Louis Vuitton are not happy about bag cakes!

Decorating By saracupcake Updated 13 Mar 2013 , 2:43pm by GloriCreations

ccr03 Posted 26 Feb 2009 , 10:35pm
post #31 of 127

Cake purses are NOT considered parodies.

Yes, parodies are legal. No, you do not need to get a person's permission to use.

The legality of parodies was established with the case of Falwell vs. Flynt. Larry Flynt printed an obscene cartoon of Jerry Falwell in Hustler. Phelps sued for libel and defamation. He lost. The judge ruled that given the Falwell of the cartoon, it was considered parody. No one was truly going to believe the Phelps cartoon because 1. it was a cartoon and 2. it was a cartoon in a nudity magazine.
( http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/9701/11/falwell.v.flynt/lkl.00.html )

The replication of a purse would not be considered a parody. It is not attempting to extract humor for the situation. On the contrary, they are deliberately made to look like a replica, thus bordering on copyright infringement.

See? I did pay attention in mass media law class! icon_smile.gif

-K8memphis Posted 26 Feb 2009 , 10:44pm
post #32 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by txcupcake

Quote:
Originally Posted by indydebi

Quote:
Originally Posted by txcupcake

Besides, it's rather hard to produce evidence when its in someone's tummy. icon_lol.gif



So as long as I smoke the reefer fast enough, it's ok? icon_biggrin.gif



No, you have to flush weed. Duh! icon_lol.gif




Smoke???


Quote:
Originally Posted by littlecake

Quote:
Originally Posted by k8memphis

Well you all will have to come bake me cake and bail me outa jail for my raucous living and dastardly deeds.

icon_biggrin.gif
(btw--cakes are not purses, pretty sure.)



I'll bring you a cake with a file baked in it..




File???

Dude, if you ain't baking it in the brownies fahghedahbodit!!! icon_lol.gif

tx_cupcake Posted 26 Feb 2009 , 10:57pm
post #33 of 127

There is a huge difference between selling a purse that's supposed to look like an LV purse and selling a CAKE that's supposed to look like an LV purse. They are apples and oranges (which means, as I stated earlier, that no reasonable person would mistake a cake for a purse).

Disney, Warner Bros., etc. won't allow the manufacturing of specific decorations to be placed on cakes without their okay. Conveniently, they make cake decorations so there is technically no need for a bakery to make their own without infringing on copyrights. In other words, Disney-made decor and homemade Disney rip-off decor = apples and apples because a reasonable person could mistake an awesomely crafted gumpaste Snow White for a Disney-manufactured Snow White.

Now, a lot of bakers get around this copyright by interpreting Disney's copyrighted designs in a way that Disney can not manufacture. For example, Courtney at Cake Nouveau has a beautiful Snow White inspired cake on her website (I can't post a specific link, but it's on the second page of her gallery).

It's obviously Disney, but not in the same way a gumpaste statue of Snow White is Disney. Why? You can buy a statue of Snow White from Disney, but you can't buy the essence of Snow White. Apples and oranges.

Anyway, the point of this long-a$$ post is to say that unless you are comparing apples to apples there really isn't a point. I doubt that LV would have a very strong case based on the reasonable person paradigm.

Whew! Now where's my drink? icon_lol.gif

Kitagrl Posted 26 Feb 2009 , 11:01pm
post #34 of 127

I went online and found a pic of the cake and it certainly was not what I expected. Most of the LV purse cakes here on CC can run circles around the one in question. Its not even standing up...its lying flat on the cake board. icon_confused.gif

-K8memphis Posted 26 Feb 2009 , 11:07pm
post #35 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by txcupcake

There is a huge difference between selling a purse that's supposed to look like an LV purse and selling a CAKE that's supposed to look like an LV purse. They are apples and oranges (which means, as I stated earlier, that no reasonable person would mistake a cake for a purse).

Disney, Warner Bros., etc. won't allow the manufacturing of specific decorations to be placed on cakes without their okay. Conveniently, they make cake decorations so there is technically no need for a bakery to make their own without infringing on copyrights. In other words, Disney-made decor and homemade Disney rip-off decor = apples and apples because a reasonable person could mistake an awesomely crafted gumpaste Snow White for a Disney-manufactured Snow White.

