Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Grumpy Cat Wants $600K From 'Pirating' Coffee Maker (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the someone-hasn't-had-their-coffee-this-morning dept.

Eloking quotes a report from TorrentFreak: Grumpy Cat is not pleased, yet. Her owners have asked a California federal court to issue a $600,000 judgment against a coffee maker which allegedly exploited their copyrights (PDF). In addition, they want damages for trademark and contract breach, and a ban on the company in question from selling any associated Grumpy Cat merchandise. There are dozens of celebrity cats on the internet, but Grumpy Cat probably tops them all. The cat's owners have made millions thanks to their pet's unique facial expression, which turned her into an overnight internet star. Part of this revenue comes from successful merchandise lines, including the Grumpy Cat "Grumppuccino" iced coffee beverage, sold by the California company Grenade Beverage. The company licensed the copyright and trademarks to sell the iced coffee, but is otherwise not affiliated with the cat and its owners. Initially this partnership went well, but after the coffee maker started to sell other "Grumpy Cat" products, things turned bad. TorrentFreak adds: "The cat's owners, incorporated as Grumpy Cat LLC, took the matter to court last year with demands for the coffee maker to stop infringing associated copyrights and trademarks. After Grenade Beverage failed to properly respond to the allegations, Grumpy Cat's owners moved for a default, which a court clerk entered in early June. A few days ago they went ahead and submitted a motion for default judgement."

186 comments

  1. They want 600k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good for them. I only want 200k

    1. Re:They want 600k by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are asking for the maximum $150,000 per infringement. At least in this case there really is commercial scale abuse, it's not like the RIAA demanding $150,000 from some kid's parents for one song.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:They want 600k by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Funny

      What kind of idiot puts SJW shit into their sig?

      Somebody who actually figured out how to make an account on Slashdot.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:They want 600k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      ACs don't see sigs. For someone to knowingly comment on sig content they must be able to see Slashdot from the perspective of a numbered user.

    4. Re:They want 600k by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      ACs don't see sigs. For someone to knowingly comment on sig content they must be able to see Slashdot from the perspective of a numbered user.

      So, you're saying that there are people so pitiful that they would have a Slashdot account for browsing, but comment as Anonymous Coward because they don't want to be associated with their opinions?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:They want 600k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying people there are so pitiful they still haven't learned to focus on the content of a message?

    6. Re:They want 600k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, and there's the moderation from one of Slashdot's numerous numbered trolls trying to hide knowledge of their tells.

      If I had to bet, I'd put some pocket change on it being AmiMojo who posted an anonymous reply of a truly pathetic and off-topic response in an attempt to garner sympathy, and then used a sockpuppet to downmod a bit of unwanted truth. (but I don't carry change, so no gain or loss either way)

    7. Re:They want 600k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are the odds as an Internet meme that someone else entirely coined "Grumpy Cat" and this owner was merely one of dozens combining a picture of their cat with the concept?

      Her net "IP" was probably that her cat happened to look particularly amusingly grumpy compared to others. And so it was the one that went viral.

      Is that worth $150,000 even once?

    8. Re:They want 600k by Rakarra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you have a problem with the content of the sig?

      "SJW" is a completely useless term (it didn't used to be...). It means absolutely nothing now, as it's been so overused that it means anything at all, anything the speaker doesn't like. Now it's really only an indication that the speaker is a bit of a dullard, or has been entirely disconnected from the Internet since the start of GamerGate.

    9. Re:They want 600k by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      So you're saying people there are so pitiful they still haven't learned to focus on the content of a message?

      I'm sorry, I can no longer see the original content because it's been moderated below my threshold. So it appears it wasn't worth wasting what little focus I have left.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:They want 600k by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't worth it, the company wouldn't have licensed it to begin with (and then copied it to other products). So yes. I mean, I don't personally think so, but someone did - and they paid licensing fees. Just because you don't think something isn't worth the price doesn't mean you get to "steal" it.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    11. Re:They want 600k by AK+Marc · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So when Philip Morris says cigarettes are safe, we should listen as closely as when the Surgeon General says they aren't?

      No, mr anonymous idiot. The source of a message matters.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    12. Re:They want 600k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of idiot browses logged in, but posts logged out?

    13. Re:They want 600k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or because they moderated in the thread.

    14. Re:They want 600k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a bad example. Philip Morris's message is wrong because the data behind it aren't good, while the data the Surgeon General has are good. That's far more important than who is saying what.

    15. Re: They want 600k by LocalH · · Score: 1

      Nice strawman, 10/10

      --
      FC Closer
    16. Re:They want 600k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ACs don't see sigs. For someone to knowingly comment on sig content they must be able to see Slashdot from the perspective of a numbered user.

      So, you're saying that there are people so pitiful that they would have a Slashdot account for browsing, but comment as Anonymous Coward because they don't want to be associated with their opinions?

      Fuck yes. My online anonymous persona is much more profane than my numbered user persona.

    17. Re:They want 600k by jodokast98 · · Score: 2

      The kind that wants to piss off people like you, the ones who side with them. SJW's are just whinny, entitled brats these days. They're just the new fad bandwagon to jump on. "Oh look at me, I support X rights and inclusivity! Worship and adore me because I'm so open-minded unlike those close-minded neanderthals." They're like the ALS ice-bucket challenge ... it once was a platform to support a charity, and then it just became a social status gimmick. SJW's and 3rd-wave feminits are a toxic cancer on American society.

