the-real-seebs:
stillvisions:
the-real-seebs:
stillvisions:
…Hussie’s talking out his ass on copyright in many matters. You cannot copyright a style or cut of clothing, period.
I don’t recall that anyone said you could.
But look at some of the pictures:
http://softowl.tumblr.com/post/23832745945/all-right-i-have-received-permission-to-post
We are not talking about copyright on a cut or style of clothing, here; we’re talking, at least in some part, about things like pillows with what look like reproductions of homestuck art on them. That’s not “cut or style of clothing”.
And that link isn’t the company referred to in the source of this posting, so I’m not exactly sure how that is at all relevant to the case I’m talking about.
Someone pointed out: You’re right, I’m wrong, on the company identity. I did indeed confuse them with a different company.
Hussie’s a big boy, he can send lawyers and C&D orders out. Hell, if he’s registered anything he can seek punitive damages as well.
So what?
See, there is more to life than “what I did was not technically illegal”. When someone’s first response to being called out on obviously doing something which looks like infringement to most people, a legal argument based on a technicality is not only unpersuasive, it’s anti-persuasive.
I’m sure your internet degree in internet law is quite valid, but that doesn’t supersede reality. Also, “most people would think that” is completely irrelevant - people are wrong, that’s why adults with a genuine legal dispute send in lawyers, people who aren’t paid to “think that”, they’re paid to know, with citations and case law, kinda like the copyright article linked. And “because it’s 100% legal” isn’t a “technicality”, it’s the freaking law.
I am not convinced of the validity of the argument, but it doesn’t matter, because it’s a sleazy argument to advance in the first place.
As sleazy as sending kids to harass someone over something not in breach of the law, instead of having the spine to do it themselves?
I want to name a thing I’m making “miracle modus”. It is not at all obvious that the phrase has any copyright protection, or that such a use would not be found to be fair use, or anything like that… But nonetheless, I didn’t even consider actually going live with such a name without getting permission.
I wouldn’t interpret the copyright rules on clothes the way the hat people apparently do. I wouldn’t try to sell togas embroidered with the text of Lord of the Rings, because “clothing style can’t be copyrighted” doesn’t mean the same thing as “anything you can make into clothing is immune to copyright claims”.
I’m starting to suspect that you didn’t bother linking the article referenced in the parent post. It covers trademark, copyright and specifically protected elements in fashion. Had they been printing Homestuck panels on the hat, yes, they’d be in infringement. But they weren’t. I’m sorry the real world doesn’t agree with how you want it to be, but that doesn’t change the facts.
But ultimately, that question is secondary; the big thing I’m looking at is the attitude displayed, which is one of refusal to admit errors and defensive provision of excuses and justifications. That’s pretty much never a good sign.
You mean the part where they apologized, said they aren’t selling the hats anymore, and offered to retroactively give Hussie his cut, whether they legally need to or not?
Did you even read the source post?
