Wocka-Wocka... He's at it again!

[spcglider]

I don't get the connection of somebody wanting a knock off spot on replica and how that person doesn't appreciate the art of the creator? Not saying I'm going to buy one of these replicas, but I still don't see how having one of them in my house is wrong. I wouldn't plan on using it for any sort of advertising or to make money in anyway. If the person who built it for me doesn't make any profit from it, I would assume it's not any different than if they built the replica for themself.

Your question is simply answered by this: the law doesn't know what you will and will not do with the replica. Therefore it is unlawful for anybody, even those who have no nefarious intent, to replicate or own an unlicensed replica.

Look at it this way: I'll make it a really black and white concept... it is illegal to own fully automatic firearms without a specific and special license. Even if you have absolutely no intent on using them in an illegal manner, no intent to harm or kill anyone, no intent to use them in a robbery, the law simply cannot judge your intent. Therefore, simply owning or selling fully automatic weapons is illegal.

The same applies here (though it'd be awfully hard to commit a robbery or murder somebody with an unlicensed Muppet replica). There's no way of anyone being able to judge your INTENT, so it simply has been ruled illegal for ANYONE without express license to make or own a replica like this.

Its not a condemnation of your personal life or frame of mind. And it's not intended to keep Muppet lovers from loving Muppets. The law applies to everyone.

-G

 

[frogboy4]

Sounds like one dangerous bear!

(He he...just had to say it! I get it, but never would have drawn the association of Fozzie Bear and automatic weapons. It begged a response. Still giggling.)

 

[DPuppets]

Just curious and mean nothing by it. But, I hear everyone really knocking this guy. But what about Jarrod? I hear alot of "WOW" great work. Your replicas look so good. I know Jarrod is not selling his. With all that is being said, seems to be just as bad. I am not knocking Jarrod, I have a couple of his puppets. Hard to see why we get we can be talking about one and not the other.

 

[Kevin the Frog]

The fact he's not selling them on ebay is why no one is talking, but you have a valid point. We don't know his intent when he makes these copyrighted characters, and becuase we or the law doesn't know his intent he is not allowed to make these according to the logic of some on here. He could be the next sadkermit for all we know and use a real looking Kermit! (just kidding) I'm not knocking Jarrod either, he should keep making both replicas and originals because I love looking at them.

 

[Toasty]

Just curious and mean nothing by it. But, I hear everyone really knocking this guy. But what about Jarrod? I hear alot of "WOW" great work. Your replicas look so good. I know Jarrod is not selling his. With all that is being said, seems to be just as bad. I am not knocking Jarrod, I have a couple of his puppets. Hard to see why we get we can be talking about one and not the other.

You've already addressed the critical difference: Jarrod does his replicas as a fan and is making no attempt to sell anything. This type of practice, while technically still illegal according to IP law, is generally allowed by the holders of such intellectual property as "healthy fan activity," or in the case of artists copying other artists in a class, a form of education.

What the subject of this thread does falls outside of these "friendly" boundaries due to his clear intent to sell designs based on the intellectual property of others, for which he does not have permission to do so.

 

[PMK]

Here's my two cents. People make and sell custom action figures all the time on eBay. Sometimes they get pulled, but normally they do not. No licensed company is selling quality Muppet puppets. If this guy was taking money out of someone's mouth, I could understand the hostility, but since he's creating something that there is a demand for and he is the only supply, I don't think you can fault him as much. A lot of things are illegal by the letter of the law.

 

[spcglider]

Just curious and mean nothing by it. But, I hear everyone really knocking this guy. But what about Jarrod? I hear alot of "WOW" great work. Your replicas look so good. I know Jarrod is not selling his. With all that is being said, seems to be just as bad. I am not knocking Jarrod, I have a couple of his puppets. Hard to see why we get we can be talking about one and not the other.

You need to read the whole of this conversation.

Its been said many times that the owners of certain property rights have a very generous policy of ignoring those who build eplicas as "fan activities"... meaning that they understand that some folks are exercising their skills by making replicas for themselves and maybe learning something.

That's their call. They own the rights.

But when it comes to making money building unlicensed replicas, most rights holders get a little testy. They don't like it when they've paid LOTS of money to own the rights only to have someone come along and infringe on them by making money off something they own.

What if you woke up one day and found out that somebody was using your car as a taxi while you weren't looking? You wouldn't be too thrilled, I bet.

-G

 

[spcglider]

Here's my two cents. People make and sell custom action figures all the time on eBay. Sometimes they get pulled, but normally they do not. No licensed company is selling quality Muppet puppets. If this guy was taking money out of someone's mouth, I could understand the hostility, but since he's creating something that there is a demand for and he is the only supply, I don't think you can fault him as much. A lot of things are illegal by the letter of the law.

We're looking at this situation in a much larger context now. Not just some guy making replica Muppets, but a much more global discussion.

You've posted what's called the "drug dealer's defense" and it's just as spurious as any other. This argument hinges itself on the idea that, just because somebody WANTS something means they are ENTITLED to it. We know this is untrue.

Sadly, in our modern world of consumer-based thought, people don't understand why that's wrong. We keep being told by all the major retailers that it isn't.

I want a million dollars, but that doesn't give me the right to simply take it from somebody who HAS a million dollars... even if they aren't using it.

This argument also relies upon the "if nobody's looking defense". Which assumes that whatever you like to do, you can... even if it's illegal. As long as you don't get caught doing it.

Of course, we know this is also untrue. Because, when the unlawful nature of what you've done is discovered, you can be punished for it.

Sure, break the law when the police aren't looking. But be prepared to pay for the crime when somebody calls the cops on you.

-G

 

[PMK]

I want to travel great distances. It takes so long to walk, so I need to make something that will help me move faster, so I make a wheel.

Not everyone can invent or even craft their own wheels, but people should still have the right to be able to use them.

I cannot sew my own Muppets, but others can. Shouldn't I have the right to own something that, if I had a greater skill set, I would be able to make myself?

 

[spcglider]

The wheel is not a piece of intellectual property. It is one of the basic machines that create all other machines. It is not and cannot be copyrighted as a concept.

Do you have the right to replicate a particular model of Dunlop brand tire? No you do not. The design of that tire is the intelectual property of the Dunlop Company and you'd get your pants sued off for appropriating the design.

Your first statement subtextually classifies the Muppets (tm) as puppets in only the most generic terms. It is the details of those puppets that make them a piece of intellectual property. The characters they represent, thier particular style, look, design, voice, and catchphrases are all property of the Muppet Holding Company, Jim Henson Company and Walt Disney Company.

Your second statement is absolutely true. You have every right in the world to use a puppet. But you do not have the right to use an unlicensed replica of a copyrighted puppet design. For any reason.

Your question is irrelavant... because even if you had the skillset to make an unlicensed replica of a Muppet, it would still be technically unlawful for you to do so. So the answer is no.

So once again, just because you WANT someting doesn't mean you can have it.

For further elaboration, please go back and read the entire thread.