Warning about licensed characters and copyrighted material - Page 12  

"But Mom!!! What about .......?"

when decopac sells the kit IT is restricted -- there is a card included that shows exactly how the cake must be done to be an approved design. don't follow it and they find out, they can sue.

FSD applies to the PAN, not the cake. Disney has and does restrict use of the product created with the pan (just like the flea spray I nuked the yard with yesterday clearly states for "home use only" and that commercial use is a punishable violation) Disney has clearly said for HOME use -- aka NONcommercial use -- only. Selling is commercial. Making for your own child is not.

avatar-- this falls under another area of copyright -- that if the creator does not pursue or allows use of it in a general manner for personal use without protesting, the user is in the clear -- but it has to be a NONcommercial use. This is the same thing that allows you to draw Mickey all you want for yourself and Disney can't say a thing. It's personal, private, NONcommercial. This is what allows you to make a Mickey Mouse Clubhouse Cake for YOUR own child -- it's personal, it's private, it's NONcommerical and Disney can NOT say a thing. This site is NONcommercial (even tho' littered with ads...ggrrrrrr) and the use of the avatar amounts to me wearing a t-shirt

in fact Disney, Davies, Watterson, et. al have an intrinsic interest in seeing us use the avatars -- it's free advertising.

(ever considered that? -- We PAY Disney, etc. to buy their clothes to wear so we can be their advertising!)


================

finally -- well, I've reached "that" point.

the point where my mom used to say to me:

"Fine, go play in the traffic. Just don't come crying to me when you get hurt."

But Moooooooooom! Traffic is fuuuuun!

What's hard for me to understand is how some people are so concerned with protecting the rights of others that they disregard their own. If it's a matter of personal morals it's one thing, but the law is something entirely different.

Disney is only one of several big corporations who have effectively put small companies out of business for excercising their rights under federal law. Most of these lawsuits never make it to court because these small companies can't afford to fight it, they can't afford to hire lawyers to pick through all the grey matter to tell them what their rights are.

Suppose someone who frequents this site is making disney cakes using deco packs, and those cakes are big sellers in her small business. Disney comes along threatening a lawsuit. Had she searched this site 2 days ago, she'd have found nothing but comments from people who certainly aren't copyright lawyers telling her that she can't sell them, or that she can only reproduce them exactly as disney specifies. Forward two days to this thread, and now she at least has information on the First Sale Doctrine and she suddenly has a place to start.


And insinuating that questioning the law and knowing your rights is childish and comparible to an arguement between parent and child is ridiculous. The corporate suits at Disney are NOT my parents and especially after having researched the company a bit in the past few days I am certainly not inclined to believe everything(if anything) they say.

I have read all 12 pages of this thread and have come to a conclusion.
No matter what is proven to be law, there are some who feel that they can take advantage of the gray area because it did not state it can not be done in exact words that they think it should say. Because it did not say "you can use this pan to make a cake without receiving money for making it for another person. No compensation for making the cake, ingredients paid for by another, your time to bake and decorate paid by another, then they can use this argument to do what they want. Even though it is not the specific wording you think it should be, you still do not have a legal right to sell them!
No sense in arguing that the characters are old, written before Disney got started or not. They have fine tuned the look of the character and they want to protect it. No Tinkerbell made as a joke overweight or pregnant and no Mickey with marijuana leaves these will decidedly lower the "wholesome" image they have tried to keep.
Right is right and wrong is wrong, stop making excuses and using the what if mind set. Just plain don't make them for resale or recreate them in fondant, gumpaste, rice krispies or any other medium and them sell them. No matter how you interpret the words as written they boil down to one thing, You Can Not Sell Them!!!
It is like windshield wipers on a goats butt, it ain't gonna work.

evelyn

I have to say your explanation on why you say you're free to use Calvin as your personal avatar is quite interesting.

avatar-- this falls under another area of copyright -- that if the creator does not pursue or allows use of it in a general manner for personal use without protesting, the user is in the clear -- but it has to be a NONcommercial use.

I highly doubt Watterson would have an intrinsic interest in seeing anyone use his images as an avatar online. I also disagree he'd be happy to see the image and think 'hey, great, free advertising'. Watterson was against that type of thing. He did not want his characters being displayed anywhere but his comic strips. He was also against his images being made & sold as clothing, toys, or whatever else. There was a scant few items made with his images with those being special causes. Fighting over that very thing with Universal Syn amongst others, is why Watterson decided to pack the strip in.

A FAQ you might find interesting.

Can't I scan an image and put it online?



If you are not the original creator or copyright owner of the image, you cannot legally redistribute that image. Scanning an image and placing it online is redistribution and it is a breach of copyright.

This includes images found in magazines, books, newspapers, greeting cards, calendars, catalogs, CD covers, brochures, etc.

Major companies such as Disney, Hallmark, Warner Brothers, etc., have very strict regulations about the redistribution of their property.

You cannot legally scan and redistribute photographs, cartoons, illustrations, drawings, etc., if they are protected by copyright.

You cannot legally create a "fan site" using copyrighted photographs without the expressed permission of the photographer or copyright owner.

You cannot "freeze" an image from a television program, movie, or film for redistribution. The television program, movie, or film is protected by copyright as a complete entity and as individual frames.

It is prudent to assume that everything that is published has a restricted copyright. Check the source of the image you want to scan for its copyright restrictions

From the R I G H T S website..

http://www.rightsforartists.com/

Wipers on a goat's butt! Bahahahaha!!!!

Everybody take an hour to breathe. I see signs this is getting heated and we don't want it shut down. Take a breather and come back, please. I enjoy a good debate and would hate to have this thread disappear.

Recreating the image in gumpaste, fondant, or rice krispies IS considered copyright infringement whether you sell them or not, so says the law. If your kid wants a Mickey Mouse cake and you recreate mickey mouse in any medium for that purpose, you've effectively taken money out of Disney's pocket by foregoing the option to purchase the item and opting to make it yourself. It may be hard to enforce, and many companies probably wouldn't bother, but if "right is right and wrong is wrong" that point is moot, huh?

So Smokey you are saying I cannot let my daughter draw Mickey Mouse to put as artwork on her wall because it's "illegal" as instead I should've bought a poster?? I suppose by that law I couldn't even make pancakes that looked like Mickey for my breakfast because it's against the law?? That makes no sense to me.

I think you're right, although I prefer to think of it as "passionate" I may be the only one willing to debate anything anyway. I'm absolutely aware of the fact that I could be completely off base here, and I think I've made it clear that I'm not an attorney and that much of this area is "grey" to me as well. I just think that people should make themselves aware of their OWN rights rather than depending on corporate america to tell them.

Yes, technically because it is Disney's image and they didn't give you the rights to recreate it. I've honestly read so much about this stuff in the past 48 hours(I was up to the wee hours making cupcakes, I had some time ) so it's all starting to run together. I'm in the middle of breakfast right now, but I'll find and quote a source in a bit.

It's one of those things that exist within the law but would rarely, if ever be enforced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgpiN9i45XM&feature=related

Well, costumeczar, you've managed to officially shut me up. It took that video to make me realize that your are most definately banging your head against a wall when you try to debate with people who know everything and refuse to look past their own noses.

Stick a fork in me.............

I loved the video, it added some needed tension relief in this thread.
evelyn

My point being that if people are saying "I don't know" and "I think this might be right" then it isn't a debate, it's a pointless circle of the blind leading the blind. There's a word for that, but I don't think it would make it past the obscenity censors.