Argh

[bladespark]

I'm getting sick of people who have no understanding whatsoever of copyright law.

I mean... I don't understand all of it. I don't expect anybody to understand all of it. But you should know the most basic bit of it, which is that if you take a piece of art, created by somebody else, and you produce a copy of it, and sell that copy for money, you are going to be in huge trouble. And if siad piece of art is owned by a major American corporation, and you are American, and you copy it, you are just ASKING to be sued. I mean... just begging for somebody to take you to court over it.

And I don't get that people don't understand that! I just had somebody tell me that if I made a Lola bunny plush, and called it a name other than Lola, that I would be okay.

No! Bad! No cookie! Lola's copyright isn't on the name, it's on the appearance. I could call her "Fred" and I'd still be in legal trouble if I made and sold her.

Gah.

Also, why is it always Lola? I swear, I've been asked on at least three separate occasions for a Lola bunny of some sort.

Comments

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

What's a Lola?

[nsdragon.livejournal.com]

Definitely not a racing car engineering company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lola_Bunny).

I'm not so certain it's actually a copyright issue. More of a trademark issue, which would make more sense since copyright applies to specific works and not a concept or image or design.

For example, if you go out and take a photograph of your local McD, or write an ode to the Happy Meal, you have copyright on the photo and/or the writing themselves. But you can't copy the M design, or make something that resembles it with room for confusion, or use the "Happy Meal" moniker to refer to your own meal combo, because the M design and the "Happy Meal" concepts are trademarks of McD.

[coyoty.livejournal.com]

You are correct, this is a trademark issue, not copyright. Copyright deals with copying and distributing actual physical pieces, while trademarks deal with using others' concepts and likenesses. If it looks like a Duckula and it acts like a Duckula, but it wasn't actually drawn by Duckula's creators, then it's a trademark issue. Ironically, you can violate the trademark, yet still own the copyright on the image if you drew it yourself.

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

Heh.

Well, whatever you call it, the end result for me is the same, namely that I can't make plushes and costumes of other people's characters.

And I'm really tired of people asking me to, and then arguing with me when I say no. I should quit trying to explain my reasons and just say "I don't because I don't."

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

Actually, with trademark, the company needs to do more to prove that you've violated. Trademarks are protected only from the case if you're making a product that 1) can pass for or be very easily confused with a product that is made by the owner (Disney) AND 2) relies on the good reputation/name/association of the trademark owner to sell. So you are allowed to make a female bunny rabbit or a brown bunny rabbit with a bow and as long as you don't market it as a Lola AND make it sufficiently distinct to be obviously not a Disney product, Disney can't sue you. That said, if you don't want to make it, there's nothing anyone can do to force you to.

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

Lola is the Warner Brothers' female bunny, Bug Bunny's girlfriend, basically.

So not only is she a copyrighted design, but she belongs to one of the Big Guys, whose copyright lawyers could squish me like a bug, and WOULD definitely do so if they caught me.

[puppetmaker40.livejournal.com]

You would be amazed (well probably not but) how many people have asked me to recreate a Muppet for them. I have a couple I made for myself to see how it could be done but I have not sold any of them nor do I plan to. And you are right they don't get it. What's the harm if there are a couple of copies out there? Well according to a judge a lot because you didn't protect your copyright in this other case so your current case doesn't hold water.

[silveradept]

Because Lola is the first female fuzzy character that most of these kids have seen in their lifetimes? I'd say the 90s was a little light on the animals in programming, especially compared to the 80s, which had plenty of them.

That's my unverified opinion, though. Feel free to prove me wrong.

[lin-chan.livejournal.com]

There's always Babs and Fifi from Tiny Toons. They each have their own small but devout groups of drooling fan boys.

[silveradept]

I was thinking of Tiny Toons and Animaniacs as being the offerings the 90s put forward. Babs and Fifi probably qualify around the middle-school or high-school age, though. So there would probably have to be some advancement of time to make them viable for drooling fanboys.

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

I hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of drooling fanboys who don't need them to be any older than they were in the shows.

[silveradept]

I am aware of them. I was hoping, though, that by not drawing attention to them, I might manage to tiptoe past them without waking any. After all, one does not necessarily wish to put them up as the shining example of any culture.