Louis Vuitton Are Not Happy About Bag Cakes!

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

KKC Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 2:28am
post #61 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by indydebi

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




icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif

kakeladi Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 2:29am
post #62 of 127

Hey, I sure wish I could remember the link (If it is still around) where some guy goes into a bakery & attempts to order a (let's say) Disney(?) based cake for his 6 yrs son. It ended up in court and basically the final outcome was:
If a Disney (or LV or any other licensed character) cake was help up in court and *anyone* in the room could identify who that character was then the bakery looses icon_sad.gif

We have been over and over this copyright issue sooooooo many times. It is just ILLEGAL to make them. If you want to take your chances like so many others that we see on line - well don't come crying to me that you need to be bailed out of jail. I'm sorry.
If we can agree on keeping pricing rather close then we need to support one another on this issue and **Just Say NO!** to *anything* copyrighted.

doughdough Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 2:39am
post #63 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizatchgirl

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.gif I am a huge, huge, huge Weird Al fan, and have seen him several times in concert. So, I know the details (at least the public ones) of that whole thing.
icon_confused.gif
Also, 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




I posted about Weird Al, and as I had said, I vaguely remembered him getting into it with Coolio. And after looking it up, I see now that it wasn't due to copyright issues...Coolio didn't like the parody and publicly said so.

Anyhoo, that's what popped into my mind at the time I first read this thread. Sorry if I caused any confusion! icon_redface.gif

As for this whole LV issue, I see it as any other copyright case...if you use the logo or replicate the likeness without permission, you run the risk of getting slapped with a lawsuit. If you feel you can get away with it by changing a few things, I bid you good luck.

But as someone else already pointed out, there are plenty of other cute purse cake designs we can do without worry!

kels_bells Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 2:59am
post #64 of 127

INDYDEBI
So as long as I smoke the reefer fast enough, it's ok?

TXCUPCAKE
No, you have to flush weed. Duh!

ROFL I have coffee comimng out of my nose.

I remeber a few years back LV took Britney Spears to court for having his logo in a car on her video and won.

bizatchgirl Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 3:00am
post #65 of 127

No apologies needed, bakerbear. The Weird Al /Coolio thing is one of those not so entertaining stories that somehow make it to the level of urban legend. Really, I think Coolio felt his song was a serious song about serious issues and couldn't be a grown up when Weird Al turned it into the hilarious Amish Paradise that some of us know and love icon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gif

To me, it also is just not worth the risk of getting into copyright trouble. I will do as others do and continue to make character cakes for free for family only.

If the occasion came up to do a fancy purse, it would have to be more of a 'generic' purse, even if it was for family. Mainly because I can't see myself hand painting LV over and over like some of you crazy cake people on here icon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gif

bizatchgirl Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 3:05am
post #66 of 127

I made it to forum fanatic and I didn't even notice icon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gif

Lots of help from the OE thread I'm sure icon_redface.gif

Tita9499 Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 3:16am
post #67 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.





Ha ha ha...snort...ha ha ha...snort snort! icon_lol.gif

PinkZiab Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 3:17am
post #68 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




But the second you put a duplicate of hte LV logo on the cake youa re no longer making a cake with the "essence" of a LV purse, you are illegally making a cape with a trademarked logo that you don't have permission to use. THAT'S where the problem is! You can make all the purse cakes you want "in the style of" LV, Coach, whatever... why once you use their logo (or even a stylized version of your own logo to imply it is one of those brands) you have violated their copyright.

johnson6ofus Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 3:20am
post #69 of 127

and in another "sorta off topic" stray thought--- this copyright protection for LV or Disney is not much different from us bakers who don't allow ANY other cake (kitchen cakes) be served because the original decorator reputation is at stake. Bakers want to protect their rights/ reputation as do the "big guys".

OK, and yeah, sure... and to make a buck.....but....

Trademark/ reputation is all you have...

dreamdelights Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 3:20am
post #70 of 127

i don't think the people are crazy for making the LV purses.

BCJean Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 3:21am
post #71 of 127

I am lost here....are we discussing whether or not it is illegal...or whether or not we can get by doing something illegal and not get caught?

