|
Post by Darkhawk on Jul 8, 2012 21:40:58 GMT -5
This is the first time I ever heard of such a thing. Warrior shutting down auction's of custom figure's of himself. It's really pathetic of him to actually do such a bizarre thing he should just let it go. Never realize he was such an bunghole to his fan's.
|
|
cocacolabottle
Main Eventer
2 US Refs
Joined on: Aug 29, 2011 4:45:11 GMT -5
Posts: 1,008
|
Post by cocacolabottle on Jul 8, 2012 21:44:47 GMT -5
I think what the argument boils down to is this : Mattel sold us a figure based on The Ultimate Warrior. The figure is ours to do what we want with including reselling it. However at what point does our doing what we want with it, AKA customization and resale, cross the line into infringing 'intellectual property' and or 'likeness'. When he added a trademarked symbol that wasn't originally there, he infringed on the Warrior's copyright. Those little warrior symbols on his tights are logos that belong to Warrior. You can't put those on a product, promote them as such, and sell that product for a mark up. I mean you can, but you can be held liable. This guy painted trademark symbols on this figure and because of his paint job he is selling it for a premium (I'm sure). Well I'd like to paint someone else's design on something and sell it, too. I'd love to take the Chicago Bulls' logo and print it off on a red shirt and sell it for 3 times as much as I paid for the red shirt, but I don't own that design. Once the NBA told me to stop selling it, I'd love to come on a forum and bash David Stern et al for being "money-hungry douches stomping out their fans" like the people here. This person here who started this thread doesn't own the Warrior's design. You can't just do whatever you want with somebody else's trademark and then sell it. That's where the line was crossed. After market sells of untouched products are fine because the copyrights have already been purchased and people have already made their cuts. But no one who owns Warrior's trademarks has made a cut for that USA Warrior paint job, which is a one-of-a-kind product. Ah but here is where that gets tricky. Take the cupcake example. Say you frost it with Hershey's chocolate frosting and advertise it as such. That would be profiting from Hershey's as they didn't get their cut right? What if you did make it with Hershey's but didn't advertise it as such. You are still using Hershey's chocolate. Did Hershey's get their cut after you purchased their product to use it for whatever you like? Yes. So should Hershey's get a second cut for you advertising that you use them in your final product? Aren't action figures the same? You took a product where everyone had already gotten their cut of the money and transformed that product/ingredient or whatever have you into something of your own creation. Is it wrong that you advertise what you made your new product of? Is it wrong that you resell product that you changed without advertising it? Is it wrong to blatantly sell the same object, unaltered whatsoever and make more money from that resell? I say no. Wal-Mart doesn't have to pay Hershey's an extra fee for reselling a Hershey's bar and nor do they have to pay Hershey's a royalty for using their chocolate chips in their chocolate chip cookies. Otherwise everyone everywhere would owe everyone a ridiculous sum of money.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 13:15:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2012 21:53:33 GMT -5
This is the first time I ever heard of such a thing. Warrior shutting down auction's of custom figure's of himself. It's really pathetic of him to actually do such a bizarre thing he should just let it go. Never realize he was such an bunghole to his fan's. It's the fans using his stuff to make money off of him that are the bungholes. If you create or own something it belongs to you! Whether you have made 100s of thousands or millions of dollars already, you didn't make that money by letting people freely produce what is yours. If these people were true fans of Warrior, they'd want to pay HIM. However, they are NOT fans of him but fans of his gimmick, and the gimmick doesn't own the trademarks, a man owns the trademarks. And he has every right to stop people from profiting from it. Even if the profit is 20 bucks. He has the right to stand up for himself. Who are we to say he's made enough money already from us, which is what some people are saying. No one here is entitled to sell something that belongs to someone else just because we think that person has made enough already or because we THINK that person owes us something from our past "loyalty."
