Louis Vuitton are not happy about bag cakes!

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

ccr03 Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 4:02pm
post #91 of 127

eh, we disagree - we'll leave it at that.

-K8memphis Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 4:02pm
post #92 of 127

CC Munchkin--for sure, for sure--it's all good--giant hug--I love a great debate--here's my dealio that got postted the same time as your last post--who's got the copyright on purses with initials all over them???

signed,
the little green leprechaun

icon_biggrin.gif

ccr03 Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 4:06pm
post #93 of 127

That's a very good question. I'll have to check that out.

-K8memphis Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 4:19pm
post #94 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccr03

That's a very good question. I'll have to check that out.





'K. icon_biggrin.gif
In the meantime, 'twas heard over the phone...
"Yellow Ribbon Company?
Yes I'd like to order me several spools please, do you deliver?"

icon_lol.gif

indydebi Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 5:24pm
post #95 of 127

Hubby was telling me that when the Disney Movie "Herbie the Love Bug" was made, Volkswagon made Disney take all of the VW logos off of the car. They couldn't stop Disney from using the car (i.e. making a purse cake), but they could stop them from using the VW logos (i.e. the LV letters). They had no idea how the movie was going to turn out.

'Course the story continues with what a big hit it was and the subsequent movies had the VW logo all over the dang place! icon_lol.gif

cakedoll Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 5:55pm
post #96 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by k8memphis

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?




It's possible...hard to say. Most of their cakes and confections run from $50 to $200.00. The two purse cakes they carry now are $235.00 and $285.00, which is about what the trademarked ones ran. If I remember right, the only one that ran over $300.00 was the Chloe Paddington.

-K8memphis Posted 27 Feb 2009 , 6:27pm
post #97 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakedoll

Quote:
Originally Posted by k8memphis

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?



It's possible...hard to say. Most of their cakes and confections run from $50 to $200.00. The two purse cakes they carry now are $235.00 and $285.00, which is about what the trademarked ones ran. If I remember right, the only one that ran over $300.00 was the Chloe Paddington.




I mean PollySchoonmaker used to sell her cakelettes through Neiman Marcus, wasn't it? I mean I can't even find where her website used to be--last time I looked you still had the intro page but nothing else--now it looks like the domain name itself is actually available--wonder what happened.

But all that to say--I don't think there's a huge market beyond our individual localities. I wouldn't buy a pricey cake from a department store--marketing from that standpoint would be pretty difficult.

But I've never even been to a NM so anyway...still I wonder about Polly.

edited to say: I mean I hope she's sunning on the Figis right now with people bringing her cold refreshing drinks. (But somehow I'm thinking maybe not...I don't know?)

moreCakePlz Posted 28 Feb 2009 , 4:46am
post #98 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by k8memphis



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.

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.


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?




Just duplicating something in cake form does not make it a parody. To be a parody the cake version would need to show wicked humor, satire, ridicule, or burlesque imitation.

A parody would be a vacuum shaped Jeep sucking up tax payer dollars, or a FedEx plane trapped on the Lost island (so that is where my package went).

Just be careful; everyone thinks they are too small to be sued for copyright infringement but you are not. Years ago I designed a cross stitch pattern to playfully imitate a coworkers desk that was littered with Beanie Babies. I sold about 50 patterns (@ 2.50 each) before the Ty corporation got wind of it. Needless to say they were not pleased and in the end neither was my pocket book.

PS: I though I was safe because I didnt put the Ty logo heart tags on my cross stitched Beanie Babies. Silly me.

-K8memphis Posted 28 Feb 2009 , 5:10am
post #99 of 127

Beanie babies, Mickey Mouse, Garfield--those are no brainers.

No body has a copyright on purse cakes with my initials or my customers initials, there's no copyright to break.

All of the sutff I do is dirivative art, inspired by the client in one way or another.

Quote:
Quote:

"To be a parody the cake version would need to show wicked humor, satire, ridicule, or burlesque imitation."




Not at all. The music I referenced has a beautiful awe-inspiring spiritual parody of a beautiful commercial song. Does not have to be ribald to be a parody.

parody>>1 : a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule
2 : a feeble or ridiculous imitation

comic>>1 : of, relating to, or marked by comedy <a comic actor>
2 : causing laughter or amusement : funny <a comic monologue>
3 : of or relating to comic strips <the newspaper's comic section>
synonyms see laughable

An edible purse while common to us is laughable, it is amusement to many. People get a kick out of it. It's the opposite of serious. If Mom said to go get her purse and you brought her a cake she'd bonk you one.

