How the Grinch’s Intellectual Property Stole Christmas
from the grinch-and-bear-it dept
The estate of Dr. Seuss is obviously no stranger to playing the intellectual property maximalist, having appeared on our pages many times in the past. But more specifically for this post, the estate has also, ironically enough, been more than happy to stomp on the Christmas joy of others in favor of jealously guarding its IP when it comes to The Grinch Who Stole Christmas. I have to say, I have no concept of just how much cognitive dissonance one would need to have attained to take a story that is all about sharing and celebrating the Christmas holiday with others and use control over it to do the exact opposite, but it’s impressive nonetheless.
And it’s had a chilling effect, at least in the state of Louisiana where messages are going out proactively to photographers ahead of the holiday season, merely to warn them not to specifically promote or charge for pictures including the Grinch character, lest the estate come calling.
As the festive season approaches, photographers in Louisiana are being cautioned about the potential legal pitfalls of Grinch-themed photo sessions. These holiday photo ops, popular alongside traditional Santa pictures, may inadvertently lead to serious trademark infringement issues.
A viral reminder is circulating among photographers, warning that using the Grinch theme could attract legal action from Dr. Seuss Enterprises. Although there’s no specific data on the likelihood of being sued, the risk is significant enough for many photographers to err on the side of caution.
So, would a photographer charging for a picture that included a Grinch character constitute copyright infringement in every instance? I could argue plenty of scenarios in which I don’t think it would, especially if that character was not working directly with the photographer. Notably, copyright isn’t like trademark where you have to police it all as brutally as possible or risk losing it. The estate could simply let all of this go and it would suffer no negative consequences whatsoever. In fact, I would argue that pictures like that only server to promote Grinch-type products and projects, serving as free advertising for the estate.
As for advertising using pictures that include the Grinch, that’s a little more on the nose when it comes to trademark infringement. Still, I refuse to believe that the estate would lose its mark over some independent photographers’ advertisements.
And the larger point is that the original book by Dr. Seuss was published nearly 70 years ago. Unless any depictions of the Grinch treaded on more recent adaptations of the character, exactly what would the estate be losing by letting some people, especially children, engage in a little Christmas joy? The law aside, what is the moral calculation that allows family members of a deceased author wield this kind of power?
None, of course. Instead, photographers are expected to instead find “creative” ways to skirt around the legalities of all of this instead.
This issue was highlighted when Dr. Seuss Enterprises’ corporate counsel, Nicole Gates, reportedly sent cease and desist communications to infringing photographers. While the legitimacy of these notices hasn’t been fully verified, they align with standard legal practices in such cases.
Photographers are advised to avoid using any copyrighted or trademarked materials in their work. Instead, they can create “inspired” sessions that evoke a general theme without infringing on specific protected elements. It’s also recommended to seek permissions where available, although acquiring permission from Dr. Seuss Enterprises has been difficult due to existing licensing agreements.
Well, Merry Christmas, I guess. I suppose we should all just be glad that Dr. Seuss didn’t live long enough to watch his own descendants turn into the very character he created.
Filed Under: christmas, grinch, holidays, photographers
Companies: dr. seuss enterprises, seuss estate
Comments on “How the Grinch’s Intellectual Property Stole Christmas”
And Geisel's large estate…
…grew three sizes that day.
There’s only one good response to that…
You’re a monster, Mr. Grinch,
Your heart’s an empty hole,
Your brain is full of spiders,
You’ve got garlic in your soul, Mr. Grinch!
I wouldn’t touch you with a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole!
A public service announcement
Significant exposure to intellectual property can lead to severe cardiac anomalies, primarily the heart becoming two sizes too small.
Ah the expansion of cultural progress...
Just look at all that creativity brought about by copyrights that last decades after the death of the creator.
… I mean sure, it’s creativity in the form of ‘how do you not get sued by a parasitic estate that only creates legal documents and/or bills?’ but hey, creativity nonetheless, all in line with the original intent behind enshrining copyright into law I’m sure.
Re:
They occasionally rent out the rights for awful shit? That’s creative, no?
I think you meant to say, “Merry Fucking Christmas.”
Re:
Hush! Do you want Techdirt to get sued?
Simple solution.
Take picture.
Have AI copy picture.
No copyright issues.
Re:
?????
Re: Re:
It was deeply stupid social commentary, don’t worry about it.
The IP Grinch stole him.
