does any one have the step by step how to make the bugs bunny in the Debbie brown cartoon character cake book..

I have to make one of these by the end of the month and can not locate the book any where.. would any one be so kind to scan the how to section for me.. or pm me if you can..

thanks..

(double post - oops)

Plenty in stock on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/dp/1853919241/?tag=cakecentral-20

https://picasaweb.google.com/108174257721909454495/DebbieBrownCartoonCakes#5477379832474474162

^ Wow. That's a big infringement of copyright right there!

It is an infringement of the author's work, but if CC were to get involved they would have to shut down the site since about 40% of items posted here are copyright violations. I don't know if cakers realize that making a cinderalla cake, mickey mouse, transformers, bugs bunny without using the actual item is an infringement. Either they don't get it or don't care.

I imagine Debbie brown has permission from the creators, otherwise that would be a joke.

Scanning books and uploading them takes it to a whole new level though doesn't it? Not fair on the author at all.

TBF its no different to going on Amazon and looking in some of the books they sell.

Some of them even show the pages with recipes and how to's

I'm not cheap but how much of your profit will that book eat out of probably the only cake you'll make out of it

Ive got the updated version of Debbie's book with the thomas the tank cake in and happily emailed the thomas how to to a fellow CC member a few months back

I can't believe that people here can't see how WRONG this sort of thing is. If someone wants something that has been published in a book they should BUY THE BOOK, or make do without. If you were a cake decorator who made your living out of writing cake books how would YOU feel about people stealing your hard work like this?

If this is what CC is about then I no longer want a part of it.

I really don't think people believe they are reaking the law, I can say alot but this guy said it better, this is after they cracked down on a brooklyn, ny, usa bakery shop that p laced images on cakes
EFF's Jason Schultz:
As an actual copyright and trademark attorney, I feel this sort of discussion highlights exactly where our notions of "property" and "culture" cause confusion and tension between what the law is, what our intuition is, and what we wish the world was like. Most of us probably wish that we could easily go into our local bakery with our favorite comic or cartoon character and have it put on a birthday cake for our child or best friend. Sure, we wouldn't mind paying a bit more, if it were easy and relatively cheap. However, because the copyright maximalists have been able to frame copyright in terms of "property", this reality is increasingly difficult to achieve. Property rights are generally thought of as absolute and impenetrable, e.g. my favorite San Francisco anti-parking sign that says "Don't even *think* about parking here!"
Yet kids love culture, as we all do. And their love of copyrighted and trademarked characters helps make those characters valuable, just as the creators' inspiration and skill have. Consider if no child loved Dora the Explorer; how valuable would the copyrights and trademarks in the character actually be? Not very. Yet the love and obsession of fans do not garner any "property rights" in the character or any rights at all, according the maximalists. Even those willing to pay to use their favorite characters are often chilled from doing so because the maximalists argue they must come and beg permission from the copyright owner or face up to $150,000 in fines for their sins and indiscretions.

Does this mean the creators of the character should have no rights?

Certainly not. But it may mean that they shouldn't have absolute rights. In theory, that is what "fair use" is for, to balance out the rights of the creator with the rights of the public to enjoy that creation, especially in a private world that does not compete with the creators' business. In the case of Dora, that is the making of commercial cartoons and books, not cakes. The fact that Dora is popular on cakes comes from her popularity among her fans, not the skill of the hand that draws her or the voice that speaks her words.

Finally, all too often, we see a perspective like Tshaka's, where the argument is made that if you don't enforce your rights, you lose them.

Nothing could be further from the truth in this context, even for trademarks (i.e. the only time you lose your trademark is if it becomes generic for the class of goods you sell; no one would ever start calling cartoons "Doras" and birthday cakes aren't even in the same class of goods). What Tshaka is really worried about, it seems to me, is a loss of *control* over the use of one's creations. The idea that someone other than the creator might actually make use of the character without permission is what drives copyright maximalist authors, owners, and advocates crazy, not loss of rights or even, often, compensation.

It is this battle for control that is at the heart of the copyright wars and little else. From the perspective of consumers and fans, characters like Dora have become part of our lives and we shouldn't be ashamed or intimidated from enjoying that fact, even if it involves putting their image on a birthday cake. From the perspective of the Copyright Maximalists, however, even a "Let them eat cake" policy is far too lenient and infringing of their rights.

I wouldnt agree with copying a whole book and sticking it on flikr.

These books are readily available to borrow out the library and these book publishers know that anyone can take them home and copy them so Im pretty sure they know it happens.

Would you go out and buy a DVD you want to see instead of borrowing it off a friend just so you dont hit the film makers profits? Its the same thing