Count Von Count Sesame Street puppet

[Buck-Beaver]

Originally posted by CaptCrouton
...I am a Disney fan and I paint a Disney mural in my kids room (or muppets or whatever) am I then violating copyright law and Disney can sue me? Or does that happen when the kids grow up and I open a daycare center? Then I have to redecorate the house? Then should I have to get rid of all the toys with Disney characters and all other trademark characters.

Yes, it actually is violating copyright laws to paint the mural in your child's room and technically, Disney could sue - but it's highly unlikely they would even if they knew about it unless you start using it for commercial purposes.

Toys are a different issue, because they are legitimately licensed products. Having Disney toys in a daycare centre is fine, however if you were to use Disney toys to advertise or promote the centre you could be sued. There is probably a few good books on this subject out there.

 

[CaptCrouton]

Have you seen on the Armslength Productions website, their rip-off of Miss Piggy they did for Sears to promote Muppet Baby clothing? He didn't even mention Miss Piggy's name on the website but he didn't have to. It looks so close to her, most people could never tell the difference.

So how can they get away with this? Because they're promoting Muppet products? Did Sears have permission? I guess they must've. It just seems odd, that's all.

Oh, if you don't know what I'm talking about see armslength.com and click on <portfolio> then click on <caricatures> and finally <Sears:Miss Peggy Darton>

Anyway, I don't know about such stuff. I guess what you can get sued for is so gray that none of this makes any sense. I think there are too many laws, period. There should be a limit on how many laws a particular government should have.

 

[Buck-Beaver]

I'd be careful to group David Pannabecker, who is a fairly well-known and by all accounts respected member of the US puppetry community in with people making Muppet puppets to sell on ebay.

From what I know of this, Sears had a licensing agreement a few years back with the JHC and Sears was basically hiring David and his people to come in and do some jokes poking fun at Kermit and Piggy. I can't believe David would have done it if it wasn't completely on the up and up.

 

[Louis Kazagger]

Also, you've got to remember that the freedom of speech and artisitic expression protects people from getting sued when trademarked characters are portrayed in parody or satire, as Hermit the Frog and Ms Peggy Darton were by Sears. Plus in the article on armslength it even says that Sears had a license with JHC, so I'm sure they had permission as well.

That's why you can watch an episode of the Animaniacs cartoon (done by Warner Bros.), with blatant ripoffs of Kirk and Spock from Star Trek in it (owned by Paramount), and Paramount doesn't sue the pants off WB for trademark infringement, because it's satire.

I'm not so sure that the gray areas that you describe lie in what you CAN get sued for so much as in what a corporation will expend resources TO sue you for.

 

[CaptCrouton]

Before I rebut, let me say that David Pannabecker might be the greatest guy in the world. I know nothing about him. But I detect a major double standard in your arguments. Let me also say that after reading my post, I sound ticked off at you but I'm really not. Just want to make sure this isn't personal or vindictive.

Let's look at the evidence...

1) This Miss Piggy imitation is for commercial purposes. This is more than a mural on a bedroom wall. This is a nationally recognized puppet maker using near replicas of major Muppets for performance for an internationally known company. You may have heard of Sears once or twice. There was a boatload of money made here, more than our Count maker could ever net on ebay.

2) The images in question are used in the portfolio of Armslength's commercial website. So he's used it commercially and now for "representing your business with trademarked Disney (actually Henson) characters and circumventing any license fees for those trademarks." And he'll use it for the rest of his life.
I was quoting you in another post here, so the grammar goes with another context. But you understand.

3) Now if I were Count Puppet maker "B" and I went to court, I would cite Armslength creator "A" as a pretty decent precedent for making money off of Henson stuff. Another argument of yours, only much more likely to occur.

Either it's the "He's a celebrity so it's okay" reasoning, or alot of the things you've said doesn't really wash.

Now after all that, how can your grandma get busted for making you her best attempt at a Telly Monster puppet as a birthday gift?

 

[Louis Kazagger]

If I had to bet I'd say Pannabecker has permission through the Sears/JHC licensing deal. And I haven't come away thinking you were ticked. We've just spun this copyright discussion off the Count puppet on ebay, and I find it interesting.

Strangely, here's an email that a friend of mine sent me today (he has no idea I'm in this copyright discussion on the forum). Very relevant to our discussion I'd say.

"The Associated Press moved this story today. The story is a cheap
rewrite of a similar story that appeared in USA TODAY last week.

It's not just Paramount that cracks down on copyright issues...

---


Baseball Cracks Down on Web Sites
Sept. 2, 7:39 AM (ET)

By LARRY McSHANE

NEW YORK (AP) - Back in 1996, 14-year-old Bryan Hoch launched a Web site
devoted to his beloved New York Mets. Four years later, New York Yankees
fan Jim Frasch did the same for the Bronx Bombers.

This summer, with baseball seemingly consumed by the just-resolved labor
dispute, the two superfans were stunned when Major League Baseball tried
to bench their sites and those of at least two other fans.

Bob Andelman, creator of a Tampa Bay Devil Rays site, responded to the
cease and desist letter he received with a disclaimer:

"As you might guess, this Web site is not endorsed, enlightened or
encouraged by the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, its owners, management, players,
or even Mac, the dancing groundskeeper."

Hoch, on the other hand, became the Patrick Henry of cyberspace fan
sites, opting for the death of his site rather than surrender his
perceived liberty of content.

It's business, not personal, baseball officials said. They moved against
the four Web sites over the alleged use of team logos or trademarks to
draw site traffic or turn a profit.

