RSS
Zazzle & Warner Bros. Pretend All References To Wizard Of Oz Are Covered By WB Copyright
from the there's-a-problem-here dept
Lowestofthekeys alerts us to the situation of one W. Thomas Adkins, who had some t-shirt designs of his own making for sale on Zazzle... until they were taken down in response to a copyright claim. After Adkins requested more info on why his images were taken down, Zazzle explained:
Basically, what the law has said is that if you're making references to the specific characters or character traits that were portrayed in the movie, but which are not from the books, then its under WB's copyright. So, if you were to display pictures of the actual actors or specific expressions or outfits that are from the movie, but not the books, then there's an issue.
From Adkins' post, however, it appears these were the images on the t-shirts that were removed from Zazzle:
It is difficult to see how either of these come anywhere close to infringing on WB's copyright. The first one merely displays a witch's pointy hat. While it seems that the origin of the pointy, wide-brimmed witch's hat has been lost to history, the various reports online suggest it long pre-dates 1939 and the movie. In fact, it appears that images in the original books show the witch in a pointed, wide-brimmed hat. So the hat is not copyright to Warner Bros.
Then there's the flying monkey. Problem being... the flying monkeys were in Baum's books, and Adkins' drawing is quite different from the version in the movie.
The concept of water melting the witch? Also in Baum's books, and as Adkins details in his blog post, it way predates the Oz books anyway.
Basically, everything in Adkins' images appear to reference the original Baum books and not the movie. Assuming Warner Bros. did make a copyright claim, as Zazzle's email stated, then it is engaging in copyfraud here and asserting copyright against images it has no rights over.
That said, Adkins also exaggerates his own rights in his response to Zazzle, which he posted. After explaining to Zazzle why his works did not infringe on WB's copyright, he unfortunately goes on to say:
Either way, the original point stands: Adkins' works don't appear to be infringing WB's copyrights. If WB did make the claim, it appears that WB went way too far. Adkins should have just filed a standard counternotice to Zazzle, and one would hope Zazzle does the right thing and puts the works back up.
...your product was removed due to an infringement claim by Warner Bros. Studios. While the artwork as you claim is original, the characters from the Wizard of Oz are currently property of Warner Bros. As a guideline, designs from the Wizard of Oz that are currently prohibited for sale on Zazzle’s Marketplace are:There are a few problems with this. First of all, characters from the Wizard of Oz are not, in fact, "property of Warner Bros." The original book, written by L. Frank Baum, was published in 1900 and is in the public domain. The popular movie version, in which Warner Bros. holds the copyright, came out in 1939. This does lead to some interesting copyright questions, and a few lawsuits. For example, last year, we wrote about a lawsuit involving t-shirts designed with public domain Wizard of Oz images. And then there's a brewing fight over whether or not Disney can make a film based on the public domain parts of the Baum books if it makes no reference to the 1939 movie.- Zazzle
- All inspired artwork and character renderings from the Wizard of Oz
- Quotes from the Wizard of Oz Franchise
- All tags and descriptions that reference the Wizard of Oz
Basically, what the law has said is that if you're making references to the specific characters or character traits that were portrayed in the movie, but which are not from the books, then its under WB's copyright. So, if you were to display pictures of the actual actors or specific expressions or outfits that are from the movie, but not the books, then there's an issue.
From Adkins' post, however, it appears these were the images on the t-shirts that were removed from Zazzle:
It is difficult to see how either of these come anywhere close to infringing on WB's copyright. The first one merely displays a witch's pointy hat. While it seems that the origin of the pointy, wide-brimmed witch's hat has been lost to history, the various reports online suggest it long pre-dates 1939 and the movie. In fact, it appears that images in the original books show the witch in a pointed, wide-brimmed hat. So the hat is not copyright to Warner Bros.
Then there's the flying monkey. Problem being... the flying monkeys were in Baum's books, and Adkins' drawing is quite different from the version in the movie.
The concept of water melting the witch? Also in Baum's books, and as Adkins details in his blog post, it way predates the Oz books anyway.
Basically, everything in Adkins' images appear to reference the original Baum books and not the movie. Assuming Warner Bros. did make a copyright claim, as Zazzle's email stated, then it is engaging in copyfraud here and asserting copyright against images it has no rights over.