Gucchi, Dooney & Bourke, Coach, Louie, just to name a few all have leather and canvas bags with their initials on them so there is no copyright on purses with your initials.

Watch what women carry. There are bajillions of purses that look like Coach and etc with random initials or deceptive designs.

paddlegirl14 Posted 28 Feb 2009 , 5:24am
post #100 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.


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




My thoughts exactly!!

-K8memphis Posted 28 Feb 2009 , 5:28am
post #101 of 127

But I'm not selling patterns of how to make such cakes either--I'm selling edible derivative art. That only lasts forever on the hips as we love to say.

Warhol-esque cakes, the can of soup without Campbell or Lipton, the designer purse without the designer, or rather christen a new 'designer' (with the client's initials or mine).

They can't take soup cans and purses away from me!
Those are fair use, free domain.

And if you read what I wrote you would see that I do not think I am too small to be sued. I think I am doing nothing wrong.

paddlegirl14 Posted 28 Feb 2009 , 5:30am
post #102 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by k8memphis



Gucchi, Dooney & Bourke, Coach, Louie, just to name a few all have leather and canvas bags with their initials on them so there is no copyright on purses with your initials.

Watch what women carry. There are bajillions of purses that look like Coach and etc with random initials or deceptive designs.




It doesn't matter if yu change the letters, colors...it is the "likeness" of the copyright. Bottom line, it is illegal. You can think of it however you like, but be warned. I doubt your side will stand up in court.

-K8memphis Posted 28 Feb 2009 , 5:36am
post #103 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by paddlegirl14

Quote:
Originally Posted by k8memphis



Gucchi, Dooney & Bourke, Coach, Louie, just to name a few all have leather and canvas bags with their initials on them so there is no copyright on purses with your initials.

Watch what women carry. There are bajillions of purses that look like Coach and etc with random initials or deceptive designs.



It doesn't matter if yu change the letters, colors...it is the "likeness" of the copyright. Bottom line, it is illegal. You can think of it however you like, but be warned. I doubt your side will stand up in court.




If what you said is true then Gucci would have pummeled Louie and Coach into handbag hades by now because they all have very similar designs and so does every other off brand handbag maker.

paddlegirl14 Posted 28 Feb 2009 , 5:49am
post #104 of 127

It isn't the shape. A purse is a purse. The designs on the purse, or what ever the item is, is what the issue is. If the designs make anyone think of the big brand, it is their likeness.

I do know this for a fact. I deal with licenses for Fraternities and Sororities 24/7. We have the same issues. Nothing can be done unless we have paper work saying we can. It means any combination that makes one think of the particular group. My Dad also deals with this all of the time. He has multiple patents in his name. He has to pay a copyright lawyer big bucks to ensure that nothing he is doing has been done-in any form or fashion.

luv_to_decorate Posted 28 Feb 2009 , 5:57am
post #105 of 127

Wow!! Things that can get discussed on CC. I was reading forums on here tonight because it was a boring Friday night and look what I found. I have no input about legal vs illegal but was quite entertained reading this forum. Only thing needed was a glass of wine but I was too tired to go to the liquor store tonight. icon_sad.gif

ceshell Posted 28 Feb 2009 , 6:43am
post #106 of 127

K8 I think where you and some of the viewpoints debating you have a disconnect is the thing you only recently posted about (at least, that I caught icon_rolleyes.gif
Unless the designer owns the rights to the specific purse shape you use, or has copyrighted other specific elements intrinsic to the design, then it does sound like parody to me. It's a joke on "designer purses": it's not meant to try to trick people into thinking it is a version of a specific licensed product, nor are you using their copyright for your own personal gain. However the gray area would probably be: how closely does your version of the customer's initials resemble their logotype? Example: if I tweaked the Coke logo to say "Cole" and made a Coke-bottle shaped cake, they would probably easily win a dispute claiming I used their trademarked design (that would be: the logo, not the bottle). Because the Coke logo is a copyright, not just the letters c-o-k-e, but the design itself. MAYBE it would be ruled a parody, but I think that's a stretch. I'd actually be interested to learn more about cases like this where the "artistic rendering" was ruled to be a parody (or not).

Actually a better example would be: logos on purses. I don't think the Coach logo resembles the LV logo in the least. So putting a initials on a purse is not taboo. But putting initials that look like the trademark owner's initials...well that is where the problem lies.