Now, a lot of bakers get around this copyright by interpreting Disney's copyrighted designs in a way that Disney can not manufacture. For example, Courtney at Cake Nouveau has a beautiful Snow White inspired cake on her website (I can't post a specific link, but it's on the second page of her gallery).

It's obviously Disney, but not in the same way a gumpaste statue of Snow White is Disney. Why? You can buy a statue of Snow White from Disney, but you can't buy the essence of Snow White. Apples and oranges.

Anyway, the point of this long-a$$ post is to say that unless you are comparing apples to apples there really isn't a point. I doubt that LV would have a very strong case based on the reasonable person paradigm.

Whew! Now where's my drink? icon_lol.gif





^^^ Yeah, what she said ^^^

Carolynlovescake Posted 26 Feb 2009 , 11:17pm
post #36 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by indydebi

I can do a naked Minnie Mouse humping Goofy and Disney certainly wouldn't want THAT kind of "free publicity" on their character / creation.




DEEEEEBI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just cleaned my desk and computers off this morning and everything was nice and clean.

Now there is Dr. Pepper dripping from my nose, running down my screen and all over the keyboard.

And not to mention, I WAS wearing my favorite around the house top and had to change.

icon_lol.gif

AznZulia Posted 26 Feb 2009 , 11:18pm
post #37 of 127

Yes, me agree, too! icon_biggrin.gif

johnson6ofus Posted 26 Feb 2009 , 11:19pm
post #38 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by txcupcake

Disney's copyrighted designs in a way that Disney can not manufacture. For example, Courtney at Cake Nouveau has a beautiful Snow White inspired cake on her website (I can't post a specific link, but it's on the second page of her gallery).

It's obviously Disney, but not in the same way a gumpaste statue of Snow White is Disney. Why? You can buy a statue of Snow White from Disney, but you can't buy the essence of Snow White.




Awww, comeon... Disney CAN manufacture ANYTHING. My Hubby wants Snow White with big exposed tattas. If the essense is Disney, it IS Disney. Exactly like Indydebi said--- Mickey humping Goofy. Disney does it to protect their image/ character. They DON"T want an "altered" image of theirs out there. Do you want your 5 year old to ask, "When did Snow White get those boobies?" icon_biggrin.gif
So while you cannot make Snow White, and you cannot make a version of Snow White... you are free to make a forest maiden, munckin girlfriend, or forest princess---- just NOT Snow White. If , as stated above, "it is obviously Disney..."--- THAT IS TEXTBOOK COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

Amia Posted 26 Feb 2009 , 11:22pm
post #39 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitagrl

I went online and found a pic of the cake and it certainly was not what I expected. Most of the LV purse cakes here on CC can run circles around the one in question. Its not even standing up...its lying flat on the cake board. icon_confused.gif




I'm surprised Disney hasn't gone after them too. Did anyone else look at their gallery? They have all kinds of copyright infringement going on.

http://www.designer-cakes.com/tiger-3d.php - 3d tiger? Really? Cuz most tigers look EXACTLY like Tigger, with the long face and all.

-K8memphis Posted 26 Feb 2009 , 11:36pm
post #40 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnson6ofus

Quote:
Originally Posted by txcupcake

Disney's copyrighted designs in a way that Disney can not manufacture. For example, Courtney at Cake Nouveau has a beautiful Snow White inspired cake on her website (I can't post a specific link, but it's on the second page of her gallery).

It's obviously Disney, but not in the same way a gumpaste statue of Snow White is Disney. Why? You can buy a statue of Snow White from Disney, but you can't buy the essence of Snow White.



Awww, comeon... Disney CAN manufacture ANYTHING. My Hubby wants Snow White with big exposed tattas. If the essense is Disney, it IS Disney. Exactly like Indydebi said--- Mickey humping Goofy. Disney does it to protect their image/ character. They DON"T want an "altered" image of theirs out there. Do you want your 5 year old to ask, "When did Snow White get those boobies?" icon_biggrin.gif
So while you cannot make Snow White, and you cannot make a version of Snow White... you are free to make a forest maiden, munckin girlfriend, or forest princess---- just NOT Snow White. If , as stated above, "it is obviously Disney..."--- THAT IS TEXTBOOK COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.