    18. Re:They want 600k by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Or because they moderated in the thread.

      You're not supposed to participate in a thread if you've moderated.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    19. Re:They want 600k by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, they're just afraid you're going to dox them and attack them online with your horde of PC lynch mobs, harass their boss at work until they're fired, then make the headlines in various news outlets about how you defended the world against oppression and bigotry of the cyginscist white males.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    20. Re: They want 600k by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      You apparently don't know the definition of "strawman". I'll give you a hint, a counter-example isn't a strawman.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    21. Re:They want 600k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Social Justice Warrior is a term invented by people for themselves. They were proud of their fight for Social Justice, and they wanted everyone to know it!
      Of course, pretty much every one else finds them annoying and laughable, so uses their term for themselves in a derogatory manner. But it's still the term they invented to be applied for themselves, like Nazi, so using it is just fine.

      It's just those that are embarrassed by their association with those assholes and their "social justice" that are now trying to pretend it's someone else's term.

    22. Re:They want 600k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People still do, though.

    23. Re:They want 600k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who don't want to be doxxed by an SJW mob.

    24. Re:They want 600k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know if rules have changed, but it used to be that if you wanted to use mod points on a discussion, you could only post anonymously.

    25. Re:They want 600k by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Hey I liked the original (derogatory) usage of Social Justice Warrior. It got the point across, was a pretty accurate depiction of those we used to call "white-knight shit-stirrers."

      But now it's basically the new "Nazi." It's just something you call someone else when you don't like their opinions (usually anything left of Objectivism) whether their opinions are anything like what the original SJWs did.

    26. Re:They want 600k by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      No, they're just afraid you're going to dox them and attack them online with your horde of PC lynch mobs, harass their boss at work until they're fired, then make the headlines in various news outlets about how you defended the world against oppression and bigotry of the cyginscist white males.

      Wow, that's messed up. Do you really believe that? Has this ever happened to anyone on Slashdot or are you just doing drama queen theater?

      Oh wait, I already know the answer to that.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    27. Re:They want 600k by BronsCon · · Score: 2

      There's a "Post Anonymously" checkbox when you're logged in. Have you seriously not seen it before? It's right there next to "You are posting: as"... well, wait, no I'm sure you've never seen it, you've probably never logged in.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    28. Re:They want 600k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or because Jews Did 9/11

    29. Re:They want 600k by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      You're pretty much right on. Grumpy Cat was a Reddit meme a couple of (several?) years ago, it got popular, companies wanted to use it, the cat's owner "won the lottery". That's all good. IMHO they've got as much right to exploit their good fortune based on the looks of a cat, as some random person who is lucky enough to have a photogenic face.

      One thing that many people aren't aware of is that almost _nothing_ in the real marketplace is priced based on cost, nor should it be (there's a lot more to that.) The price is always set by what the market will bear (technically, there is a price/demand curve, and the goal is to maximize the area of a rectangle under a point on the curve), or put another way, according to the value perceived by the buyer. The decision about whether to actually make and market a product is based on whether it can be made and delivered cheaply enough to make that price viable. And manufacturing is likely going to be somewhere under 20% of retail.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    30. Re:They want 600k by doccus · · Score: 1

      I haven't often seen a more clear casse of culpability.. if the facts in the post are indeed correct. In fact it is hardly a news story at all.
      "Company breaks law. Company found guilty. Company fined" ... :yawn:

    31. Re:They want 600k by doccus · · Score: 1

      So when Philip Morris says cigarettes are safe, we should listen as closely as when the Surgeon General says they aren't?

      No, mr anonymous idiot. The source of a message matters.

      Philip Morris says cigs are safe? Phew! What a relief I was so worried!
      .

    32. Re:They want 600k by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      http://www.infowars.com/man-fa...
      http://www.breitbart.com/tech/...

      It happens, even if you are willfully blind to it.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    33. Re:They want 600k by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      If you don't log out and instead check the post anon checkbox, all the mods go away anyways.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    34. Re:They want 600k by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      It has a meaning, but yes, it has been overused.

      The way I define it is someone who tries to censor someone else because they don't like what they have to say.
      Another thing I have seen from this group is that no matter how much evidence provided to them of how wrong their position is, they continuously argue the same points. AmiMoJo has actually taken to attacking sources, even when they provide numerous citations and screen captures of the incidents.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    somewhere, a guy drives a car with a burned out tail light, gets ticket.

    1. Re: In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope their grumpy cat scratches them.

    2. Re:In other news... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      An AC wrote a post that he felt sure was oh-so cutting and incisive, yet not a single fuck was given - as it amounted to more whinging on a site already replete with it.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    3. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then there was your contribution. Thank you for gracing us with your important assessment.

  3. Seems about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For once copyright is being used as it was intended. I'm not a fan of copyright in any sense, but when it's used like this, at least I'm not sitting here seething. Pretty damn obvious you can't just slap someone else's stuff on your coffee bags and expect they'll be OK with it.

    1. Re:Seems about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its a fucking cat

    2. Re: Seems about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's their fracking cat.

    3. Re: Seems about right by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

      It's the INTERNET'S fucking cat. Next thing I know, you're going to be telling me that Laina Morris actually owns the rights to Over-attached Girlfriend? Pffffffff /s

    4. Re: Seems about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can't own a cat, that is slavery. You can only take care of a cat, and if it wants to leave, it must be allowed.

