Are we infringing copyright? I'm not sure

[SillyJokes]

We've just had a demanding fax from the lawyers of a US based film production company who say we are infringing their clients rights.

Among other things they don't like some of our masks.

I thought faces were not copyright and that it was OK to sell a mask called 'Austin Powers'. Am I wrong? If so, what on earth can I call an Austin Powers mask?

http://www.sillyjokes.co.uk/dress-up/masks/char/powers.html

This smacks of lawyers finding a new revenue stream if you ask me.

 

[Eagle]

Unfortunately, if 'Austin Powers' (and other faces) are their intellectual property, then, if I recall correctly, you have no right under law to manufacture or sell the items to make profit. Are you the manufacturer? If not, it should be your supplier who should be first under scrutiny!

You might be able to get around it by calling them something else, but, as you say, there wouldn't be a lot of point in that...

 

[SillyJokes]

Ah, luckily for me I have discovered that this mask is licensed to Dekker Toys so I'm off the hook for that, but they are also belly aching about pages similar to the following

http://www.sillyjokes.co.uk/dress-up/acc/gloves/fright-glove.html where the product is not claimed to be licenced but we mention the film.

Hopefully just removing these references will sooth the savage beast.

 

[gj]

As you've just etsablished with the Dekker position, these things are manufactured under licence

If you are selling something that isn't anything to do with the film but you are claiming some sort of connection, you are trying to benefit from their clients reputation, name etc, but without having the necessary licence.

My view is you need to remove the references as you suggest and tell them that is what you have done - hopefully as you say they will accept that.

If they attempted to sue, it would presumably be for lost revenue - I doubt they could show they had lost out much on such items. One of the lawyers on the forum will hopefully confirm this.

The problem with the internet is the accessability of information - the legal people at the film company probabaly spend all day trawling the internet searching for sites containing names of their films and characters. A few years ago pre internet you could probably sold them for years without being troubled! Still, without the internet you wouldn't have the business you have.

Hope it all gets smoother out quickly for you

Regards


Graham

 

[gary]

I've had similar letters from lawyers in previous companies I've worked at. Usually if you call them and discuss it it's quite helpful and at least then you can see what needs to be done. As Graham says, these are usually pretty standard letters that go out and are really aimed at people manufacturing these goods without a licence.

Gary

 

[SillyJokes]

Thanks guys, I just need to do a little 'house work' on the site for these items.

It's no biggie. It's just not a good time to have a fax like this as we are flat out with Halloween business.

 

[VeryMark]

Been on holiday so didn't see the earlier posts, but pretty good advice all round. The main point is if you COPY what someone else has done you need to make sure first you have the RIGHT to do that!

See our website at www.crossguard.info for more free info.

 

[SillyJokes]

Funnily enough we have made the changes they wanted but they are not satisfied.

There are several products concerned, some of which I think are not are actually infringements but I don't want to upset the lawyers by arguing.

For instance our blue sixties suit which was formerly an 'Austin' suit is now a plain sixties suit. They say changing the name isn't enough but I have pictures of Cliff Richard wearing an identical suit in 1968 at Eurovision.

They say they invented they own the rights to the male symbol medallion but I'm sure that such a thing must have been around for years.

Plus sales of the products they are complaining about are tiny - amounting to a few hundred quid at most in the last 10 weeks.

I might be in touch if they are not placated.

 

[Guardian]

There are several products concerned, some of which I think are not are actually infringements but I don't want to upset the lawyers by arguing. For instance our blue sixties suit which was formerly an 'Austin' suit is now a plain sixties suit. They say changing the name isn't enough but I have pictures of Cliff Richard wearing an identical suit in 1968 at Eurovision.

They say they invented they own the rights to the male symbol medallion but I'm sure that such a thing must have been around for years.

Write to them and express your eagerness to come to some arrangement with them. With regard to the suite, explain it is a copy of a suit made in 1968 - before their film was made, unless they can provide proof to the contrary. As for the medical male symbol medallion, ask for copies of their patent. I dont honestly think they can apply an intellectual copyright to a symbol that has been around for decades. If they still argue about the symbol, perhaps your manufacturer can make a 'blank' medallion, from which you can select different 'inserts'. If the two are seperate, I cannot possibly see what the problem is.

 

[woopi]

Try rephrasing your mask name.

Austin Powers Style may be ok.

Or perhaps an imaginative work-around, like

"The name is Powers, Mr. Austin - Style mask". OK that was a bad example

 

[Eagle]

 
Welcome to last year! :roll:

:wink:

 

[woopi]

lol. Never too late to help, ey?

 

[Eagle]

'Tis true! :wink:

 

[woopi]

Aye!

 

[VeryMark]

Yes. it was, lol.

"Dior Style" or "Cola Coca" will still get you into trouble - the tests for trade mark infringement are likelihood of confusion or taking unfair advantage or detriment to reputation.

You also can't copy anyone else's photograph without infringing copyright, regardless of subject matter, unless it is only incidental inclusion or falls under one of the other fair dealing provisions.