|
Forums >
General Industry >
Spoof Magazine Covers????
This is true, the difference between copyright and trademark. And, for that matter, in a spoof cover, presuming that all the other art is original, the use of "Playboy" and the bunny could be seen as trademark infringement, parody or not. Parody is not fair use for trademark, correct. Now, with all that said, Playboy almost never goes after spoof cover creators who do not use the spoof in commerce. It's not worth their time and, in most cases, you can't get blood from a turnip. May 03 05 11:51 am Link Ahhh... my good friends at Mattel... Trademark is susceptable to the fair use clause. That's why Mattel has lost so many of its trademark infringement cases. May 03 05 11:51 am Link Posted by theda: No, actually, trademark is not. Copyright is. There's a clear difference (as my attorney likes to point out to me all the time, while prodding me to get some of my designs trademarked already). May 03 05 11:52 am Link The Magazine cover is not trademark the logo is. *********************************************** What Is a Copyright? Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of "original works of authorship" including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished. The 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work, to prepare derivative works, to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work, to perform the copyrighted work publicly, or to display the copyrighted work publicly. The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing. For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine. Copyrights are registered by the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress. What Is a Trademark or Servicemark? A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device which is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. A servicemark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. The terms "trademark" and "mark" are commonly used to refer to both trademarks and servicemarks. Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark, but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling the same goods or services under a clearly different mark. Trademarks which are used in interstate or foreign commerce may be registered with the Patent and Trademark Office. The registration procedure for trademarks and general information concerning trademarks is described in a separate pamphlet entitled "Basic Facts about Trademarks". ****************************** Hope that clears up everything. The playboy bunny = Trademark The playboy cover = copyright (plus the bunny trademark) May 03 05 11:57 am Link Certainly there's a difference between the two, but Mattel has lost a number of trademark violations based on fair use. Unless something has changed since Aqua humiliated them in the 90s, fair use still applies. May 03 05 11:59 am Link They lost to Aqua because "Barbie Girl" is not trademarked, "Barbie Doll" was. I'm a Barbie Girl in the Barbie world, Dressed in plastic, it's fantastic. You can brush my hair, undress me everywhere, Imagination, that is your creation. That song, for people that are missing the reference. They also lost further because the Barbie and Ken trademarks were limited to only use on Dolls. Since both were proper names long before Mattel came along. Therefore A song about a Barbie Girl With Ken being plastic etc... Is truly in reference to Mattel's material, However, no trademark was infringed. Mattel also lost another Doll company on the use of the name barbie because it was a common name and was not advertised as a Barbie Doll. (I forget which one, but it may have been the cabbage patch time) May 03 05 12:04 pm Link Also, I believe it was Aqua that won over the Speed Racer thing too... That one was even more interesting..... :-P May 03 05 12:06 pm Link The video for "Barbie Girl" actually features Barbie dolls. The likeness of the Barbie doll is another Mattel trademark. There was the film student who made a spoof biopic of the Carpenter story with Barbies as the actors. Mattel sued for trademark infringement. mattel lost. However, Richard Carpenter wone his defamation of character suit, so the film is still supressed. Posted by Ty Simone: May 03 05 12:08 pm Link http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,1757,00.html original artical on the lawsuit. http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:ko … ment&hl=en The summary Judgement Against mattle - See page 9 for the Barbie versus Barbie Girl reference Use of a barbie doll in a vido is not a trademark infringment If so, than any movie that used anything as a prop in the bakground would be bankrupt simply from the royalties to all those companies. May 03 05 12:36 pm Link Per the threatening letter I once received myself from Mattel, the likeness of the Barbie Doll IS a registered trademeak, as is the stylized letter B and that particular shade of pink and god know what else. May 03 05 12:40 pm Link Posted by theda: Just because someone says it is so, does not make it so. May 03 05 12:55 pm Link True, lawyers send letter to composed to intimidate all the time. I oughtta know: I write those letters. However, explicitly lying about something so readily verifiable is not only unethical, it's stupid. It wasn't only my non-legal 19-year-old ass Mattel's attorney threw this at. It was also *my* attorney and the owner's of several websites using photographs of Barbies and their attorneys. At the time this happened, I contacted a number of those webmasters and a couple of them were in fact in litigation with Mattel. The RIAA may use empty threats, but Mattel really does like to try to sue the pants off teenagers with websites, fanzine owners and film students. They lose often, but they just don't stop. Since then, I've met a few toymakers who concur that Mattel is litigation happy. Posted by Ty Simone: May 04 05 02:04 am Link Fact is I had a friend I know who was using her name Barbie on her website and Mattel sued the crap out of her. 3 years and millions of dollars later she lost. Personally I have better uses for a million dollars than fighting Mattel or anyone for the possibility of MAYBE winning. Like when a record company came to me with a cease and desist over the fact that the name my ex-wife was using on our site was the same as one of thier artists. They got raped in that one. But the key is be very careful with what you do, and who you do it to. Funny key point... I wonder how many of you know that Mattel makes the weapon that the members of our Armed forces carries. The handy dandy multi-purpose Mitchell 16. Or M-16 for you cake eaters. And they say men don't play with Barbies... LOL May 04 05 04:06 am Link using a spoofed cover for self promotion, is using copyrighted work for commercial purposes. You are also misrepresenting yourself, saying that you have worked for these companies before which is a lie May 04 05 