    5. Re:Seems about right by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      No, it's a fucking copyright.

      Bitch all you want, but the issue still stands. The owner of the copyright followed the law, the company that is using the copyrighted material didn't. I had never heard of this dispute before I read this article, and it took me all of 30 seconds to realize who is in the wrong. Read the article, look at the coffee bag. It says "grumpy cat coffee" with a picture of the "fucking cat" on it. They had a licensing agreement for another product, but violated the agreement by releasing another (unlicensed) product. What's the counter argument?

    6. Re:Seems about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright assumes some degree of intellectual effort, "something" created by an author or artist - with the focus on CREATED.
      A cat's face as intellectual property? As a trademark, I could understand. Not as a work of art.

      OTOH, in several of the photo's on its site, the grumpy expression looks more like a work of Photoshop than as a real cat's face to me. So it still _could_ be a work of art, but that would make some magazine editors billionaires.

    7. Re: Seems about right by houghi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, she does. The fact that she does not act upon it is het choice and now it will be too late, but at the beginning, she (or another person who made the image, but most likely herself) had the copyright.
      Each time you create something, you automatically get the copyright, unless you have made alternative arrangements (e.g. working at a company or under contract). If you write something or take a photo, the copyright is yours. You have the right to decide who is allowed to copy it. Even: people should ASK you if they have the right to copy it.

      In most cases people on the Internet are extremely lenient about copyright. Especially on the InterWebs. And in the case of Laina, even encourage it, as it raiser their value or self esteem or whatever. That does not mean they do not have the copyright in the first place.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    8. Re: Seems about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's the INTERNET'S fucking cat.

      What a persuasive argument! All caps, condescension, vulgarities and everything!!

    9. Re: Seems about right by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Can't don't really have owners, just staff.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:Seems about right by EvilSS · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it's a trademark.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    11. Re:Seems about right by EvilSS · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are right, and this is a trademark and breach of contract lawsuit. The internet gets these confused all the time when reporting on this stuff, but even the summary says so. Other people in these comments just assume copyright for some reason.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    12. Re:Seems about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're telling me putting a cat face on anything invalidates copyright? Hello Kitty has something to say to you (alright, she'll write it to you).

    13. Re:Seems about right by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      A cat's face as intellectual property? As a trademark, I could understand. Not as a work of art.

      I have some folks here who disagrees:

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

      http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-q1n2...

      http://ep.yimg.com/ty/cdn/madi...

      http://totallyhistory.com/wp-c...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:Seems about right by cob666 · · Score: 2

      if they're asking for a summary judgement then the defendant hasn't responded yet. The most likely scenario is that the coffee maker in question knew what they were doing was wrong, closed shop when they received the first notice and now they're selling coffee using the next great internet meme.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
    15. Re:Seems about right by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Well spotted AC. It is indeed a cat.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    16. Re: Seems about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feline overlords have slaves, not staff.

    17. Re:Seems about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > For once copyright is being used as it was intended.

      Yea, this seems a pretty clear cut case. If you are opposed to the *idea* of copyright, then you probably don't like this idea. But this isn't an edge case or anything, this is literally the entire point of copyright.

    18. Re: Seems about right by hawguy · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's their fracking cat.

      This makes me lose a lot of sympathy for the cat, the cat is clearly aligned with Big Oil interests and shouldn't be using wealth gained by its climate destroying drilling practices to stomp on small time coffee makers.

    19. Re:Seems about right by magarity · · Score: 1

      Copyright assumes some degree of intellectual effort, "something" created by an author or artist - with the focus on CREATED

      Copyright law in terms of photographs, painting, drawings, etc, is long settled in favor of the person clicking the shutter or holding the pen, etc. Clearly what is in question is the images, not the actual cat's actual face. One if someone tried to put the actual cat's actual face on a bag of coffee, then your rant about a cat's face not being art might be relevant.

    20. Re:Seems about right by Maritz · · Score: 1

      The counter argument appears to be "it's a cat" and suggests that it isn't worth bothering to argue.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    21. Re:Seems about right by Falos · · Score: 1

      Biologists have a ways to go before they can claim craftsmanship of a face.

      Until then that craftsmanship ascribes to God at best, so "copyright infringement damages" would go to him, or whatever construct you place responsible for inventing cats.

    22. Re:Seems about right by Frank+Burly · · Score: 1

      Default is when the defendant hasn't replied. An MSJ asks the court to give you a . . . summary judgment that you win, because it is the only conclusion possible under the agreed upon facts. I would think the documents are on PACER and possibly free through https://free.law/recap/.

    23. Re:Seems about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Hello Kitty isn't a cat.

    24. Re: Seems about right by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      It's the INTERNET'S fucking cat

      It doesn't belong to you. The cat, and her trademarks, belong to the owner.
      Seeing something on the Internet doesn't give the Internet ownership.

    25. Re: Seems about right by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Be charitable, I'm pretty sure this means the cat is part of the resistance movement against the Cylons.

    26. Re:Seems about right by spire3661 · · Score: 0

      I see it as an absurdity. We are DEEP into an Information Age, we should be rolling copyright back, not giving low effort stuff like Grumpy Cat protection. The world gains nothing from allowing these people to sue over something so incredibly trivial and banal.

