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.
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.