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 22:41:16 GMT -5
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. Ah yes but what if he had gotten the image from an official product that he paid for and applied it to the figure? I totally agree that Warrior should protect his property but I also believe that once the product is sold what becomes of it is out of his hands and that he cannot profit from it a second time.
|
|
|
Post by firstplacer on Jul 8, 2012 22:42:17 GMT -5
Sadly, i take it you have not seen Mattel's rare USA Ultimate Warrior they made that looks exactly like that with a painted on shirt. Thats what im talking about. This USA warrior has been in fact made and is in rare quantity. You cant just go try to remake something you dont own, that is already out there and try to sell it as that. Its illegal.
|
|
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 22:43:15 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. Yes but the difference is the original object was a warrior product and the added product was a warrior product. Can you not advertise what your product is made with?
|
|
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 22:53:55 GMT -5
So let's get this straight. You can take authentic products and sell them and that is fine. You can take authentic items and alter them with other authentic products and even though you don't advertise them as legit but as a CUSTOM creation made with the parts of authentic items and that is wrong. The only thing the OP did wrong was add the symbols. If he had taken them from a promo photograph that they paid for and applied them to the figure would that be illegal even though he had paid for all of the base products?
The Ultimate Warrior would still likely have a problem with this.
I wonder if he has a contact form because this is a serious issue since customization and resale is a big deal among collectors. Especially those who do custom Hasbro cards with their custom figures because that could be considered not only as a direct knock off but as illegal use of copyrighted images or do the laws of fair usage and creative usage take priority in this situation?
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Jul 8, 2012 22:54:06 GMT -5
Look at all the WF'ers who seem to have passed the Bar on Google over the last day...
|
|
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 22:55:22 GMT -5
Sadly, i take it you have not seen Mattel's rare USA Ultimate Warrior they made that looks exactly like that with a painted on shirt. Thats what im talking about. This USA warrior has been in fact made and is in rare quantity. You cant just go try to remake something you dont own, that is already out there and try to sell it as that. Its illegal. Did he expressly mention that it was the 1 of 5 figure? Did he imply that it was one of the 1 of 5 figures?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 13:13:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2012 22:59:15 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. Yes but the difference is the original object was a warrior product and the added product was a warrior product. Can you not advertise what your product is made with? What you're asking is: If he bought the original figure (which he did) AND he bought the decals that he used could he then legally sell it? No. For two reasons. One, because the arrangement of the decals and the paint job--in this particular case--do closely resemble a product already on the market. Two, any trademark holder has the right to decide how his/her trademark is used for monetary gain. Unless Warrior told this guy he could use his logos for any custom, then the guy can't use them. Let's say the Warrior gave him permission, then the guy made it, and the Warrior didn't like the finished product. Well that would be too bad for the Warrior, because he would've already released his trademark. But that didn't happen here.
|
|
lestial12
Main Eventer
Joined on: Sept 23, 2011 21:17:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,496
|
Post by lestial12 on Jul 8, 2012 23:05:42 GMT -5
Im just gonna say this, if warrior wasnt such a douche to limit the usa warrior to 5 pieces just for himself, this probably wouldnt even be an issue right now as people would be able to own their own official versions instead of buying a custom or illegal bootlegs. Short and simple, warrior likes to play with himself, and he doesnt want anybody playing with him if he doesnt get paid for it.
|
|
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 23:05:45 GMT -5
Take Andy Warhol as an example. He took a photograph of a Campbell's Soup Can, colored over it and it is considered pop art and is worth a bundle today and yet Campbell's doesn't continue to make money each time that original work of art is sold. As a matter of fact Campbell's only gained interest in working out a deal long after Warhol had died when The Andy Warhol Foundation decided to make licensing agreements for the image. Yet Campbell's doesn't make money after the the products with the image are sold on the secondary market past the point of the initial sale. Campbell's isn't going to make money a second time if that print gets sold at a flea market or on eBay whether they keep it as the original print or they take that print and cut it out and make coke bottle earrings with it.
|
|
I AM CHONO!
