Zazzle & Warner Bros. Pretend All References To Wizard Of Oz Are Covered By WB Copyright
from the there's-a-problem-here dept
Lowestofthekeys alerts us to the situation of one W. Thomas Adkins, who had some t-shirt designs of his own making for sale on Zazzle... until they were taken down in response to a copyright claim. After Adkins requested more info on why his images were taken down, Zazzle explained:...your product was removed due to an infringement claim by Warner Bros. Studios. While the artwork as you claim is original, the characters from the Wizard of Oz are currently property of Warner Bros. As a guideline, designs from the Wizard of Oz that are currently prohibited for sale on Zazzle’s Marketplace are:There are a few problems with this. First of all, characters from the Wizard of Oz are not, in fact, "property of Warner Bros." The original book, written by L. Frank Baum, was published in 1900 and is in the public domain. The popular movie version, in which Warner Bros. holds the copyright, came out in 1939. This does lead to some interesting copyright questions, and a few lawsuits. For example, last year, we wrote about a lawsuit involving t-shirts designed with public domain Wizard of Oz images. And then there's a brewing fight over whether or not Disney can make a film based on the public domain parts of the Baum books if it makes no reference to the 1939 movie.- Zazzle
- All inspired artwork and character renderings from the Wizard of Oz
- Quotes from the Wizard of Oz Franchise
- All tags and descriptions that reference the Wizard of Oz
Basically, what the law has said is that if you're making references to the specific characters or character traits that were portrayed in the movie, but which are not from the books, then its under WB's copyright. So, if you were to display pictures of the actual actors or specific expressions or outfits that are from the movie, but not the books, then there's an issue.
From Adkins' post, however, it appears these were the images on the t-shirts that were removed from Zazzle:
It is difficult to see how either of these come anywhere close to infringing on WB's copyright. The first one merely displays a witch's pointy hat. While it seems that the origin of the pointy, wide-brimmed witch's hat has been lost to history, the various reports online suggest it long pre-dates 1939 and the movie. In fact, it appears that images in the original books show the witch in a pointed, wide-brimmed hat. So the hat is not copyright to Warner Bros.
Then there's the flying monkey. Problem being... the flying monkeys were in Baum's books, and Adkins' drawing is quite different from the version in the movie.
The concept of water melting the witch? Also in Baum's books, and as Adkins details in his blog post, it way predates the Oz books anyway.
Basically, everything in Adkins' images appear to reference the original Baum books and not the movie. Assuming Warner Bros. did make a copyright claim, as Zazzle's email stated, then it is engaging in copyfraud here and asserting copyright against images it has no rights over.
That said, Adkins also exaggerates his own rights in his response to Zazzle, which he posted. After explaining to Zazzle why his works did not infringe on WB's copyright, he unfortunately goes on to say:
As such, I respectfully request that my material and corresponding artwork be returned to circulation for purchase immediately.Uh... no. Zazzle choosing not to display your work is, in no way, copyright infringement. As a private company, Zazzle has every right to refuse to display any particular work, even if its reasons are dumb. The public (and people like Adkins) are free to mock them, but there is no copyright issue there, and especially not infringement by Zazzle. The service certainly does not have the greatest reputation because of its quick trigger finger in pulling down perfectly legal content, but that doesn't mean it's illegal. Claiming that not displaying someone's work is infringement is just ridiculous, and takes away from Adkins' otherwise strong arguments.
Failure to do so would be an infringement on my copyright of my created artwork which, as verified by the testimony above, does NOT infringe upon Warner Bros. Entertainment’s copyright on the 1939 film or the specific celluloid representations of the characters made in said film. If my copyright continues to be infringed upon I will seek legal action against both Zazzle and Warner Bros. Entertainment.
Either way, the original point stands: Adkins' works don't appear to be infringing WB's copyrights. If WB did make the claim, it appears that WB went way too far. Adkins should have just filed a standard counternotice to Zazzle, and one would hope Zazzle does the right thing and puts the works back up.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyfraud, l. frank baum, public domain, wizard of oz
Companies: warner bros, zazzle
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This should be taken as yet another sign that copyright has run amok and needs to be repaired.
People no longer understand what it actually is, how it works, and its just a weapon to make threats to extract money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
and everyone who uses them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Certainly in the minds of the copyright maximalists...they even throw the legal hammer at those copying from the public domain because they have done it first. They even fight each other for copying from the public domain. I wish they would all just sue each other into oblivion so they can disappear into history and everyone else can evolve without their stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
literary nitpicking
Also, the monkeys were no longer in the service of the witch when she died (she used up the number of times she could call on them) before she was melted.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/55
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: literary nitpicking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Witch_of_the_West
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2-step Plan
2) Society is now free to advance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2-step Plan
Kill all the construction workers next time your road gets torn up too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2-step Plan
If the construction workers are engaged in the destruction of public right of way's so that they can install corporate owned toll roads, and parking lots, and streets... then yes
If the construction workers are really just a 'front' for the 'streetpavers, thugs, and hooligan's branch of the local **AA'... then yes
If the construction workers were engaging in the same type of behavior that lawyers are, than there would be people advocating to 'kill the construction workers'.... however since most 'construction' by design involves 'building' things and not preventing other people from building things that they have the ability and knowledge to build... this isn't happening.