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 13:15:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2012 22:00:46 GMT -5
When he added a trademarked symbol that wasn't originally there, he infringed on the Warrior's copyright. Those little warrior symbols on his tights are logos that belong to Warrior. You can't put those on a product, promote them as such, and sell that product for a mark up. I mean you can, but you can be held liable. This guy painted trademark symbols on this figure and because of his paint job he is selling it for a premium (I'm sure). Well I'd like to paint someone else's design on something and sell it, too. I'd love to take the Chicago Bulls' logo and print it off on a red shirt and sell it for 3 times as much as I paid for the red shirt, but I don't own that design. Once the NBA told me to stop selling it, I'd love to come on a forum and bash David Stern et al for being "money-hungry douches stomping out their fans" like the people here. This person here who started this thread doesn't own the Warrior's design. You can't just do whatever you want with somebody else's trademark and then sell it. That's where the line was crossed. After market sells of untouched products are fine because the copyrights have already been purchased and people have already made their cuts. But no one who owns Warrior's trademarks has made a cut for that USA Warrior paint job, which is a one-of-a-kind product. Ah but here is where that gets tricky. Take the cupcake example. Say you frost it with Hershey's chocolate frosting and advertise it as such. That would be profiting from Hershey's as they didn't get their cut right? What if you did make it with Hershey's but didn't advertise it as such. You are still using Hershey's chocolate. Did Hershey's get their cut after you purchased their product to use it for whatever you like? Yes. So should Hershey's get a second cut for you advertising that you use them in your final product? Aren't action figures the same? You took a product where everyone had already gotten their cut of the money and transformed that product/ingredient or whatever have you into something of your own creation. Is it wrong that you advertise what you made your new product of? Is it wrong that you resell product that you changed without advertising it? Is it wrong to blatantly sell the same object, unaltered whatsoever and make more money from that resell? I say no. Wal-Mart doesn't have to pay Hershey's an extra fee for reselling a Hershey's bar and nor do they have to pay Hershey's a royalty for using their chocolate chips in their chocolate chip cookies. Otherwise everyone everywhere would owe everyone a ridiculous sum of money. First of all, when you are baking something you are changing the molecular compounds, so that doesn't really apply to baked goods, but chemistry aside . . . If you are using Hershey's chocolate, then Hershey already got their cut. You aren't producing extra Hershey's that wasn't already there, are you? Well, this guy made extra Warrior symbols that weren't originally there. You can't produce extra Hershey's because you don't even know the recipe. Again, they already got their cut. Remember, you aren't making any Hershey's that wasn't already there when you bought it. You can resell Hershey's just like you can resell the Ultimate Warrior's Mattel figure, but you can't add newly concocted Hershey's chocolate that you whipped together in your test kitchen and sell it as Hershey's, just as this guy can't paint new Warrior symbols (which is a lot easier than duplicating chocolate) and sell it as an Ultimate Warrior figure.
|
|
cocacolabottle
Main Eventer
2 US Refs
Joined on: Aug 29, 2011 4:45:11 GMT -5
Posts: 1,008
|
Post by cocacolabottle on Jul 8, 2012 22:02:32 GMT -5
Really the guy wasn't infringing on anything except for maybe the paint job BUT Warrior had already gotten his cut from Mattel for the figure. If a little paint job is THAT important then how come stores don't get into trouble for advertising what they sell and using the images of products they don't own the rights to? While it is true those advertisements are given away for free they still generate revenue for the store and thus profit from the image.
There are alot bigger properties than The Ultimate Warrior who aren't complaining one darn bit because they WANT people to advertise for them because that drives the demand for their product so stores will have to buy more from them since they are the only ones who can supply the base product.
Say the OP sold one or a million Ultimate Warrior customs. Warrior is still getting paid the same and if he has a problem with that then he should take it up with Mattel and charge more for letting them use his property because he is the only supplier of his product but he cannot control what happens to his product once it is repackaged and sold to someone else who then takes it, changes it and resells it yet again.
