Copyright and Cartoons

General Questions
#1

I’ve seen dozen of people wearing T-shirts or having window stickers depicting Calvin of “Calvin & Hobbes” with his back turned, an evil look on his face, pissing on some despised organization’s logo (Ford, Chevy, Dallas Cowboys, etc.).

I know that Bill Watterson didn’t allow any merchandising of his characters (much to his syndicates frustration). And obviously some company is creating these shirts & stickers based off his artwork (with the peeing added in). Shouldn’t (or isn’t) Watterson be suing the butts off of somebody for this? Or are the producers of this merchandise too underground for even lawyers to find?

#2

One thing I’ve noticed is the newer stickers look a little less like calvin than the originals.

We live in an age that reads to much to be wise, and thinks too much to be beautiful–Oscar Wilde

#3

The true answer might be too insolvent for lawyers to find.

#4

Yes, he should be suing them. But it’s likely that they are made by small shops, in the basement of people’s houses.

When my father was out of work, I used to work flea markets and the like with him. Among the things we sold were t-shirts (made by somebody we met at the flea markets). One t-shirt had the big McDonalds golden arches with an obviously stoned guy leaning against it saying, “Marijuana – Over 50 Million Stoned” (or something along those lines). We sold 'em for years (also had a version for selling specifically at University of Wisconsin football games, with Bucky Badger being obviously stoned and the M standing for Madison). Then one day a guy came up to the guy we knew and told him that he was a representative of McDonalds (and provided proof of such). He told him that if he did not immediately cease and desist with the golden arches, he would be sued. He ceased and desisted.

My guess is that this guy (or somebody else in the McDonalds corp.) saw somebody wearing the shirt, asked where he got it, and eventually tracked it down. McDonalds has the ability and resources to do that; I doubt Watterson does (besides the fact that there are probably thousands of people printing different versions of the stuff by now).

#5

As per the note that these Calvin stickers are not ‘exactly’ what the true Calvin looked like in the cartoon, I’d have to say that it falls under the legal rulings for parodies. That is, if you modify an existing work enough, it can become an original work in and of itself. I’d actually think the more likely person to sue would be the owner of the corporate logo being pissed upon (Chevy, Ford, etc.) since that is definitely a trademarked symbol being used without authorization. Of course, if they are considered ‘public figures’ from a legal standpoint, you may be able to do or say whatever you want about them without fear of a squadron of lawyers laying waste to your bank accounts providing you are not attacking them on something specific that is blatantly untrue (pissing doesn’t claim anything so it’s likely fair game)

Of course, all this ultimately gets decided by a court of law if the person does get sued, and I’m sure that rarely happens. They threaten, and the guy making the stickers in his basement just throws in the towel. I believe we had a thread recently from a guy who was doing a parody of ‘The Family Circus’ cartoon on his Web page, and he ultimately gave up when the lawyers of the cartoonist tracked him down.

Incidentally, living in San Diego, I always assumed these stickers were being made in Mexico and shipped across the border. That would virtually guarantee you’d never find the orginal person who made them…

#6

Personally, I think Watterson should start the litigation off by attacking the felchwits who make the crappy “Calvin and Hobbes doing kegstands/smoking the ganj” T-shirts that are voraciously sold to freshmen on college campuses everywhere.

#7

I don’t think the cartoons in question are sufficiently different to be considered parodies. The image is demonstrably of Calvin (that’s who you’re supposed to see) and the decals/T-Shirts/whatever don’t attempt to parody him but to use the image to make some other (usually way mature) point – Chevy sucks, or something.

The problem with these sorts of things is that they are not made at the Great Calvin Rip-off Factory (address supplied upon request), but by people in their basements or the local T-shirt shop. Trying to shut down such small-time, nickel-and-dime outfits is a waste of money – assuming you can find them in the first place. But yes, it’s probably a copyright infringment, and I bet it bugs the heck out of Watterson.

#8

If anything, only the corperate logo would fall under the parady clause. But,the creater has the legal right to alter his artwork. Like if your were to take calvin and draw a moustache on him, not legal. but take calvin and draw a political statement or mockery of him, legal. He’s not being mocked in this case.

