4 ms·

The verdict seems wrong. You can't copyright a cat. Per the constitution only "works" are copywritable. So you can copyright a photo of the cat. Or in this case

by guelo 9y ago

The verdict seems wrong. You can't copyright a cat. Per the constitution only "works" are copywritable. So you can copyright a photo of the cat. Or in this case a sketch of a cat. But unless the owners of the cat also drew the logo they shouldn't have a copyright claim on it.

opiweoiper90 9y ago
Maybe you missed this on your reading: "Grumpy Cat Limited sued the owners of US coffee company Grenade for exceeding an agreement over the cat's image." And... "In 2013 Grenade Beverage, owned by father and son Nick and Paul Sandford, struck a $150,000 deal to market *iced coffee beverages* with the cat's scowl on its packaging." It wasn't about generic copyright violation, but explicitly violating the agreement "as worded". Grenade signed on to the language willingly, the violated it. Seems pretty cut and dry.
tedunangst 9y ago
Defendants should have hired you.
vortico 9y ago
Yes, the drawn graphic of the cat is exactly what the defendent infringed on. See the similarity on page 4 of http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/grumpy-cat-complaint/2720/ http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/grumpy-c... between the second image and the image used on the coffee.
- Idontknowmyuser 9y ago
  I feel like this is bullshit. It's very clear that the photo is inspired by the cat, not the photo of the cat. There are many different details between the two images to the point that it is a totally different photo of the cat ( see ear position,left eye ..)
  - Guest9812398 9y ago
    Below is a better comparison of the two images. https://i.imgur.com/nyD3111.jpg https://i.imgur.com/nyD3111.jpg If the image is the issue, then we're basically not going to allow anyone to draw an illustration of a sad cat any longer, which is absurd. That being said, I imagine the "Grumpy Cat" text is the concern here. If they just used the cat illustration and "Grumppuccino" text they would probably be in the clear (assuming that text wasn't part of the original agreement). The way it's currently presented, it's confusing to consumers and it looks like an official Grumpy Cat product.
    - granitosaurus 9y ago
      wow, they aren't even remotely close to being the same thing. This is absurd.
  - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
    Grumpy Cat is a brand, not a logo. This is no different to protecting a business name. I'm bemused that critics of copyright believe that IP Protection is Evil, but have no problem understanding that they're not going to be able to call their startup "Microsoft", "Google", or "Apple" - because that would be an obvious and ridiculous branding infringement. But copyright of a single work isn't a brand? In a practical sense it is, because the whole point of IP is that it has market value - and brands, individual works, band and artist names, logos, and the rest, all generate income for creators. (Or more often for middle men and managers - but that's a different problem, and one that's hardly going to be solved by eliminating IP.)
    - jdmichal 9y ago
      Branding is in the realm of trademark, not copyright. This was a copyright lawsuit, so branding has nothing to do with it. If Disney finally loses copyright of Steamboat Willie, you will still not be able to use the trademarked Disney Ears. (The one that's three circles.)
      - 9y ago
contravariant 9y ago
They did own the "Grumpy Cat" trademark though, which does seem to be infringed as far as I can tell. It's a weird case though, to be sure.
- dnautics 9y ago
  trademark is not copyright. This could be poor journalism on the part of the OP.
  - darkstar999 9y ago
    It was likely both.
paulie_a 9y ago
Yes but you can license the work of art, a photo. Which they did to the coffee company. And it sounds like that agreement was broken. The courts agreed
SyneRyder 9y ago
There is a law in California against using someone's likeness without their permission. NPR's Planet Money podcast did an episode about it called "Frank Sinatra's Mug": https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=459116467 https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?stor... The actual law: "Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof." This particular case seems to be straightforward breach of contract, though. The company had already licensed Grumpy Cat for one product, but then added Grumpy Cat onto other products they didn't have a license for.
khedoros1 9y ago
The actual complaint is for copyright infringement, a variety of trademark infringements, cybersquatting, breach of contract, and accounting issues. It's about more than just a breach of copyright.

by guelo 9y ago

opiweoiper90 9y ago

Maybe you missed this on your reading: "Grumpy Cat Limited sued the owners of US coffee company Grenade for exceeding an agreement over the cat's image." And... "In 2013 Grenade Beverage, owned by father and son Nick and Paul Sandford, struck a $150,000 deal to market *iced coffee beverages* with the cat's scowl on its packaging." It wasn't about generic copyright violation, but explicitly violating the agreement "as worded". Grenade signed on to the language willingly, the violated it. Seems pretty cut and dry.

tedunangst 9y ago

Defendants should have hired you.

vortico 9y ago

Yes, the drawn graphic of the cat is exactly what the defendent infringed on. See the similarity on page 4 of http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/grumpy-cat-complaint/2720/ http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/grumpy-c... between the second image and the image used on the coffee.

Idontknowmyuser 9y ago
I feel like this is bullshit. It's very clear that the photo is inspired by the cat, not the photo of the cat. There are many different details between the two images to the point that it is a totally different photo of the cat ( see ear position,left eye ..)
- Guest9812398 9y ago
  Below is a better comparison of the two images. https://i.imgur.com/nyD3111.jpg https://i.imgur.com/nyD3111.jpg If the image is the issue, then we're basically not going to allow anyone to draw an illustration of a sad cat any longer, which is absurd. That being said, I imagine the "Grumpy Cat" text is the concern here. If they just used the cat illustration and "Grumppuccino" text they would probably be in the clear (assuming that text wasn't part of the original agreement). The way it's currently presented, it's confusing to consumers and it looks like an official Grumpy Cat product.
  - granitosaurus 9y ago
    wow, they aren't even remotely close to being the same thing. This is absurd.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  Grumpy Cat is a brand, not a logo. This is no different to protecting a business name. I'm bemused that critics of copyright believe that IP Protection is Evil, but have no problem understanding that they're not going to be able to call their startup "Microsoft", "Google", or "Apple" - because that would be an obvious and ridiculous branding infringement. But copyright of a single work isn't a brand? In a practical sense it is, because the whole point of IP is that it has market value - and brands, individual works, band and artist names, logos, and the rest, all generate income for creators. (Or more often for middle men and managers - but that's a different problem, and one that's hardly going to be solved by eliminating IP.)
  - jdmichal 9y ago
    Branding is in the realm of trademark, not copyright. This was a copyright lawsuit, so branding has nothing to do with it. If Disney finally loses copyright of Steamboat Willie, you will still not be able to use the trademarked Disney Ears. (The one that's three circles.)
    - 9y ago

contravariant 9y ago

They did own the "Grumpy Cat" trademark though, which does seem to be infringed as far as I can tell. It's a weird case though, to be sure.

dnautics 9y ago
trademark is not copyright. This could be poor journalism on the part of the OP.
- darkstar999 9y ago
  It was likely both.

paulie_a 9y ago

Yes but you can license the work of art, a photo. Which they did to the coffee company. And it sounds like that agreement was broken. The courts agreed

SyneRyder 9y ago

There is a law in California against using someone's likeness without their permission. NPR's Planet Money podcast did an episode about it called "Frank Sinatra's Mug": https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=459116467 https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?stor... The actual law: "Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof." This particular case seems to be straightforward breach of contract, though. The company had already licensed Grumpy Cat for one product, but then added Grumpy Cat onto other products they didn't have a license for.

khedoros1 9y ago

The actual complaint is for copyright infringement, a variety of trademark infringements, cybersquatting, breach of contract, and accounting issues. It's about more than just a breach of copyright.