Hold it Hold it Hold it Disney does not 'own' Snow White. The Grimm Brothers wrote the story. Disney owns their own picture of Snow White I guess, but no not the story. I can do my interpretation of the Seven Dwarfs and Snow White if I want.

They do own all the Mickey Mouse stuff 'cause they created all of that--but the Brother's Grimm wrote SW.

And that means Louie and Mr. Coach did not create the purse. kwim. They created those logos though and those should be protected <sigh>

littlecake Posted 26 Feb 2009 , 11:37pm
post #41 of 127

has anyone looked at the bakerycrafts book?

knockoffs a plenty!

the "princess and the 7 dwarfs" comes to mind...looks just like snow white, among others i can't think of right now...(i'm at home and my book is at the shop)

how do they get by with it? why isn't disney suing them?

kelleym Posted 26 Feb 2009 , 11:37pm
post #42 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by txcupcake

The law is based on what a reasonable person would do/assume/know. A reasonable person would never assume that a cake is a purse and vice versa.

Besides, it's rather hard to produce evidence when its in someone's tummy. icon_lol.gif




Well, I hate to toot my own horn (toot! toot!) but when I did a purse cake a few years ago for an 18th birthday, the birthday girl tried to pick it up, she thought it was real. Her panicked mother stopped her just in time. icon_lol.gif

dreamn900 Posted 26 Feb 2009 , 11:38pm
post #43 of 127

Why can't I find this infamous LV purse on their website? Their silver clutch purse looks like a cake I've seen here.

cakedoll Posted 26 Feb 2009 , 11:38pm
post #44 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by indydebi



I can do a naked Minnie Mouse humping Goofy and Disney certainly wouldn't want THAT kind of "free publicity" on their character / creation.




I came close to choking on a spice drop on that one. My age is really going to be showing here but I do remember blacklight posters from the late 60's depicting some Disney characters engaging in some pretty risque antics. icon_eek.gif

EnjoyTheCake Posted 26 Feb 2009 , 11:40pm
post #45 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by k8memphis

Not in music. I have a band that I carry called Apologetix--that's all they do is parodies. They are totally awesome.




K8memphis - Awesome does not equal legal.

Also, this case is happening in Scotland right? Are there international copyright laws? Or are copyright laws taken care of at a more local level?

I don't know the answer to this. I'd be interested to find out if a Scottish court case held any merrit for bakeries in Australia, USA or any other country.

-K8memphis Posted 26 Feb 2009 , 11:42pm
post #46 of 127

Somebody smart tell me why Jerry Falwell lost his case but Disney probably would prevail in the humping dealios being bandied about here.

kelleym Posted 26 Feb 2009 , 11:53pm
post #47 of 127

Because Jerry Falwell isn't a copyrighted character.

-K8memphis Posted 26 Feb 2009 , 11:53pm
post #48 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnjoyTheCake

Quote:
Originally Posted by k8memphis

Not in music. I have a band that I carry called Apologetix--that's all they do is parodies. They are totally awesome.



K8memphis - Awesome does not equal legal.




What are you even referencing?
Talk about apples and nutty buddies

Awesome is the quality of the music to me.

Legal is what the Supreme Court ruled on parodies.

From my awesome buddies, Apologetix
http://www.apologetix.com/faq/faq-detail.php?faq_q_id=1

Quote:
Quote:

What legalities are involved in doing parodies?


Believe us, if we didn't believe what we were doing was legal, ethical and moral, we wouldn't do it. However, that doesn't mean there's an easy answer to questions regarding copyright and parodies. That's why we employ a lawyer in Los Angeles who is an expert on intellectual properties.

Actually, in 1994, in a case involving 2 Live Crew's parody of "Oh Pretty Woman" by Roy Orbison, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that parodies can be a "fair use" of an original song, requiring no permission or royalties. One of the main points the Supreme Court made was that when a parodist significantly changes the words and meaning of an original song to spoof it, the parody becomes a new work -- even if it uses the music of the original. And that to do a parody of a song, you need to use at least some of the music of the original to "conjure up" the original. You can't have a parody without having elements of the original in that parody.

Now, that doesn't mean a person can come along and just change a word or two and call it a parody or a new song. Furthermore, a person can't just steal the melody of a song and use totally different words that don't spoof the original in some way; the Supreme Court laid down some specific guidelines. Here's the link for the website that shows the entire transcript from Supreme Court ruling so you can read it yourself:


http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html

You can also check out:

http://www.artslaw.org/PARODY.HTM


aligotmatt Posted 26 Feb 2009 , 11:54pm
post #49 of 127

Freedom of speech. Freedom of the press...

I almost always use that Falwell cartoon as a reference when talking about freedoms... and how freedom of speech has come to mean freedom to be an a-hole...

but yeah, purse cakes...

-K8memphis Posted 26 Feb 2009 , 11:55pm
post #50 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by kelleym

Because Jerry Falwell isn't a copyrighted character.




Omg Omg--everything I produce is copyrighted. Mickie freaking Mouse is copyrighted but WE are not copyrighted. Wow crazy huh.

-K8memphis Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 12:02am
post #51 of 127

Dude, while we are on the subject of Aplogetix, they have an album called New & Used Hits and the specific cut on there is available on another album but if you get it you gotta get this version. It's sung to the tune of Hotel California and it's a parody --it's the song that Joseph would sing about his & Mary's travel that resulted in no room in the Inn and the birth of Jesus.

It is the most stunner awesome song--it reveals the anguish involved--so often we hear those same dusty Bible stories over and over and over--so anyway it's a fabulous fabulous song--refreshing to say the least.

"Welcome to the Hotel Can't Afford Yah"

Redlotusninjagrl Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 12:12am
post #52 of 127

I have to tell you I had diet coke blasting out of my nose as I have read some of the posts here. Between Indydebi smoking and someone else quoting directly from"The People Versus Larry Flynt", this thread is all over the place. I am not making fun. It just struck me as funny. There is a lot of passion here. It kind of remind me of a few other threads... scratch vs box cakes, homebakers vs legal bakers.

Truthfully, I don't think LV is gonna care about one person making one cake with their logo for their own use and enjoyment. But legally the person making and selling the cakes with the logo is something else altogether. There is little something called a royalty that you are required to pay to use a trademarked or registered product. Since a brand name is trademarked, LV would require a percentage of the sale of that product. Do I think that LV is going to ask for royalty payments from the lady cooking cakes out of her basement? Probably not. Do I think that LV is going to come after a store that sells 5 or 10 or 100 cakes with their logo? Probably not. But I wouldn't want to risk it either. The legal fees that you would have to pay to try to defend yourself would probably bankrupt you. And ignorance is not a defense.

bizatchgirl Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 12:14am
post #53 of 127

To the PP who posted about Weird Al, as you can see from the post about Parodies, Weird Al did not need permission from Coolio and therefore he didn't get 'in trouble' for using Gangsters' Paradise for his Amish Paradise.

Out of courtesy, Weird Al always asks for permission. According to Al's side of the story, he got permission from Coolio's rep, but not Coolio himself. When Coolio heard the actual song, he was not happy that it was used in such away.

It was more of a personal disagreement, and possibly a misunderstanding, over Al using the song. Never did Al get in trouble.

icon_confused.gificon_confused.gifAlso, the silver purse on their web site has come up on CC quite recently. So, I am glad that this has been kept to discussion about copyright only, and nothing personal about the designer. icon_biggrin.gif

littlecake Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 12:29am
post #54 of 127

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=apologetix&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-USicon_surprised.gif
hey here are some videos of k8's pals....i've had fun watchin them...

-K8memphis Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 12:57am
post #55 of 127

Omg omg--google this (if you want to)

apologetix hotel can't afford yah

and play the first one that says "New and Used Hits"

This is Joseph 'singing' of Joseph and Mary fame

"so I stood in the doorway..."

I love this song.

It is a legal parody!!!

Hey I know it's not Christmas--but listen to Silent Night at the end after the instrumental part--I think about Mary bearing that baby by herself--it's just stunn stunn stunn stunn stunner to me--it's about 6 and a half mintues--no no really it's so beautiful--listen to how Silent Night starts

-K8memphis Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 12:59am
post #56 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlecake

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=apologetix&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-USicon_surprised.gif
hey here are some videos of k8's pals....i've had fun watchin them...




Wow--how cool--I had no idea I could hear this on the computer.

