Slashdot Mirror
Penny Arcade vs. American Greetings Revisited
Jojo writes "After American Greetings got some lawyers to bring down a Penny Arcade strip (M
i r r o r) last week, PA is now striking back.. IANAL, but I fear their latest strip might get them into real trouble this time." As always, PA cracks me up, but these are scary events. The banned strip is clearly a work of parody, which I believe is still legal in this country, unless that too changed recently.
At least they have a smile on their face as they get bent over...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
hahahah /lame
The banned strip is clearly a work of parody, which I believe is still legal in this country
It's clearly a parody, and would certainly hold up in court (IANAL), but the problem is that the PA guys don't have money to spend defending themselves in court. So it's another case of the "big guy" successfully squashing the "little guy" with the thread of a baseless lawsuit, because the cost of fighting is beyond the little guy's reach.
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
"American Greetings.. you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy." sorry.. watched Star Wars last night.
Trolling is a art,
The problem is that they were parodying American McGee by using a registered trademark. They clearly weren't parodying Strawberry Shortcake - if they were, it would be more clear cut. Not that we wouldn't see a C&D letter anyways...
:)
For the record though, I love PA and hope they make it through ok. And you just have to respect em for making a stink even if they did pull the offending strip originally. They're as subtle as a heart attack
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
Today's PA comic
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
...where things are only legal if you can afford to pay as much as the ass suing you to defend yourself in court.
This sig is worse than my last.
Of course their latest strip will get them in trouble. It's just asking for a slashdotting.
I'm not being dumb here, it is just completely unobvious to an international reader what the issue is.
Q: why can't they say it was a parody of strawberry shortcake in the same vein as american mcgee's parody of Alice in wonderland? A: because then american mcgee would sue them.
And, "banned"? How so? This is yet another case of lawyers writing a cease-and-desist, and the recipients capitulating. Nobody got "censored" here, nobody's free speech was infringed.
Breakfast served all day!
I actually came away with the opposite feeling. While the first strip was clearly a parody, it was a parody of American McGee, and not a parody of American Greetings. They'd probably have a strong legal leg to stand on if McGee came to them with a lawsuit.
... Spaceballs parodying Star Wars with a title character named Strawberry Shortcake might be a different story.
:).
However, because they're using a third party's intellectual property in the context of the parody, it's a little fuzzier. Spaceballs parodying Star Wars is cool
The more recent strip, however, is clearly a criticism of American Greetings' policies, and seems more obviously "safe" under various free-speech umbrellas than the first one. It's not even using any of their IP.
I also think it's funnier, but that's just me
Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
Aside from the usual "don't buy anything from these people," it seems the easiest and surest way to get the word out is to refuse any mail with AG's logo on the envelope. Just write "Refused, return to sender" along with a note on the envelope that says something to the effect of "Nothing personal, I'm just boycotting the publishers of this card."
The most common place that the general public would've been exposed to this ruling would be in The People vs. Larry Flynt.
Is there something about this case that makes the ruling used for Flynt inapplicable?
<rant>
</rant>
Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
I looks like they're seeking legal aid from the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. If the little guy can't defend himself in court against the big boys, then there should be someone else who can. They also protect Japanese and American manga artists and sellers. I joined, and so should you.
"Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
For general information on curbing all sorts of lawsuit abuses across the country, you might want to take a look at the American Tort Reform Association.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
This only applies if the user attemtps to pass their own work off as the original. US Copyright law permits the parody of works as long as the derivative can be easily seen as a parody. And since this strip wasn't intended to be seen by Strawberry Shortcake's prime audience (little girls), I don't think American Greetings has an actual case here.
of course the usual disclaimer: ianal but have seen them on tv
The comic in question is (should I say "was") humorous precisely because it's a parody of Strawberry Shortcake.
In the post along with the strip the PA people went out and said that they were parodying McGee. But whether they said it or not, they're also parodying Strawberry Shortcake, playing on her goody-goody image.
The guy on PA makes a good point in his post on their site. Strawberry Shortcake is part of the American lexicon. Just like Gargamel or GI Joe or Speed Racer.
