PDA

View Full Version : Copyright Concerns



Basil
07-11-2008, 08:51 AM
Over the years, I've taken the occasional bit of grief over my stance on not posting copyrighted material here. One of the few times I've had to ban someone was over the continual posting of copy-righted pictures that included Disney images. The person continued to post them despite repeated requests not to do so. As the below story illustrates, some companies take their copyrights and trademarks very seriously:

Disney sues family (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/07/11/children-s-entertainers-hit-with-multi-million-dollar-lawsuit-by-disney-89520-20639427/)

Shane
07-11-2008, 08:58 AM
That's really sad. I'm sure Walt would be proud...

tomshobby
07-11-2008, 09:05 AM
Disney is doing the right thing and so are you Basil.
Theft is theft and if let go where does it end.

DrEntropy
07-11-2008, 09:49 AM
On a bit of an aside, those with copyrighted material as their means of earning their daily bread may find Googling: "The Orphan Works Act" a bit enlightening/angering.

Steve
07-11-2008, 12:09 PM
I have heard of that, it's stirring up a lot of anger in the artist community that's for certain.

DrEntropy
07-11-2008, 01:16 PM
It NEEDS to stir up anger right across the Republic!!

aerog
07-11-2008, 01:29 PM
Yup - it's absurd. People don't really "get" the whole copyright and intellectual rights thing, but it really is just out and out theft. It hit home with me a couple of years ago when a picture I'd taken was sent to me in one of those emails full of "funny" pictures - with someone else's website and "by xyzpdq" signatures on it.

I know they can be defeated by someone really dedicating themselves to stealing images, but I try to watermark my images at least a little bit with a copyright notice, my name, and my website address. Anything that has had any commercial value to me gets an embedded watermark that is harder to remove than a signature. People on the photo forums gripe about that stuff - that's too bad.

Anyway, info on the orphan works bill is here (https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20896643/).

DrEntropy
07-11-2008, 02:57 PM
We are so inculcated with images, most folks think they just magically "appear" and there's no effort or thought put into it. We've had people tell US what they would pay after we'd done the work and billed for it, had some who thought they could take logo designs we'd created and hand the "proofs" over to a niece or nephew in high school for "duplication"... It's bad enough as it is, we do NOT need to obfuscate intellectual property rights further by allowing the GOVERNMENT to dictate who owns or is entitled to use it. GAH! Just have a look at the Marx "Communist Manifesto": his primary is the removal of all right to property.

WHAT are the Congress THINKING?!?!

...We're frightened.

BIBBER
07-11-2008, 07:06 PM
and where did the BCF header come from...and everyone better double check their avatars and hope the BCF logo flags are self drawn and protected..come on...there's infringement and then there's INFRINGEMENT...sometimes one just gets fed up with it...I'm sure if someone from Disney had picked up the phone and called them...........we are still reasonable human beings aren't we?

angelfj1
07-11-2008, 07:36 PM
I just hope that Mickey and Minnie are just as dilligent in pursuing the big time abusers are they were these unfortunates!

Basil
07-11-2008, 08:48 PM
we are still reasonable human beings aren't we?

Unfortunately - NO.

DNK
07-11-2008, 10:17 PM
Over the years, I've taken the occasional bit of grief over my stance on not posting copyrighted material here. One of the few times I've had to ban someone was over the continual posting of copy-righted pictures that included Disney images. The person continued to post them despite repeated requests not to do so. As the below story illustrates, some companies take their copyrights and trademarks very seriously:

Disney sues family (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/07/11/children-s-entertainers-hit-with-multi-million-dollar-lawsuit-by-disney-89520-20639427/)

You mean like this...


Edited by Member (<span style="color: #99FFFF">7/11/08</span> 07.52 AM) :devilgrin: :jester:

terriphill
07-11-2008, 11:24 PM
tomshobby,
I agree with you. Its strange because this is sad that this couple who are trying to make ends meet are seemingly being "crushed" by megamillionaire Disney....but let's face it..where do you draw the line? Its like speed limits...the sign says 60, so we all do 65 figuring that they won't stop us for 5 over the limit. Then we get stopped and feel frustrated becuase there are people out there driving 80, but that doesn't excuse us does it? We were going faster than the posted limit. If they don't pull us over for 65, will we all do 70 figuring that its only 5 over what they "allow" and then everyone's going 70 so we go 75 and on into infinity.
It seems cruel, but they were breaking the law and you have to hold the line, even with a poor, welfare couple trying to support their kids. Don't they have to obey the laws too?

