Count Von Count Sesame Street puppet

[Buck-Beaver]

Originally posted by Louis Kazagger
Wow, I can't believe they won a lawsuit against Whimsy's House. I really don't see the comparison to character design there.

They didn't actually win in court, Cinar (the prodcuer of Whimsy) settled out of court and neither side will disclose the terms.

It's widely assumed Cinar settled because their stock price was already crippled, the company's founders had been removed and they were being investigated for fraud by the Canadian government.

And you think YOU had a bad year!

 

[CaptCrouton]

I must confess that I would love to buy a Muppet like this one and I wouldn't feel real bad about buying one. But of course I don't have the kind of money that the Count was going for. If the quality is as good as I think it is, it's a great deal. But my moral compass is flailing a bit.

I do totally understand that selling "such an animal" on ebay for profit is illegal. I appreciate the concern of Henson in this matter, and the more quality the puppet, the greater their concern should be. And of course, mass production, or a pro company selling them is out of the question.

I think not being able to make one for yourself is an outlandish law, but I doubt it's ever enforced. I think that law should just be removed from the books.

The gray area for me would be if a friend of mine made one and I wanted to buy it from them, to cover labor and materials, and even making a little profit to make it worth their while. I don't do any illegal movie or CD burnings, but such a temptation would be great for me. Especially if it was one of those aliens from S.S. "Tel-e-phone. brrrrr-ing. Yip yip yip yip. Uh huh. Uh huh." I loved those guys.

I know everyone was just waiting for my personal opinion with bated breath. You can relax easy now.

Markus

 

[Buck-Beaver]

Originally posted by CaptCrouton
I think not being able to make one for yourself is an outlandish law, but I doubt it's ever enforced. I think that law should just be removed from the books.

It's not a specific law - copyright law doesn't make any distinction between "fan" use and "commercial" use. Essentially, if something is copyrighted or trademarked you can't duplicate or reproduce it in any manner for any reason without the consent of the trademark owner, period.

Disney has successfully sued Day Care centers for putting Mickey Mouse murals on their walls. Believe it or not, they don't do it to mean or malicious but because they HAVE to. If you own a copyright or trademark and don't go after someone infringing on it, you can actually loose ownership of the copyright.

For example, say Sesame Workshop turns a blind eye to puppet builder "A" selling high-quality Muppets on ebay like the Count puppet. They figure, it's just one guy doing something their fans want so who cares? About a year later someone else (we'll call him puppet builder "B") starts making tons of Count puppets and selling them through ebay. He's making thousands of dollars so SW sues him.

When it gets to court, puppet builder "B"'s lawyer tells the court about puppet builder "A" and how SW let it slide. If it's OK for one person to do it, why is it not OK for another person? SW loses and now the door is now open for anyone and their puppet-building brother to build and sell Count puppets.

Then someone else decides to start making and selling Count T-shirts. When SW sues them, the T-shirt maker cites the earlier court decision against SW about the Count and SW loses again!

Now with the loss of merchandising revenue, Sesame Workshop has less cash to pay for Sesame Street. This gets repeated often enough and they lose control over merchandising and the revenue they were earning through it. Suddenly they can't produce Sesame Street anymore (the merchandise pays for a big chunk of the show's budget).

Sound farfetched? Things like this have actually happened before. The brand "Nike" was actually a small shoemaker in Europe. After 20 years they sued the Nike corp for infringing on his trademark but lost the case because the court ruled they had failed to defend their trademark.

I'll admit the Count scenario I described is a little unlikely, but it still could happen and that why's companies like the JHC have to go after everybody.

 

[Ernie101]

I think it is bad selling the item but making it and just keeping it for sport is not that bad.

 

[CaptCrouton]

Your points about protecting your trademark are very valid, but I still think for Disney to sue a Daycare Center for a Mickey Mural is pretty low. I guess I don't know the whole story, but sheesh, unless they were advertising their center as, "Disney Day Care" or "Mickey Mouse World" or something, they should be able to paint pictures on their walls. I can see the Disney people raiding elementary schools booking 2nd graders for their Little Mermaid drawings.