Warrior still comes out the loser in this situation and not because he wants to have more control over his image. He comes out the loser because the more he restricts his items the less demand there will be for his product because not only is he not getting his name out to the next generation of fans but because he is alienating a good portion of his fanbase instead of embracing what could turn out as a profitable venture for him. If custom Warrior figures take off then it increases the demand for his name, image, likeness and what have you which leads to demand for him. If it doesn't catch on then he has lost nothing either way.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 13:15:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2012 22:07:48 GMT -5
if he has a problem with that then he should take it up with Mattel and charge more for letting them use his property because he is the only supplier of his product but he cannot control what happens to his product once it is repackaged and sold to someone else who then takes it, changes it and resells it yet again. \ Obviously he CAN control what happens. See the first post.
|
|
cocacolabottle
Main Eventer
2 US Refs
Joined on: Aug 29, 2011 4:45:11 GMT -5
Posts: 1,008
|
Post by cocacolabottle on Jul 8, 2012 22:10:26 GMT -5
Ah but here is where that gets tricky. Take the cupcake example. Say you frost it with Hershey's chocolate frosting and advertise it as such. That would be profiting from Hershey's as they didn't get their cut right? What if you did make it with Hershey's but didn't advertise it as such. You are still using Hershey's chocolate. Did Hershey's get their cut after you purchased their product to use it for whatever you like? Yes. So should Hershey's get a second cut for you advertising that you use them in your final product? Aren't action figures the same? You took a product where everyone had already gotten their cut of the money and transformed that product/ingredient or whatever have you into something of your own creation. Is it wrong that you advertise what you made your new product of? Is it wrong that you resell product that you changed without advertising it? Is it wrong to blatantly sell the same object, unaltered whatsoever and make more money from that resell? I say no. Wal-Mart doesn't have to pay Hershey's an extra fee for reselling a Hershey's bar and nor do they have to pay Hershey's a royalty for using their chocolate chips in their chocolate chip cookies. Otherwise everyone everywhere would owe everyone a ridiculous sum of money. First of all, when you are baking something you are changing the molecular compounds, so that doesn't really apply to baked goods, but chemistry aside . . . If you are using Hershey's chocolate, then Hershey already got their cut. You aren't producing extra Hershey's that wasn't already there, are you? Well, this guy made extra Warrior symbols that weren't originally there. You can't produce extra Hershey's because you don't even know the recipe. Again, they already got their cut. Remember, you aren't making any Hershey's that wasn't already there when you bought it. You can resell Hershey's just like you can resell the Ultimate Warrior's Mattel figure, but you can't add newly concocted Hershey's chocolate that you whipped together in your test kitchen and sell it as Hershey's, just as this guy can't paint new Warrior symbols (which is a lot easier than duplicating chocolate) and sell it as an Ultimate Warrior figure. Yes but The Ultimate Warrior was already part of the product. Are you saying you can't take Hershey's chocolate and then add Hershey's chocolate pieces and sell it as a mix? What exactly is the difference when the product added is the same thing? Can you add value by adding more of something that was already part of the product? Isn't value determined ultimately (no pun intended) by the buyer? What if he took the figure as it was originally and then included a picture of that Warrior graphic with the figure and listed it for sale. Is that wrong? Is it wrong only if you physically add the image on the original product and then sell it for more or is it equally wrong to sell the original product with a printed copy of that warrior image?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 13:15:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2012 22:12:31 GMT -5
You are just mad you couldn't make that 80 bucks.