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Mar 29, 2012 3:07:32 GMT -5
Posts: 162
|
Post by I AM CHONO! on Jul 8, 2012 23:06:37 GMT -5
I say just bombard him with emails complaining to this issue to make him have a statement and apologize to the fans. You will need to get everyone on here to go after the Ultimate Douche though. Make him know collectors are not the people to mess with, make a huge deal out of it. Get the wrestling media to pick up on it too. The guy needs a kicking.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 13:13:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2012 23:12:42 GMT -5
Take Andy Warhol as an example. He took a photograph of a Campbell's Soup Can, colored over it and it is considered pop art and is worth a bundle today and yet Campbell's doesn't continue to make money each time that original work of art is sold. As a matter of fact Campbell's only gained interest in working out a deal long after Warhol had died when The Andy Warhol Foundation decided to make licensing agreements for the image. Yet Campbell's doesn't make money after the the products with the image are sold on the secondary market past the point of the initial sale. Campbell's isn't going to make money a second time if that print gets sold at a flea market or on eBay whether they keep it as the original print or that take that print and cut it out and make coke bottle earrings with it. Hey, just because someone didn't ask for money for something doesn't mean they didn't have a legal claim to it. A lot of times companies will not pursue people who use their trademarks. For one, maybe Campbell's thought it was good advertising. Maybe they thought it was cool. We don't know what they thought, but that doesn't change the fact that it was their intellectual property in that painting. Just because THEY let it slide for whatever reason doesn't mean Warrior has to let it slide. You can find thousands of examples of companies letting others profit off their trademarks. But the key word there is "letting." Just because Warrior exercised his right to NOT let someone use it doesn't make him a bad person.
|
|
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 23:13:37 GMT -5
I say just bombard him with emails complaining to this issue to make him have a statement and apologize to the fans. You will need to get everyone on here to go after the Ultimate Douche though. Make him know collectors are not the people to mess with, make a huge deal out of it. Get the wrestling media to pick up on it too. The guy needs a kicking. Why to kick him? That isn't the point. I believe that an understanding can be reached in a polite and respectful fashion. The Warrior has done nothing wrong by attempting to protect what he views as his protected property. I mean this isn't some let's all bash Warrior and gang up on him sort of thing. This is a serious legal matter that involves everyone in the collecting community and should be treated as such.
|
|
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 23:15:23 GMT -5
Take Andy Warhol as an example. He took a photograph of a Campbell's Soup Can, colored over it and it is considered pop art and is worth a bundle today and yet Campbell's doesn't continue to make money each time that original work of art is sold. As a matter of fact Campbell's only gained interest in working out a deal long after Warhol had died when The Andy Warhol Foundation decided to make licensing agreements for the image. Yet Campbell's doesn't make money after the the products with the image are sold on the secondary market past the point of the initial sale. Campbell's isn't going to make money a second time if that print gets sold at a flea market or on eBay whether they keep it as the original print or that take that print and cut it out and make coke bottle earrings with it. Hey, just because someone didn't ask for money for something doesn't mean they didn't have a legal claim to it. A lot of times companies will not pursue people who use their trademarks. For one, maybe Campbell's thought it was good advertising. Maybe they thought it was cool. We don't know what they thought, but that doesn't change the fact that it was their intellectual property in that painting. Just because THEY let it slide for whatever reason doesn't mean Warrior has to let it slide. You can find thousands of examples of companies letting others profit off their trademarks. But the key word there is "letting." Just because Warrior exercised his right to NOT let someone use it doesn't make him a bad person. Yes but Campbell's DID go after the rights to the image and they still can't go after those who resell or alter and resell the image on the secondary market.
