" on it, then trying to sell it. This is trademark infringement and has nothing to do with copyright.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 16:12
|
|
|
Honestly, what's happening is you're discrediting free legal advice. Send me $500 and I will make you a lovely memo detailing exactly how you're copying grumpy cat and why you're hosed, legally, complete with case cites.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:Jet: But I just said I'm doing everything differently. woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Mar 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:You do not understand the difference between copyright infringement and trademark infringement. I do. I was referring to the cat with 3 eyes, 2 tails and 5 legs as the new design. I was using Garfield as a joke because he is a grumpy cat. I literally took an image I found off the internet that Jim Davis OBVIOUSLY drew to put the words Grumpy Cat to SHOW it was a joke. I was using him as an example of a frowning cat to show two clearly different IPs share traits (frowning and being a cat) that will co-exist. EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:The words "Grumbly Feline" might be confusingly similar to "Grumpy Cat" no matter what kind of stupid cat you attach them to. How? Explain this. How are two completely different words can so broadly be protected under the law whereas someone can freely draw a parody of Mickey Mouse called Mickey RAT and it being OKAY for them INCLUDING having had published several issues of comics and it being labeled under parody? I also see that people are conveniently ignoring my very valid post about teefury (to name just one company) offering "parody" or "satirical" designs which look MUCH MUCH closer to the source material than mine ever did. woozle wuzzle posted:Then why are you still talking? You've got your answer. You should have known better, and we don't really care about your little performance here trying to save face. So toddle on along, draw more cats, and instead of posting here just ask your vendor's attorney about it next time. Because I'm trying to get clarification. What else would I want from a legal question thread? This isn't a performance as much as me asking multiple stages of questions and being met.. literally.. with "EVERYTHING you do is not okay" when the circumstances CHANGED and I'm asking about it from a DIFFERENT viewpoint. That's what I've been saying for the last few posts.. you literally read those posts and chose to ignore it and jumping on the bandwagon that I must be an idiot for asking MORE questions for clarification. Here's the new case.. let's hit a reset button. If you seriously continue complaining I "don't understand" you seriously have issues and should disbarred. Or if you aren't a lawyer. Get barred.. then get disbarred. Read the following. Super carefully. I understand I can not use the word Grumpy Cat. I understand I can not use any details which may be considered Grumpy Cats defining features which include things like coloration and placement of spots. I understand I should not describe the cat as being "Grumpy" to be safe. I also believe that people misunderstood my vendors request. The request was to claim ownership for the specific design and description I had handed in. I do not want to use it. This request does not carry into any new design I submit. Every new submission is considered a new submission. I still want to draw a cat. However have been met with "No you can never draw a cat that is frowning because your vendor wants you to prove it's your cat" which moves into the NEXT questions. My point was.. given all everyone said Garfield himself would be subject to lawsuit for infringing on it being "broadly a cat who is frowning." I tried to make my point humorously.. but this bit of humor was misunderstood as my attempting copyright infringement. I also understand that Garfield has got trademarks attached to its significant features and likeness and copyrights to its name. So this is the second stage of questions I had. I was asking why everyone felt Grumpy Cats trademark could so broadly encompass a frowning cat if frowning cats has existed as a concept ever since cats could be draw with emotions. As I understood it, it needs to be a combination of certain defining features (as listed in that Trademark) ALONG with but not limited to it frowning to be subject to lawsuit. Is this correct or incorrect? Also, given all that everyone has already said, what protects companies like TeeFury and not me that allows them to make and sell designs as follows: (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
You're just digging the hole deeper.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
Is this the thing with the goon digging a hole and then he gets stuck and decides to keep digging?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 18:22
|
|