Louis Vuitton are not happy about bag cakes! - Page 5

Originally Posted by indydebi




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.

Originally Posted by bizatchgirl

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.

Originally Posted by indydebi



I can do a naked Minnie Mouse humping Goofy and Disney certainly wouldn't want THAT kind of "free publicity" on their character / creation.

Originally Posted by txcupcake

There is a huge difference between selling a purse that's supposed to look like an LV purse and selling a CAKE that's supposed to look like an LV purse. They are apples and oranges (which means, as I stated earlier, that no reasonable person would mistake a cake for a purse).

Disney, Warner Bros., etc. won't allow the manufacturing of specific decorations to be placed on cakes without their okay. Conveniently, they make cake decorations so there is technically no need for a bakery to make their own without infringing on copyrights. In other words, Disney-made decor and homemade Disney rip-off decor = apples and apples because a reasonable person could mistake an awesomely crafted gumpaste Snow White for a Disney-manufactured Snow White.

Now, a lot of bakers get around this copyright by interpreting Disney's copyrighted designs in a way that Disney can not manufacture. For example, Courtney at Cake Nouveau has a beautiful Snow White inspired cake on her website (I can't post a specific link, but it's on the second page of her gallery).

It's obviously Disney, but not in the same way a gumpaste statue of Snow White is Disney. Why? You can buy a statue of Snow White from Disney, but you can't buy the essence of Snow White. Apples and oranges.

Anyway, the point of this long-a$$ post is to say that unless you are comparing apples to apples there really isn't a point. I doubt that LV would have a very strong case based on the reasonable person paradigm.

Whew! Now where's my drink?

Originally Posted by k8memphis

fahghedahbodit!!!

Originally Posted by BCJean

I am lost here....are we discussing whether or not it is illegal...or whether or not we can get by doing something illegal and not get caught?

Since I have posted, I will now get emails for thread #237 "is it illegal to do a copyrighted design".