Referencing these characters shouldn't be trademark infringement.
IANAL, but i do have some experience in these kinds of cases.
The traditional protection of a work of parody does not, in this instance, protect Penny Arcade. The protections of parody and satire only protect the material being parodied. In this case, the subject of the parody was no Strawberry Shortcake, but rather, American McGee's Alice and Oz games. American Greeting's property was being used to parody something else. Therefore, it's not protected.
This test has been held up in a number of cases, mainly involving the sale of parody t-shirts and the like.
Penny Arcade was poking fun at American McGee's treatment of other worlds (eg. Alice, Oz), not at the Strawberry Shortcake world. Strawberry Shortcake was a means to an end. It could have been replaced by Pooh or the Smurfs with the same effect. The joke, to me, was the darkening retale of percieved lighthearted, children's stories.
In his own comment on April 21, 2003 Tycho provides a link to other court cases and specifically mentions "Dr. Seuss Enterprises Vs. Penguin Books" on page three as possible precident that would work against Penny Arcade.
That is not to say what PA did was and should be illegal. It's simply not clearly parody. It's something that would require extensive (expensive) legal processes.
My thoughts? I don't like the strip - I find it tasteless. But one of the tenets of free speech is to defend even those who you don't like - because if they censor them, it's only a matter of time before they censor you. As such, I'd hate to see these guys go down like this.
This sig no verb.
I do believe that if my mother sent me a greeting card, and I REFUSED, RETURN TO SENDER'd it, I would get my ass kicked.
What a lame ass thing to take a stand on.
Right here
:eof
If you want to support the guys at Penny Arcade, check
- 04 -14
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2003
Which was the former location of the Strawberry Cupcake comic. They have an email address at American Greetings there instead if you have comments. Namely, Rinda.Vas@amgreetings.com
That certainly wasn't work safe! *gulp* ;-)
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
I agree. What's a shame is that lawyers get away with these sorts of empty threats all the time. We can't really expect guys like Gabe and Tycho to know when a lawyer is bluffing. It's almost like fraud, in a way, for legal departments to act as if something like this is actionable, when they know it is not.
The original strip was a parody of both Strawberry Shortcake AND American McGee. It would have done NO harm to the image of either party, as they are obvious take-offs on aspects of the other.
Had I been a legal eagle at American Greetings, I would have replied by getting one o' my art guys to draw up a Strawberry-esque Tycho and Gabe with the following layout:
Panel 1:
Tycho: We use DIRTY words.
Panel 2:
Gabe: MUCK!!
Panel 3:
Both: tee hee!
The only image tarnished by this whole affair is that of the overly-litigious facist dorks who thought a suit would be a good idea.
No, it's both. The S.S. character drawn is derivative of the copyright A.G. holds, even though by no means an exact copy.
Trademarks are ALSO an issue; possibly a stronger one. But not the only one. See the case involving "The Cat Not in the Hat" for how the copyright side of this might play out.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I did my patriotic (read-rabid PA fan) duty, and wrote Miss Rinda Vas a letter, telling her what bad idea this all was and everything. I got a fairly swift response, including an "original" letter written to the PA staff. Email addresses have been removed to protect the innocent...
... fyi ...
Email sent Wed. 4/23--
there is no legal action against them
-----Original Message-----
From: RV Rinda Vas (1328)
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 9:32 AM
To: Subject: RE: Trademark infringement, misuse
Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. We note that the
cartoon has been removed.
I am receiving a good amount of e-mails from the penny-arcade subscribers
asking why American Greetings asked you to pull the cartoon. Unfortunately I
do not have the resources to respond to them individually so I am passing
the answer on to all of you. On April 17, 2003, American Greetings received
a complaint about the cartoon namely that it was "creepy" and "offensive."
Thereafter, we asked you to remove it.
Note that the target audience for Strawberry is young females (indeed young
children). And we do receive complaints from parents and the like over
cartoons like yours.
