If it's a parody then it's not copyright protected as far as I know.

Yeah, you could probably point out about 100 designs right now that have some basis in an already-created image or something. I agree with you - I love when someone takes an established product and twists it around (I guess that's why I loved Wacky Packages). I guess it's cool as long as you're being sorta subversive (he said as his iPawed logo hovered on the left...)

Yeah, some good/original parodies are OK in my eyes, but maybe it's still a legal issue that Threadless have to contend with. It's good to know that Threadless do screen 'em... if that's the case.

these same people will then call theif on people using clip art.

rule of thumb: if it could be mistaken for an official piece of merchandise, it's a no-go.

nope. they printed this is not a pipe.

so the mario stuff is fine.

I don't even know if it has to be "mistaken for an official piece of merchandise" to be hauled into court. I remember the Coors beer company suing a guy named Corr who owned a soda company for using his own name on the soda because it sounded too much like their name and they were somehow afraid that people would confuse the two (like that'll happen. I have yet to see a guy who wanted a beer grab a soda by mistake). Can't remember if the soda guy won or lost (and I believe his company was around longer than Coors anyway)....

Are you serious... you're almost 22.

OlliRudi, that's a pretty good way of thinking about it. I mean, from a personal point of view. I guess it'll take a court case to make changes within Threadless, (if they are actually letting through and printing copyright designs). J-Ray.... what do you mean? I am serious about copyright. I feel there's an unbalanced playing field when people blatantly use copyright material to aid the success of their 'design/s'. What's my age got to do with it?

I'm sure threadless has a thorough understanding of the copyright laws. If it's being used in a parody, then it's not illegal.



For example:









Did Starbucks try to sue? Sure did. Will they win? Doubt it.

CopyPaste: Sorry, I don't think I read your whole post before commenting, and misunderstood the sarcasm in your blog title. I thought you were trying to tell us about copyright...



I think OlliRudi is on the ball... if something could be mistaken for actual mechandise, it's not acceptable... although that depends on what country you're in. It's amazing what they get away with in China/Taiwan (like iPod shuffle rip-offs!)

Westwood: that logo would be better as "corporate whore", since we must be consumers or we'd die. It's kind of silly to be anti-consumerism, since that's where our real democracy lies. Give up purchasing power: give up your most effective vote.

Well if anyone is confused still

here is the best possible link for copyright info.

easy to understand is what i mean.

parody

i just found this whole picture gallery/comparison of the fakey ipod shuffle. wow. just.... wow.

thats scary. im glad i got mine before this started happening.

1. The Super Shuffle!

2. Apple sues... cease and desist.

3. Taiwan court overrules, allows rip-off to continue

4. Rip-off co sues Apple! WTF!

~~~~

Now, Luxpro wants $100 million to make up for the loss of revenue it suffered while litigating the matter with Apple, and says it intends to file suit against Apple. It charged that Apple insisted resellers remove the Tangent devices from their shelves or lose the right to sell iPods. An Apple representative declined to comment on the matter.



The newer Tangent MP3 players have a display, unlike the iPod Shuffle, but otherwise they are pretty similar to the old iPod Shuffle design. Check out this Engadget post from March 2005, and look at Apple's original iPod Shuffle, for a better comparison.

~~~~





they (apple) might well be screwed... they should have just pursed their case in court... trying to force retailers to choose between their apple product and the other one... not sounding like to legal or smart a move.



but who knows

A fair move by Apple, even though it sounds bad out of context. Consider a dealer selling an inferior rip-off that appears to be the same as your own product, but for much less money. Customers could easily get confused and just buy the cheap one.



The defense is hilarious... "but our LED is blue instead of green!"

PS. copypasterepeat: sorry to come off as a twat at the start of the post. Funny that you use the name "error 404" because I used to DJ under that name. you seem like a cool guy.

"nope. they printed this is not a pipe.

so the mario stuff is fine."



That's a parody, where as yours does not parody it at all, it simply takes nintendo owned imagery and branding and arranges it into a "badge"



They arent exactly going to bring down the weight of the law on you, but threadless would have to be extremely stupid to go near it.

nipple_nugget used to superpwn these copyright threads

waaait how did he ripoff company sue apple????