|
|
cocacolabottle
Main Eventer
2 US Refs
Joined on: Aug 29, 2011 4:45:11 GMT -5
Posts: 1,008
|
Post by cocacolabottle on Jul 8, 2012 22:14:04 GMT -5
if he has a problem with that then he should take it up with Mattel and charge more for letting them use his property because he is the only supplier of his product but he cannot control what happens to his product once it is repackaged and sold to someone else who then takes it, changes it and resells it yet again. \ Obviously he CAN control what happens. See the first post. I don't believe he can and since this isn't the first time Warrior has done this to someone I would consider filing a lawsuit. No joke if I had a warrior figure I would list it on eBay right now so he could take it down so I could file myself and not for damages because I don't want his money but because of the greater issue of just how far can anyone go in controlling what becomes of their sold product.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 13:15:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2012 22:19:21 GMT -5
First of all, when you are baking something you are changing the molecular compounds, so that doesn't really apply to baked goods, but chemistry aside . . . If you are using Hershey's chocolate, then Hershey already got their cut. You aren't producing extra Hershey's that wasn't already there, are you? Well, this guy made extra Warrior symbols that weren't originally there. You can't produce extra Hershey's because you don't even know the recipe. Again, they already got their cut. Remember, you aren't making any Hershey's that wasn't already there when you bought it. You can resell Hershey's just like you can resell the Ultimate Warrior's Mattel figure, but you can't add newly concocted Hershey's chocolate that you whipped together in your test kitchen and sell it as Hershey's, just as this guy can't paint new Warrior symbols (which is a lot easier than duplicating chocolate) and sell it as an Ultimate Warrior figure. Yes but The Ultimate Warrior was already part of the product. Are you saying you can't take Hershey's chocolate and then add Hershey's chocolate pieces and sell it as a mix? What exactly is the difference when the product added is the same thing? Can you add value by adding more of something that was already part of the product? Isn't value determined ultimately (no pun intended) by the buyer? What if he took the figure as it was originally and then included a picture of that Warrior graphic with the figure and listed it for sale. Is that wrong? Is it wrong only if you physically add the image on the original product and then sell it for more or is it equally wrong to sell the original product with a printed copy of that warrior image? No you can't. Because when you buy Hershey's chocolate you paid for the chocolate, THEN you BOUGHT the chocolate pieces! This guy didn't buy the extra Warrior symbols. He made them on his own. No one who owns this design got a cut for that. It is wrong, simply because he is creating new product that hasn't been paid for. You can buy a Warrior picture from warrior.com and a Mattel figure from mattel.shop and sell them together because both have gotten their cut. But you can't make copies and reproduce something and make profit. Doesn't anyone remember napster? They got sued out the butt because people bought CDs and distributed the audio files from the CDs to anyone that wanted them. The napster people lost their case. You can resell a used CD, and original. That's fine, but you cannot make copies and sell it.
|
|
|
Post by firstplacer on Jul 8, 2012 22:22:06 GMT -5
You guys are all using horrible examples (no offense). This is a case of the user taking a Warrior figure he paid for (which is all fine and dandy) but instead of doing something unique, he instead tried replicating an already made product (The rare USA Mattel Ultimate Warrior look), and changed a few minor things on it then turned to sell it for money saying its his own creation. As stated before, but no one seemed to understand it. A case like this is exactly like someone taking knock off purses, sunglasses etc slapping on Prada, Gucci, Louie Vutton logos then reselling said knock off's as that brand product. You can get in a lot of trouble for taking those logos with out permission and reselling them, and for trying to bootleg said merchandise for money. This is the same thing. Sure the poster had the right to do whatever he wanted with his figure he paid for, but he turned around and made it look almost identical to the already made USA warriro (which was made for Warrior, by warrior) with only like 5 out there in the world. So the user tried to replicate that and sell it on ebay with out permission. I can understand his emotions because he got caught doing something he shouldnt have and it is embarrassing especially if you try carrying a good name and not getting in trouble. Something of this nature makes you feel unintelligent or like a criminal, but rightfully, The Warrior had every reason to put his foot down on this because its his logos and his one of a kind product being nearly replicated for money with out permission. Its an awesome job you did on the custom Apoc, but if you understand where Warrior is coming from with this, you are kinda in the wrong for doing what ya did. Not a big deal really. Just don't make and sell anymore Warrior customs. Plain and simple. As i said before. If you would have just made a different, unmade Warrior, and changed his logos just a little bit, you could have gotten away with it no problem. Even if you used his logos, you may have gotten away with it but because you tried replicating a 1/5 USA look Warrior that Warrior knows about, thats where the problem came in. Don't ever try counterfeiting something cause its not worth it. I would be thankful you got off easy with just a warning from ebay because a maximum punishment for doing something like this is like $250,000 fine and 5 years in state prison. Yeah a warning from ebay and removing my product is a lot better than that you know what i mean? lol
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 13:15:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2012 22:22:58 GMT -5
Obviously he CAN control what happens. See the first post. I don't believe he can and since this isn't the first time Warrior has done this to someone I would consider filing a lawsuit. No joke if I had a warrior figure I would list it on eBay right now so he could take it down so I could file myself and not for damages because I don't want his money but because of the greater issue of just how far can anyone go in controlling what becomes of their sold product. Well, obviously eBay is siding with Warrior on this one. They have a vast legal team that knows a lot more about what can be sold and what can't than you or I. If someone wants to sue HIM for the right to reproduce his trademarks, they will lose.