Shane
07-12-2008, 12:41 AM
Sure, they have to obey the laws as well. When you get caught, you pay a fine. A reasonable fine that is not designed to put your family into bankruptcy and destroy any hope of a financial future. Disney sent them a letter with seven demands, they immediately met every single demand, with the exception of one. They returned the costumes to the manufacturer in Peru instead of submitting them to Disney for destruction. They needed the money from the refund. Instead of going after the manufacturer in Peru, Disney has to crush these blatant impostors that have tarnished the Disney image for tens and tens of children. I'm sure the attorneys at Disney will figure out some way to justify the multi-million dollar loss that this couple caused. I have no problem with protecting intellectual property, but the way that some if it is policed is pathetic.

DrEntropy
07-12-2008, 05:31 AM
Imagine if you will:

You see a car... convertible... a most unusual one. Bulbous, with balloon tires and of a color to defy reason. It chuffs, coughs and hiccups as it progresses. Further, it has an unusual driver; one with overly large round ears. This driver looks oddly inhuman, more like an overinflated rodent than anything else. While you gaze incongruously at this apparition going past you notice it has a bumper sticker... then in an effeminate voice you hear the driver quote the sticker's phrase:

"MY LAWYER CAN BEAT UP YOUR LAWYER!"

...and it just ran over the neighbor's cat...


:devilgrin:

ObiRichKanobi
07-12-2008, 07:44 AM
I work for a company that sells custom insignia, i.e. badges, patches, pins, medallions, etc. Part of the process is to provide the customer an art proof of what their product will look like. These proofs are copyrighted, and sometimes it takes 2 or more revisions to get them tweaked to the customer's satisfaction. Then the customer "falls off the face of the earth." When I contact them to find out what's going on, 9 times out of 10 it's "we decided to go with somebody else." When I mention that I hope they didn't use our artwork with the other company since it's copyrighted, that's usually met with dead silence....

As far as the poor couple trying to make ends meet...I bet if they had done things the right way, approached Disney with a proposal, they could have gotten a license for appearing as their copyrighted/trademarked characters. Sure, they'd have to pay Disney a royalty, but that's the legal, above board way to go. In my business we use copyrighted/trademarked images and logos all the time, but not without the express permission of the owners and paying any required royalties.

Shane
07-12-2008, 08:13 AM
Imagine if you will:

You see a car... convertible... a most unusual one. Bulbous, with balloon tires and of a color to defy reason. It chuffs, coughs and hiccups as it progresses. Further, it has an unusual driver; one with overly large round ears. This driver looks oddly inhuman, more like an overinflated rodent than anything else. While you gaze incongruously at this apparition going past you notice it has a bumper sticker... then in an effeminate voice you hear the driver quote the sticker's phrase:

"MY LAWYER CAN BEAT UP YOUR LAWYER!"

...and it just ran over the neighbor's cat...


:devilgrin:





:lol: Good one, Doc!

martx-5
07-12-2008, 09:15 AM
I worked for a water pump rebuilder many years ago here on Long Island, and the owner was looking for a logo. We had a customer who was a graphic designer by trade, but sold auto parts to supplement his income. He came up with a nice logo that sort of implied the action of a spinning water pump impeller. OK, we started using the logo. About a year later when I was up in Connecticut I saw a a truck go by (https://www.edarttruck.com/about-us.asp) with virtually the same logo as this "graphic designer" gave us. There were some minor changes, but it was obvious where he got the idea from. I told the owner about this, but he just let it slide. He never mentioned anything to the "graphic designer". Nothing ever came of it, I left the company, and a couple of years after that the owner died...in his early fifties...and the business dissolved.

