The icing on the cake - Page 3

michblanch · #31 01-16-2007, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibanez249

Having said that though, only about 3-4 people will ever see it. Not only that but it'll be a turd in about 14 hours anyway.

Great point.

**GilkyBear** · #32 01-16-2007, 03:49 PM

I think the thing is, if they could do it, a picture of it would be right there in the catalog of stuff they CAN do, the little baseballs and teddy bears and all that. They have to pay for the right to use the image, but yeah, for a one time thing on the downlow, seems like they could make the occasional exception. If you looked around at a few bakeries there likely is one that has the rights to the charachters and can do it, or is small enough that they don't care and will do it anyway.

Hikey Mikey · #33 01-16-2007, 03:53 PM

I support the right of artists to legally defend their work, but the extent of that right is dynamic and shifting and always has been, ever since the idea of the "ownership of ideas" began.

Disney is a particularly interesting (and in my opinion disgusting) example of this. The company used its money and power to change the laws of this country-- bought legislation-- to protect Mickey Mouse (and thereby its own power), whose image would have, by now, been part of the public domain.

The dynamic, shifting balance has swung too far towards the right of the copyright holder. We should have the right to be able to use our creativity to become immensely wealthy, but not to become so wealthy we have the ability to corrupt the government . . . to change our rights.

Anyway, if we as a society are smart enough to create laws, government, and fun cartoon characters, we also are smart enough to create better ways to manage them. For example, how about exemptions for cases where the amount of so-called "damages" is relatively small? How much money does Disney lose by allowing the birthday cake art? In this case, putting Tink on a cake actually benefits Disney, because it's advertising. It's forming a positive association between the company (represented by the Tinkerbell image) and a fun, positive event (a birthday party). You can't buy that kind of positive advertising.

Oh, and one more thing. Chibanez copies are a little different. Out-and-out fraud and malice, representing one's work as that of another company. I'm talking about allowing small-scale, customer-driven use of a copyrighted design for personal consumption, like the cake and tattoos mentioned.

kennydoe · #34 01-16-2007, 04:00 PM

Impeach Bush

ken_r152 · #35 01-16-2007, 04:01 PM

Many years ago as a teenager I had a summer job at a grocery store that also had an attached bakery. I did the cake decorating and I think I vaguely remember that we had our own images to use for the decorating and could not use famous ones because we didn't have rights to the copyrighted images.

However, that being said, the women would be very impressed if you did the icing yourself.

Davey · #36 01-16-2007, 04:04 PM

Apparently Disney are going to ring back later on tonight. I bet they'll ring at like 3am or something

Can't believe I just typed that...

Anyway, if they don't agree we'll just take it to a smaller bakery and have it done anyway (although it'll cost a lot more.) Apparently, Walmart/Asda charge £1 extra (which Disney charges Walmart/Asda themselves) for cakes with a Disney image on which obviously we would've paid, but we just weren't given the oppotunity.

Davey · #37 01-16-2007, 04:05 PM

BTW, I dig the idea Gilk had about the catalogue, it'd make sense allround.

Rotti · #38 01-16-2007, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michblanch

My wife's favorite Cartoon Character is Tinkerbell also.
She went to get it tatood on her butt. The tatoo artist told her that he could not do tinkerbell unless he made a few changes due to copywrite laws.

So now when she's nude I have to look at Tinkerbell with a Mustache.

LMAO!

Rotti · #39 01-16-2007, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennydoe

Impeach Bush

Good plan! I'd put that on a cake.

jb4674 · #40 01-16-2007, 04:23 PM

Rotti and Kenny, this is a cake conversation, let's not get into something that's going to require another thread, especially for people who live outside the US.

Jimmy

dannymills · #41 01-16-2007, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hikey Mikey

I support the right of artists to legally defend their work, but the extent of that right is dynamic and shifting and always has been, ever since the idea of the "ownership of ideas" began.

Disney is a particularly interesting (and in my opinion disgusting) example of this. The company used its money and power to change the laws of this country-- bought legislation-- to protect Mickey Mouse (and thereby its own power), whose image would have, by now, been part of the public domain.

The dynamic, shifting balance has swung too far towards the right of the copyright holder. We should have the right to be able to use our creativity to become immensely wealthy, but not to become so wealthy we have the ability to corrupt the government . . . to change our rights.

Anyway, if we as a society are smart enough to create laws, government, and fun cartoon characters, we also are smart enough to create better ways to manage them. For example, how about exemptions for cases where the amount of so-called "damages" is relatively small? How much money does Disney lose by allowing the birthday cake art? In this case, putting Tink on a cake actually benefits Disney, because it's advertising. It's forming a positive association between the company (represented by the Tinkerbell image) and a fun, positive event (a birthday party). You can't buy that kind of positive advertising.

Oh, and one more thing. Chibanez copies are a little different. Out-and-out fraud and malice, representing one's work as that of another company. I'm talking about allowing small-scale, customer-driven use of a copyrighted design for personal consumption, like the cake and tattoos mentioned.

In retort, read my first post in this thread.

Hikey Mikey · #42 01-16-2007, 08:27 PM

Danny, I re-read your first post. I agree with you, and what I'm suggesting is that we (society a whole) can find a way to prevent the slippery-slope problem you write about. The holder of a copyright will benefit (or at the least, suffer no harm) from certain unpaid uses of that copyright that serve to publicize and enhance the brand.

michblanch · #43 01-16-2007, 08:58 PM

I recently read an article in Money Magazine about one of the founders of Microsoft.

He has started a corporation that goes out and buys patents and copyrights.
He has his own developement department that looks at products and finds ways to modify them so they no longer fall under existing Patents, then put's them back on the market.

The article talked about how corporations like his were gonna f***over the small developer and the pioneering spirit in some people.

If you want to see someone who was pissed off about copywrites just look at Paul McCartney. He got screwed severly by Michael Jackson.

Moibanez · #44 01-16-2007, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michblanch

My wife's favorite Cartoon Character is Tinkerbell also.
She went to get it tatood on her butt. The tatoo artist told her that he could not do tinkerbell unless he made a few changes due to copywrite laws.

So now when she's nude I have to look at Tinkerbell with a Mustache.

LOL!!

**GilkyBear** · #45 01-17-2007, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michblanch

If you want to see someone who was pissed off about copywrites just look at Paul McCartney. He got screwed severly by Michael Jackson.

I wouldn't say McCartney "got screwed". Michael Jackson just bought the rights to the Beatles music. Wasn't a very nice thing to do to a so-called friend, but that's business, not a screwing. Jackson had more money at the time. But just look at how kharma has come back on them. Jackson is now a penniless, nose-less, pedophile trying to find friends who will let him sleep in their garage and Paul is a living legend, exceptionally wealthy, respected, and he even recently managed to lose that chick with one leg and a kickstand.