Oh, holy hell...

[conuly]

She has checked "all copyright things" and "nothing is infringed by this merchandise"? WTF does that even mean? Lawyers, people who know what they're talking about, debate the fine points of copyright law in court. The legal system is vast and far-reaching, not to mention altogether too complicated.

Can somebody who actually knows something about copyright straighten either me or her out? Because I'm not trusting her assessment here.

Comments

[snarkophagus.livejournal.com]

Meh. Not an expert, so not coming down on either side, but if she's using art or text from the books without express permission, it's likely that she is violating something. Especially if she's profiting from original work attributed to someone else.

If it were a corporate situation, I'd wonder about trademark infringement, but I've never heard of an author trademarking her work.

That said, if the images or text aren't lifted directly from one of this author's books, I wouldn't know what I was talking about.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Nope, not a lawyer. I'd agree that the Notre Dame angle is probably fine though as parody. But the Pierce part looks like copyright violation to me.

[l33tminion]

Correct.

[appadil.livejournal.com]

I'm not certain, but I THINK that the Tortall content could potentially fall under parody and thus fair use as well- it really comes down to how how Tamora Pierce reacts to this. She could just view it as "hey, free advertising!" in which case there's little problem and everyone's lawyers work things out to mutual satisfaction, but she could just as easily view it as "hey, copyright infringement!" in which case your friend is in for a world of trouble. She really should have contacted the author and asked for permission before setting up a situation where things are being bought and sold.

Additionally, without explicit permission granted by the author, she's in potential trouble with CafePress as well- copyright infringement is a violation of their TOS and they can terminate her account at any time if they notice it. I'm not sure if they can actually SUE over it, since the harm to them is indirect (leaving them open to potential lawsuits from Tamora Pierce for being distributors of this stuff), but it's still a breach of legal contract for her to be selling that merchendise at the moment.

I think she should make that contact as soon as possible before taking any orders on any of this stuff- if she waits, it'll look as if she was trying to fly under the radar.

IANAL

[mhari.livejournal.com]

It's a gray area, but it would certainly be safer to check with TP first.

[sporks5000.livejournal.com]

I think that Tamora Pierce's copyright is being infringed upon but it's not really my job to decide one way or another.

So I've e-mailed her about it.

[sporks5000.livejournal.com]

I e-mailed Tamora Pierce about it. Her reply:

[conuly]

That's good to hear. I really don't care if it's infringement or not, or if she cares, I just think that you should, y'know, check with copyright holders before selling stuff on the iffy side.

[sporks5000.livejournal.com]

Makes sense to me as well... But then again, I suspect that I'm smarter than the average person. And I know you are.

[snarkophagus.livejournal.com]

Meh. Not an expert, so not coming down on either side, but if she's using art or text from the books without express permission, it's likely that she is violating something. Especially if she's profiting from original work attributed to someone else.

If it were a corporate situation, I'd wonder about trademark infringement, but I've never heard of an author trademarking her work.

That said, if the images or text aren't lifted directly from one of this author's books, I wouldn't know what I was talking about.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Nope, not a lawyer. I'd agree that the Notre Dame angle is probably fine though as parody. But the Pierce part looks like copyright violation to me.

[l33tminion]

Correct.

[appadil.livejournal.com]

I'm not certain, but I THINK that the Tortall content could potentially fall under parody and thus fair use as well- it really comes down to how how Tamora Pierce reacts to this. She could just view it as "hey, free advertising!" in which case there's little problem and everyone's lawyers work things out to mutual satisfaction, but she could just as easily view it as "hey, copyright infringement!" in which case your friend is in for a world of trouble. She really should have contacted the author and asked for permission before setting up a situation where things are being bought and sold.

Additionally, without explicit permission granted by the author, she's in potential trouble with CafePress as well- copyright infringement is a violation of their TOS and they can terminate her account at any time if they notice it. I'm not sure if they can actually SUE over it, since the harm to them is indirect (leaving them open to potential lawsuits from Tamora Pierce for being distributors of this stuff), but it's still a breach of legal contract for her to be selling that merchendise at the moment.

I think she should make that contact as soon as possible before taking any orders on any of this stuff- if she waits, it'll look as if she was trying to fly under the radar.

IANAL

[mhari.livejournal.com]

It's a gray area, but it would certainly be safer to check with TP first.

[sporks5000.livejournal.com]

I think that Tamora Pierce's copyright is being infringed upon but it's not really my job to decide one way or another.

So I've e-mailed her about it.

[sporks5000.livejournal.com]

I e-mailed Tamora Pierce about it. Her reply:

[conuly]

That's good to hear. I really don't care if it's infringement or not, or if she cares, I just think that you should, y'know, check with copyright holders before selling stuff on the iffy side.

[sporks5000.livejournal.com]

Makes sense to me as well... But then again, I suspect that I'm smarter than the average person. And I know you are.