"We encourage fans to speak about baseball and to produce Web sites,"
said Ethan Orlinsky, senior vice president and general counsel for Major
League Baseball Properties. "We're simply asking they do it within the
confines of the law."

The recipients of the letters sent in July and August take a different
view: It was like Roger Clemens firing fastballs at kids from the Harlem
Little League.

Ray Kerby ofhttp://www.Astrosdaily.com said Major League Baseball
Properties was upset by a display of vintage Astros logos he had in a
history section on the site. He was going to fold his site, but a flood
of supportive phone calls changed his mind.

"At a time when major league baseball needs to be reaching out to their
fans, they don't even know what their attorneys are doing to undermine
that," Kerby said.

Andelman was admonished because his Devil Rays
site,http://www.emailtherays.com, did not fulfill its tongue-in-cheek
promise to forward fans' e-mails to the team.

Major League Baseball Properties says it's simply protecting itself from
exploitation, but some fans think it went too far.

Frasch sells advertising on his site,http://www.bronx-bombers.com, but
said it's not even enough to cover costs. And Hoch said he sold all of
$16 worth of merchandise at his site - including $12 spent by his girlfriend.

Both miss the point, Orlinsky said.

"The defense of 'our site did not turn a profit' does not address the
issue of commercialization," he said. "We're not sending letters out willy-nilly."

The NFL takes a less aggressive approach.

"To the extent that it's purely a noncommercial site devoted to
commentary about the team, we're supportive and happy that fans are
excited about our sport," says Paula Guibault, NFL senior counsel. "It's
not an issue for us."

---

Of course, even this story misses the point. The REAL reason these big
outfits crack down on fan-run sites is in order to protect their
copyrighted trademarks. Copyright law states that the owners must
vigorously pursue any unauthorized use of things like team logos and so
on. If a third party can come along and prove that, say, Major-League
Baseball knew about Joe Blow and his use of the copyrighted content and
MLB didn't do anything about it, then they can make a good case for
saying the content has moved into the public domain. Which would be a
disaster for MLB. This is the same reason you hear about the Walt Disney
Corp. forcing day-care centers to paint over murals depicting Mickey Mouse.

It's not great, but it's the law.

There IS another solution, though, and this was actually mentioned in
the aforementioned USA TODAY article. The other article mentioned one
webmaster who was contacted by a MLB team, but then the team decided
they liked his site so much they simply granted him a license. Why MLB
and Disney and Paramount don't do this more often, I'll never know."

Therin lies another possibility. Maybe Pannabecker was granted a limited license by JHC for these copycats.

 

[Buck-Beaver]

The scenario you suggest - Count puppet maker defending himself using David's work - wouldn't fly in court because the two situations are really apples and oranges.

Any dispute the JHC company could have with Armslength/Sears would be over violating the terms of Sears' license (and for all we know they had permission). The JHC's dispute with the Count puppet maker would be over trademark infringement. It's two diiferent problems.

The distinction is made because David was employed by Sears, who had a valid license from the JHC and a contractual relationship with them. If the spoof did violate the terms of the licensing deal, Sears is at fault legally because they comissioned the work.

Even if JHC went after David, even though Sears is at fault, he would just have to do prove he did a reasonable amount of due diligence (e.g. checking to ensure that Sears had a license - which they did) and he would be OK and the blame falls back to Sears.

The Count puppet maker is a different story because he/she and whomever they sell to is without a license or any kind of agreement with JHC. Now they could try to argue that they "thought" they or somelse had permission or that it was OK but that wouldn't work because ignorance is no excuse under most laws.

There's no double standard here, it's just two different situations from a legal perspective.

As for the portfolio issue, David was doing work commissioned by someone who had a legitimate license from the trademark owner. He can't be making and selling those puppets on Ebay, but he can say what Sears hired him to do and have pics on his website. See the difference?

I don't know David personally but the reason I pointed out that we shouldn't be quick to judge is that professionals in the field, though they are as fallible as the next guy, usually tend to make sure their butt is covered in these situations. There are exceptions to this rule I'm sure but generally professionals who don't do that usually don't work professionally very long.

 

[Buck-Beaver]

On the issue of the MLB website(s), the kids are actually in the wrong legally.

However, while MLB may be legally right, the ethics of suing 14 yr old baseball fans is pretty questionable.

 

[CaptCrouton]

I know I'm turning a corner in this conversation but...

The irony of the situation is that all the legal schmeegal stuff makes me want to cease and desist from giving Disney or whoever my money. Yet, fan sites seem to spark enthusiasm to buy merchandise.

Muppet Central is a case in point. I don't know where MC stands as far as vulnerability if Henson wanted to sue, but certainly this website alone has caused me to buy Palisades figures and soon the KSY DVD.

Honestly the Henson website itself didn't serve that purpose or even the Palisades site since I never heard of Palisades before the Muppet action figures were released.

Markus

p.s. glad nobody considered my last post hostile. I just like to make sure sometimes.

 

[Buck-Beaver]

Oh I totally agree, it's ironic that the leading fan websites are waaaay better than most commercials ones. A few examples that come to mind are theforce.net, onering.net, The Lurker's Guide To Babylon 5 and of course, Muppet Central.

The smart content owners know exactly what you are saying and get behind the fans instead of against them. I thought Lucasfilm's support of the Star Wars Fan Film contest leading up to Episode II was pretty cool and Peter Jackson and his crew are big boosters of onering.net (although they were pretty hostile in the beginning).