If you buy it from a street vendor for two bucks, that should tell the average person its fake.
Now, if legitimate retailers are selling fakes, that’s a different story altogether.
I know that, too! 
But what I don’t understand is this…you seem to believe that there are things you can own legally, but not ethically or morally. If the item in question is someone’s means of making a living, how is it ethical to appropriate it for the same purpose? Granted, it’s not a “hard” good, but even so, making illegal copies of it (whatever it is) creates competition with the original creator of it, causing them to lose some of the revenue that otherwise would be theirs. Jodi’s point is excellent…we live in a society where we have to live off the fruits of our labor. If my labor is creating cartoon characters instead of building cars, why should I have less of a right to make my living from that labor?
Pardon me if this is slightly incoherent…I hope I got my point across…the baby hardly slept at all last night!
Walt Disney is dead. No one who’s in the company now ever created dick.
Alan Menken - composer: The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Home on the Range. Currently working for Disney as the composer for the upcoming film Enchanted, a stage adapation of The Little Mermaid, and The Snow Queen, set to premiere at Tokyo DisneySea.
John Musker & Ron Clements - animators: wrote and directed The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, and Hercules. Led the development process which created the characters of Sebastian the Crab, Phil the Satyr, Abu the monkey, and dozens of other original characters not found in the original stories. Currently writing and directing Disney’s The Frog Princess.
**John Lasseter - ** animator/director: Current Chief Creative Officer for Pixar and Walt Disney Animation. Creator and director of *Toy Story, Cars, A Bug’s Life, * and Toy Story 2.
Edwin Catmull, PhD - computer scientist: Current President of Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios. Created RederMan software, “which produces images used in motion pictures from 3D computer descriptions of shape and appearance,” according to one of three Academy Awards won for this creation.
I don’t have time to do this all day, but it’s worth noting that your statement above is obviously totally false. Lots of people employed by Disney create “dick” every day.
We’re talking about the duck and the mouse. Those are the images that China is using and the creator of those images is dead.
Hmmm…I think maybe I sort of see where you’re coming from. I agree to an extent. I think that there should be much lower time limits to copywrite than there are now. Life of the original creator is fine…If you write a book in your 20’s that is a best seller for 60 years, then you should own the work and get paid for it. But if a work is purchased, then it should be only say…25 years. That should be more than enough time to recoup your investment and make money on whatever you bought. But it would still allow for a flow of work into the public domain…as it should.
I also don’t like the way Trademark is used now. Big companies are trademarking anything that can possilbe have anything at all to do with their particular interest. Trademark should be limited to one or two active things. A symbol…or a word. I’m not even actually that fond of the trademark for “The Straight Dope”. A quick check of google can’t find me anything, but the term “straight dope” meaning the low down on something is very very common. I’m not positive that it originated with the Chicago Reader. So if a term was in use, but you take it as your companies motto, should you be able to trademark it? I personally don’t think so…but right now the law says otherwise…shrug.
I can go along with this. What bothers me about “intellectual property” is the idea that coporations should have ownership in perpetuity over images, characters, etc. that someone else created. I also don’t accept that every unauthorized use of an image is hurting someone and I think that corporations can be ridiculously heavy-handed and abusive in “protecting” their so-called “properties” (like Disney going after a daycare center that had Disney characters painted on the walls, record companies going after Napster, etc.)
Disney’s claims over Winnie the Pooh originate in licenses agreed to by Milne and his heirs. Recently, Milne’s heirs have tried to rescind these agreements, but licensing disputes are common. The basic fact is that Milne took money to hand over rights to Disney.
Such as …?
(1) The locution “straight dope” existed before the Chicago Reader created the column.
(2) The Chicago Reader’s trademark on the term “Straight Dope” does not stop anyone from using the term in the way that it was used before.
(3) Trademark protections are very limited. They do not give a company control over the English language.
That’s not what you stated.
“No one who’s in the company now ever created dick.”
A blatantly false assertion.
I was obviously talking about the classic characters that China was using. Excuse a little sloppy phrasing.
By the way, did you get permission from Rush for your user name?
Clever, but not. Copyright protection does not apply to single words, names, titles, or short phrases. Rush doesn’t use the term as a trademark, so they can’t assert trademark protection either. Intellectual property law doesn’t lock up the English language.