      --
      Good-bye
    27. Re:Seems about right by spire3661 · · Score: 1, Informative

      We have been screaming for a long time that its time to end copyright as currently implemented. Its not bitching to point out we have arrived at an absurd place that someone can make millions on images of a cat. This crap has no place in an Information Age. Copyright is supposed to further the arts, not necessarily enrich 'owners'. The notion that a person can own an idea needs to stop, NOW. Its absurd.

      --
      Good-bye
    28. Re: Seems about right by hey! · · Score: 1

      I like this definition of ownership. If it feels like something is mine, then it is mine.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    29. Re:Seems about right by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's both. The term "Grumpy Cat" is a trademark. The picture of the cat is under copyright. Correcting someone incorrectly needs a meme more than we need a grumpy cat, or meme thereof.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    30. Re:Seems about right by Pascoea · · Score: 2

      Copyright is supposed to further the arts, not necessarily enrich 'owners'.

      How are "artists" and the"arts" they create supposed to be furthered if they aren't compensated for their work? (I'm using quotes in this instance, because calling an Internet meme of a cat "art" is a bit of a stretch, but this is obviously about the larger issue of copyright in general) That is kind of the point of the copyright, it's a contract between an artist and the government (which is representing the public) saying "If you agree to produce art we will help prevent others from making money off your art without your permission, for a limited period of time." I have no problem with the first part of the contract, it needs to be in place, or there would be very limited opportunity to produce art for a living. It's the second part that has been bastardized and needs to be addressed. "a limited period of time" has been perverted into "essentially forever". I don't know what the appropriate time-frame is, but there has to be some sort of reasonable compromise between "forever" and "none". Maybe it's five years, maybe it's one year, maybe it's the artist's lifetime, but it's in that range somewhere.

      The notion that a person can own an idea needs to stop,

      That's all well and good, until you have an idea and would like to get paid for it. Generally art takes some sort of effort to create, whether it's an invention, a painting, or an accidentally famous picture on the internet, it took effort to create and cultivate it into something valuable to someone else. And if it's valuable to someone else the person created it should be entitled to compensation. (Not saying they should be entitle for perpetuity. See argument above)

    31. Re:Seems about right by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      summary judgment that you win, because it is the only conclusion possible under the agreed upon facts.

      It's quite rare, but I've seen people lose a movement for summary judgement where the defendant didn't reply. The judge stipulated to all the facts as presented by the one side, then ruled they were not sufficient to "win" even if 100% true, so the opposition needn't even show up to win. It's rare, but it's a legal option, and done more than you imply.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    32. Re:Seems about right by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So you are asserting that the photographs of the Grumpy Cat in question are not under copyright? That doesn't seem to be an argument based in fact.

      Also, "copyright" is the current generic term for "Intellectual Property" because "intellectual property" takes too long to say/type, and "IP" is ambiguous, at least in many contexts.

      If you are going all proscriptive on language, there are more important targets than "copyright".

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    33. Re:Seems about right by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know, but it was early and I was in the mood to poke at a troll for a little bit. Once in a while that will lead to an actual intellectual discussion.

    34. Re:Seems about right by Pascoea · · Score: 1
      Thank you. At first I was all "shit, did I really screw that up" but then I re-read the article, clearly states copyright infringement. BUT, EvilSS is correct as well, from the PDF:

      Plaintiff GRUMPY CAT LIMITED (“Plaintiff”) is deemed the prevailing party on its first, second, third, fourth, sixth, and seventh causes of action against Defendant GRENADE BEVERAGE, LLC (“Grenade”) for Copyright Infringement, Trademark Infringement (Federal and Common Law), Trademark Dilution , Breach of Contract, and Accounting

      I'm curious though, how are they guilty of "Accounting"?

    35. Re:Seems about right by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Biologists have a ways to go before they can claim craftsmanship of a face.

      I'm surprised that you don't see that what we're talking about is a picture of a face, not the face itself. It's not the grumpy cat that's under IP protection, it's the image of the Grumpy Cat.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    36. Re:Seems about right by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The point I made elsewhere is that language is imprecise. "Copyright" is the catch all for "intellectual property" because Intellectual property is long and less recognized, and the abbreviation of IP is ambiguous. So "Copyright" is used by many for all IP issues, and, as we have a descriptive, not proscriptive language, not incorrectly.

      In this context, I think "Accounting" means "fraudulent accounting" as in I promise to pay you 10% of my gross (or $10 per unit), so I lie about my gross, and pay you 10% of what I claim to be gross, but isn't. I cook the books to make it look legit, but "cook the books" isn't a legal charge, so they call it something else.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    37. Re:Seems about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever dealt professionally with an accountant? Ugh.
      Man, I wish more places would make Accounting a crime. I wonder if I should move to California...

    38. Re:Seems about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't portray some craftman's (daVinci) work, not directly. Though apparently that rule falls apart if I'm sufficiently "derivative", which just understates the bullshit of a racket I've not the patience to decry here. Point is that only daVinci's work is considered imaginary property, not her face.

      I can portray some 15th century Italian named Mona all I want. The grumpy-or-not properties of her face were the craftsmanship of $diety, and not very remarkable IMO, but apparently her "grumpy" qualities are infamous and will sell me bumper sticks.

      The benefactors are proprietors of, at best, a photograph. Not "a face", as argued (perhaps not with that intent, I'll concede) in >>52795991

    39. Re:Seems about right by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I can portray some 15th century Italian named Mona all I want.