Similarly (and further to your point) if you made Mickey Mouse with purple pants and green ears and called him "George the Mouse" it would be pretty clear that you are using The Sacred Mouse and trying to doctor him up. But I see your point: with a purse, if you are not specifically replicating a copyrighted handbag that LV produced, and you are not mimicking their logo, then it's simply: a designer-style purse with the initials "JS" or whatever. If enough elements are different, then it's not a knockoff, it's just a parody of designer purses. ANY designer purse.

BTW even though we've said you can't "just change" elements of a copyrighted image...in a way you can. I mean, let's say I made a mouse, and he just looked like a normal, photorealistic mouse. But I put red pants on him. Hm. I don't know if the Mickey's pants are a copyrighted element, but other than that, clearly my furry rodent with red pants can NOT possibly be confused with nor construed as The Sacred One. The closest it would be is...dum dum dum....a parody. You could even park him in front of a boat's steering wheel à la Steamboat Willy. Because the mouse does not resemble the cartoon, even if it does borrow an element of the cartoon (the pants) for humorous purpose. Add the white shoes and gloves and see how far we can take it before it becomes infringement icon_twisted.gif
Finally, back to one other point: I do agree that it doesn't matter that it's cake and not a real purse or product. Copying a TM design is copying a TM design, no matter the medium. Selling a cake with MM doing the grind with Minnie (oh, Debi!) is clearly a parody of the wholesomeness of MM, but it would still get you in a heap of trouble. But the heart of what you're saying is, you are not copying a TM design...am I hearing you correctly or should I just go crawl back under the rock from which I came?

Chef_Stef Posted 28 Feb 2009 , 7:21am
post #107 of 127

Let me get this straight. We work to get our cake art so people will look at it and say, "wow that looks so REAL", and we modestly thank them and are secretly thrilled that we made them so happy. And now we're not supposed to do that? Are we saying brides can't come in and order their fiance's favorite sport/college team colors/logo replicated in a terrific cake, their favorite beer, their John Deere hat, Denver broncos helmet, their Harley?? No Chev emblems on the cake? (done that).

What about Duff (who I love--he rocks, don't get me wrong), who is always doing spot-on realistic-as-heck replications of ...oh, I don't know...EVERYTHING? Does he have to call every one of those logo-based, familiar-faced company brand items that they duplicate in cake and ask permission? "So...hey...like, we're doing this super cool TV show about cakes, and we wanted to duplicate your no-one's-ever-heard-of-it, no-one-can-afford-it, wine bottle. Can we do that, in EXACT DETAIL, giving you a full 30 minutes of exposure on nighttime cable TV, or should we just print the word 'W-I-N-E' on the bottle?"

I guess, with a shop coming open soon, I'll need to remember that, basically, it sounds like if they're asking for something that "Everyone" at the wedding will recognize and yet be in awe of the fact that "Yes, it's actually cake, thank you", I'll have to say: "No, I can't make you anything that anyone will recognize. Sorry. Can I interest you in this nice sheet cake with your anniversary date on it?" PBBBBBTHHHHHH icon_razz.gif

Chef_Stef Posted 28 Feb 2009 , 7:25am
post #108 of 127

Oh. And what about animals? Is the AKC going to start coming after us for making a perfect cake...bulldog, or the dogtags? Will God show up and mention that, really, if we want to split hairs, HE actually has first dibs on the whole ROSE thing?


(ok...I'm kidding...but c'mon. Where does it end?)

ceshell Posted 28 Feb 2009 , 7:37am
post #109 of 127

LOL Chef_Stef. It's true. Just because someone wants to buy a product featuring a licensed image doesn't mean they (legally) get to w/o paying the copyright owner. Replicating a trademarked image/logo/whatever for profit = illegal, no matter how much the groom loves the Broncos. You could make a helmet in team colors I'm sure, just not the logo.

Goes back to the old: "yes, but will they come after you, will you get caught" and also "is it immoral or just illegal" debate found on countless other threads. For cakes for family, it's essentially the same as doodling Mickey Mouse on your notebook at school or having your child make Nemo out of Play-doh. Home use=not a problem. But I'd never try to sell em in a shop, not because I am high-and-mighty, but because I am a chicken----. icon_smile.gif
And considering how high-profile Duff is, I'd be willing to bet you that yes he does ask for permission for everything, but as you mentioned, I'd be shocked if there were any instances in which he didn't get it. Actually that would make a GREAT episode! Famous client calls up and wants a Disney themed cake, Duff calls for permission, they deny (slippery slope, right? They don't want to grant the rights and then open up the floodgates for other requests) and then the episode is based on what they did INSTEAD of using Disney stuff...all the while complaining about Disney. hee hee.

