Cake Central › Cake Forums › Cake Talk › Cake Decorating › Louis Vuitton are not happy about bag cakes!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Louis Vuitton are not happy about bag cakes! - Page 8

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) in the last few pages: your point about if you are using the CUSTOMER'S initials as the logo, rather than the trademark. I am not sure if people are catching the fact that you agree that use of the TM itself is a problem. [That said, if your customer's name is Lauren Valerian you will probably have a copyright problem, I don't think claiming that it doesn't stand for Louis Vuitton will work LOL!]

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?
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

Not doing cakes any more, moved on...

Now blogging about life after cake and other randomness here:  http://itsa-long-story.blogspot.com/

Reply

Not doing cakes any more, moved on...

Now blogging about life after cake and other randomness here:  http://itsa-long-story.blogspot.com/

Reply
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?)

Not doing cakes any more, moved on...

Now blogging about life after cake and other randomness here:  http://itsa-long-story.blogspot.com/

Reply

Not doing cakes any more, moved on...

Now blogging about life after cake and other randomness here:  http://itsa-long-story.blogspot.com/

Reply
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.
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.

Not doing cakes any more, moved on...

Now blogging about life after cake and other randomness here:  http://itsa-long-story.blogspot.com/

Reply

Not doing cakes any more, moved on...

Now blogging about life after cake and other randomness here:  http://itsa-long-story.blogspot.com/

Reply
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.
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 (favorite line from Shamwow infomercial)

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.
one baker's never ever do is the next baker's 'i swear by this'
Reply
one baker's never ever do is the next baker's 'i swear by this'
Reply
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.
one baker's never ever do is the next baker's 'i swear by this'
Reply
one baker's never ever do is the next baker's 'i swear by this'
Reply
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.
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.
one baker's never ever do is the next baker's 'i swear by this'
Reply
one baker's never ever do is the next baker's 'i swear by this'
Reply
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.
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.
one baker's never ever do is the next baker's 'i swear by this'
Reply
one baker's never ever do is the next baker's 'i swear by this'
Reply
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...
one baker's never ever do is the next baker's 'i swear by this'
Reply
one baker's never ever do is the next baker's 'i swear by this'
Reply
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.
Alison
Reply
Alison
Reply
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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Cake Decorating
Cake Central › Cake Forums › Cake Talk › Cake Decorating › Louis Vuitton are not happy about bag cakes!