Since I have posted, I will now get emails for thread #237 "is it illegal to do a copyrighted design".

Tita9499 Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 3:38am
post #72 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by k8memphis

fahghedahbodit!!!





icon_rolleyes.gif Oh my dear, sweet K8! Your southern charm is just so adorable...but! Let a New Yorker teach you how to say it...ahem!

Fuhgeddaboudit!!

-K8memphis Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 4:01am
post #73 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCJean

I am lost here....are we discussing whether or not it is illegal...or whether or not we can get by doing something illegal and not get caught?

Since I have posted, I will now get emails for thread #237 "is it illegal to do a copyrighted design".




Pretty sure we're talking about flushing the brownies before we get smoked. Because Louie, Mickie, Weird Al and Coolio (but not Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs--well five outa seven whaddayah gonna do) are gonna sue our asses off permanently because we didn't save them any brownies.

Yah gettin' me?

Now all we gotta figure out is scratch or mix brownies.

ccr03 Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 4:07am
post #74 of 127

k8memphis, why you gotta go start the scratch vs. mix debate!? icon_smile.gif

Now you know we're really gonna need some "brownies" for that one! lol!

indydebi Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 4:21am
post #75 of 127

k8, you're killing me here! icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif

-K8memphis Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 1:07pm
post #76 of 127

So, here's my next question--no making any "Jeep" car cakes then huh? No making any 'FedEx' jets. No making any 'Spalding" pianos. It's all gotta be generic.

A cake is not a purse nor a car nor a jet nor a piano. They are comic, they are for enjoyment. You can't carry your wallet in your cake purse, you can't fly off in your FedEx jet, you can't drive away in your car cake, you can't play Brahms on your spinette, but because a purse can literally be the same size as the potential cake...

Y'know, cakes forever have represented us. Represented our hopes and dreams and ambitions and different things we love. But God forbid and the courts lock us up and throw away the key if we make a Mustang convertible to slice and serve and eat!.

So what about Andy Warhol, did he get in trouble with Campbell???

-K8memphis Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 1:21pm
post #77 of 127

So to answer my own question from
http://painting.about.com/od/arthistorytrivia/ig/Gallery-of-Famous-Paintings/Warhol-Soup-Cans.htm

Quote:
Quote:

Warhol is an artist who often gets mentioned by painters wanting to make derivative works. Two things are worth noting before doing similar things: (1) On Moma's website there's a indication of a license from Campbell's Soup Co. (2) Copyright enforcement seems to have been less of an issue in Warhol's day. Don't make copyright assumptions based on Warhol's work. Do your research and decide what your level of concern is about a possibly copyright violation case.


Melnick Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 1:57pm
post #78 of 127

I think the issue LV have with the copyright is that you are making money based on their brand. If you made the exact same bag but covered it in Walmart logos would the customer still want it? It is the association with LV that the customer is paying for. If you make the cake for your personal use and aren't making any money off it, they aren't concerned. It is probably too costly for companies to pursue all copyright infringements. I think that those books that have all the character cakes would have paid royalties to use them.

ccr03 Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 2:01pm
post #79 of 127

Also, if I remember correctly, Campbell initially was very hestitate/angry about Warhol using it, but then sales went through the roof! So they gave him the license.

Now, I know someone will chime in and say - see, free publicity! Well, sorry to break it to everyone, but we are not Andy Warhol. Warhol is an icon and his Campbell soup painting is now iconic. It's the same as when Duff gets permission to do some copyrighted cake (the Southwest jet, Campbell soup cake, etc...). He has been given the licensed to do it.

Licensing is tact so as to protect one's work and the quality of that image/work.

So yes, k8, it would be my understanding that planes, trains and automobiles would also be nixed - WHEN you are doing the copyrighted image/logo.