Last time I checked, animals weren't copyrighted. Except, wait, maybe Dolly the sheep ROTFL.

Chef_Stef Posted 28 Feb 2009 , 7:44am
post #110 of 127

I'd just like to hear how the conversation goes, when customers call Mary Alice and say, "Ahem, yes. We'd like a complete replication of the Dallas Cowboys stadium and all the players, complete with a Nike Air pro-shop, a mini McDonalds, the NBC and ABC tv station vans outside made of gumpaste, and Mickey Mouse greeting people." So, Mary Alice says, "Sure, we can totally do that. I just have to make, let me see...SIX corporate level phone calls and get and/or pay for permission to use those logos, and it will cost you fifty Zillion dollars." How does THAT episode go? lol

I'll just remember to tell customers, if anyone would "recognize" it--I can't do it. This has been helpful. Discouraging, but helpful.

makes me wish the cable shows might mention, for customers *out here* : "Do not try ordering this at home unless you have first secured permission from the CEO of whatever logo you wish to see on your groom's cake." Might save us some hassle.

indydebi Posted 28 Feb 2009 , 1:38pm
post #111 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef_Stef

Are we saying brides can't come in and order their fiance's favorite sport/college team colors/logo replicated in a terrific cake, their favorite beer, their John Deere hat, Denver broncos helmet, their Harley?? No Chev emblems on the cake? (done that).

What about Duff ....Does he have to call every one of those logo-based, familiar-faced company brand items that they duplicate in cake and ask permission?




Yes.
Yes.

-K8memphis Posted 28 Feb 2009 , 1:57pm
post #112 of 127

No no no Ceshelly--you got me/it!!

Brown canvas purses with leather trim and random initials are not copyrighted. Nor in any other configuration.

In fact they, each one, are already infringing on whoever did it first. But whoever that was let it go and everyobody is doing it so so can I! Yes, not with their exact logo, not with their initials--but with whatever initials I want, like mine or my client's.

And all those real purses look like the other. Start trying to spot them they are everywhere!

Quote:
Originally Posted by paddlegirl14

It isn't the shape. A purse is a purse. The designs on the purse, or what ever the item is, is what the issue is. If the designs make anyone think of the big brand, it is their likeness.

I do know this for a fact. I deal with licenses for Fraternities and Sororities 24/7. We have the same issues. Nothing can be done unless we have paper work saying we can. It means any combination that makes one think of the particular group. My Dad also deals with this all of the time. He has multiple patents in his name. He has to pay a copyright lawyer big bucks to ensure that nothing he is doing has been done-in any form or fashion.




(I'm at a disadvantage (poor K8t lol) because I don't carry a purse because I walk with a cane and carrying a purse really complik8s things. I stuff a small wallet in my waistband. So I don't use purses but I love them..)

All that to say, I could, if I went shopping, I could produce many many many purses that clearly resemble a Gucci, a Dooney & Bourke, a Coach and a Louie that are not those brands.

Your Dad pays someone big bucks to keep his images clear of imitators. Gucci, Dooney, Coach and Louie, etc. did not. They all have purses that look like the other and so do a bajillion of other designers and off brands. They already shot themselves in the toosh.

I ain't even making a dang purse--I'm making a cake with the client's inititals, yes that ain't a single "g", a pair of "C's", not "LV" nor "DB".

Yah gettin' me, Camera guy??? icon_biggrin.gif
The copyright thing in the US is way out of hand but that's not my beef here. Our/my art is like Warhol's except it has no lasting value other than the photograph. I am well within the copyright boundaries because for initialed purses, they left the door wide open by not protecting it.

Which is why our media lawyer cake-buddy upthread had to defer to my argument.

Hey I am a potato bug in real life. I just curl up in a ball mostly if prodded. But there are hills I will die fighting on, I just choose them very carefully. But this is a given, ain't even a battle--just trying to 'splain it.

-K8memphis Posted 28 Feb 2009 , 1:58pm
post #113 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by indydebi

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef_Stef

Are we saying brides can't come in and order their fiance's favorite sport/college team colors/logo replicated in a terrific cake, their favorite beer, their John Deere hat, Denver broncos helmet, their Harley?? No Chev emblems on the cake? (done that).

