Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Cafe Press just pulled one of my images. Copyright infringement?

I see nothing wrong with it. Although I am no lawyer and I am pretty sure they would see something wrong with it.

If you want a great example of copywrite infringement look no farther then Family Guy. They even have an episode where they make fun of themselves for it then Peter turns into Mickey Mouse! If fox can get away with it im sure you can :)
 
chrono1081 said:
I see nothing wrong with it. Although I am no lawyer and I am pretty sure they would see something wrong with it.

If you want a great example of copywrite infringement look no farther then Family Guy. They even have an episode where they make fun of themselves for it then Peter turns into Mickey Mouse! If fox can get away with it im sure you can :)
Click to expand...

I hope you are kidding. FOX got P-E-R-M-I-S-S-I-O-N. The OP did not.
 
FWIW, cafepress being a private company can refuse to use any image for any reason they'd like. Protecting themselves from lawsuits is one of the more honorable reasons to do so.

They have the right to refuse your image just because they don't like you (as long as it's not for discriminatory reasons covered under federal law).

You have the right to go somewhere else if you don't like it.

To put it another way to try to put it in perspective. This poor guy at cafepress gets two emails. One is from a pissed-off customer that sells a few t-shirts. The other is from a lawyer of a large corporation. If you're the poor guy at cafepress which are you going to be more concerned about making happy?
 
honestly... every aspect of the character is part of a TM. i used to work on gumby merch and even the relationship of white to color in his eyes is specific... where he's looking EVERYTHING!

I'm very sure MM's spec's and TM are even wider and MORE closely watched.
consider yourself VERY LUCKY it's just cafepress thats pulled you and that Disney hasnt noticed it yet in two years, no doubt youd be sued! if one of your customers was seen at Disney wearing this... they would have been held and questioned.

change the gloves. the Black splat to a new color, and the short too, mabe plad w/ black smaller buttons.

BE HAPPY.
 
Here is an excellent article written about "Parody" and "Fair use" in legal terms-
http://www.publaw.com/parody.html

Point is, I could have fought this and had some grounds to stand on. It would have cost me thousands of dollars in legal fees that would have greatly out weighed the $57+- I have made on selling the shirts.

There of course would have been no guarentee that I would have won and from the historical research Ive done in the past day or two the odds were about 50/50.

I never had any desire to fight this battle but I was very curious to hear CafePress explain to me why it was wrong.

There explanation is this, "we arent sure if this a copyright infringement but we are sure that we dont want to find out the hard way".

I can understand that and thats a way better excuse then the one I was expecting :)

There are of course no laws keeping me from posting the images or creating more "parody art"...
I just cant sell them on shirts.
 
from publaw's parody page:

the fair-use defense if successful will only be successful when the newly created work that purports itself to be parody is a valid parody.


I'm not sure your image could really even be considered a parody. It makes no point. It does not satirize or imitate. A comic could get away with something similar, only if the artist explained the splat.

I understand why you're upset and want to protect your free speech, but make sure that you have a leg to stand on before you stand up for yourself.
 
what if you changed the color scheme, maybe added a finger or something. Maybe than it would not appear so much as Mickey Mouse. Or maybe rearrange the placement of the objects.

On a side note, I'm not sure it even is a copyright infringement; however, as you and others have mentioned, it would be futile and too much of a hassle to absolve this matter legally.
 
Tilpots said:
from publaw's parody page:

the fair-use defense if successful will only be successful when the newly created work that purports itself to be parody is a valid parody.


I'm not sure your image could really even be considered a parody. It makes no point. It does not satirize or imitate. A comic could get away with something similar, only if the artist explained the splat.

I understand why you're upset and want to protect your free speech, but make sure that you have a leg to stand on before you stand up for yourself.
Click to expand...

Its really not a big deal. I was upset at first but have since calmed down and moved on.
 
Aside from other factors in determining fair use, I don't think the image really constitutes parody.

Parody is more imitative in nature. For instance, parodies of the Mona Lisa involve some person/figure/character sitting in the Mona Lisa pose, usually with the Mona Lisa background and clothing.

In the case of the image in question, there is no visual link to a recognized image of Mickey Mouse. Instead it is a new work using a trademark and possibly the copyrighted "design" of Mickey Mouse. I don't think it would hold up under scrutiny for parody.

Take care,

Jesse Widener

Art and Structure
www.artandstructure.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back