Maybe the estate would be better served by going after wankers like this for making the Grinch look bad
Parents furious as pastor dressed as Grinch tells kindergartners ‘Santa is fake’
https://www.rawstory.com/david-grisham/
I’m no fan of lying to children about Santa but this nut is not exactly doing the brand any favours.
Re: Uhh...
The man parked himself Monday morning outside the kindergarten entrance at Osuna Elementary School, where he greeted students with a sign saying, “Santa is fake … Jesus is real,” reported KRQE-TV.
‘That story your parents told you about a magical, all knowing and all seeing being that rewards those that believe in him and act ‘good’ according to his rules while simultaneously punishing those that don’t believe and/or don’t behave is complete and utter hogwash, nothing but your parents lying to your face in order to get you to behave! Now, that out of the way let me tell you about Jesus…’
Re:
Hey, I’ve never met Jesus, but I’ve talked with Santa Claus!
Re: Re: Find a Witch and...
Ahh the modetn day “Witch Finders” also called IP agents.
For those that do not understand the Witch Finder principle, if you “find Witches” then you have authority over others thus power control and money come your way, and you also get to burn, drown, press etc your selected victims.
The trick is as any psychopathic “Secret Police” will tell you is to so scare people they will turn each other in just to avoid being treated that way.
So “Nicole Gates” has set herself up as a Witch Finder to burn etc people… There is an old saying she should think long and hard on,
“Do unto others, as you would have do unto you.”
And a Merry Xmass to every one standing around the fire roasting weeners and other swine flesh as my German friends call it.
Re: Re: Re:
…what
Re: Re: Re:
Did you get better?
Re: Re: Re:
And how is any of this allowable in a world where innocence is presumed before guilt and where defendants have such powerful rights? If they’re so intent on equating infringement to theft, then call the police and build an ironclad argument that you are indeed, a victim of theft.
Re: Re: Re:
“…swine flesh, as my German friends call it.”
Schweinefleisch actually means “pork” and directly translates to “pigmeat”, but nice attempt at Kuhscheiße.
Re:
And the guy wasn’t dragged off in 15 seconds by cops and barred from being 5000 feet from any child?
Re: Re:
Which is why we need to do the Stephen T Stone thing and replace the clergy with drag queens.
Re: Re: Re:
Oh fuck that’s so hot.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s a good idea. Statistically, they’ll have way less risk of being molested that way.
Would including a bibliographic citation make the difference? Copyright infringement seems to be the general public equivalent of plagiarism to the college student, I’ve heard the two compared frequently. I wonder if laypeople learning MLA/APA format would ensure that credit is given where credit is due, and ward off any potential problems
Re:
No, you cannot make a copyright violation not a violation by giving credit to the author (I’m not commenting on whether any such photos would be a violation). Nor does the disclaimer “no copyright infringement intended” have any legal significance.
Re: Re:
Seems to me that the copyright violation is caused by someone trying to download music or movies off the Internet for free, using a now-defunct service like Napster or LimeWire. Now, we have YouTube, which provides the indispensable gift of practically every song (and music video) ever recorded in human history for free.
Or the other way it gets infringed is similar to the academic offense of plagiarism, where earlier works are referenced but no credit is given. Creating a CD-length album of 10 songs would require inspiration from earlier works. While chord structures, instrumentations unique to each genre of music, and rhythms have been borrowed from earlier generations without any legal problems, references to specific songs that struck a chord (pun intended) with the newer musician should be listed in MLA or APA format in the liner notes of the album itself. The listener who enjoyed the newer song should know about any particular earlier works that inspired the musician, just as the reader should know about earlier scholarship that informed the writer. That would solve a great deal of problems, especially in hip-hop where sampling is used frequently.
Re: Re: Re:
Wrong, the copyright violation is making a copy available to others, which is why the Mafia target Torrent users, because most downloaders also make their copy available to others.
Re: Re: Re:2
Wrong, the copyright violation is making an unauthorized copy, whether or not you subsequently make that copy available to others. The MAFIAA targets Torrent because they’re easy to locate, not because making an unauthorized copy available to others is the only way of committing copyright infringement.
Re: Re: Re:
“The listener who enjoyed the newer song should know about any particular earlier works that inspired the musician, just as the reader should know about earlier scholarship that informed the writer.”
