Louis Vuitton are not happy about bag cakes! - Page 4

Somebody smart tell me why Jerry Falwell lost his case but Disney probably would prevail in the humping dealios being bandied about here.

Because Jerry Falwell isn't a copyrighted character.

What are you even referencing?
Talk about apples and nutty buddies

Awesome is the quality of the music to me.

Legal is what the Supreme Court ruled on parodies.

From my awesome buddies, Apologetix
http://www.apologetix.com/faq/faq-detail.php?faq_q_id=1

Freedom of speech. Freedom of the press...

I almost always use that Falwell cartoon as a reference when talking about freedoms... and how freedom of speech has come to mean freedom to be an a-hole...

but yeah, purse cakes...

Omg Omg--everything I produce is copyrighted. Mickie freaking Mouse is copyrighted but WE are not copyrighted. Wow crazy huh.

Dude, while we are on the subject of Aplogetix, they have an album called New & Used Hits and the specific cut on there is available on another album but if you get it you gotta get this version. It's sung to the tune of Hotel California and it's a parody --it's the song that Joseph would sing about his & Mary's travel that resulted in no room in the Inn and the birth of Jesus.

It is the most stunner awesome song--it reveals the anguish involved--so often we hear those same dusty Bible stories over and over and over--so anyway it's a fabulous fabulous song--refreshing to say the least.

"Welcome to the Hotel Can't Afford Yah"

I have to tell you I had diet coke blasting out of my nose as I have read some of the posts here. Between Indydebi smoking and someone else quoting directly from"The People Versus Larry Flynt", this thread is all over the place. I am not making fun. It just struck me as funny. There is a lot of passion here. It kind of remind me of a few other threads... scratch vs box cakes, homebakers vs legal bakers.

Truthfully, I don't think LV is gonna care about one person making one cake with their logo for their own use and enjoyment. But legally the person making and selling the cakes with the logo is something else altogether. There is little something called a royalty that you are required to pay to use a trademarked or registered product. Since a brand name is trademarked, LV would require a percentage of the sale of that product. Do I think that LV is going to ask for royalty payments from the lady cooking cakes out of her basement? Probably not. Do I think that LV is going to come after a store that sells 5 or 10 or 100 cakes with their logo? Probably not. But I wouldn't want to risk it either. The legal fees that you would have to pay to try to defend yourself would probably bankrupt you. And ignorance is not a defense.

To the PP who posted about Weird Al, as you can see from the post about Parodies, Weird Al did not need permission from Coolio and therefore he didn't get 'in trouble' for using Gangsters' Paradise for his Amish Paradise.

Out of courtesy, Weird Al always asks for permission. According to Al's side of the story, he got permission from Coolio's rep, but not Coolio himself. When Coolio heard the actual song, he was not happy that it was used in such away.

It was more of a personal disagreement, and possibly a misunderstanding, over Al using the song. Never did Al get in trouble.

I am a huge, huge, huge Weird Al fan, and have seen him several times in concert. So, I know the details (at least the public ones) of that whole thing.

Also, the silver purse on their web site has come up on CC quite recently. So, I am glad that this has been kept to discussion about copyright only, and nothing personal about the designer.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=apologetix&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=CzGnScb5A4SGngfHlJH5Dw&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#

hey here are some videos of k8's pals....i've had fun watchin them...

Omg omg--google this (if you want to)

apologetix hotel can't afford yah

and play the first one that says "New and Used Hits"

This is Joseph 'singing' of Joseph and Mary fame

"so I stood in the doorway..."

I love this song.

It is a legal parody!!!

Hey I know it's not Christmas--but listen to Silent Night at the end after the instrumental part--I think about Mary bearing that baby by herself--it's just stunn stunn stunn stunn stunner to me--it's about 6 and a half mintues--no no really it's so beautiful--listen to how Silent Night starts

Wow--how cool--I had no idea I could hear this on the computer.

Thank you Thank you Thank you!!

I leave for two hours and this thread runs amock! Hmm, maybe I started it (sort-of)

Jerry Falwell lost his case because of the context in which the cartoon was written and published. Hustler, in small print, indicated that it was a parody and listed it as a ficiton in the table of contents. The Supreme Court stated if this parody was ruled as libel than other political cartoonist and satrists would be subjec tto the same. It also ruled that in order to win emotional damages in a parody case (which is what Falwell was suing for) a person must prove three things:
"1. That the parody or satire amounted to statement of fact, not an opinion
2. That it was a false statement of fact
3. That the person who drew the cartoon or wrote the article knew it was false, or exhibited reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the material. In other words, proof of actual malice is necessary."
(Don R. Pember, Mass Media Law, pgs. 235-236)

As far as copyright goes, cake purses would be classified more as misappropriation. "A person trying to pass hiw or her work off as the work of someone else & a person trying to pass off the work of someone else as his or her own work" (PEmber, pg. 514)

Urrgh, and there is this other case (which I can't think of) in which this celebrity sued a company because they put his face in one of their ads. I THINK it fell under false advertising, but he was neither employed by the company or endorsed it and this ad gave the general public the impression that he did.

(Oh, and the People vs. Larry Flynt is a different. They tried to sue him for obscenity - which has also been ruled to be decided on a case by case issue. - I could write about that too, but I won't )
Oh, and I don't want you guys thinking I follow up on all these porn/obscenity cases. I was a Communication major and we learned about ALL these cases in reference to mass media law. The only porn I get off is cake porn! :LOL:

WHEW!

P.S. Did I ever mention I was a nerd?

One last P.S. - why did you guys make me dig out my law book!? I'm supposed to be cleaning!

i agree with spending the money on cake supplies. i find the rest to be ridicuplous....do they think the people are going to carry around a cake as a purse. its one thing a knock of purse but cake that will be eaten...come off it.

Here's the deal--there's one Mickie Mouse. Even if he's blue he's still Garfield. There are multiplied bajillions of freaking purses. So long as I don't use their logo per se--I am more than fine.

And don't forget about the 'specially spiced' brownies when I'm in the slammer.

Am I just tired and brain dead or something? Because this argument is SO not logical to me.

Saying that people can tell the difference between a cake and a purse as justification for reproducing a copyrighted image .... you could say the same thing about Mickey Mouse. That people can tell the difference between a cartoon on a movie screen and a cake. But it's still a copyrighted image.

If I'm missing something, explain it to me. But this argument has holes in it so big you can drive a truck thru them, and it is not making any sense to me what so ever.