      Only because I'm pretty sure the copyright has run out. But these days, you can never be sure. Maybe Time Warner bought up the rights to all daVinci's work and has gotten the copyright extended.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    40. Re:Seems about right by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Let's say hypothetically that the cat doesn't belong to the so-called owners and they don't have a valid trademark. In such a situation, the coffee company should still not be allowed to market under that brand name without the cat's permission. However the cat does not have the appropriate opportunity to hire a legal team to defend the trademark.

    41. Re:Seems about right by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Defendants did respond in some fashion and also filed a counter-suit. The request for default judgement does not mean the defendants never responded, it could be that some complaints were not responded to or not resonded to in a way that they wished, or it's just a standard legal move used whether or not there is a response, or they could be flat out lying by saying there was no response, which it is why it's up to the judge to decide the merits of the request.

    42. Re:Seems about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm actually wondering what idiot thought this wouldn't go unpunished from the people who trademarked their 'Grump Cat'.

      Seriously? In the information age? How would this not get back to them, and without legal repercussions. The mind boggles...

    43. Re: Seems about right by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      The cat's likeness only has value because it's a meme. The cat's owners own the cat, and it's likeness, but they don't own the meme.

      So, what are the owners of the cat making money from? Pictures of the cat? Or pictures of the cat, superimposed with text someone else wrote?

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    44. Re:Seems about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because calling an Internet meme of a cat "art" is a bit of a stretch

      We seem to have lost a major definition of art/artist whenever we talk about copyright. Think instead artisan, or craftsman. It took a certain amount of skill to take the picture of the cat that became a meme (sure, it was a lot of luck too).

      Copyright is supposed to further the arts, not necessarily enrich 'owners'.

      Copyright furthers the arts BY compensating the 'owners'. Sure there would be some people who would continue to create stuff for the love of doing so even if everything they did was used by everyone without any sort of payment, but I think most would give up.

      The notion that a person can own an idea needs to stop,

      Various attempts to do so notwithstanding, a person cannot own an idea. We are not talking about suing anybody who uses a picture of a cat on a product. We are talking about using a particular picture taken by a particular person. If you don't want to pay to use the grumpy cat photo - no problem. You are free to find a similar breed cat, get them into a similar pose, and take a picture yourself. It's absolutely free, and does not violate copyright.

    45. Re: Seems about right by garyebickford · · Score: 2

      Ha, you reminded me of the "Dog's rules of ownership" - there are various versions floating around.

      Dog Rules of Ownership

        If I like it, it's mine.
        If it's in my mouth, it's mine.
        If I can take it from you, it's mine.
        If I want it later, it's mine.
        If I want it now, it's mine.
        If I chew it up into pieces, they're all mine.
        If you want it, it's mine.
        If I saw it first, it's mine.
        If I ever had it, it's mine.

        If it's broken, it's yours!

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    46. Re:Seems about right by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      Someone above noted that both trademark (the "Grumpy Cat" in general) and copyright (a particular image of the Grumpy Cat) are involved. I didn't RTFA so I dunno.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    47. Re:Seems about right by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      Also, "copyright" is the current generic term for "Intellectual Property" because "intellectual property" takes too long to say/type, and "IP" is ambiguous, at least in many contexts.

      Since this is the second instance of this assertion in the comments, I'll just point out that this is completely absurd, and can only be true among the truly illiterate or those too lazy to learn the language or basic logic. (he says, hoping that's not too strongly put ...) I've never heard _anyone_ misuse copyright in that way. It's reasonably OK to use IP as a generic because you are unsure of whether something is copyright or trademark, but not the converse. Using "copyright" that way is analogous to saying "avocado" instead of "fruit".

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    48. Re:Seems about right by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I hope you like it when you create something and others make money off of it, and you don't.

      (Yes, even if all they did was post pictures of their cat, they "created" something that was popular, and other companies paid for rights to use it.)

      How is this different from a human celebrity's likeness being their own (for commercial purposes, not for newsworthy purposes)?

    49. Re: Seems about right by bane2571 · · Score: 1

      "The catâ(TM)s owners have made millions thanks to their petâ(TM)s unique facial expression, which turned her into an overnight Internet star.

      Part of this revenue comes from successful merchandise lines, including the Grumpy Cat âoeGrumppuccinoâ iced coffee beverage, sold by the California company Grenade Beverage.

      It's their fucking cat. They've promoted it as a brand, legally licensed it out and then another company abused that license. This is one of those good uses of copyright/trademark that you hear spoken about.

    50. Re: Seems about right by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      Except they're not making money off their cat, they're making money off a meme, which they didn't create and don't own.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    51. Re:Seems about right by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      "Grumpy cat" is a meme created by the internet. How is it fair that the owners of the cat make millions off of a meme they didn't create?

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    52. Re:Seems about right by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Grumpy Cat exists solely because the owner of the cat took and published photos they owned the copyright to.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    53. Re:Seems about right by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      *Sues* https://twitter.com/TheFucking...

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    54. Re: Seems about right by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the "/s" at the end of the post. ;)

    55. Re: Seems about right by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

      Well, for one, I ended my post with a "/s" which apparently everybody missed... but for two, they own the cat, sure, but they don't own the meme. And the meme is what's making all of the money. Furthermore, the coffee company uses an illustration of a grumpy cat. Could be any cat that looks similar to "the" grumpy cat. The cat owners don't own the name "Grumpy Cat" nor do they own every cat that looks grumpy. I just can't see them winning a law suit like this.