|
|
cocacolabottle
Main Eventer
2 US Refs
Joined on: Aug 29, 2011 4:45:11 GMT -5
Posts: 1,008
|
Post by cocacolabottle on Jul 8, 2012 22:24:53 GMT -5
Yes but The Ultimate Warrior was already part of the product. Are you saying you can't take Hershey's chocolate and then add Hershey's chocolate pieces and sell it as a mix? What exactly is the difference when the product added is the same thing? Can you add value by adding more of something that was already part of the product? Isn't value determined ultimately (no pun intended) by the buyer? What if he took the figure as it was originally and then included a picture of that Warrior graphic with the figure and listed it for sale. Is that wrong? Is it wrong only if you physically add the image on the original product and then sell it for more or is it equally wrong to sell the original product with a printed copy of that warrior image? No you can't. Because when you buy Hershey's chocolate you paid for the chocolate, THEN you BOUGHT the chocolate pieces! This guy didn't buy the extra Warrior symbols. He made them on his own. No one who owns this design got a cut for that. It is wrong, simply because he is creating new product that hasn't been paid for. You can buy a Warrior picture from warrior.com and a Mattel figure from mattel.shop and sell them together because both have gotten their cut. But you can't make copies and reproduce something and make profit. Doesn't anyone remember napster? They got sued out the butt because people bought CDs and distributed the audio files from the CDs to anyone that wanted them. The napster people lost their case. You can resell a used CD, and original. That's fine, but you cannot make copies and sell it. Yes but this custom wasn't a copy. It was a unique creation. Say the OP had sold the original item with a promo picture of the Ultimate Warrior that would be fine since he had already gotten a cut. I say the OP should find an official picture of the warrior with that image, cut it out and make a shrinky dink of it and include it in the custom. See how well that holds up in court. It won't because it is ridiculous.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 13:15:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2012 22:28:35 GMT -5
You guys are all using horrible examples (no offense). This is a case of the user taking a Warrior figure he paid for (which is all fine and dandy) but instead of doing something unique, he instead tried replicating an already made product (The rare USA Mattel Ultimate Warrior look), and changed a few minor things on it then turned to sell it for money saying its his own creation. As stated before, but no one seemed to understand it. A case like this is exactly like someone taking knock off purses, sunglasses etc slapping on Prada, Gucci, Louie Vutton logos then reselling said knock off's as that brand product. You can get in a lot of trouble for taking those logos with out permission and reselling them, and for trying to bootleg said merchandise for money. This is the same thing. Sure the poster had the right to do whatever he wanted with his figure he paid for, but he turned around and made it look almost identical to the already made USA warriro (which was made for Warrior, by warrior) with only like 5 out there in the world. So the user tried to replicate that and sell it on ebay with out permission. I can understand his emotions because he got caught doing something he shouldnt have and it is embarrassing especially if you try carrying a good name and not getting in trouble. Something of this nature makes you feel unintelligent or like a criminal, but rightfully, The Warrior had every reason to put his foot down on this because its his logos and his one of a kind product being nearly replicated for money with out permission. Its an awesome job you did on the custom Apoc, but if you understand where Warrior is coming from with this, you are kinda in the wrong for doing what ya did. Not a big deal really. Just don't make and sell anymore Warrior customs. Plain and simple. As i said before. If you would have just made a different, unmade Warrior, and changed his logos just a little bit, you could have gotten away with it no problem. Even if you used his logos, you may have gotten away with it but because you tried replicating a 1/5 USA look Warrior that Warrior knows about, thats where the problem came in. Don't ever try counterfeiting something cause its not worth it. See, you can't sell something as a Warrior product with Warrior symbols just as you can't sell sunglasses with a Ray Bans logo, even if the sunglasses don't look ANYthing like any glasses Ray Ban sells. The issue isn't only that it looks similar to an existing product, the issue is slapping a name brand logo on something that isn't really name brand.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 13:15:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2012 22:30:09 GMT -5
No you can't. Because when you buy Hershey's chocolate you paid for the chocolate, THEN you BOUGHT the chocolate pieces! This guy didn't buy the extra Warrior symbols. He made them on his own. No one who owns this design got a cut for that. It is wrong, simply because he is creating new product that hasn't been paid for. You can buy a Warrior picture from warrior.com and a Mattel figure from mattel.shop and sell them together because both have gotten their cut. But you can't make copies and reproduce something and make profit. Doesn't anyone remember napster? They got sued out the butt because people bought CDs and distributed the audio files from the CDs to anyone that wanted them. The napster people lost their case. You can resell a used CD, and original. That's fine, but you cannot make copies and sell it. Yes but this custom wasn't a copy. It was a unique creation. Say the OP had sold the original item with a promo picture of the Ultimate Warrior that would be fine since he had already gotten a cut. I say the OP should find an official picture of the warrior with that image, cut it out and make a shrinky dink of it and include it in the custom. See how well that holds up in court. It won't because it is ridiculous. The logos he used on the trunks were NOT unique creations! They are trademarked symbols!