And then both the musician and the writer get sued because their works are “almost identical copies” of works that never qualified for copyright in the first place. A long time (forty years) ago in a galaxy not too far away (this one), copyright maximalists cried that “home taping is killing music!” Yet now we can see that it is they who are killing music because who dares produce any when there are only a limited amount of notes from which to build a new work?
Re: Re: Re:2
If they never qualified for copyright protection in the first place, then the plaintiff’s argument falls apart when the judge finds out that the work in question was never copyrighted. And both the musician and writer who cite their sources properly could truthfully claim that they gave credit where credit was due. Scholarly writers KNOW they have to cite their sources- even though writing a full bibliography is a royal pain in the ass- to avoid accusations of wrongdoing. But musicians don’t know this, which is why these problems exist to such a degree.
Research doesn’t take place in a vacuum, it draws from older sources that help make a cohesive argument, the same is true for music and art, everything is inspired by works that came years or decades before. Either way, learn how to properly acknowledge those earlier sources and you can save yourself academic career or your freedom.
Re: Re:
“Nor does the disclaimer “no copyright infringement intended” have any legal significance.”
But it can help when writing fanfic, which is why so many fanfic authors use it.
Re: Re: Re:
It is possible some authors are less likely to take legal action if they see such a note; I don’t have any information about that. But if the copyright holder does decide to take action, the disclaimer will be no help at all.
Re: Re: Re:2
Hence why I said “it can help,” not “it does help.” Do you need educational support to help with your reading comprehension?
Re: Re: Re:3
Nah, in this case, saying “it can help” while admitting it might not help is functionally saying, “it may or it may not help,” which isn’t really that useful to include.
Re:
“Copyright infringement seems to be the general public equivalent of plagiarism to the college student…”
No, it’s not. Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of a copyrighted work, whereas plagiarism is the failure to give credit where it’s due. The two can co-occur, but they don’t have to, and you can’t get sued for plagiarism unless unauthorized copying of a work was involved, in which case you get sued for the copyright infringement, not the plagiarism. Go back to college and learn something.
Well I await the new works that Dr Seuss will be creating as we keep protecting his IP for 4 more human lifetimes.
Re:
That’s why we call it IPv4.
Re:
And here I was thinking that copyright lasted life+70 years, not life+240 years.
Re: Re:
The RIAA – and Techdirt trolls like antidirt – have opined that they fervently believe in copyright that lasts “forever, minus a day”.
240 years is chump change compared to the heat death of the universe.
Re: Re: Re:
“Copyright” is the act of Mickey Mouse’s hand reaching forward through time to scrawl Disney’s name under the heat death of the universe.
I had put this quote on a photo of that statue of Walt holding mickey’s hand with the sky orange from the wild fires as my header on Twatter for a while.
Re: Re:
For now. Although, the fact that you’re unlikely to see a work created in your own lifetime enter the public domain is a reality no matter which number you tack on to the end, and that’s a massive cultural problem. Hint: corporations only protect what’s profitable, and what’s profitable isn’t always what’s valuable.
And how is any of this allowable in a world where innocence is presumed before guilt and where defendants have such powerful rights? If they’re so intent on equating infringement to theft, then call the police and build an ironclad argument that you are indeed, a victim of theft.
Re:
But it would be wrong to force them to do anything at all to protect their super special rights so we just have to force people to prove they are innocent to every allegation, even those that some in 200 every 5 milliseconds.
Re: Re:
Having to prove your innocence to clear your good name, rather than relying on the presumption of innocence so that the courts give defendants the benefit of the doubt. I’d rather read about the Spanish Inquisition- or watch that Monty Python skit- than have to experience that in this day and age.
And preservationists wanting to save older works that are still copyrighted disproves the idea that artists only work for money, because their preservation is not only non-profit but could actually cost them money if they’re caught. They care about future generations enjoying these works, even if they aren’t lucky enough to see it themselves
“The estate of Dr. Seuss is obviously no stranger to playing the intellectual property maximalist […] the estate has also, ironically enough, been more than happy to stomp on the Christmas joy of others in favor of jealously guarding its IP when it comes to The Grinch Who Stole Christmas.”
Then they’d best get after me for obtaining a copy of How the Grinch Stole Christmas! without paying them any licensing fees (pre-owned DVD).
Re:
Maximalists would dearly love to make second hand goods and libraries illegal…
“Maybe Christmas doesn’t come from a store. Maybe Christmas, perhaps, means a little bit more.”
THAT Grinch?
Edit the RGB values, swap green to red. Grinch ain’t red.
Sounds easy to me.