Thank you Thank you Thank you!!

ccr03 Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 1:22am
post #57 of 127

I leave for two hours and this thread runs amock! Hmm, maybe I started it (sort-of) icon_smile.gif
Jerry Falwell lost his case because of the context in which the cartoon was written and published. Hustler, in small print, indicated that it was a parody and listed it as a ficiton in the table of contents. The Supreme Court stated if this parody was ruled as libel than other political cartoonist and satrists would be subjec tto the same. It also ruled that in order to win emotional damages in a parody case (which is what Falwell was suing for) a person must prove three things:
"1. That the parody or satire amounted to statement of fact, not an opinion
2. That it was a false statement of fact
3. That the person who drew the cartoon or wrote the article knew it was false, or exhibited reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the material. In other words, proof of actual malice is necessary."
(Don R. Pember, Mass Media Law, pgs. 235-236)

As far as copyright goes, cake purses would be classified more as misappropriation. "A person trying to pass hiw or her work off as the work of someone else & a person trying to pass off the work of someone else as his or her own work" (PEmber, pg. 514)

Urrgh, and there is this other case (which I can't think of) in which this celebrity sued a company because they put his face in one of their ads. I THINK it fell under false advertising, but he was neither employed by the company or endorsed it and this ad gave the general public the impression that he did.

(Oh, and the People vs. Larry Flynt is a different. They tried to sue him for obscenity - which has also been ruled to be decided on a case by case issue. - I could write about that too, but I won't icon_smile.gifOh, and I don't want you guys thinking I follow up on all these porn/obscenity cases. I was a Communication major and we learned about ALL these cases in reference to mass media law. The only porn I get off is cake porn! icon_smile.gif
WHEW!

P.S. Did I ever mention I was a nerd? icon_wink.gif
One last P.S. - why did you guys make me dig out my law book!? I'm supposed to be cleaning!

kjgjam22 Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 2:05am
post #58 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lori17201

The point is that it is a cake. And if it replicates their design it can be copyright infringement.

That said, they should be happy that people are giving them free publicity and thank all the bakers who are honoring them with the cake purses.

Personally, Louie and Coach aren't worth the price anyway, but that's just my opinion. I rather spend the money on cake supplies!




i agree with spending the money on cake supplies. i find the rest to be ridicuplous....do they think the people are going to carry around a cake as a purse. its one thing a knock of purse but cake that will be eaten...come off it.

-K8memphis Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 2:23am
post #59 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjgjam22

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lori17201

The point is that it is a cake. And if it replicates their design it can be copyright infringement.

That said, they should be happy that people are giving them free publicity and thank all the bakers who are honoring them with the cake purses.

Personally, Louie and Coach aren't worth the price anyway, but that's just my opinion. I rather spend the money on cake supplies!



i agree with spending the money on cake supplies. i find the rest to be ridicuplous....do they think the people are going to carry around a cake as a purse. its one thing a knock of purse but cake that will be eaten...come off it.




Here's the deal--there's one Mickie Mouse. Even if he's blue he's still Garfield. There are multiplied bajillions of freaking purses. So long as I don't use their logo per se--I am more than fine.

And don't forget about the 'specially spiced' brownies when I'm in the slammer. icon_lol.gif

indydebi Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 2:24am
post #60 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjgjam22

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lori17201

The point is that it is a cake. And if it replicates their design it can be copyright infringement.

That said, they should be happy that people are giving them free publicity and thank all the bakers who are honoring them with the cake purses.

Personally, Louie and Coach aren't worth the price anyway, but that's just my opinion. I rather spend the money on cake supplies!



i agree with spending the money on cake supplies. i find the rest to be ridicuplous....do they think the people are going to carry around a cake as a purse. its one thing a knock of purse but cake that will be eaten...come off it.




Am I just tired and brain dead or something? Because this argument is SO not logical to me. icon_confused.gif
Saying that people can tell the difference between a cake and a purse as justification for reproducing a copyrighted image .... you could say the same thing about Mickey Mouse. That people can tell the difference between a cartoon on a movie screen and a cake. But it's still a copyrighted image.

If I'm missing something, explain it to me. But this argument has holes in it so big you can drive a truck thru them, and it is not making any sense to me what so ever. icon_confused.gif

Quote by @%username% on %date%

%body%