So there you have it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 3:55 PM
To:
Subject: Please Cease and Desist
Dear Rinda Vas-
I am writing to you, as I am sure are many others, to implore you to stop
your legal action against Penny Arcade and its creators. As you may or may
not be aware, the actions your company has taken against Penny Arcade has
already publicized the original event much more than the comic's web site
ever would have. Furthermore, several websites have made note of this
issue, spreading the issue to more people, not usually associated with the
normal Penny Arcade crowd. Feel free to read the articles posted on
http://slashdot.org, and other such sites. At Slashdot, you will see the
forum that follows every article. Within said forum, you will note a
resoundingly negative response to your decision to take legal action. There
is even a petition out to boycott your company. The last time I checked
that site, the petition was drawing near the 10,000 mark, and climbing.
I am not going to threaten you, or swear at you, as I am sure many others
are doing, regarding this issue, but I have to advise you that, from all
evidence available, what you are doing does not seem like a smart move. I
think you might do well to look into options for reaching a quiet agreement
with the owners of Penny Arcade. I am sure they will be happy to make this
legal action go away with as little public notice as possible. My advice to
you is to try to save face, as your company stands to lose a large amount of
business and public appeal by pursuing this petty issue. Thanks for your
time.
Ryan
Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
Unfunny is standard fare for Penny Arcade.
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
The censorship is : you risk to loose or have a lot of money to be "frozen" for a time, to get a lawyer to defend you. If you do not have the deep pocket of a big company then this money would be a murderous move on your budget.
Thus you have no choice. Temporair ruin and blocking of asset (if oyu win AFAIK you get your money back) or take back your opinion/strip/whatever.
Censorship isn't only governemental and law enforced, and you do not need a gun to force censorship on somebody. Merely inconvenience them to the extrem, put them in a difficult position, which nmight make their life a hell and most except idealist will bow. This is also censorship.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
just because someone sends a ceist and desist letter, doesnt that mean they have to take you to court? and if your work is clearly a parody, couldn't you just go to court and defend it yourself? get a media law text book, cite some sources, etc...
"Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
> A: because then american mcgee would sue them.
B: For stealing a game idea before he had a chance
to license the character from American Greetings.
IMO, the funniest thing about the SS parody was;
in an age when Grand Theft Auto and Postal 2 can
generate interest among gamers, a naughty
Strawberry Shortcake might actually sell.
I'm not clicking any links with goats in them
if everybody submits their $.02, then maybee Penny-Arcade can get the legal help they need. I have submitted a "story" for just this, to set up a paypal donation fun so that those interested can give a little to help a lot. Not only do i really love these guy's comic, but I very much wish to retain free speech and fighting this crap is the only way to retain it.
Because if you were, then you'd be taking far more time to make yourself familiar with the particulars of the case. Indeed the work was a parody. However American Greeting does not represent American McGee, the video game developer who is/was being parodied. American Greeting takes issue with their Stawberry Shortcake character. Mike and Jerry have a far more difficult case to argue if they want to keep their picture online. Notably, McGee has only been trolling the works of the public domain, specifically, Alice in Wonderland and The Wizard of Oz.
The question isn't about parody and fair use, but whether Strawberry was parodied. I personally don't see it in the work. In fact, if I were PA I'd simply remove the cartoon and revise it such that a far better case could be made that it parodies both McGee and whatever character that best adopts to these legal requirements.
Mike and Jerry have been fairly quiet about the particulars of it themselves, having been wisely told by legal advisors with more wisedom than yourself, or at least more current experience. The only thing they do say is that it isn't very clear -cut, and they're right.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
It seems the basic concept of a boycott is lost on people. Folks, the idea here is to deprive the company of revenue. Your Mom already bought the card, it will not hurt the company one bit to send a card back that she sent you. That is as stupid as purchasing French wine and dumping it on the sidewalk in protest of the French. They already sold the wine could care less if you drink it.
If your goal is to educate your Mom (or whoever else sends you cards) about AG, perhaps you can find a less offensive and heartless method of getting your message out.