    56. Re: Seems about right by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

      Apparently you also missed the "/s" at the end of the comment.

      Also, the coffee company's logo is an illustration of an angry looking cat. It's not the photo of THE Grumpy cat. The owners of the cat in the meme can't claim ownership on the name "Grumpy Cat" nor can they claim ownership of every angry cat in existence.

    57. Re:Seems about right by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it depends on who took the picture as to who owns the copyright for that photo. If the company hired their own photog, they already own the copyright to the images that they used, not the cat owners. The cat owners have a trademark on the cat and it's likeness. Lumping those all into "copyright" is wrong since there are vast differences between copyright and trademark law. They are NOT the same thing and the terms are not interchangeable. Just ask Captain Marvel.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    58. Re:Seems about right by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Just because lay people use it that way doesn't make it right. In law, language is not "imprecise". It's quite the opposite and we are talking about a legal matter here. There are huge differences between copyright and trademark, and those differences come into play here. You can't copyright a cat, but you can trademark its likeness. Just like you can't copyright words, but you can trademark them. If you do trademark them, there are restrictions on how they can be used in commerce, but not in other areas such as writing. For example Monster holds a trademark on, Monster. That doesn't mean they can DMCA this comment because I used their trademarked word. Additionally, DMCA cannot, legally (though that won't stop people from trying) be used to take down content that violates a trademark.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    59. Re: Seems about right by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      They are making money off of the picture which was turned into a meme, which they owned originally.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    60. Re: Seems about right by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      When my cat tries to escape, I prevent it. Are you saying I am really a kidnapper? Will the cat bring a false imprisonment lawsuit against me?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    61. Re:Seems about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Not that this really matters in the long run, but the purpose of a copyright is to protect the arrangement of a work (like a photo) but NOT the actual content of said work. The purpose of trademark is to identify the source of goods. You absolutely "take down" the use of your trademark if it is being used to falsely identify the source of someone else's goods as "yours". You are confusing the use of these types of IP when you mention "trademarking words" (to denote source). You CAN copyright words in the context of their specific arrangement (books), but not the content that they describe. For example, copyrighting a math textbook protects the arrangement of the book layout, etc but NOT the use of mathematical formulas inside.

    62. Re:Seems about right by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      You might want to re-read the posts before yours for context. You can NOT use the DMCA for trademark claims. DMCA has no provisions for trademark infringement. I didn't say you couldn't pursue action against someone for trademark infringement but trademarks and copyrights are very different things and conflating them is just wrong. You also cannot copyright individual words or short phrases, sorry I thought the very specific example made that clear. Yes, you can copyright a book, but you can't copyright a single word even if it's something you made up. Another example is the recent trademark spat between AT&T and Citi Group over "Thanks". Many people were claiming that Citi "copyrighted" thanks, which if somehow true would be incredibly restrictive since it would pretty much preclude anyone from using the word. Luckily this isn't the case, since a single word can't be copyrighted. It was a trademark though, so the usage restrictions had to do with the category Citi Group had trademarks over, and it's use in commerce.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    63. Re: Seems about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you write something or take a photo, the copyright is yours

      something, something, revenge porn

  4. Paying for pussy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    made millions....from THAT picture? Jezuz.

    If I am going to pay for pussy, I expect a lot more than a picture of some stupid cat.

    1. Re:Paying for pussy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This just in: One's wealth and fame are rarely commensurate with their value to society.

    2. Re:Paying for pussy by Salgak1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hence, the Kardashians. Who, from all I can conclude, are famous for being famous. . .

    3. Re:Paying for pussy by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought it was because of the occupation of Bajour and their alliance with the Dominion.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Paying for pussy by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      That didn't work out well for them in the long term. Even the Pah Wraith alliance Dukat crafted was a big dud.

    5. Re:Paying for pussy by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      The Buffalo Bills missed a pass for a touchdown, so they lost a game in 1970, so they to get the first pick in the draft, and got O.J. Simpson. OJ stays in Buffalo for awhile, meets his wife, allegedly then kills her. He hires the Kardashian's father as lawyer. They win, making the Kardashians slightly famous. Then Kim has a sex tape.

    6. Re:Paying for pussy by garyebickford · · Score: 2

      I am not a K-fan. But a while back I watched a documentary (I forget the actual topic) that went into the industry that is Kim Kardashian, and how she ran the business. While class is not a term I would use in conjunction with her and the whole 'community' around them, I had to admire the professional way in which she ran the business. She in fact works very hard to provide value given for value received, and to maintain a good relationship with her 'customers' - fans, that receive her tweets, watch her shows, buy stuff she promotes, etc. She really does a good job at being famous, and maintaining that relationship in a way that satisfies her market and makes her a lot of money.

      A somewhat related side note - for a long time I pondered the attraction and success of the supermarket tabloids with their gossip and pictures of movie stars and so forth. Then, a decade or so ago, I saw an interesting article about a study of monkey economics. The scientists first established a primitive monetary system, where monkeys could exchange units of juice as a monetary unit, so they could potentially 'buy' and 'sell'. Then the scientists studied what monkeys would buy. It turned out that the two things that monkeys would most happily pay for were pictures of the alpha male and female of their tribe, and naked monkey butts. To me, this explained both People Magazine and Hustler instantly. We now know that it's biology, not culture. ;)

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  5. Meme by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Arguably, Grumpy Cat is only famous for because of the actual meme, not the image alone. The collective internet created that meme, not grumpy Cat's owners.

