Here's A Copyright Violation Article That's Interesting

Business By costumeczar Updated 10 Feb 2011 , 12:22am by dchockeyguy

costumeczar Posted 9 Feb 2011 , 5:07pm
post #1 of 16

Notice that the planner said that she didn't post pictures of the event on her website, so it was someone at the party who turned her in. Don't think it can't happen! http://specialevents.com/news/planner-threatened-with-lawsuit-over-oscar-style-decor/

15 replies
bobwonderbuns Posted 9 Feb 2011 , 5:19pm
post #2 of 16

That's interesting because I can think of several cookie decorators who have done Oscar cookies (just because they could)! I do know of two cookie cutter companies who got C&D letters for making cutters that sort of looked like Oscar (a man's figure on a pedestal) even if they weren't Oscar himself.

indydebi Posted 9 Feb 2011 , 6:08pm
post #3 of 16

I'm glad to see the articles explains why owners of copyrighted items MUST pursue all violations or they risk the right to pursue ANY violations.

zespri Posted 9 Feb 2011 , 6:34pm
post #4 of 16

I know people have to protect their rights, but sometimes I think things get a little bit silly. I heard about a company trying to copyright the colour of their logo so no other company anywhere could use it. Imagine if that had gone through, Coca Cola might do it with red and nobody would be able to wear it... world gone mad!

indydebi Posted 9 Feb 2011 , 6:49pm
post #5 of 16

In my tenure working at the casket mfg'r company, where I worked directly with the Chairman of the Board on copyright and copyright protection, I learned that "common" things cannot be copyrighted. For example, the word "casket" cannot by copyrighted by one company which would prohibit all other casket companies from using it because this is a common item and word. So some attempts to copyright things ARE silly and are testimony to the lack of research on the part of the person trying to latch onto a common term.

leily Posted 9 Feb 2011 , 10:26pm
post #6 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by zespri

I know people have to protect their rights, but sometimes I think things get a little bit silly. I heard about a company trying to copyright the colour of their logo so no other company anywhere could use it. Imagine if that had gone through, Coca Cola might do it with red and nobody would be able to wear it... world gone mad!




actually people can copyright an color. There is a "john deere green" and a "john deere yellow" And i know other companies have too, but this is one i'm more familiar with. You can wear the colors, you just have to pay to use them when making the shirt to sell.

zespri Posted 9 Feb 2011 , 10:30pm
post #7 of 16

Ridiculous!!! IMHO, of course icon_wink.gif That's really interesting, thanks for the story.


Quote:
Originally Posted by leily

actually people can copyright an color. There is a "john deere green" and a "john deere yellow" And i know other companies have too, but this is one i'm more familiar with. You can wear the colors, you just have to pay to use them when making the shirt to sell.


stsapph Posted 9 Feb 2011 , 10:49pm
post #8 of 16

Yep, you can copy right a specific hue or shade, but not just red. I'm sure coke could copyright that exact shade of red, but not red itself. I had a professor in college that created and copy righted "Nickalodean Green" and "Nickalodean Orange".

zespri Posted 9 Feb 2011 , 10:50pm
post #9 of 16

So, if I sell a cake in 'Nickalodean Green', am I in breach of copyright?

stsapph Posted 9 Feb 2011 , 10:56pm
post #10 of 16

Technically, I think so, but considering the professor, I think you'd be safe. That, and if you make it just a touch off, then it's not really the same color that's actually copyrighted.

jason_kraft Posted 9 Feb 2011 , 11:04pm
post #11 of 16

Specific colors can be trademarked based on the 1995 Supreme Court case Qualitex v. Jacobson (linked below). I don't think a color (or a palette of colors) is sufficiently creative to be copyrightable, but the execution of a logo using one or more colors might be copyrightable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitex_Co._v._Jacobson_Products_Co.,_Inc.

Trademarks are limited in scope, so if you made a cake in John Deere Green with a picture of a generic tractor on it you would probably be infringing, but if you just used the color to make balloons and a border you should be OK.

lissacarol Posted 9 Feb 2011 , 11:10pm
post #12 of 16

Maybe I am crazy but in my icing colors I don't have a John Deere green or Caterpillar yellow So, if I had a request for a John Deere green tractor I could get close but it wouldn't be exact, right? icon_smile.gif

cakesbymindysue Posted 9 Feb 2011 , 11:17pm
post #13 of 16

I have also heard that Tiffany's has a copyright on their blue.

just double checked, they have it trademarked, not copyrighted.

jason_kraft Posted 9 Feb 2011 , 11:18pm
post #14 of 16

If you made a cake with something that looked like a John Deere tractor in a shade of green similar to the green they use, that would probably be infringing. A stylized, generic tractor in green might be OK, but it could still be interpreted as infringing.

Basically, if you look at it and think "John Deere", you're in trouble.

jason_kraft Posted 9 Feb 2011 , 11:20pm
post #15 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakesbymindysue

I have also heard that Tiffany's has a copyright on their blue.



They have a trademark, not a copyright. From the article below: "Because Tiffany Blue is trademarked, however, it cannot be used to package or advertise anything that might be associated with or in direct competition with Tiffany & Co. or its subsidiaries or be used to cause confusion amongst consumers."

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-tiffany-blue.htm

dchockeyguy Posted 10 Feb 2011 , 12:22am
post #16 of 16

I noted that in the article she listed her attorney fees had gone over $2,000. She's lucky, that's nothing!

Quote by @%username% on %date%

%body%