|
|
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 23:17:29 GMT -5
P.S. - I never said Warrior is a bad person. He isn't. He is just a man trying to protect what he feels are his rights. Collectors feel that him trying to protect his rights infringe on our rights to custom creation and resale on the secondary market. Do your rights cease when they infringe upon the rights of others? Courts were made for situations like this.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 13:13:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2012 23:18:04 GMT -5
I say just bombard him with emails complaining to this issue to make him have a statement and apologize to the fans. You will need to get everyone on here to go after the Ultimate Douche though. Make him know collectors are not the people to mess with, make a huge deal out of it. Get the wrestling media to pick up on it too. The guy needs a kicking. Why to kick him? That isn't the point. I believe that an understanding can be reached in a polite and respectful fashion. The Warrior has done nothing wrong by attempting to protect what he views as his protected property. I mean this isn't some let's all bash Warrior and gang up on him sort of thing. This is a serious legal matter that involves everyone in the collecting community and should be treated as such. Here here! I think this dialog we are having is fun and challenging, and it pertains to a number of people who make their own customs. It's testament to Apoc that Warrior thought enough of his work to shut it down. The custom looks factory made, and that's the problem.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 13:13:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2012 23:22:04 GMT -5
Hey, just because someone didn't ask for money for something doesn't mean they didn't have a legal claim to it. A lot of times companies will not pursue people who use their trademarks. For one, maybe Campbell's thought it was good advertising. Maybe they thought it was cool. We don't know what they thought, but that doesn't change the fact that it was their intellectual property in that painting. Just because THEY let it slide for whatever reason doesn't mean Warrior has to let it slide. You can find thousands of examples of companies letting others profit off their trademarks. But the key word there is "letting." Just because Warrior exercised his right to NOT let someone use it doesn't make him a bad person. Yes but Campbell's DID go after the rights to the image and they still can't go after those who resell or alter and resell the image on the secondary market. You may very well be right about that. I have no idea about the specifics of that issue or if it would or would not hold up as a legal precedent in THIS case. Perhaps Campbell's could have and should have sued Warhol's estate. Either way, Warrior didn't wait around to jump on Apoc. He got him right away.
|
|
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 23:23:41 GMT -5
Why to kick him? That isn't the point. I believe that an understanding can be reached in a polite and respectful fashion. The Warrior has done nothing wrong by attempting to protect what he views as his protected property. I mean this isn't some let's all bash Warrior and gang up on him sort of thing. This is a serious legal matter that involves everyone in the collecting community and should be treated as such. Here here! I think this dialog we are having is fun and challenging, and it pertains to a number of people who make their own customs. It's testament to Apoc that Warrior thought enough of his work to shut it down. The custom looks factory made, and that's the problem. Maybe we should each make a video on YouTube and explain our views as collectors and fans and show him. I don't think The Warrior is an unfair man and that some sort of agreement can be reached. This also isn't limited to The Ultimate Warrior this goes for all of the other wrestlers as well because they could very well hold the same view that Warrior does and as collectors and fans this concerns us all.
|
|
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 23:25:27 GMT -5
Yes but Campbell's DID go after the rights to the image and they still can't go after those who resell or alter and resell the image on the secondary market. You may very well be right about that. I have no idea about the specifics of that issue or if it would or would not hold up as a legal precedent in THIS case. Perhaps Campbell's could have and should have sued Warhol's estate. Either way, Warrior didn't wait around to jump on Apoc. He got him right away. Campbell's didn't like the artwork but remained quiet on the issue due to the free press and after his death they worked WITH the Foundation instead of against it to reach an agreement that works for everyone much like we as collectors should be doing.
|
|
|
Post by "The Gothic Superstar" Ronin on Jul 8, 2012 23:40:01 GMT -5
If you wanna see a bunch of uppity, egotistical, self important jerk offs when it comes to stuff like this, you should sign up and check out the belttalk.org fourms, oh my lord
|
|
zambo
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Jul 11, 2006 9:29:16 GMT -5
Posts: 332
|
Post by zambo on Jul 8, 2012 23:41:38 GMT -5
IT SUX BUTT IT'S HIS RIGHT TO PROTECT HIMSELF FROM PIRACY.....!
I LOVE GOOD CUSTOMS BUTT I'D NEVER BUY THEM COZ ONCE I STARTED I PROBABLY COULDN'T STOP AND END UP BUYING THE BAD ONES AS WELL....
I FIND CUSTOMS FUN AND STIMULATING THE COLLECTING UNIVERSE.....!!
THE THING I HATE ABOUT EBAY IS THAT THEY CAN'T MONITOR EVERYTHING ADVERTISED ON THEIR WEBSITE......I'M SICK OF PEOPLE TYPING IN TNA, JAKKS & MATTEL JUST TO MAKE YOU LOOK AT THEIR ITEM....!!!
|
|