    1. Re:Meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Yeah, and the reaction to the Sistine Chapel created that work of art as well.

    2. Re:Meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the flip side of fair use. You can either allow fair use and allow the benefits to accrue to the copyright holder or you can disallow fair use and no benefits accrue to the copyright holder. I think the only other option is to completely get rid of copyright.

      I don't see how any other system could possibly make sense.

    3. Re:Meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without the cat, there is no such meme. While the entertainment value of the meming can be seen as fair use, profiting off of an image of someone else's cat without permission from the cat or keepers is quite clearly a violation of the inherent copyright that is bestowed on all forms of media at their creation.

      Try the same scam with a picture of Keanu Reeves on the bag, you'll be lucky if you get out only owing $600,000.

    4. Re:Meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With many images it isn't the image itself that has value but the emotion, sentiment etc associated with it. That's true of the Che image, iconic WWI posters, album covers, and so on and so forth. Now you can argue that the name grumpy cat and slogans don't belong to the person who took the original photo(s) and that would make sense, and you could use that text/meme alone or alongside other cat images, however the fact there is a meme associated with the images doesn't stop the images themselves from being protect-able.

    5. Re:Meme by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's a likeness of a living being. That rights to likeness should only apply to persons and not to cats is human chauvinism at its worst.

      Anyway, if the company licensed the cat meme for a specific iced coffee beverage and not for other products then I side with the cat's guardians on this one.

    6. Re:Meme by mindwhip · · Score: 3, Informative

      But while the meme is "about the cat" the original meme is actually based on a specific photograph/video(s) of the cat that the owners published on the internet and hold copyrights on - the cat itself doesn't exist inside a computer and isn't published on the internet. While they have allowed use of the image for memes they also have chosen to require any commercial use to be licensed (using both copyright and trademark laws as appropriate).

      The drawing is almost certainly a derivative work of those images/videos being used for commercial use... having done some further reading the drawing in use was *not* made directly from the real life cat which pretty much ties up the copyright claim for every instance where the drawing, a derivative work of a copyrighted image, was used without licence.

      As far as the trademarks go its a little more fuzzy but in initially licensing the use of trademarks from Grumpy Cat LLC for the one product the coffee company acknowledged and accepted the validity of the trademark and will make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to argue otherwise in court.

      --
      [The Universe] has gone offline.
    7. Re:Meme by houghi · · Score: 1

      Can I try it with an image of a mouse that was painted?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    8. Re:Meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "human chauvinism"; cat's "guardians"..

      Found the PETA member

    9. Re:Meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try to make fucking sense you bleeding cunt.

    10. Re:Meme by Maritz · · Score: 1

      A court would throw that argument out. Because it's stupid.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    11. Re:Meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All they have to do is name another (similar looking cat) Grumpy and show how the new line of products was based on this cat instead.

    12. Re:Meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the collective brain of the court would meme until it stupid you!

    13. Re:Meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what if the cat was really nice and charitable and wanted all to see its face on any cheap product. If the defendants lawyer cross examines grumpy cat and argues that the cat established a verbal agreement to allow unlimited use of its likeness when it meowed during the contractual meeting, the grumpy face could be interpreted as denial. Thus cats can't legally enter into a contract.

    14. Re:Meme by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      That might help for Copyright, but not Trademark; also, a 'slaveish imitation' (or some term like that) is still copyright infringement anyway.

  6. coffee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grumpy Drumpf is not pleased, yet. Her owners have asked a California federal court to issue a $600,000 judgment against a coffee maker which allegedly exploited their copyrights (DDF). In addition, they want damages for trademark and contract breach, and a ban on the company in question from selling any associated Grumpy Drumpf merchandise. There are dozens of celebrity drumpfs on the internet, but Grumpy Drumpf probably tops them all. The drumpf's owners have made millions thanks to their drumpf's unique facial expression, which turned her into an overnight internet star. Part of this revenue comes from successful merchandise lines, including the Grumpy Drumpf "Grumppudrumpfo" iced coffee beverage, sold by the California company Drumpf Beverage. The company licensed the copyright and trademarks to sell the iced coffee, but is otherwise not affiliated with the drumpf and its owners. Initially this partnership went well, but after the coffee maker started to sell other "Grumpy Drumpf" products, things turned bad.

    1. Re:coffee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry, what?

    2. Re:coffee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were you born this stupid, or did you have to study?

  7. Whole lawsuit probably planned.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To keep a dying meme going. Grumpy cat was 2014, that's 20 years ago in cat years.

    1. Re:Whole lawsuit probably planned.... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

      2012, actually.

      But good luck to her owners. I've had 5 cats and never monetized a cent off them.

    2. Re:Whole lawsuit probably planned.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disagree. Whoring out one's cat is the lowest thing a cat's human can do.

    3. Re:Whole lawsuit probably planned.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a good reason it's always grumpy m8.

    4. Re: Whole lawsuit probably planned.... by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      No different than an artist agent?

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    5. Re:Whole lawsuit probably planned.... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Looks like your "probably" is the thinking man's "probably not".

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  8. copyright holder problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No seriously. If they whole system wasn't completely broken I might care.

    1. Re:copyright holder problems by DirkDaring · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's not purrfect is it?