Finkployd
Even if that were not true, I find simplistic and offensive the equating of anything that people think is violating their rights as "Naziism". American Greetings, whether or not their suit is moral, are nowhere near Nazis. It's a lazy shortcut that relies on a certain perception of what a Nazi is that ends up watering down the whole concept. I don't think the Holocaust should be watered down.
bad sig...no donut.
Unfortunately explaining a joke ruins it, but you didn't seem to get it in the first place.
American McGee's "Alice" was released a couple years ago. It was Alice in Wonderland (a sweet, charming, etc childhood story), but much MUCH darker. Like, the part of max payne where he goes crazy darker.
A couple weeks ago, American McGee's "Oz" was annonced. It's going to be the same dark style as Alice, but based on the Wizard of Oz (another sweet childhood story). So American McGee is a brand that makes dark covers of childrens' work, hence the strip.
Oh, and this is pure genious. (probably because it actually HAS happened to me)
If you don't normally buy cards anyway, well good for you, you don't need to reply to this telling me about how you're superior because of it. Maybe you'd like to buy a Hallmark card anyway, just so that AGC's market share as a percentage of money spent on greeting cards this month falls, maybe not, up to you. But for those of you who were planning on buying a card for your mother anyway, how about checking the brand on the back first?
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
It's not funny. Violates the cardinal principle of comics.
I think the author of Family Circus would like to have a word with you.
Freelance writer John Scalzi brings up an interesting point that I haven't read here:
American Greeting's argument here could be that Penny Arcade's image is using the Strawberry Shortcake name to parodize American McGee's tendency to appropriate young female literary characters for his dark and bloody video games, not Strawberry Shortcake herself. Therefore, using Strawberry Shortcake for that purpose is not covered under parody. It's an interesting assertion.
However, I wonder if this line of reasoning, if indeed it is the one American Greetings is using, is as strong as it might appear initially. This line of reasoning works only to the extent that Strawberry Shortcake herself does not fit the rubric that the Penny Arcade is parodizing, namely that Strawberry Shortcake is not a young female literary character. In fact she is, the main character in dozens of books: Strawberry Shortcake: Meet Strawberry Shortcake, Strawberry Shortcake at the Beach, Strawberry Shortcake: The Berry Big Storm, and Happy Halloween, Strawberry Shortcake are just some of the titles in her oeuvre. And in an interesting literary note, in several of these titles, Strawberry Shortcake is either planning or having a party of some sort or another, which makes her activity in the parody (planning a party with her friends) not an atypical activity for her. Although to be fair she's not typically whipping her friend Plum Pudding at those parties. But that's part of what makes it a parody.
I don't know if this point holds any water, legally speaking, but it's interesting. You can read the rest of the article here
-Spyder
And to think that you thought I'd freak out. I just thought the strip was stupid and lazy. Not so much funny either. Oh shit, I forgot I'm dead.
bad sig...no donut.
Like many people, I have a strong love-hate relationship with Larry Flynt and Hustler magazine. I love his willingness to fight to protect our rights from attacks by the easily offended, even while finding much of the content of his magazines personally repugnant.
Anyway, one quick phone call or email should end this matter real quick. How many people have seen this online strip, vs. how many people would see similar strips in that magazine? How much money is AG willing to spend to harrass a couple small-time artists, vs. how much money is it prepared to spend defending itself from a company that's successfully argued Freedom of Speech cases before the Supreme Court?
Call me crazy, but I don't see a lot of crossover in the consumers of <i>Hustler</i> and sappy greeting cards so the magazine can fight hard and fight dirty if AG wanted to fight them. Hell, I wouldn't put it past them to launch their own lines of parody greeting cards (real greeting cards, not just jokes in the magazine). I mean, where else are you going to find the perfect Valentine card for the girl who dumped you for your best friend, or for your former boss?
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
If you love their comics or just want to support their stand, Penny Arcade does take donations.
At the bottom of the ClubPA page (http://www.penny-arcade.com/clubpa.php3) there's a link to their paypay donation box.