04:26 am Link check this guys covers out: May 04 05 04:31 am Link Thats the guy that i started this thread about..... May 04 05 10:46 am Link Posted by Brent Burzycki: Those don't appear to be spoofs by any stretch of the imagination. May 04 05 11:05 am Link Guys, Youa re calling his stuff Spoof. He is calling his stuff credits. I.e. He lists the following credits: *************** Published works: Vogue - Australia, Allure, Town & Country, American Photo, Aperture, Vibe, National Geographic, Hot Rod Magazine, Coastal Living, California Living, Lake Tahoe Travel Planner, Metro - San Jose, Savvy Seniors. *************** Of Course, He is also an IFPO member with a lifetime ahievement award. I have my opinions on them, but I will keep them to myself :-) Anyways. Point is, Those are not meant to be Spoof! Either he shot them, or he is in copyright violation. May 04 05 11:07 am Link Would be nice to actually know.. I woudl make it damn clear if I posted a cover that it was a tearsheet.. May 04 05 07:59 pm Link I seriously do not understand how people think that will get them anywhere. Sooner or later someone is going to realize that you didnt shoot those "covers", and to me ultimately all it will do is make you look pathetic, and yes in some cases guilty of copyright infringement. Whats sad too is that I have seen SOME photographers who do this, who actually are not that bad of photographers, and if they actually did things the legit way and worked hard could potentially actually be able to do work like that. But going about things the way they do they sure as hell arnt going to impress anyone besides some naive model with their work. As far as the subject of photographers who have there name plastered over every photo they shoot, I think that in most cases it looks tacky, and the same purpose could be served by printing there name in smaller print in the bottom corner of the pic if its that important to them. Just my two cents... May 05 05 12:15 am Link he definitely shot the pictures on those covers but he designed them himself. they were never actually published. if you look at the pictures, they're actually quite bad. he should not say those magazines are credits May 05 05 12:40 am Link Posted by feregucciano: If this is true- it looks like a potential trademark infringement. Trademark is where one creates a likelihood of confusion about the origin about the defendant's goods and services. Now, we here are debating about whether he actually shot these covers, etc. Therefore, its pretty clear confusion has been created. Im fairly confident these magazines have established their trademarks. Also, trademark requires that the defendant causes public confusion that they have the same goods as the trademark holder or are affiliated. Well, shooting a cover would give one the feeling of association. Counters like Parody and such dont seem to apply here as there is no satire or language that would make a reasonable person clearly understand it was a parady and not the real deal. I think here- we are genuinly confused and so looks like a prima facie trademark infringement. May 05 05 12:57 am Link Hmm - maybe we should just email him and ask. him... May 05 05 01:05 am Link People who display faked and Photoshopped covers & tears should hang their heads in shame. Because don't be fooled, its done to make people think its their own achievement. But models, please take note.... Even though the concept of "pulling the wool over people's eyes runs RAMPANT on the internet, be aware, there are some really great published photographers who actually spend time on the internet. Why? Who knows, maybe because they don't spend all day in front of the TV watching sports, or hang out in the local saloon 24-7. Use your best judgement and look at their work as a whole and if YOU like their work, you should work with them. After all, you're the only person you should please. May 10 05 10:06 am Link when you use spoofed covers it only fools amateurs. The real pros in the business can look at a photo and without giving it much thought know if it is a real Guess ad or a real Calvin ad. There is a quality to the models, the photography, makeup, hair and styling expected in a quality national ad or a major magazine cover. People that would spoof them have no idea what goes into to the real thing and so present bad fakes. You just can't duplicate a $40,000 photoshoot with a bunch of amateurs testing. It's like buying a fake Rolex, you can fool the trailer park crowd (unless they know you live in a trailer as well) but you can't fool people that have spent a lot of time around a real rolex. May 10 05 01:27 pm Link Please, let's get our terminology straight. When I hear "spoof" I think "parody." You seem to be talking about "forgeries" or "fakes." Big difference. May 10 05 10:30 pm Link yea, I'm talking about fakes. I assumed thats what you all were talking about. May 10 05 10:53 pm Link Posted by Mary: The discussion touched on both, which is why I wanted to be clear. Your point is well-taken, though, which is why the spoofs I've done are CLEARLY parody. May 10 05 11:55 pm Link If one were so inclined to create a fake photoshopped cover for humorous reasons, it should not be displayed in one's portfolio, whether a book , or online because it leads people to believe that they in fact were published by that magazine. May 11 05 07:15 am Link Dang!! I bet he gets all the girls!! May 11 05 07:37 am Link I see posting spoof magazine covers and ads in portfolios as nothing but trouble. To less experienced or naive models or make up artists or other photographers, it tricks them and adds credits to that photographer in their minds. Some of these covers are so good, that I have even been fooled. It also falls in with these guys who do it and claim they are real ads or covers and they are their clients. I can paste Angelina Jolie's face over mine and make a spoof picture, but why outside of personal fun. May 11 05 07:45 am Link Mary wrote: I do not like the fakes. Nov 25 05 10:07 pm Link And what about the photographers who make up fake magazine names and print them all up with models on them that they had shot as if they actually appeared in a magazine? We actually have a couple of photographers here in Kansas City who do that sort of thing and it's terribly embarassing to even be in the same field as someone so desperate as that. The most ridiculous part is that so many models actually FALL for it and think that it is a real magazine...so pathetic really... Nov 25 05 10:42 pm Link Brent Burzycki wrote: Most likely you would get a "Cease and Desist" letter, and if you comply that will be the end of it. Nov 25 05 10:55 pm Link why is everyone sidetracked in the legalities....can we talk just common sense here??? DOING FAKE COVERS MAKES YOU LOOK STUPID! Life would be better if there were a pill to cure STUPID   Nov 26 05 11:44 am Link I agree with Mary. Nov 26 05 11:50 am Link |
