TSB
Artist => Copyrights/Trade Marks info/questions => Topic started by: Dottonedan on June 27, 2017, 03:52:15 PM
-
Have you ever wondered jut how close can you get to someone else's art without getting to trouble?
Review these two images in this old article.
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/bad-ideas/disney-files-trademark-lawsuit-over-frozen-land-93389.html (http://www.cartoonbrew.com/bad-ideas/disney-files-trademark-lawsuit-over-frozen-land-93389.html)
-
That looks way too close, clearly a knockoff LOL
-
That 20% change thing is bunk. Also, how do you prove it's actually 20%?
They may have done better if they didn't use the EXACT same color scheme. Looks pretty bad to me.
-
I think the legal argument is usually based on whether a "reasonable" person would get them confused. This is definitely too close to argue that a reasonable person wouldn't be confused. They looks almost identical (font/colors/etc).
-
I think the legal argument is usually based on whether a "reasonable" person would get them confused. This is definitely too close to argue that a reasonable person wouldn't be confused. They looks almost identical (font/colors/etc).
this!
If you did not see them side by side, would you think it is Disney?
pierre
-
Yeah, any reasonable person could see that the offender is changed by no more than 14.5%, LOL!.
Like Brad said, 20% is nonsense. How can one ever quantify a change so precisely?
-
I think the legal argument is usually based on whether a "reasonable" person would get them confused. This is definitely too close to argue that a reasonable person wouldn't be confused. They looks almost identical (font/colors/etc).
this!
If you did not see them side by side, would you think it is Disney?
pierre
I think not seeing them side by side only strengthens the point that they are too similar. I'm not very familiar enough with the logo to pick up on the tiny details of the font they changed, the slightly different logo shape, etc. If I saw that logo randomly I would think that it was just some slightly altered logo for a new officially licensed game or park or something, with just the word "land" added below the real logo.
-
It could be 20% in metric though. Thankfully we are on the far superior imperial system. I mean, they don't call it imperial or standard for nothing.
It looks like it would be an attraction at a Disney park.
-
I think the legal argument is usually based on whether a "reasonable" person would get them confused. This is definitely too close to argue that a reasonable person wouldn't be confused. They looks almost identical (font/colors/etc).
this!
If you did not see them side by side, would you think it is Disney?
pierre
I think not seeing them side by side only strengthens the point that they are too similar. I'm not very familiar enough with the logo to pick up on the tiny details of the font they changed, the slightly different logo shape, etc. If I saw that logo randomly I would think that it was just some slightly altered logo for a new officially licensed game or park or something, with just the word "land" added below the real logo.
sorry for not being clearer. This was my point exactly!
pierre
-
gotcha!
-
I think the legal argument is usually based on whether a "reasonable" person would get them confused. This is definitely too close to argue that a reasonable person wouldn't be confused. They looks almost identical (font/colors/etc).
Standard I am not a lawyer and I don't think anyone else is disclaimer applies, but...
I think this is the closest to the truth, but most of this missing a really important part of this question?
Trademark law would imply to me that even if it was an ad for frozen custard, or frozen pizza, that the implication that the product's logo was intended to confuse a consumer into buying something they thought was trademarked but wasn't. But this goes a step further--by emphasizing frozen, the text content of the trademark, that is 100% the same, and making 'land' a small element, that alone could land them in trouble. I'm not sure this would be easy to defend even if they changed colors, design elements, etc.
From what little case law I've read up on, if it fooled people into thinking it was Disney related even if it said "FROZEN" in black block letters on white they may very well sue and win...
-
They do this all the time, like the movie the Mummy with Tom Cruise, I almost rented a movie at the redbox because at a glance I thought it was the right movie knowing good and well his movie hadn't even hit the theater yet. Same marking's and everthing
-
They do this all the time, like the movie the Mummy with Tom Cruise, I almost rented a movie at the redbox because at a glance I thought it was the right movie knowing good and well his movie hadn't even hit the theater yet. Same marking's and everthing
And from what I have read, you would have probably watched a far better film! :o
-
The ripoff is so bad it's like they wanted to be sued. One of the weird things is that the final "revised" art made the film look a lot better. Nothing says "this film can't stand on it's own" like trying to connect it to something it isn't . It's such a strange approach to marketing: "Let's sell this by tricking people who aren't really paying attention" - meanwhile ignoring that the people who ARE paying attention aren't going to buy it BECAUSE it's a knockoff. Their rip-off art is to me an immediate "NO;" where their final art might make me pause long enough to say "never heard of this - I wonder if the kids would like it?" Seriously, if the film is so abysmal that you have to trick people to watch it, why license it at all? Why not just rip off Disney's art, and sell people an animated gif of a snowball fight that loops for 90 minutes? This is one of those instances that leaves me shaking my head at the way some people can seemingly live comfortably with their lack of integrity.
-
This is one of those instances that leaves me shaking my head at the way some people can seemingly live comfortably with their lack of integrity
I think the word is "intelligence".