by Lois Taitagu » Tue, 23 Apr 2002 05:51:19
by Pat Kigh » Tue, 23 Apr 2002 09:30:28
> Does anyone have any definitive information on the issue of using
> reproductions of copyrighted characters in the sale of crafts? I
> think I understand Disney's rule (don't ever!) but what about Looney
> Tune characters? What about using fabric printed with Disney or
> Looney Tune characters to make items for sale? I'd be very interested
> to know what experience others have had, or if anyone has received
> instructions from companies directly. Thanks a bunch.
Prepare for disappointment. The media conglomerates that own these
characters make a *lot* of money licensing products, and are not likely
to make exceptions for small crafters.
--Pat Kight
by Lois Taitagu » Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:01:30
>Prepare for disappointment. The media conglomerates that own these
>characters make a *lot* of money licensing products, and are not likely
>to make exceptions for small crafters.
>--Pat Kight
by Duchas de Abr » Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:10:57
by Pat Kigh » Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:53:10
>>I'm beginning to
>>think it isn't worth the risk.
> I don't think the risk is that great, and
> I have probably violated copyright laws myself.
> I'm an artist who is quite capable of inventing
> my own characters. On the other hand, I've
> produced art work that parodies that of other
> artists, and walked the fine line in that regard.
Using fabric printed with Disney or Looney Tunes characters to create
items for sale, without permission of the license owner, is not - and
the media conglomerates are remarkably good at both finding out about it
and taking people - even "little people" to court.
(Personally, I don't care what the legal risk is - I respect copyright
because I respect the intellectual property of other artists).
--Pat Kight
by Lois Taitagu » Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:48:26
>Using fabric printed with Disney or Looney Tunes characters to create
>items for sale, without permission of the license owner, is not - and
>the media conglomerates are remarkably good at both finding out about it
>and taking people - even "little people" to court.
>(Personally, I don't care what the legal risk is - I respect copyright
>because I respect the intellectual property of other artists).
>--Pat Kight
by Duchas de Abr » Thu, 25 Apr 2002 00:13:40
>>Parody is explictly protected by US copyright statute and case law.
>Interesting! To what extent? When does use of someone
>else's imagery become parody?
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 92-1292
LUTHER R. CAMPBELL aka LUKE SKYYWALKER, et al., PETITIONERS v. ACUFF ROSE
MUSIC, INC.
[March 7, 1994]
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth
circuit
Justice Kennedy concurring.
"...parody may qualify as fair use only if it draws upon the original
composition to make humorous or ironic commentary about that
same composition. "
=========================================================================
In other words, you can't take, say, the Microsoft logo and use it to make a
parody about evil corporations destroying the ozone layer. Also, the parody has
to be sufficiently distinct from the original to be recognizable as a parody.
In the Supreme Court decision, there are four qualifying
"rules" on determining the legality of "parody" but the one
quoted above seems to be the defining one.
by Pat Kigh » Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:15:04
> >Parody is explictly protected by US copyright statute and case law.
> Interesting! To what extent?
The right to parody copyrighted works has consistently been upheld in
court (most recently in the case of the woman who wrote a novel based on
"Gone With the Wind," but from the slaves' perspectives.
Of course, that won't stop the Big Guys from suing, but it does improve
the parodist's chance of winning.
When does use of someone
--Pat Kight
by Lois Taitagu » Fri, 26 Apr 2002 21:12:53
Thank you x 3! That's exactly what I wanted, and spent hours seaching
and couldn't find. Who would have thought it would be on the US
Copyright Office web page!?!? Only a bear with a brain.
by Duchas de Abr » Fri, 26 Apr 2002 23:49:18
And disagreement on what the law says is the
reason cases go all the way to the Supreme
Court, as in the case I cited in another post
to this thread which was a test of the "parody"
aspect of copyright law:
Luther R. Campbell (aka Luke Skywalker) et al,
petitioners versus Acuff Rose Music, Inc.
Thanks for your feedback. It's been educational.
3. Copyright-free clip art - Legal Question
4. New US Copyright Agreement.
5. Pattern Usage and Copyrights
7. copyrights
8. Selling Crafts from Magazines - Copyright Issues?
10. Copyright restrictions on craftwork?
11. Rubber Stamps and copyright laws
13. Oh no, another copyright question.
14. Copyrights, Trademarks - Information for Artisans