That said, Adkins also exaggerates his own rights in his response to Zazzle, which he posted. After explaining to Zazzle why his works did not infringe on WB's copyright, he unfortunately goes on to say:
As such, I respectfully request that my material and corresponding artwork be returned to circulation for purchase immediately.Uh... no. Zazzle choosing not to display your work is, in no way, copyright infringement. As a private company, Zazzle has every right to refuse to display any particular work, even if its reasons are dumb. The public (and people like Adkins) are free to mock them, but there is no copyright issue there, and especially not infringement by Zazzle. The service certainly does not have the greatest reputation because of its quick trigger finger in pulling down perfectly legal content, but that doesn't mean it's illegal. Claiming that not displaying someone's work is infringement is just ridiculous, and takes away from Adkins' otherwise strong arguments.
Failure to do so would be an infringement on my copyright of my created artwork which, as verified by the testimony above, does NOT infringe upon Warner Bros. Entertainment’s copyright on the 1939 film or the specific celluloid representations of the characters made in said film. If my copyright continues to be infringed upon I will seek legal action against both Zazzle and Warner Bros. Entertainment.
Either way, the original point stands: Adkins' works don't appear to be infringing WB's copyrights. If WB did make the claim, it appears that WB went way too far. Adkins should have just filed a standard counternotice to Zazzle, and one would hope Zazzle does the right thing and puts the works back up.
I’m looking for policy...
Policy Resources: Software Patents
Jon Potter: Software Patent Trolls Can Be Stopped By U.S. Patent Office And Congress
I have a business...
Why and How Developers Use Mobile Payments: Infographic
The Future Of Commerce Will Combine Your Social Network And Mobile Device
I have an idea...
5 Things You Should Know About Crowdfunding For Startups
App Developer Conversations: Successful Fundraising Techniques
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
This should be taken as yet another sign that copyright has run amok and needs to be repaired.
People no longer understand what it actually is, how it works, and its just a weapon to make threats to extract money.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
literary nitpicking
Also, the monkeys were no longer in the service of the witch when she died (she used up the number of times she could call on them) before she was melted.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/55
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
2-step Plan
2) Society is now free to advance.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: literary nitpicking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Witch_of_the_West
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 2-step Plan
Kill all the construction workers next time your road gets torn up too.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: 2-step Plan
If the construction workers are engaged in the destruction of public right of way's so that they can install corporate owned toll roads, and parking lots, and streets... then yes
If the construction workers are really just a 'front' for the 'streetpavers, thugs, and hooligan's branch of the local **AA'... then yes
If the construction workers were engaging in the same type of behavior that lawyers are, than there would be people advocating to 'kill the construction workers'.... however since most 'construction' by design involves 'building' things and not preventing other people from building things that they have the ability and knowledge to build... this isn't happening.
Trying to compare the most destructive industry (any antagonistic profession is going to attract bad actors, one based on he who can spin the biggest ball of BS and get the judge to buy it, is going to attract the WORST actors) with an industry based on building things...
Everyone is a Genius... but if you judge a fish on it's ability to climb a tree, it will live it's whole life believing that it is stupid. Albert Einstein
I know there's a lawyer joke in that quote... but it's too early...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I knew it was in there...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Certainly in the minds of the copyright maximalists...they even throw the legal hammer at those copying from the public domain because they have done it first. They even fight each other for copying from the public domain. I wish they would all just sue each other into oblivion so they can disappear into history and everyone else can evolve without their stupidity.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
and everyone who uses them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: 2-step Plan
Not really. Lawyers are hired by businesses and corporations with agendas, and told to make something happen, such as software patents. This is why you see the outragous laberinth of logic in these lawsuits.
If so many lawyers were'nt so light on morals and ethics, we wouldn't have these issues. Valets are supposed to police drunk drivers, but a lawyer just executes his clients wishes, and that's OK?
I always thought the bar was supposed to police it's members, but it appears useless.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
The jailer's waiting
Screw public domain so long as a major studio can repackage and re-copyright. That's what I call progress!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Arguably, although Zazzle has no obligation to display the work, its statement that this is due to copyright infringement amounts to defamation, given that no infringement has occurred.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Etsy? Adkins.
Take your marbles and go somewhere else.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Fair IS fair, right????????
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Eh, even that's a stretch. The bar for a defamation claim is reasonably high and I don't think this reaches it. We shouldn't rush to support a bad claim just because of who the actors are.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Zazzle didn't state that there was any copyright infringement, WB did: "your product was removed due to an infringement claim by Warner Bros. Studios." And I doubt he'd get anywhere with a defamation suit against WB either.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Funny...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
This stifles creativity
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This stifles creativity
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment