Cake Central › Cake Forums › Cake Talk › Cake Decorating › Copyright infringement for Cake decorations?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Copyright infringement for Cake decorations? - Page 2

post #16 of 25
The great thing about decopac is that you are limited to just their expensive "kits". In fact I rarely buy the kit. They have rings, picks, pop tops and edible images. I am however still loving Jason's thought and yesterday told a customer I'd be happy to make her an avengers cake if she came back with written permission from Marvel! She was excited that in her words "a small town mom like me can contact a huge person like Marvel."

I think the best advice I can offer is when it comes to copyright, when in doubt just pass. Better safe then sorry. And as for the comment that so many CC cakes are of licensed things, yes there are a few CC'ers who say to heck with copyright I'll take my chances; the majority of us do them for friends and family and for zero cost. By zero cost I mean (speaking for myself) I take no money, no materials, no exchange of any kind for those cakes.
Christine

When my wires are frayed I think of shiny happy people holding hands!
Reply
Christine

When my wires are frayed I think of shiny happy people holding hands!
Reply
post #17 of 25
And while I'm not a lawyer, I am thinking that the old "you must make the Deco-Pac cake exactly as it is shown in the photo" trope may also be a Contract of Adhesion, and may not hold much water. When you buy something that comes with a built-in contract like that, you didn't sign anything, you didn't bargain for anything, you just bought the item. Conditions can't be imposed on how you use it. You bought it!

I really like Tabberone's site. She's not a lawyer either, but has a lot of experience with this stuff, and is good at putting it into lay terms. http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/CopyrightLaw/Quilting/Quilting.shtml
Quote:
Quote:

False claim:
By purchasing this pattern, you agree to the following terms.
Since when? Absent some form of consent, or a written contract, the pattern designer/manufacturer has no right to impose conditions upon the purchaser. The courts are in agreement that some sort of consent must be shown by the purchaser before any limitations on the use of the copyrighted item can be enforced. The simple act of printing such a statement on a web site or on a copyrighted article is not enforceable without consent before the purchase.
post #18 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by kelleym

And while I'm not a lawyer, I am thinking that the old "you must make the Deco-Pac cake exactly as it is shown in the photo" trope may also be a Contract of Adhesion, and may not hold much water.


Can you explain why you think this (and the "for home use only" clause on some pans) would be considered unenforceable? Adhesion contracts are most definitely enforceable, unless they have unconscionable terms that are considered overly severe or unfair to one party. It's doubtful that requiring a specific arrangement would be considered unconscionable.

If anything, the decopac restrictions would be violating the Doctrine of First Sale, since once you purchase the decopac you would be free to use it as you wish as long as you don't introduce your own copies of copyrighted characters. The "home use only" clause for pans would continue to be enforceable, since you would be making copies of copyrighted characters out of cake and the Doctrine of First Sale would not apply.
post #19 of 25
What if you go to a website such as nickjr and demonstrate how to make dora cupcakes. do you still need to get the permission?
post #20 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsg1111

What if you go to a website such as nickjr and demonstrate how to make dora cupcakes. do you still need to get the permission?


If you are approached by a company to demonstrate a recipe on their web site, you would be fine since the content will be displayed on the copyright owner's web site. If you are asking if you still need permission to duplicate copyrighted characters if the copyright owner does so on their web site, the answer is yes.
post #21 of 25
The University pans are officially licensed and have no restrictions. You can get them for all of the big schools.
post #22 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by scp1127

The University pans are officially licensed and have no restrictions. You can get them for all of the big schools.


With all due respect, the Wilton character pans are officially licensed, too. The "For Home Use Only" stamp is just a courtesy warning, it's not a binding contract. The issue is that you are reproducing a copyrighted or trademarked image.
post #23 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by kelleym

The "For Home Use Only" stamp is just a courtesy warning, it's not a binding contract.


If the licensing terms from the copyright owner indicate that the likenesses produced by the pan are for home use only (which I'm sure they do, otherwise there would be no warning on the package) then those terms apply to anyone using the pans to create said likenesses.
post #24 of 25
Well I think your advice is not legally sound, but I didn't wake up this morning thinking I would spend my day beating my head against a wall, so I'll bow out.

Bottom line, guys: Don't sell copyrighted or trademarked cakes without obtaining written permission from the owner.
post #25 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by kelleym

Well I think your advice is not legally sound


I'm curious, why do you think it is not legally sound? If there's something I overlooked it would be nice to know, it's not very constructive to basically say "you're wrong" without adding anything else.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Cake Decorating
Cake Central › Cake Forums › Cake Talk › Cake Decorating › Copyright infringement for Cake decorations?