(I'm at work now, so I don't have my Mass Media Law book with me - but if you really want to know you can PM me and I'll check it out when I get home later.)

frosting111 Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 2:36pm
post #80 of 127

Looks like LV would be flattered, and look at it as free publicity and advertisement as well...I cant imagine owning a product line that people are so interested in and fasinated over that they would have their celebration cakes made to mimic it...WOW! How awesome would that be?! icon_wink.gif

MissRobin Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 2:37pm
post #81 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by k8memphis

So, here's my next question--no making any "Jeep" car cakes then huh? No making any 'FedEx' jets. No making any 'Spalding" pianos. It's all gotta be generic.

A cake is not a purse nor a car nor a jet nor a piano. They are comic, they are for enjoyment. You can't carry your wallet in your cake purse, you can't fly off in your FedEx jet, you can't drive away in your car cake, you can't play Brahms on your spinette, but because a purse can literally be the same size as the potential cake...

Y'know, cakes forever have represented us. Represented our hopes and dreams and ambitions and different things we love. But God forbid and the courts lock us up and throw away the key if we make a Mustang convertible to slice and serve and eat!.

So what about Andy Warhol, did he get in trouble with Campbell???




You took the words right out of my mouth. Just think about all the cakes with, things that are copied using your edible printer etc. I did a cake with a U.S. passport, I guess I am in deep sh**!!!!! I really find it a big stretch to think that these companies are going to come after all of us cakebakers out here for copyright infringement. Maybe if these bigger cake companies post a LV cake or whatever, they could put a direct link to the LV site and maybe help them with sales!! Free Advertising!!

cakedoll Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 2:57pm
post #82 of 127

Last year Neiman Marcus was offering several trademarked handbag cakes in their gift section; a Gucci, Prada, LV, Chanel, and a Chloe. Just out of curiosity I checked them out, and now they only have 2 "designer satchels"; a zebra striped and a brown 'sassy' satchel. Nothing with a trademark.

ziggytarheel Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 3:08pm
post #83 of 127

Anything with a trademark cannot be reproduced with money exchanged. Before you could copy so many images at home, photolabs were very strict about not copying the work of another photographer and bakeries were very strict about not duplicating copyrighted material on an edible image. But now we live in the age of scanners, home printers, etc., and we seem to have forgotten that these laws do apply. Because of that I would never have thought for a moment that I could sell an image that belongs to someone else, whether it be that of a sportscar, an NFL team, or a handbag.

But I also drive the speed limit. icon_smile.gif

janelwaters Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 3:10pm
post #84 of 127

At least with cake all the evidence gets eaten! hahaha!!!!

mbelgard Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 3:23pm
post #85 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by indydebi

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




You're wrong, you could put an aircraft carrier through this arguement.

It doesn't matter what medium you copy a company's copyrighted material to make for sale, you are still making a profit off their image.

If Mattel wants to make a Barbie that comes with a LV purse they would still have to get permission even though you couldn't use that piece of plastic for a purse.

You can obviously make all the purse cakes you want but they can't look like a LV purse. If you try to change just a little bit of a logo and it still is something most people would look at and say "oh, she made a LV cake" it's illegal.

-K8memphis Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 3:36pm
post #86 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccr03

Also, if I remember correctly, Campbell initially was very hestitate/angry about Warhol using it, but then sales went through the roof! So they gave him the license.




No yeah, but copyright stuff was not that big a dieal like it is now like the article said. Remember Warhol painted those. Nowadays we just photocopy money and go spend it practically.

Plus back then, you would rarely see logos on something where they were noticeable. Obvious logos were rarely displayed (I'm talking clothing) Nowadays the logo is the reason some of us buy that garment. Different world, different mindset back then too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccr03



So yes, k8, it would be my understanding that planes, trains and automobiles would also be nixed - WHEN you are doing the copyrighted image/logo.

(I'm at work now, so I don't have my Mass Media Law book with me - but if you really want to know you can PM me and I'll check it out when I get home later.)




No yeah, I'm cool. I get the laws--I have my own well thought out careful interpretation of them as well--just like ya'll do. I've done Louie's in the past for friends and for charity but I'm gonna ultimately request permission someday and see how that cookie crumbles for going forward. And/or ask my client to request permission and submit it to me on company letterhead.