What about Duff ....Does he have to call every one of those logo-based, familiar-faced company brand items that they duplicate in cake and ask permission?



Yes.
Yes.




Yes.
Yes.

cakedoll Posted 28 Feb 2009 , 2:18pm
post #114 of 127

What it boils down to is the use and unautherized sale of a trademarked logo, whether it be LV, Coach, Gucci, Dooney&Bourke, or anything else for that matter.

There's a lot of designer inspired bags out there that are considered legal; the colors and shape are similar, but where the logos are supposed to be, is a different design. As long as the logo is not on them anywhere, they can be labeled as designer inspired. You even see 'G'oaches in Walmart. (though Sams did get sued a couple of years ago for selling counterfeit Fendi and Prada. I thought that was pretty wild.)

Personally, I think LV would be better served to go after these sites that sell mirror image replica bags as most of them end up on on-line venues being sold as authentic. I'm not even going to get into what illegal activities the money gets funneled into.

Instead they go after a bakery for duplicating and selling their logo on something that will be consumed in a couple of hours (and the bakery probably doesn't have the means to even try and contest the issue). This was an easy hit and a cheap win for LV.

I totally understand trademark infringement and LV is justified (legally)in doing this; I just feel their legal eagles should put their energy into stopping something that matters.

-K8memphis Posted 28 Feb 2009 , 2:25pm
post #115 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakedoll

What it boils down to is the use and unautherized sale of a trademarked logo, whether it be LV, Coach, Gucci, Dooney&Bourke, or anything else for that matter.




Yeah for sure.

I'm not proposong to do that.

As an aside:

But a few short years ago, nobody gave a rat's ass for bakeries to do Mickey even, much less Any logo. I've done tons of Mickey's and Minnie's, etc. for the bakery where I worked in a previous life.

Previously, America was happy and enjoyed it when a bakery could imitate a logo on a cake--it was cool and fun.

Nowadays, no.

moreCakePlz Posted 28 Feb 2009 , 3:16pm
post #116 of 127

Ceshell, I also think there is a disconnect going on. Somehow in the last few pages the issue changed from using a doctored LV logo on a cake purse to using the customers initials. Nothing illegal with a cake purse that has the customers initials, but very illegal to make a cake purse with the LV logo.

Back on page 1 of the thread is the original reason for all this chit-chat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k8memphis

I've been thinking about this since I'm on the verge of legalness and what I 'm gonna do is blow the logos a bit. Just not make it perfectly perfect. That's why the Louie boys are getting twitchy about this.

There's knock offs of everything. Obviously a cake is not a purse, so we're ok there. But we just gotta like for Louie we'd need to make the "V" in the logo look like an "N" kwim. Make it slightly wrong on purpose so it's a 'knock off' but still close enough to be fun.

I think if we blow each logo on purpose a bit we are ok and not like to be deceitful but just to take care of (our) business and not steal. Paradies are firmly legal.

Zillions of chickadees carry knock off purses and that's not illegal kwim. Just don't make 'em perfect even though we can huh.


-K8memphis Posted 28 Feb 2009 , 3:53pm
post #117 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by moreCakePlz

Ceshell, I also think there is a disconnect going on. Somehow in the last few pages the issue changed from using a doctored LV logo on a cake purse to using the customers initials. Nothing illegal with a cake purse that has the customers initials, but very illegal to make a cake purse with the LV logo.

Back on page 1 of the thread is the original reason for all this chit-chat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k8memphis

I've been thinking about this since I'm on the verge of legalness and what I 'm gonna do is blow the logos a bit. Just not make it perfectly perfect. That's why the Louie boys are getting twitchy about this.

There's knock offs of everything. Obviously a cake is not a purse, so we're ok there. But we just gotta like for Louie we'd need to make the "V" in the logo look like an "N" kwim. Make it slightly wrong on purpose so it's a 'knock off' but still close enough to be fun.

I think if we blow each logo on purpose a bit we are ok and not like to be deceitful but just to take care of (our) business and not steal. Paradies are firmly legal.

Zillions of chickadees carry knock off purses and that's not illegal kwim. Just don't make 'em perfect even though we can huh.




I still believe that, but I have refined my argument in the debate.

See so many of you are coming at this recently from the past decade or so.

Again I'm coming from an era where we made tons of Mickie and Minnie and Garfield and Pooh character pan cakes from the bakery.