It's pretty hard to say that's a ripoff of an iPod shuffle. It has a similar shape and color, but if that were grounds then surely CD players would have had the same problems. It's a different size, has more features, and a very different control scheme. Apple should get in trouble for strong arm tactics like that.

remember when mother nature sued the creator of the pet rock?



That was copyright infringement

lolz at shirtflirt.

nipple nugget did not superpwn anything, he just insisted all use of other company's properties was illegal, by stating that they had a right to sue no matter if its parody or not (but only a right to sue to prove it isnt parody). Thinking back on that time, I realize some parodies that I thought were parodies were not, but its pretty easy to tell (just refer to olli's rule of thumb).

shirtflirt, don't be silly, pet rock was clearly parody.

MrDomino: did you look at the link? It's the EXACT shape and color, EXACT same control scheme. Any other company would do the same thing. Maybe not a toaster company, but the shuffle look was very distinctive and unique.

J-Ray, that is in fact almost literally the definition of an unfair move. You do not deliver ultimatums to retailers with the threat of removing your product if another is offered. That's something that looks mighty suspicious in conjunction with anti-trust laws. And it's petty by Apple, as well, since they have the MP3 player market well in hand as it is.



There are a few arenas where you can request or demand exclusivity by tradition, but the only one that pops into my mind offhand is soft drinks at restaurants. Usually a chain will sign with either Coke or Pepsi for their stock. As far as I know, though, there isn't really anything stopping them from using both, if they really wanted to.



Apple should have gotten the courts to place an injunction on distributing and selling the product in question until they came to a final decision. If they were unable to do so that indicates that the product was non-offending under the law and pursuing extortion tactics to try and remove it was way out of line. They may well have gotten themselves into trouble. I don't know that much will come of it, though. People rarely want to pursue Apple for monopolistic tactics, like forcing the sale and exclusivity of their hardware and software, because they're the "good" company. :)



That's starting to change, though.

Apple sent the company sent a cease-and-desist for copyright infringement. That's fair and legal, right? The courts agreed with Apple at the time, and IF they insisted the retailers removed the ripoffs (alleged), it was only to insist compliance with the law.



Bad Apple! And here we thought they wanted us to break copyright laws. lol.

How much market share does Apple need to get an anti-trust suit, anyway? According to the MacWorld Keynote, it's only 60% in the mp3 player market, and we know the computer market has around 4-12%, depending on whether you look at sales or installation base.

Pillsbury (I believe) tried that with ben and jerrys, saying they would pull the ice cream they owned at the time if supermarkets continued to sell ben and jerrys ice cream...ben fought it in court, won, and they became the biggest ice cream company in the world

If there was a legal order to not sell the product then that's all they needed. A store's not going to break the law if they can avoid it. If they had that, then there was no need to (allegedly) threaten to pull iPods from those stores. Apple is getting very lawsuit happy lately, but I don't think they're dumb enough to try something like that if they had a legal out already.

Interesting. Well, I gotta go to work, hehehe...

Wow, ok, this topic appears to have taken-off, (albeit on a slight tangent). I get frustrated when I see blatant rips-off whoever is involved. Yeah, Apple is a massive company, but there still needs to be some form of protection. I always try to see it as if I was the person/company being copied/abused. And you can't judge someone or a company based on the fact that they have a lot of money and can afford to lose a bit.



I believe things are going to get VERY confusing when the iPhone hits the shelves and other companies start playing catch-up with similar touch-screen devices. Apple have publicly stated that their 'unique' touch-screen technology is patented. But I have a feeling law cases will start splitting hairs. Saying that, I've no doubt in my mind that Apple have a huge book that meticulously draws the line when it comes to what they own.



J-Ray: No worries. I was more confused than anything else. And I regularly forget that sarcasm and tone don't transfer well in text form. 'Error404' seemed like a pretty good name, but we've since discovered that 'normal' people don't know what it means! (News to us). Anyway, we're stuck with it, but I still like it. (I'm a BIG fan of glitch-art and errors. I've got some designs that could work on a T-shirt or two... I just need a spare 5mins).

Hehe it's pretty remarkable how on-topic this thread has remained.



Yeah, but in order to stick, the patents have to be very specific. So slightly different variations are usually okay, and there probably will be since touch controls, in general, have been around for a while.