Otherwise I will use the client's initials for the purse 'logo'.

I think I would be ok here--if you disagree that's fine. Because even if the prosecuting attorney could hold up a designer purse cake that could be recognizable as such by anyone in the court, then my attorney (if it ever got that far) could hold up legions of similarly styled purses that also from a distance look like Louie's or Coach's that are indeed perfectly legal and have a different design to the logo but are so similar you have to look at them up close to distinguish.

They are legion.

And if those other real purses are not legal, then Louie and Coach will need to prosecute each and every one of those as well in order to maintain that their image is indeed exclusively held and not public domain. A daunting task to say the least.

So it's like the Leprechaun that had to show the guy where the pot of gold was at. And he made him tie a yellow ribbon around the tree to mark the spot. The guy returns the next day to claim the pot and all the trees had the ribbon tied around them.

I'm doing derivative art. You then eat the art. I would not set up a company and mass produce FedEx style plane cakes or designer purse cakes. But there's a place in our culture for people like me to produce our art. No, not to steal but to imitate in a playful way -to parody.

It's fine to disagree with me--to each their own. I realize fully that if I reproduce a Mickey I'm toast--would never do that nowadays. Purses, however and planes and pianos, different story, non-mickey mice included. It's still my country--they can't take that away.

Me making a couple edible purse cakes this year with the client's initials for the logo--this will not infringe upon Louie's ability to make purse cakes and sell them. Does not ding his pocketbook (ha)

If I make a dummy cake of a the same--then I think that would be crossing the fagile line because it will not be eaten and disappear.

Me making 'edible art' is ok to me. It is a parody of life. We don't eat our pianos, we don't practice scales on marzipan keyboards. That's what we love about doing cakes. We parody the lives of our clients in sugar, yes?

Everything we do is derivative of something that came before us. I mean you put your right foot in you put your left foot in, you shake it all around, you do the hokey pokey and that's what it's all about.

-K8memphis Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 3:38pm
post #87 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakedoll

Last year Neiman Marcus was offering several trademarked handbag cakes in their gift section; a Gucci, Prada, LV, Chanel, and a Chloe. Just out of curiosity I checked them out, and now they only have 2 "designer satchels"; a zebra striped and a brown 'sassy' satchel. Nothing with a trademark.




Don't you think that's just the economy right now?

-K8memphis Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 3:46pm
post #88 of 127

In other words,

Who has got the copyright on purse cakes with initials allll over them?

Hmmm???

"Yah getting me, camera-guy???!!!"
(line from the Shamwow commercial)


(I can be succinct--I just have to blather a lot first icon_biggrin.gif )

ccr03 Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 3:47pm
post #89 of 127

The law is the law. Copyright laws exist to protect an individual's work/company brand. That is how it works here. But even aside from laws and such, it boils down to principle and respect. Respecting someone art/brand/etc. Am I 100% innocent? No. Am I proud that I've made trademark cakes in the past for profit? No entirely (They came out cool - so I'm proud about that icon_smile.gif, but not about infringing on a copyright. These companies/people work hard to create a brand we we should respect that. Yes, they makes millions of dollars, but it's their millions of dollars and their right to control the brand they created.

Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now! (Why is it that even though it's Friday my co-workers have already gotten on my nerves??? icon_smile.gif )

edited: k8 - you know I love you! It's all good. Like I said, I know I'm no model law-abiding citizen, but like you I know I would have consequences to face. Half the reason I'm all worked up is b/c freakin' co-workers have been annoying me ALL week long! urrgh! The other half is b/c I LOVE mass media law!!! It's all love - it's all good!!! icon_smile.gificon_smile.gificon_smile.gif

-K8memphis Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 3:57pm
post #90 of 127

#1. The only law is the law of public opinion. Yeah huh.

I have rights too.

I also drive the speed limit, Ziggs.
You never have to slow down when you see the cops.

Actually these encroaching copyright laws such as we have today are because Disney wanted to keep an iron grip on their sh*t. It was a different world a coupla decades ago. See #1 up there.

Quote by @%username% on %date%

%body%