copyright/trademark question

[farrijc]

When I go to etsy and look around at the cute birthday party stuff, I always see trademarked images like Dora, Elmo, etc. I think to myself, if I knew where to get those images, I could easily make my own stuff. Anyone know where they get them??

[newfiemountiewife]

It is my understanding that unless they pay Nickelodeon or Disney (or whomever) for rights to use them, they are in violation of copyright laws. I wouldn't go near a licensed character with a 10 foot pole! LOL!

[jessica31876]

Yes they had a big thing on the news a few years ago where a couple dressed in a tigger outfit for kids birthday parties and Disney sued them. Not sure if they won or not. And another case I remember is Dodge sued a local high school because they were "Rams" (school mascot & name of the teams). Apparently Dodge felt the logo they used for the team looked alot like the logo used for Dodge Ram. Dodge won the lawsuit and the school had to redesign their logo. I cannot remember how long they had or even the name of the school anymore though. Needless to say I might use a copyrighted character for personal use that only I would see but I wouldnt do it for profit.

Originally Posted by newfiemountiewife

It is my understanding that unless they pay Nickelodeon or Disney (or whomever) for rights to use them, they are in violation of copyright laws. I wouldn't go near a licensed character with a 10 foot pole! LOL!

[kristijoy]

I certainly wouldn't make a kit for sale, or post a bunch of free images on a blog...

I WOULD feel OK about scanning a paper party plate, printing it on my printer and sticking ONE on a scrapbook page to put in my own personal unpublished scrapbook! (I could have easily just cut-up the plate)

But I DON'T think I would feel comfortable if I scanned something and then printed a bunch of stuff to use as hybrid projects for the birthday party decorations.

Having said all that...I don't do any characters on my own scrapbook pages. It's just too commercial. If it shows up in a picture of the party table...fine.

[adrianka]

Honestly, I think the copyright issue has gone out of bounds, don't you think? As long as someone uses licensed stuff for personal purposes (like those guys dressing in costumes someone mentioned), it should be fine by my book. Once someone tries theire creations using licenced stuff, it's a different matter, of course.

I spent years writing fanfiction, which is borderline copyright violation, but with the fandoms I was in there was only one rule - no profit, no claiming you've invented the characters and the world that you didn't. Basta. I might add that this was accepted by the actual authors (George Lucas and J.K. Rowling in my case) even though I know of authors who ban fanfiction, which screams nonsense to me - how can you ban someone's imagination? I used to think fanfiction all my life without knowing what I was doing, so whoever wants to ban that is off their rocker.

ETA: I can see the point now with the guys dressing up... Yup, that was totally not OK. This renders my rant rather useless, even though I still think copyright law these days has crossed the border of sanity. :-)

[Ginger_79]

Disney will protect their copyrights like a grumpy tiger mommy will protect her young ones. In both cases I recommend to not come in between.

A lot of this stuff is very likely violating copyright terms. Some companies let you have images for CU fees, but I have NEVER heard of Disney doing that. So I doubt you'll find Disney stuff to legally use. However, not sure about the other characters.

[adrianka]

Originally Posted by Ginger_79

Disney will protect their copyrights like a grumpy tiger mommy will protect her young ones. In both cases I recommend to not come in between.

LOL, so true.

[newfiemountiewife]

Originally Posted by Ginger_79

Disney will protect their copyrights like a grumpy tiger mommy will protect her young ones. In both cases I recommend to not come in between.

A lot of this stuff is very likely violating copyright terms. Some companies let you have images for CU fees, but I have NEVER heard of Disney doing that. So I doubt you'll find Disney stuff to legally use. However, not sure about the other characters.

LOL...you're right! I heard of Disney suing a Daycare because they had Mickey Mouse painted on their walls.

I think if they do offer licensing, it would be so extremely expensive (think millions) that it wouldn't be feasible for us regular people.

[DaniW]

I just did a page about my son's obsession with Cars and made a bunch of character stickers from images I found online. I was wondering about posting the page - maybe I won't!!!

[MamaBee]

A few years ago when I was researching on starting a scrapping for other business... the Disney punches/stickers, etc that EKSuccess has out was not approved for S4O use... the same was for Martha Stewart punches... so pretty much across the board, EK would not let you use their designs to make a profit. It's amazing how many companies did not allow S4O... or you have to write them directly get permission... granted this could have changed. I haven't looked at TOU for S4O in over 4 years.

[adrianka]

Originally Posted by MamaBee

A few years ago when I was researching on starting a scrapping for other business... the Disney punches/stickers, etc that EKSuccess has out was not approved for S4O use... the same was for Martha Stewart punches... so pretty much across the board, EK would not let you use their designs to make a profit. It's amazing how many companies did not allow S4O... or you have to write them directly get permission... granted this could have changed. I haven't looked at TOU for S4O in over 4 years.

This is really insane. It's as if Adobe didn't allow people to make profit by anything made in Photoshop. Those are just tools. Whatever you create is yours. That's how I see it. I don't say copyright shouldn't be protected, but this is absurd.

[adrianka]

Originally Posted by newfiemountiewife

LOL...you're right! I heard of Disney suing a Daycare because they had Mickey Mouse painted on their walls.

I think if they do offer licensing, it would be so extremely expensive (think millions) that it wouldn't be feasible for us regular people.