And as an added bonus, no matter what size of donation you'll get access to the most excellent "Over Easy", one of the best comics online for both artistic merit and style, highly recommended!
C'mon, toss in a buck for the most excellent comic, you won't be dissapointed!
In a matter of THIS nature, there is a stack of caselaw about 1.5 inches high that I will assure you any lawyer who has passed the Bar Exam is VERY familiar with, and ALL of those cases say that parody falls within the realm of free speech.
Really? They don't have parody doctrine on the bar in my state, and I can't think of many law schools which require a First Amendment course.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
...and I'd bow down before the gods of parody (once I stopped laughing my ass off) if I were to see PA's take on American McGee's treatment of the Smurfs....heh heh
C'mon...Smurfette--a lone girl smurf amongst a community of 99 boy smurfs? "They're only a couple apples tall but it's still one big blue bang"
Email them here: http://www.americangreetings.com/customer/emailus. pd c tus/index.html
:)
Email american greetings parent company here:http://corporate.americangreetings.com/conta
Or snail mail them here:
American Greetings Corp.
One American Road
Cleveland, Ohio 44144
Here's a form letter
Fuck you, you nazi bastards. Yes, you're nazis. Haven't you ever heard of parody? It's a LEGALLY protected form of speech, one of the few remaining. But I'm sure you corporate nazi whores will take care of that.
According to the USPTO website, the Strawberry Shortcake mark is owned by "Those Characters From Cleveland, Inc." Those Characters From Cleveland appears to license their marks to American Greetings or is a subsidiary. I haven't found a page that explicitly mentions their relationship. (Note: I think USPTO query links 'expire.' You can always search again using TESS.
According to this link, it looks like American Greetings, Those Characters From Cleveland, and Rinda Vas have previously gone after alleged violations of their marks. (In the linked page, the case appears to be a reasonable attack against a domain squatter.)
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
I really cannot see this parody of S.S. I'm not suggesting that they choose from an increasingly dwindling public domain, but rather actually parody the two of them. If you want to assult mcgee and 80s corporations, do so, and make it unambiguous. Say something like "from the people who've whored out your childhood memories for twenty dollars and american mcgee" or otherwise indicate that you have some sort of critical point to make. Not only have you doubled your satirical milage, but you've covered your satirical ass.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
You sent us a Greeting
/open cover to greeting card
That said Cease and Desist
So we give you "The Finger (TM)"
(we couldn't resist)
The "Red Bitch" has been mirrored
Like DeCSS
We just thought we'd share
(or is it confess)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Fuck You
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Yet I didn't sue. I just got a chuckle at the sick mind who would create such a thing! AG should take note.
-Fyodor
Concerned about your network security? Try the free Nmap Security Scanner. Version 3.27 was released today
Say something like "from the people who've whored out your childhood memories for twenty dollars and american mcgee" or otherwise indicate that you have some sort of critical point to make.
I don't like that, simply because it mandates form in order to qualify for protection as a parody. Why does it have to be like a bad political cartoon where everything is explicitly labeled just so that any retard can see that you're trying to make a statement? I can see the exact remark you are suggesting be plastered on the image in the image itself. Is it not satire if it isn't obvious?
I suppose in the future we'll all be required to put "This is a work of parody of Strawberry Shortcake (tm American Bumcrammers, all rights reserved) and American McGee's Alice (tm American McGee, all rights reserved) and of Gaming Culture in General (tm Electronic Arts, all rights reserved)" in minimum size 14 font just to avoid being insta-sued by legal webcrawlers.
The enemies of Democracy are
No, it's libel.
In general, and IANAL, and I am oversimplifying, and I am from the UK so our legal systems only share a common ancestor, etc,
slander:
- transient, for example:
- speech
- holding up a sign
- pulling stupid faces
- internet chat rooms (maybe, and distributing logs would be libel)
- damage must be proven to have occurred
- except in certain cases, for example:
- accusing someone of a crime
- saying someone's got the lurgy
- calling a woman a slag (only works for women)
- saying someone is shit at their job
libel:
- permanent, for example:
- newspapers
- magazines
- books
- comics
- films
- web pages
- usenet
- damage is presumed to have occurred, so the claimant need not prove it
Polymer City Chronicles is doing it too...