Trying to compare the most destructive industry (any antagonistic profession is going to attract bad actors, one based on he who can spin the biggest ball of BS and get the judge to buy it, is going to attract the WORST actors) with an industry based on building things...
Everyone is a Genius... but if you judge a fish on it's ability to climb a tree, it will live it's whole life believing that it is stupid. Albert Einstein
I know there's a lawyer joke in that quote... but it's too early...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2-step Plan
Not really. Lawyers are hired by businesses and corporations with agendas, and told to make something happen, such as software patents. This is why you see the outragous laberinth of logic in these lawsuits.
If so many lawyers were'nt so light on morals and ethics, we wouldn't have these issues. Valets are supposed to police drunk drivers, but a lawyer just executes his clients wishes, and that's OK?
I always thought the bar was supposed to police it's members, but it appears useless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I knew it was in there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The jailer's waiting
Screw public domain so long as a major studio can repackage and re-copyright. That's what I call progress!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arguably, although Zazzle has no obligation to display the work, its statement that this is due to copyright infringement amounts to defamation, given that no infringement has occurred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Eh, even that's a stretch. The bar for a defamation claim is reasonably high and I don't think this reaches it. We shouldn't rush to support a bad claim just because of who the actors are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Zazzle didn't state that there was any copyright infringement, WB did: "your product was removed due to an infringement claim by Warner Bros. Studios." And I doubt he'd get anywhere with a defamation suit against WB either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Etsy? Adkins.
Take your marbles and go somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fair IS fair, right????????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This stifles creativity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This stifles creativity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How long before L. Frame Braun sues Warner Bros.
Correction and/or clarification: The original book, written by L. Frank Baum, was published in 1900 and is not currently slated to enter or reenter the public domain in the United States until 12/31/2090 (Don't ask!). Both Warner Bros. and Walt Disney the artificial copyrighted trademarked megacorporation should go the way of enron (whose demise made ALL big companies look vulnerable, hence the lowercase E) for this!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How long before L. Frame Braun sues Warner Bros.
I'm asking - for a reference for your claim. This Wizard of Oz wiki disagrees with you for example, do you have any information to back up your claim that the book is still under copyright protection?
http://oz.wikia.com/wiki/Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How long before L. Frame Braun sues Warner Bros.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How long before L. Frame Braun sues Warner Bros.
So... you're joking, right? Between no non-verbal cues and the prevalence of internet idiots, it's hard to tell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How long before L. Frame Braun sues Warner Bros.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How long before L. Frame Braun sues Warner Bros.
Isn't it the life of the author plus 70 years?
(applied retroactively to old works no matter how many of said works had previously escaped copyright)
Do you have more information on this? Are you talking about the Sonny Bono act or something else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How long before L. Frame Braun sues Warner Bros.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How long before L. Frame Braun sues Warner Bros.
Unlike copyright extension legislation in the European Union, the Sonny Bono Act did not revive copyrights that had already expired."
So I have no idea where you're getting 190 years, or the idea that bestsellers get treated differently than anything else, and you're mistaken about works going back under copyright after entering the public domain. That act had no effect on the copyright status of the novel The Wizard of Oz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zazzle copyright screeners suck
Recently Zazzle removed my products that simply had the text "Sparkling Vampires Suck" after a supposed copyright claim from the owner of Twilight. Obviously, yes my design refers to the stupid Twilight movies. I used no imagery. It was literally just text. As far as I have been able to tell, they have not trademarked or copyrighted "sparkling vampires" and Zazzle are too pussy to stand up to them and tell them they don't own words.
Then on the other hand, I discovered a seller using my exact artwork, the EXACT same artwork with a very slight modification. I was able to overlay his image on mine and within 30 seconds was able to use the transform tool in Photoshop to exactly match my image. So I filed a complaint with Zazzle, supplied screenshots of my work, plus file creation date screenshots which show I created this design 15 years ago, and supplied a screenshot of my old website where he took the image from, and they are telling me they've investigated and don't feel they need to take his work down.
This same person is selling my work on Cafepress, Spreadshirt, and Skreened. When I sent all of them the same information, they all immediately took the products down.
Zazzle sucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]