But isn't it sick really? I mean - there have to be some limitations to copyright protection. The situation in Europe is much less strict, and I'm very happy about it. When I was still in the HP fandom I remember there were 12-year-olds threathened to be sued in the US because they had a fan webpage. Like. Come on.

[newfiemountiewife]

I guess I'm of the opinion that they created the art work, so it's up to them how they want to share (or not!) it.

I used to create birth announcements, and it really tanned my hide when people copied my designs and sold them on etsy or ebay without permission. And I was just a small time artist. People can make a lot of money on Disney items, so it's only fair IMO that Disney get their share since it's their items. But I see it from that point of view because I've been on the other side of being ripped off.

ETA: I didn't have the financial means or desire to go and sue these people for ripping me off, however, Disney does, and I wouldn't mess with them!

[adrianka]

Originally Posted by newfiemountiewife

I guess I'm of the opinion that they created the art work, so it's up to them how they want to share (or not!) it.

In my humble opinion, the example I've been reacting to was double licensing - once they allow EK / MS to sell punches with their artwork, the customer buying them should be allowed to use them for whatever purpose as long as they don't claim they invented Disney characters (nobody would believe them anyway). EK / MS had to pay for being able to use those images, and I think it must have been a lot, so I think charging an average hobby artist AGAIN is downright stupid.

[adrianka]

Originally Posted by tx-nana-scraps

Years ago one of my brothers was in charge of a large recreation department and he drew a picture of Snoopy for their day-camp newsletter. Well, a 'spy' saw it and contacted Charles Schultz the artist, who owned the comic strip, and they sent my brother a cease and desist letter.

This letter was a warning to remove their cartoon character ASAP or risk being sued. Needless to say, he removed the Snoopy character he drew.

Many large companies have spies all over the world whose job it is to look for infringements on copyrighted items. Smartest thing is to stay away from them and not get yourself caught in a possible lawsuit.

Haha. I would have been sued multiple times as a child, I used to drew Snoopy for my friends... and other characters as well. This is what I call absurd. Like, you cannot limit creativity. Even Disney people got inspired somewhere. And, if you think about it, people like Shakespeare would found themselves in breach of copyright if they lived today.

Sueing little children or teenagers! Come on. They should be PROUD to have triggered someone's imagination.

[Traci Reed]

The issue is not whether or not you draw or use their characters for pleasure, it's whether you use them for profit. While I think that Disney takes it a little far, I understand why.

[adrianka]

Originally Posted by Traci Reed

The issue is not whether or not you draw or use their characters for pleasure, it's whether you use them for profit. While I think that Disney takes it a little far, I understand why.

Yup, I totally understand the profit part. No objections there. We'd all be angry if somebody used OUR creative stuff for profit without asking us (it once happened to me that somebody stole a poem of mine and pretended it was theirs - there wasn't even profit involved, but YES I got angry, and HOW). But I've read too many stories where people got into trouble even when using licenced stuff for pleasure - like, fan pages and fanfiction. Especially when minors were involved. That seems stretching it a bit too far IMHO. That's why I always loved how George Lucas and LucasArts were approaching this - actually encouraging FAN creations for personal pleasure. Thumbs up for them.

[SweetMelissa]

Another angle to look at is that if someone takes a Disney character and uses for it something illegal or maybe they make a poster for pro-life. Then people would see that sign with Mickey Mouse on it for pro-life & think that Disney is connected to it some how. It could affect Disney's image. Just another way to look at it.

[newfiemountiewife]

Originally Posted by mamaof3

Another angle to look at is that if someone takes a Disney character and uses for it something illegal or maybe they make a poster for pro-life. Then people would see that sign with Mickey Mouse on it for pro-life & think that Disney is connected to it some how. It could affect Disney's image. Just another way to look at it.

That is something else to consider for sure! I hadn't thought of that! I was just thinking that Disney didn't want anyone making money off their brand (which is their right).

[Ginger_79]

To clarify, I never said it's not their good right to act like this. Personally I think Disney sometimes goes a bit insane, but well... it sure is one of the most precious brands and owns some of the best known graphic characters worldwide. Not to mention most of the money these days probably comes from merchandise. So I figure if they'd be less fierce, there will be piracy all-over.

Just wanted to make sure, that farrijc knows that it's a very very dangerous thing to mess around with Disney characters. At least for anything public or commercial.

[Ginger_79]

Oh and btw, the thing mamaof3 mentioned is actually the biggest issue about luxury article fakes. My oldest friend works in marketing at Louis Vuitton. He says the main damage is not the people "stealing" money from the company. Most customers wouldn't have bought the full-prize version ever.

It's the loss of reputation, when people see or unknowingly use obviously low quality items with their logo. If you buy such a bag on Ebay (then it's your own fault...but anyway...) and it only lasts a year, you might tell your friends, that the stuff really is just an overpriced brand (which it is, IMO) and has no real quality what so ever (which admittingly the original has). Or you see a fake bag from your neighbour and think: "They don't look that good up close..." You get the picture.

[crecia27]

Originally Posted by mamaof3

Another angle to look at is that if someone takes a Disney character and uses for it something illegal or maybe they make a poster for pro-life. Then people would see that sign with Mickey Mouse on it for pro-life & think that Disney is connected to it some how. It could affect Disney's image. Just another way to look at it.

This is a very good point I've never thought of. Disney (for example) has to treat all infringements the same or risk all kinds of fall out from the ones they did target. I just thought someone had too much time on their hands