|
|
|
Post by firstplacer on Jul 8, 2012 22:30:23 GMT -5
Yes but this custom wasn't a copy. It was a unique creation. Say the OP had sold the original item with a promo picture of the Ultimate Warrior that would be fine since he had already gotten a cut. I say the OP should find an official picture of the warrior with that image, cut it out and make a shrinky dink of it and include it in the custom. See how well that holds up in court. It won't because it is ridiculous. unfortunately, its not a unique creation. It IS in fact a copy. There is a Mattel based 1/5 USA Ultimate Warrior figure out there that was made specific. for Warrior. A unique creation would be one of his own. Not a USA themed made Warrior that he changed like 2 things on to call it his own, plus used Warriors face paint logo on. I'm a customizer to, but i dont sell my work because i know there is a fine line between being an artist and being a criminal when customizing and a lot of us are on the criminal side when making these things and don't see it because we see it as art. You just can't steal trademarked logos and sell them as your own, or bootleg products already made and sell them as your own especially when said product was only just made this year.
|
|
cocacolabottle
Main Eventer
2 US Refs
Joined on: Aug 29, 2011 4:45:11 GMT -5
Posts: 1,008
|
Post by cocacolabottle on Jul 8, 2012 22:32:58 GMT -5
You guys are all using horrible examples (no offense). This is a case of the user taking a Warrior figure he paid for (which is all fine and dandy) but instead of doing something unique, he instead tried replicating an already made product (The rare USA Mattel Ultimate Warrior look), and changed a few minor things on it then turned to sell it for money saying its his own creation. As stated before, but no one seemed to understand it. A case like this is exactly like someone taking knock off purses, sunglasses etc slapping on Prada, Gucci, Louie Vutton logos then reselling said knock off's as that brand product. You can get in a lot of trouble for taking those logos with out permission and reselling them, and for trying to bootleg said merchandise for money. This is the same thing. Sure the poster had the right to do whatever he wanted with his figure he paid for, but he turned around and made it look almost identical to the already made USA warriro (which was made for Warrior, by warrior) with only like 5 out there in the world. So the user tried to replicate that and sell it on ebay with out permission. I can understand his emotions because he got caught doing something he shouldnt have and it is embarrassing especially if you try carrying a good name and not getting in trouble. Something of this nature makes you feel unintelligent or like a criminal, but rightfully, The Warrior had every reason to put his foot down on this because its his logos and his one of a kind product being nearly replicated for money with out permission. Its an awesome job you did on the custom Apoc, but if you understand where Warrior is coming from with this, you are kinda in the wrong for doing what ya did. Not a big deal really. Just don't make and sell anymore Warrior customs. Plain and simple. As i said before. If you would have just made a different, unmade Warrior, and changed his logos just a little bit, you could have gotten away with it no problem. Even if you used his logos, you may have gotten away with it but because you tried replicating a 1/5 USA look Warrior that Warrior knows about, thats where the problem came in. Don't ever try counterfeiting something cause its not worth it. See, you can't sell something as a Warrior product with Warrior symbols just as you can't sell sunglasses with a Ray Bans logo, even if the sunglasses don't look ANYthing like any glasses Ray Ban sells. The issue isn't only that it looks similar to an existing product, the issue is slapping a name brand logo on something that isn't really name brand. Yes but the ingredients used to make the new product ARE authentic Warrior items. I tell you what if I took a Louie Vutton purse and added Louie Vutton sunglasses that I had paid for in the purse and put it up for sale it would sell for more just as this Warrior figure would. I say he gets another legitimate Warrior product and combine it with the figure and sell it because legally both items would be his and his own creation even more so.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 13:15:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2012 22:36:44 GMT -5