"There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
Because you aren't free to just make any work you want that includes someone elses copyrighted material and get away with it on the grounds that you claim it's parody. Works which incorporate someone else's IP are derivative works, and they're what copyright law in the old-fashioned sense makes illegal. There are exceptions, such as parody, where people can make derivative works for the purposes of exercising their maintained right to criticize something. Copyright is basically a legal restriction on free speech, but is itself restricted from banning speech that's expressive/critical/etc. as opposed to commercial in nature.
For the SS cartoon to be free from a charge of being an unauthorized derivative work of the Strawberry Shortcake(R) property, it needs to actually be making a protected statement about SS, American Greetings, etc. It really isn't. It's making a statement about American McGee.
This is why it's not a clear cut case of parody. Unfortunately people are being so quick to yell foul that they're missing this pretty obvious point.
Political cartoons are commercial, and there are many commercial satire companies.
Whether or not someone makes money has absolutely nothing to do with whether something can be used under the parody exemption.
May we never see th
parody - A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.
You'll notice that the definition itself doesn't specify any particular target or purpose other than comic effect and ridicule.
PA did imitate the style of the Strawberry Shortcake characters, as well as the style of American McGee's fairytale-turned-horror games.
They were specifically making fun of American McGee for rehashing Alice with another fairytale, and the parody included the Strawberry Shortcake characters for comedic effect.
Their maligned comic is a parody, by definition.
This is a very interesting point. American McGee might have stupid ideas according to some, but he darkens tales that are in PUBLIC DOMAIN.
I think this is a perfect example of you how Disney's lobbying for de facto indefinite copyrights has destroyed what copyright was supposed to be about in the first place.
Baum had the opportunity to profit off of his Oz works back in the early 1900s. His books were popular, and now the stories have fallen into a place where they have literally become a staple fairy tale, As far as I know the original stories and concepts themselves are now PUBLIC DOMAIN, where they SHOULD BE.
But now things that should enter public domain will never be, thanks to Disney. Whenever Mickey is in danger of becoming public domain (like he should be right now), Disney will pay off some congressmen to extend the copyright laws again.
If this continues, 100 years from now people we will have no NEW stories like Oz or Alice in Wonderland that they can work with freely. Everything will still be copyrighted because the copyrights will now continue to be extended. Every story people grew up with will be still be owned by Disney or another faceless media corporation.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
I know it's a little late now that there are like 400 comments but how can American Greetings trademark something that's already part of the language? I'm pretty sure people were calling that delicious dessert "strawberry shortcake" way before AG invented that stupid character.
The guys from Penny Arcade won, regardless of what Am Greetings thinks...
:)
Thousands of extra eyeballs saw their strip thanks to Slashdot. Even if a tiny percentage of those viewers went to the official site, and a similarly tiny percentage spent some money, I would expect that Penny Arcades page impressions, clickthroughs (they have such amazingly discreet advertisements, other sites could learn a lot from them), and subscriptions have boomed at least a little bit.
Worse for Am Greetings, they failed miserably at supressing the image. It's available to anybody who looks for more than a minute or two, google is returning mirrors to it now - so AG managed to burn up some more customer goodwill without achieving anything positive.
Why bother trying to sue them to get permission to repost the picture? A victory like this can't be awarded by the courts, it takes several million slashdot readers to make such a win possible
Congrats to Gabe and Tycho for a top-notch site. I'm not affiliated with it in any way, but I read it just about daily. I hope they gained a lot from this little event.
The reason Penny Arcade got an cease and desist letter was because "Strawberry Shortcake" is a copyrighted name. The current strip cleverly does not show "American Greetings" but obscures the 'n' and the 's' to make it "america greeting" wich is not a copyrighted name. What PA should have done initally is simply altered there strip so that "Strawberry Shortcake" was misspelled, then stuck there toungs out at AG's lawyers.