But I think all those people that have those stickers should be prosecuter for something just because they’re so damn stupid.

We live in an age that reads to much to be wise, and thinks too much to be beautiful–Oscar Wilde

#9

I remember this kind of thing happening at Grateful Dead concerts all the time. Deadheads would put all kinds of images and sayings on t-shirts, patches, etc. Frequently, these items were confiscated, or the people were told to put the stuff away and stop selling it. But, there were strict rules about what was allowed and what was not. For instance, the “Steal Your Face” image (the skull with the red, white and blue lighting bolt in the top of the head). The Dead had a trademark on it, but only if the lighting bolt had 13 points. 12 points? OK. 14 points? Nothing illegal there. It had to be exactly like what was registered with the PTO.

I would think the same would be true for the Calvin image. Take a stripe away from his shirt, maybe alter the little points that make up his hair, change the nose slightly, give him five fingers instead of four, and you are probably OK. Look real close the next time you see Calvin pissing. I bet the image is altered just enough to skirt the law.

#10

DIRTY DEVIL – I’m not a copyright lawyer but I don’t think that’s correct. “Infringement” of trademark and copyright I believe also includes reproductions that are so similar as to cause confusion with the genuine article. That’s why you can’t really have (as in Coming To America) “MacDougal’s” and “The Golden Arcs” – or, I would assume, a one-stripe-short-in-the-shirt depiction of Calvin.

Jodi

Fiat Justina

#11

I’m having difficulty understanding the reasoning for 12 or 14 points being “okay” while 13 wasn’t. This sounds more like a decision made by the Dead than like a law; they may have wanted to “protect” the trademark just enough that they didn’t lose control of it (but allow DeadHeads to freely use something very similar to it), or they may have wanted to distinguish between “official” stuff and “fan art”.

When NBC designed its new logo several years back (the red-and-blue N), it turned out that it looked a lot like, but not quite identical to, a logo that was already in use by some local station somewhere. NBC paid them a bunch of money to turn over the trademark. I don’t think they’d have done that if they could have instead just said “well, OURS is at an angle of 52 degrees, and YOURS is at an angle of 54 degrees, so they’re OBVIOUSLY different logos.”

#12

I think Watterson is lying on a beach somewhere in the South Pacific idly toying with his 22-year-old girlfriend’s uh… earlobes while she peels him a grape, trying to figure out if that passing cumulonimbus that looks like Calvin pissing on Hobbes is worth his attention and deciding no. At least, I hope that’s what he’s doing.

#13

NBC had to give in on its trademark because it probably would have failed the “likelihood of confusion” test. I believe (not speaking as a lawyer) that you can’t get a trademark for one specific product or service if someone already owns a trademark similar to it for the same product or service.

As for the Calvin and Hobbes situation that is a copyright question and a whole other type of animal.

#14

http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/

read 'til your heart’s content, but you still won’t get a good answer. basically, they give you a basis in which they can interpret in a ruling. So it pretty much depends on an individual case. I think this situation however is clear cut copyright infringement.

We live in an age that reads to much to be wise, and thinks too much to be beautiful–Oscar Wilde

#15

Certainly not the impression I get of Watterson. If he was at all interested in super-large amounts of cash, the world would be awash with officially licensed cuddly Hobbeses, Calvin T-shirts, barbecue tongs, hot tubs, wallpaper, desk lamps, pianos, coffee mugs, et al. He refuses to license his stuff at all - any merchandise with any depiction of Calvin and/or Hobbes is a rip-off and he doesn’t get a dime for it.

The Family Circus is just evil.

ben

#16

jodih and torq, I could be wrong about all of what I said. I’m not a lawyer and don’t know anything about what the law says. I’m just giving you my first hand experience.

torq, I don’t know about the Dead only choosing to go after certain violations of trademark rules. I’ve seen many inspectors in parking lots comb through piles of t-shirts, looking really closely at everything, and then only taking certain ones. I’ve also talked to several of these inspectors myself. They were the ones that told me about the 13 point lighting bolt deal. The Grateful Dead were a huge, multi-million dollar organization with some of the best lawyers money could buy. I think they would have played it by the book and confiscated everything they could have under the law. It wasn’t just the Grateful Dead proper who had an vested intrest in eliminating bootleg merchandise. It was Winterland Productions and all the other organizations who produce all the commercial products and sell them to sucker Heads at three times the price of the stuff in the lot (but I’m not bitter or anything, no, not me). But again, I may be wrong about all of this. Wouldn’t be the first time.

