 
Groups: ProSeller
Joined: 9/25/2007
Posts: 1,666
Location: Cardiff
|
stationeryshop wrote:artberry wrote:Obviously if CP users were and are allowed to make twilight products under the terms of a non-exclusive licensing arrangement. Then it certainly wouldn't be infringement to put said designs on another pod site. Neither would another POD site be under any obligation to remove perfectly legal designs. CP has an exclusive agreement with Summit for CP's users, and only their users, to make Twilight merchandise. The rules for the Twilight designs at CP are very restrictive about what can and cannot be included in the designs, and on what products they can and cannot be put on. Yes I know there are restrictions with those publicity deals in fact I just took a look at them but they don't appear to claim exclusive rights to works created under those terms and in fact their TOS still states "4.3 Licensing Your Content to CafePress.com. You will retain ownership of the Content that you upload to the Website. You hereby grant to CafePress.com a royalty-free, worldwide, transferable, nonexclusive, right and license to use such Content,..." So it clearly states users retain ownership of their content and the agreement is nonexclusive. There doesn't appear to be any exception to this in regard to permitted Twilight or New Moon related content. Obviously if users retain ownership of their content and the agreement is nonexclusive that would not appear to peclude users from selling their designs on another POD site, and doesn't appear to exclude twilight related designs. Exclusivity seems to be neither stated or implied.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/29/2009
Posts: 962
|
Quote:That´s because CP has a deal with Summit, so you can create fan articles (with restrictions from Summit)there. I think this is where some of the confusion of these designs came from. Particularly for some of us transferring from CP. We went from a place that it's okay to post Twilight designs to a place that doesn't allow it. Zazzle has clearly taken steps to remove the infringing products so far as I'm concerned anything beyond this is just money grubbing bs.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/26/2007
Posts: 319
|
artberry wrote:
Obviously if users retain ownership of their content and the agreement is nonexclusive that would not appear to peclude users from selling their designs on another POD site, and doesn't appear to exclude twilight related designs. Exclusivity seems to be neither stated or implied.
It looks like you have a misunderstanding of what licensing is, and what the term "non-exclusive" means. It is pretty much the opposite of what you have assumed. Non-exclusive is a right retained by the licensor to grant others licenses. Non-exclusive is not a right that can be used by the licensee. A licensee would have some kind of enforceable right in the opposite circumstance - if the licensor granted an exclusive license, and then turned around and granted licenses to others. A licensor is free to impose pretty much whatever terms they want on the licensee. The licensee can either accept the terms and act under them or reject them and not use the license. Retaining ownership of an image created under license does not give the licensee free rein to do as they wish with that image. They must comply with the original license terms. If you don't clearly understand those license terms are then using phrases such as "obviously" are going to lead to embarrassingly incorrect conclusions. Your analysis of the terms and conditions under which the CafePress Twilight designs were created and the legality of copying such designs to Zazzle fails entirely because of that basic misunderstanding of the licensing terminology. Whether Summit does or does not have a case, how strong the case is, and other speculation really should not occur here. Most especially it is dangerous for anyone who might become a later target of a suit from Summit to post even the slightest hint of speculation or comment. Those who have received notices of infringement should have some range of concern from very little concern to very serious concern depending upon the circumstances involved. It would not be too soon to consult an intellectual property law attorney to get a more realistic picture of the risks than one can get by reading here. Everything matters. The tags matter, the title of the store and products matter, the design itself matters, even the graphics in the store (not on the design) can matter in determining level of risk. Please don't rely on the guesses or opinions of others as to what SHOULD be the criteria for infringement. Learn what IS.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/10/2008
Posts: 734
|
artberry wrote:
Whilst I suspect there's a fair possibility the name "Edward Cullen" used in that instance may have been deliberate. There's also the aspect "Cullen" is a real surname and people do sometimes share names with fictional characters.
I don't therefore see how Zazzle could be held responsible for what people choose to call their store any more than what parents decide to call their children. Obviously if Summit have a problem with that they should contact this Edward Cullen.
Search Edward Cullen on white pages. There are over 100 results.
|
|
Groups: ProSeller
Joined: 3/15/2008
Posts: 1,960
|
msdespina wrote: More Cafepress vs. Zazzle. Cafepress must have had something to do with this lawsuit. That in fact was my first thought ...  Hilly
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/24/2009
Posts: 85
|
JKcoder wrote:I think this is where some of the confusion of these designs came from. Particularly for some of us transferring from CP. We went from a place that it's okay to post Twilight designs to a place that doesn't allow it. An easily confused person needs to stick with stuff that won't get them in trouble when they become confused. They should never ever get near licensed material if they are unable to distinguish when those terms apply.
|
|
Groups: ProSeller
Joined: 9/25/2007
Posts: 1,666
Location: Cardiff
|
dogplay wrote:artberry wrote:
Obviously if users retain ownership of their content and the agreement is nonexclusive that would not appear to peclude users from selling their designs on another POD site, and doesn't appear to exclude twilight related designs. Exclusivity seems to be neither stated or implied.
It looks like you have a misunderstanding of what licensing is, and what the term "non-exclusive" means. It is pretty much the opposite of what you have assumed. Non-exclusive is a right retained by the licensor to grant others licenses. Non-exclusive is not a right that can be used by the licensee. A licensee would have some kind of enforceable right in the opposite circumstance - if the licensor granted an exclusive license, and then turned around and granted licenses to others. But these TOS relate to the relationship the user has with the POD site, and the content the user provides and not directly to anything licensed by a third party. It just means the user retains ownership of their work and grant a POD site a non-exclusive licence to display the content on a Website and print sell the content on products. It also means users (artists/designers) are entitled to put the same content on more than one POD site including a competitor. The fact is Summit has, at least through CP, given artists permission to make twilight related designs in order to publicize their films. There's no suggestion that licence or permission is restricted to Cafepress. There has been no up front payment to artists to do this, the artists are not subject to a contract of employment. CP's terms of service clearly state artist retain ownership of their work and basically that CP claim no exclusive rights over user provided content. There appears to be no stated exception to those terms in relation to these fan art publicity deals CP run. If it's not the case that Summit have given artists and designers permission to create twilight related content, or such permission is only within the context of Cafepress or a particular competition it needs to be stated. Because it's an exception to the normal terms laid out in CPs TOS. Which at the very least is likely to cause confusion. Actually in my case as far as I'm aware I've never had anything removed due to any complaint by Summit. I don't do twilight related designs or even create much work even related to that genre. So apart from hoping Zazzle win this case. I've not trying to justify or defend anything I've done, I'm quite innocent. I don't even watch movies less than 10 years old. Gosh I've only just caught up with the X-files 
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/22/2008
Posts: 48
|
Honestly, as lame (only due to there being just so much that we can do) as it sounds scour zazzle for the offending merch and report like crazy. The only way to help us legit shopkeepers is really to report all the legit offending stuff (and maybe send a note to the offending shopkeepers).
|
|
|
Guest |