So Muppet Quilter could get sued for the Quilts she's making? Why isn't MC sued for using all those muppet pics to your left?

Now the Nike story I completely understand if they waited 20 years to say, "Hey, that's my company!" But I don't think Nike is going to lose their Swoosh trademark if I scribble it on my book cover in Algebra class.

Again, I totally understand the problem with selling trademarked images, or using them for profit in some way, including the Count puppet. But it's an ugly sign of the state of affairs if you can't make your own muppets to keep. Or if your grandma can't make one for you for fear that Henson will cuff her and send her to the Hoosegow.

 

[Louis Kazagger]

Originally posted by CaptCrouton
Your points about protecting your trademark are very valid, but I still think for Disney to sue a Daycare Center for a Mickey Mural is pretty low. I guess I don't know the whole story, but sheesh, unless they were advertising their center as, "Disney Day Care" or "Mickey Mouse World" or something, they should be able to paint pictures on their walls.

I've seen the Disney vs. the daycare center thing firsthand. It happened to a daycare center in the town where I was living in Florida a few years ago. Just why should the daycare center be able to paint Disney characters? What's wrong with generic things like rainbows, etc... to brighten up the place? Disney's stance on that is if something were to happen at a daycare center infringing on the trademark of their characters (something like child abuse or mismanagement, etc...) the Disney company in no way even wants the perception of being associated with a daycare that they don't run. Can you imagine if there was a case of sexual abuse at one of these daycare centers with one of these outdoor Disney murals, and the local news reports the story showing the outside of the building where the offenses occurred? In light of potential situations like that, you can hardly blame them. They've got enough problems in house with the odd drunken Mickey Mouse at the park without worrying about their image associated with facilities they have no control over.

 

[radionate]

Originally posted by Louis Kazagger
They've got enough problems in house with the odd drunken Mickey Mouse at the park

Did this really happen?

 

[CaptCrouton]

Okay, if the day care center is using outdoor murals of Disney Characters in the Florida area, I can see the issue. It's essentially linking itself to Disney World. It's advertising and making money by advertising with Mickey.

On the other hand, if I am a Disney fan and I paint a Disney mural in my kids room (or muppets or whatever) am I then violating copyright law and Disney can sue me? Or does that happen when the kids grow up and I open a daycare center? Then I have to redecorate the house? Then should I have to get rid of all the toys with Disney characters and all other trademark characters. In fact, I am better off not buying any of that stuff in the first place at all, ever, since I'm not licensed.

 

[Louis Kazagger]

Originally posted by radionate
Did this really happen?

Oh yeah, this did really happen. It was about fifteen years ago though I think. An intoxicated Mickey was spouting foul language and roughed up one kid. The family tried to sue, but they were no match for the Disney corporate lawyers, and they got nothing.

 

[Louis Kazagger]

Originally posted by CaptCrouton
On the other hand, if I am a Disney fan and I paint a Disney mural in my kids room (or muppets or whatever) am I then violating copyright law and Disney can sue me?

I guess they could, but you wouldn't be profiting from the mural financially and the likelihood of them ever finding out about it next to nil.

Originally posted by CaptCrouton
Or does that happen when the kids grow up and I open a daycare center? Then I have to redecorate the house? Then should I have to get rid of all the toys with Disney characters and all other trademark characters. In fact, I am better off not buying any of that stuff in the first place at all, ever, since I'm not licensed.

Yep, if you were to open your house as a daycare center, that's where the problem comes in. Because then you'd be representing your business with trademarked Disney characters and circumventing any license fees for those trademarks. The toys and anything licensed that you bought that you were to use in your daycare would be no problem. Those items are yours to do with as you like since you paid for them (the licensing cost is built into those products). You wouldn't have paid for licensing of any images you paint of the characters into a mural for your daycare. Technically you could buy a ton of Disney party banners and decorate with that I would think.