#17

Basically, all of those Calvin shirts are blatently illegal. This is a clear cut case of trademark infringement. However, as most of the people here have noted, the production and sale of these things is so informal (and in many cases invloves foreign jurisdictions) that the cost of investigation and prosecution outweighs the theoretical loss of income. Matt Groening (the creator of The Simpsons) once said in an interview that creators in his position have to accept the existence of these unlicensed sales and that the only time when he actively worked to shut down a bootleg operation was because they were producing homophobic material using his characters.

#18

Heretic said:

But where can I get my “dead Grandpa” skull bong?

#19

For truly evil family circus http://www.xnet.com/~raven/DFC/
but hurry Keane’s lawyers are on this guy.
Wattersons lawyers have are and will "get in touch’ with users of his images, when they can find them. BTW not only is the maker of an unauthorised image liable but so is the user, so if you got one of those decals a lawyer could theoretically hassle you. Nuff been sed about these in particular not being true parodies. One of the things you gotta do to keep a trademark or copyright is "vigorously defend"it. That means if you know about an infringement, how ever trivial, you gotta do something about it. Day care centers around here are always gettin ‘notices’ about Disney or WB characters that are visible to the public. And why the small town 100 year old McDonalds Resturant gets hassled even tho they don’t sell burgers (Hmm, the Arches don’t sell real burgers either but…) If the name kleenex,formica, or bandaid appears in an article or fiction without the circle c the publisher gets a letter and prints a correction. There was a company that made linoleum and thet weren’t vigorous enuff.Used to know of a back up musicians agency called Billy’s Band Aid had to change the name, a shame. This protects the holder and the infringer actually. Mc Donalds can’t sue a big chain mac donny’s, if donny can show Mc didn’t do anything about some others Mc knew about. And if I am selling Strait Dope that I er manufactor in my back yard and Cece knows about it but says ‘he’s small time, got no cash anyway, and no one is going to confuse us,( well mr john mite confuse a few)’ but then my product takes off, I got deep pockets, cece can’t suddenly decide NOW I can SUE! all I gotta do is say hey you didn’t say nothin when we met on the corner that night a few years back.

“Pardon me while I have a strange interlude.”-Marx

#20

For truly evil family circus http://www.xnet.com/~raven/DFC/
but hurry Keane’s lawyers are on this guy.
Wattersons lawyers have are and will "get in touch’ with users of his images, when they can find them. BTW not only is the maker of an unauthorised image liable but so is the user, so if you got one of those decals a lawyer could theoretically hassle you. Nuff been sed about these in particular not being true parodies. One of the things you gotta do to keep a trademark or copyright is "vigorously defend"it. That means if you know about an infringement, how ever trivial, you gotta do something about it. Day care centers around here are always gettin ‘notices’ about Disney or WB characters that are visible to the public. And why the small town 100 year old McDonalds Resturant gets hassled even tho they don’t sell burgers (Hmm, the Arches don’t sell real burgers either but…) If the name kleenex,formica, or bandaid appears in an article or fiction without the circle c the publisher gets a letter and prints a correction. There was a company that made linoleum and thet weren’t vigorous enuff.Used to know of a back up musicians agency called Billy’s Band Aid had to change the name, a shame. This protects the holder and the infringer actually. Mc Donalds can’t sue a big chain mac donny’s, if donny can show Mc didn’t do anything about some others Mc knew about. And if I am selling Strait Dope that I er manufactor in my back yard and Cece knows about it but says ‘he’s small time, got no cash anyway, and no one is going to confuse us,( well mr john mite confuse a few)’ but then my product takes off, I got deep pockets, cece can’t suddenly decide NOW I can SUE! all I gotta do is say hey you didn’t say nothin when we met on the corner that night a few years back.

“Pardon me while I have a strange interlude.”-Marx