But, suppose the water pump business blossemed, and it was now a national entity. The trucking company sees the logo and contests the copyright. Well, the water pump rebuilder "bought it" from the graphic designer! The trucking company was using the logo ten years before the pump rebuilder was in business. Who's gonna pay for the copyright infringement?? The pump rebuilder?? Or the graphic designer?? Or both??

Shane
07-12-2008, 10:59 AM
But, suppose the water pump business blossemed, and it was now a national entity. The trucking company sees the logo and contests the copyright. Well, the water pump rebuilder "bought it" from the graphic designer! The trucking company was using the logo ten years before the pump rebuilder was in business. Who's gonna pay for the copyright infringement?? The pump rebuilder?? Or the graphic designer?? Or both??

Whoever registered the logo first.

bugimike
07-12-2008, 11:21 AM
Bah! All I can do is reiterate Doc.s citing the "Orphan Works Act" and urge those who agree with Basil, Doc., Tomshobby and myself to look into it and then write to your representatives and urge them to vote against legalizing the theft of work from the rightful owners (usually "needy" artists). It is unAmerican!!!!RESPECT COPYRIGHTS!!

Sarastro
07-12-2008, 08:04 PM
As far as the poor couple trying to make ends meet...I bet if they had done things the right way, approached Disney with a proposal, they could have gotten a license for appearing as their copyrighted/trademarked characters. Sure, they'd have to pay Disney a royalty, but that's the legal, above board way to go. In my business we use copyrighted/trademarked images and logos all the time, but not without the express permission of the owners and paying any required royalties.

Yes, that's true. However, I think Disney could have done the same thing--approached them, reminded them of the law, and done a licensing agreement. Instead, they came down hard on poor people. This is bullying, even if it is legally justified. No wonder the latter have a lot of sympathy.

I'm a principal of a software company. We get pirated a lot. When we find some company using our stuff illegally, we contact them, tell them we know about it and we'd like to have them as legitimate customers, so how about buying a few legal copies (the number depending on how much illegal use they are guilty of)? We end up with a customer, they're off the hook, everyone is happy. I think this approach makes a lot more sense.

bugimike
07-13-2008, 10:18 AM
Kudos to you Steve!!! That is a very sensible way to handle an infringement once it does occur!!!

mailbox
07-13-2008, 08:58 PM
As far as the poor couple trying to make ends meet...I bet if they had done things the right way, approached Disney with a proposal, they could have gotten a license for appearing as their copyrighted/trademarked characters. Sure, they'd have to pay Disney a royalty, but that's the legal, above board way to go. In my business we use copyrighted/trademarked images and logos all the time, but not without the express permission of the owners and paying any required royalties.

Yes, that's true. However, I think Disney could have done the same thing--approached them, reminded them of the law, and done a licensing agreement. Instead, they came down hard on poor people. This is bullying, even if it is legally justified. No wonder the latter have a lot of sympathy.

I'm a principal of a software company. We get pirated a lot. When we find some company using our stuff illegally, we contact them, tell them we know about it and we'd like to have them as legitimate customers, so how about buying a few legal copies (the number depending on how much illegal use they are guilty of)? We end up with a customer, they're off the hook, everyone is happy. I think this approach makes a lot more sense.



I agree. Disney was right in protecting it's copyright, but it could have done it in a better fashion.

Brooklands
07-14-2008, 07:01 AM
This copyright situation has come up in the small hobby of HO slot cars too. One person was making the stickers to restore older 1970's HO cars where the original stickers had deteriorated with use and age. He was issued with a cease and desist order because many of the graphics on the stickers were "sponsor" adds for race cars. Aurora had gotten the rights to using these logos, but the hobbyist had not, so these restoration stickers are no longer available.

tony barnhill
07-14-2008, 11:27 AM
Nothing new...Coca Cola regularly sues restaurants that sell Pepsi or some other drink when a customer orders a "Coke"....most restaurants tell you they don't have Coca Cola products when you order a "Coke" to protect themselves.

Shane
07-14-2008, 05:25 PM
EBay vs Tiffany...

EBay wins copyright Battle (https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2325578,00.asp)

DrEntropy
07-14-2008, 06:17 PM
The New York court made a ruling with logic and thought. Not so the French court...

feh.