Because the only law is the law of popular opinion and for a very long time this area of copyright was not pursued--was not 'law'. I spent years making stuff that would get you busted fast now. In a large part Disney started this domino thing that has snowballed.

So while some of us are careful to cut a wide wide path for this. I'm interested in pushing it back when possible. But using my own initials and the initials of my client is clearly not infringing.

Derivative art. Fair use. Land of the free Home of the copyright.

-K8memphis Posted 28 Feb 2009 , 4:07pm
post #118 of 127

Dude, all of the logos are made from initials in fonts that are not copyrighted. There is little difference between the CC on some coach products and the G and the the backwards G on Gucchi.

LV is offset- Dooney & B is offset.

So where is the unique design?

They are randomly placed all over the purses.

From style to style they all resemble the other.

Mickey looks like Mickey looks like Mickey, well who looks like Minnie but...

aligotmatt Posted 28 Feb 2009 , 4:52pm
post #119 of 127

ehh, they have a chat with a rep. thing on the LV site.

Welcome!
Please wait while we contact the next available agent...
You are now speaking with Scott M.!
Scott M.: Hi! My name is Scott M.. How may I help you?
you : Hi Scott. I'm a cake decorator and was recently shown this article http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2009/02/25/vuitton-s-ban-on-bun-bag-86908-21151047/
you : I have not made an LV replica CAKE, but I was wondering if you are aware of how the company feels or responds to such things
you : This article has sparked some controversy over copyrights
Scott M.: We do not support the replication of our products, but we are aware that certain individuals may choose to create such things as these types of cakes.
you : Does the company pursue cake decorators for it?
Scott M.: Yes. In this instance, which is on a larger scale and making a profit, we certainly pursue. We have an entire legal department devoted to protecting the integrity of our products.
you : Thank you so much for the information
Scott M.: Always a pleasure! Is there anything else I can assist you with today?
you : No, have a great day!
Scott M.: You as well!
Scott M.: For further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me using the chat feature; or contact us directly at 866-884-8866.
Scott M.: Thank you for visiting LouisVuitton.com. Good bye.

moreCakePlz Posted 28 Feb 2009 , 4:55pm
post #120 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by k8memphis

Quote:
Originally Posted by moreCakePlz

Ceshell, I also think there is a disconnect going on. Somehow in the last few pages the issue changed from using a doctored LV logo on a cake purse to using the customers initials. Nothing illegal with a cake purse that has the customers initials, but very illegal to make a cake purse with the LV logo.

Back on page 1 of the thread is the original reason for all this chit-chat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k8memphis

I've been thinking about this since I'm on the verge of legalness and what I 'm gonna do is blow the logos a bit. Just not make it perfectly perfect. That's why the Louie boys are getting twitchy about this.

There's knock offs of everything. Obviously a cake is not a purse, so we're ok there. But we just gotta like for Louie we'd need to make the "V" in the logo look like an "N" kwim. Make it slightly wrong on purpose so it's a 'knock off' but still close enough to be fun.

I think if we blow each logo on purpose a bit we are ok and not like to be deceitful but just to take care of (our) business and not steal. Paradies are firmly legal.

Zillions of chickadees carry knock off purses and that's not illegal kwim. Just don't make 'em perfect even though we can huh.




I still believe that, but I have refined my argument in the debate.

See so many of you are coming at this recently from the past decade or so.

Again I'm coming from an era where we made tons of Mickie and Minnie and Garfield and Pooh character pan cakes from the bakery.

Because the only law is the law of popular opinion and for a very long time this area of copyright was not pursued--was not 'law'. I spent years making stuff that would get you busted fast now. In a large part Disney started this domino thing that has snowballed.

So while some of us are careful to cut a wide wide path for this. I'm interested in pushing it back when possible. But using my own initials and the initials of my client is clearly not infringing.

Derivative art. Fair use. Land of the free Home of the copyright.





Blame it on the internet and advances in communication. Twenty-Five years ago Disney (or any company) had no way of knowing if a baker in Small Town, USA was making Mickey Mouse cakes. But now all they have to do is sit some summer intern at a computer, type a few key words into Google, and bam they have a whole list of people they can go after.

Is the new reality better or worse? It depends on which side of the debate you are on. For any artist, musician or company that has been the victim of copyright theft Im sure they are loving it, for the small bakery who cant make a Mickey cake anymore (and legally never could) it is a bummer.

Quote by @%username% on %date%

%body%