CGC puts blue label on "new" modified excl18147

Originally Posted by Jesse_O
I've been trying to think of a good analogy. It's actually like if Walmart ordered a bunch of dvds from Disney with an exclusive Walmart cover. After a year goes by, Walmart joins with a new company. They decide to take the unsold dvds and make a limited edition, clear sleeve with the the new company's name and some minor art on it. Then, they sell these through Walmart, but they let Amazon, Target and Walgreens buy up a bunch of the limited edition dvds to resell. This is comparable to what happened, all be it on a smaller scale. I don't think Disney would stand for that.

Originally Posted by Jesse_O
I'd guess that if nothing is said by the end of the month, they won't act on it.

Originally Posted by Nuffsaid111
Quote:

Originally Posted by GAC
I go to Maple Leaf Entertainment and buy 1000 Toronto Maple Leaf hockey jerseys.

This is the huge problem right here. Huge huge huge problem. You should be buying 1000 NY Ranger jerseys!

Originally Posted by Byrdibyrd
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesse_O
I've been trying to think of a good analogy. It's actually like if Walmart ordered a bunch of dvds from Disney with an exclusive Walmart cover. After a year goes by, Walmart joins with a new company. They decide to take the unsold dvds and make a limited edition, clear sleeve with the the new company's name and some minor art on it. Then, they sell these through Walmart, but they let Amazon, Target and Walgreens buy up a bunch of the limited edition dvds to resell. This is comparable to what happened, all be it on a smaller scale. I don't think Disney would stand for that.

Marvel didn't get the chance to approve/disapprove of that acetate cover. CGC had the audacity to step in and claim they could do it in their stead. That is NOT okay and CGC really Really should have known better.

Originally Posted by GAC
Let's use a sporting goods analogy and see if this works.

I go to Maple Leaf Entertainment and buy 1000 Toronto Maple Leaf hockey jerseys.

I take those jerseys and sew in a hood creating a hoodie.

I then get a sporting goods authentication company to put these jersey hoodies in a frame under glass and call it a Toronto Maple Leaf "Outdoor" Jersey/Hoodie.

I think Maple Leaf Entertainment lawyers would be on the horn to me saying "What the hell are you doing?"

Originally Posted by dielinfinite
@Byrdibyrd @Jesse_O

Annie LEE v. A.R.T. COMPANY is an interesting case to look at. A company bought notecards and lithographs from an artist then mounted them on tiles, glazed them with resin and resold them. The case was rules in favor of the company.

Part of the rationale was that the company “bought the work legitimately, mounted it on a tile, and resold what it had purchased. Because the artist could capture the value of her art's contribution to the finished product as part of the price for the original transaction, the economic rationale for protecting an adaptation as "derivative" is absent…An alteration that includes (or consumes) a complete copy of the original lacks economic significance. One work changes hands multiple times, exactly what [the law] permits, so it may lack legal significance too”

Where I can a legal opening is later on in the opinion. The case was decided whether the alteration was sufficient to make it a derivative work. In this case the court did not find that mounting and glazing the art was sufficient to meet the standard for a derivative work, particularly the portion saying if the “work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.” In this case, the court did not find the mounting process to rise to the standard of a derivative work however similar cases (see MIRAGE EDITIONS v. ALBUQUERQUE A.R.T. CO) have ruled differently.

I can definitely see the argument of the copyrighted work being “recast” and thus becoming a derivative work where Marvel would have rights but I also can’t say it’s such a sure thing that they would surely prevail, though I’d imagine Marvel simply threatening legal action, regardless of it’s chances of prevailing, would be enough to get Black Flag to change its behavior

Originally Posted by dielinfinite
@Byrdibyrd @Jesse_O

Annie LEE v. A.R.T. COMPANY is an interesting case to look at. A company bought notecards and lithographs from an artist then mounted them on tiles, glazed them with resin and resold them. The case was rules in favor of the company.

Part of the rationale was that the company “bought the work legitimately, mounted it on a tile, and resold what it had purchased. Because the artist could capture the value of her art's contribution to the finished product as part of the price for the original transaction, the economic rationale for protecting an adaptation as "derivative" is absent…An alteration that includes (or consumes) a complete copy of the original lacks economic significance. One work changes hands multiple times, exactly what [the law] permits, so it may lack legal significance too”

Where I can a legal opening is later on in the opinion. The case was decided whether the alteration was sufficient to make it a derivative work. In this case the court did not find that mounting and glazing the art was sufficient to meet the standard for a derivative work, particularly the portion saying if the “work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.” In this case, the court did not find the mounting process to rise to the standard of a derivative work however similar cases (see MIRAGE EDITIONS v. ALBUQUERQUE A.R.T. CO) have ruled differently.

I can definitely see the argument of the copyrighted work being “recast” and thus becoming a derivative work where Marvel would have rights but I also can’t say it’s such a sure thing that they would surely prevail, though I’d imagine Marvel simply threatening legal action, regardless of it’s chances of prevailing, would be enough to get Black Flag to change its behavior

Originally Posted by dielinfinite
@Byrdibyrd @Jesse_O

Annie LEE v. A.R.T. COMPANY is an interesting case to look at. A company bought notecards and lithographs from an artist then mounted them on tiles, glazed them with resin and resold them. The case was rules in favor of the company.

Part of the rationale was that the company “bought the work legitimately, mounted it on a tile, and resold what it had purchased. Because the artist could capture the value of her art's contribution to the finished product as part of the price for the original transaction, the economic rationale for protecting an adaptation as "derivative" is absent…An alteration that includes (or consumes) a complete copy of the original lacks economic significance. One work changes hands multiple times, exactly what [the law] permits, so it may lack legal significance too”

Where I can a legal opening is later on in the opinion. The case was decided whether the alteration was sufficient to make it a derivative work. In this case the court did not find that mounting and glazing the art was sufficient to meet the standard for a derivative work, particularly the portion saying if the “work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.” In this case, the court did not find the mounting process to rise to the standard of a derivative work however similar cases (see MIRAGE EDITIONS v. ALBUQUERQUE A.R.T. CO) have ruled differently.

I can definitely see the argument of the copyrighted work being “recast” and thus becoming a derivative work where Marvel would have rights but I also can’t say it’s such a sure thing that they would surely prevail, though I’d imagine Marvel simply threatening legal action, regardless of it’s chances of prevailing, would be enough to get Black Flag to change its behavior