See, you can't sell something as a Warrior product with Warrior symbols just as you can't sell sunglasses with a Ray Bans logo, even if the sunglasses don't look ANYthing like any glasses Ray Ban sells. The issue isn't only that it looks similar to an existing product, the issue is slapping a name brand logo on something that isn't really name brand. Yes but the ingredients used to make the new product ARE authentic Warrior items. I tell you what if I took a Louie Vutton purse and added Louie Vutton sunglasses that I had paid for in the purse and put it up for sale it would sell for more just as this Warrior figure would. I say he gets another legitimate Warrior product and combine it with the figure and sell it because legally both items would be his and his own creation even more so. Dude you just aren't getting it. You have to pay for what you sell. If you don't own a symbol or logo, you have to buy it before you can sell it. Period. You BOUGHT both the Louis Vutton glasses and purse. So you can sell them both together or separate. But he didn't buy the Warrior's extra symbols. He made copies of them and is trying to sell them as part of the figure. He has no legal right to reproduce trademarked logos.
|
|
cocacolabottle
Main Eventer
2 US Refs
Joined on: Aug 29, 2011 4:45:11 GMT -5
Posts: 1,008
|
Post by cocacolabottle on Jul 8, 2012 22:38:26 GMT -5
Yes but this custom wasn't a copy. It was a unique creation. Say the OP had sold the original item with a promo picture of the Ultimate Warrior that would be fine since he had already gotten a cut. I say the OP should find an official picture of the warrior with that image, cut it out and make a shrinky dink of it and include it in the custom. See how well that holds up in court. It won't because it is ridiculous. unfortunately, its not a unique creation. It IS in fact a copy. There is a Mattel based 1/5 USA Ultimate Warrior figure out there that was made specific. for Warrior. A unique creation would be one of his own. Not a USA themed made Warrior that he changed like 2 things on to call it his own, plus used Warriors face paint logo on. I'm a customizer to, but i dont sell my work because i know there is a fine line between being an artist and being a criminal when customizing and a lot of us are on the criminal side when making these things and don't see it because we see it as art. You just can't steal trademarked logos and sell them as your own, or bootleg products already made and sell them as your own especially when said product was only just made this year. Who is to say that it is a copy? Who in their right mind would think a 1 of 5 figure would look like that? For something that rare you better know what you are buying. For a crime like this to occur you would have to prove intent. Did he intend to resell Warrior products? Yes. Did he intend to scam anyone out of their money by leading them to believe that he was selling a 1 of 5 figure? No. Any collector serious enough to go after a 1 of 5 and has the cash to do it knows that it wouldn't look like that custom.
|
|
|
Post by firstplacer on Jul 8, 2012 22:40:15 GMT -5
unfortunately that was not what i was talking about either. Putting a paid of sunglasses inside a already paid for louie purse is perfectly legal because you bought them from the real company and are reselling them. If you take a purse and slap on the trademarked logos you dont own and say its that louie purse that is illegal, and that is like what he is doing with said custom figure here. If he bought another Warrior, and didnt customize it and sold it as is on ebay with another figure, that would be perfectly fine because you own that Warrior figure, thats how it was made and you are just reselling it as you own it already. Now, when you take said figure and start painting it to look like another extremely rare figure (USA 1/5 Warrior) but change a few things then go to sell it on ebay to look like that said rare USA warrior figure but its not. Thats counterfeiting/ bootlegging/ copywrite infringing. He would be better off to just stay away from warrior customs altogether before he ends up $250,000 or more in the hole and ends up in prison for the next 5 years. Just make other guys and dont try to play with fire.
|
|