  9. Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 2, Funny

    I guess that means either I'm not spending enough time on the internet or the rest of you really need to get a life/hobby because you seem to know every meme there is to be known. I'll allow the readers to decide for themselves which one of those choices applies.

    1. Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good gawd, they made a damn TV Xmas special about the cat and you've never heard of it? No, sir, I'm afraid it's you who is simply out of touch, internet, memes, or not.

    2. Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've heard of Smelly Cat... does that count?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations on your near complete disconnect from popular culture and your pending Otakuship in... something. I definitely lean towards thinking your in the first choice, except that everybody spends too much time on Internet - probably including yourself.

    4. Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat by operagost · · Score: 1

      Grumpy cat is probably in the top 10 memes, and has been around about 4 years. You don't have to be someone who needs to "get a life" for having heard of it.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    5. Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have a very high opinion of grumpy cat myself. I had never ever heard of this cat until, randomly, I received a plush of (him?) as my birthday gift.. I was not pleased.

    6. Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe you're spending too much time on the Internet and not enough reading dead-tree newspapers, because I've read at least one printed article about the richest cat in the world.

    7. Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you should leave your parents basement once in a while.

    8. Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me neither, and I have better things to do with my time than folllow LOL Cats...but, that cat's expression is damn funny...for all of 2 seconds of course.

    9. Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      No, but... it's not your fault.

    10. Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Internet cats that I have heard about:

      Grumpy cat
      Keyboard cat
      Nyan cat
      Monorail cat
      ...and that one where the cat jumps out the window, but slips.

      Please feel free to list the remaining popular internet cats.

    11. Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tara the cat (my favorite)

    12. Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ceiling Cat

    13. Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because rational ignorance is a thing, and a trademarked meme is even more a waste of time than other memes.

      Stop wasting your life on this nonsense and get some exposure to real art that means something.

    14. Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maru, The Cat Who Doesn't Realize It's Too Big For Boxes, and Chase No Face (and yes, the name should be taken as a warning before you try to look up pictures of the cat.)

    15. Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      hover
      standing
      box

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    16. Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Not to mention it is one of the 'better' memes, IMHO.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    17. Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Hamburger/cheese
      Long
      Ceiling/basement

    18. Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, you don't even need to be on the Internet to know about Grumpy Cat... there was a *movie*.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    19. Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      Jupiter and Kona from klaatu42's Talking Cat Consultants

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    20. Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess that means either I'm not spending enough time on the internet or the rest of you really need to get a life/hobby because you seem to know every meme there is to be known. I'll allow the readers to decide for themselves which one of those choices applies.

      Yeah right. Search for "Grumpy Cat" on the internet then once you see some of the pictures tell us again how you've never "heard of" Grumpy Cat. I guarantee you will recognize the pics.

  10. 'murica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck yea!

  11. So you'd say... by Epsilon+Moonshade · · Score: 1

    ... that the dispute is about purrsonality rights?

    1. Re:So you'd say... by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

      That's pawsitively correct!

    2. Re:So you'd say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm feline like these jokes are getting out of hand. -PCP

    3. Re:So you'd say... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Don't get catty, now.

      (was that too direct?)

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    4. Re:So you'd say... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Stop it. Right Meow!

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
  12. Lemon cat is more famous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grumpy cat can go to hell.

    1. Re:Lemon cat is more famous by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Grump cat is already going to hell. Don't you know: All dogs go to heaven, all cats go to hell.

  13. Something is hinkey here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The defendant once licensed this IP and now infringes w/o license on new products.
    Either
    a) they now believe the IP is not licensable (in which case they would have responded in court) , or
    b) they are going bankrupt and don't have the $ to fight and don't care as they know they are going tits up

    1. Re:Something is hinkey here by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      Not responding is exactly the wrong result. An entering of default judgement is a win for the plaintiff and they can and will go after the assets of the company. You can't appeal these default judgement unless you can prove beyond a doubt you never received the process as failure to respond is essentially pleading guilty in a civil suit (that's how the courts view it).

      You always respond or you lose automatically.

  14. misuse of trademark and copyright by ooloorie · · Score: 0

    "Grumpy Cat Coffee" didn't copy any grumpy cat image, they used a drawing of a literally grumpy looking cat, so no copyright infringement.

    Trademarks, on the other hand, are for identifying products in specific industries. Since the owners of the Grumpy Cat presumably aren't in the coffee roasting business, they don't have a claim to the "Grumpy Cat Coffee" trademark (nor to "Grumpy Cat Software Consulting", "Grumpy Cat Counseling", or "Grumpy Cat Steel Girders").

    1. Re:misuse of trademark and copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess you had a reading comprehension failure - Trademark, Copyright and Contract Violations - The Beverage Company felt there was enough interest in a product with the Trademark to contract with the Owners for legal use but then decided it was cheaper to simiply expand the products offered to what ever they wanted without regards to their contract - violating said contract and due to the contract, they'd already admitted that "GrumpyCat" was both Trademarked and Copyrighted, thus not only did they violate the Contract, they violated the license they agreed to and the folks want a Cease and Desist order from the Courts with legal fees to be paid - Same as many of the GPL violations that have been pursued in court.

      Keep in mind that Trademarks that are unenforced loose their protection (Xerox for example).

    2. Re:misuse of trademark and copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this the SAME cat ? I think not.
      https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/e2/ee/eb/e2eeeb7a3f64016839ec5450ca73b6e6.jpg
      http://www.adweek.com/files/grumpy-cat-coffee-ep.jpg

    3. Re:misuse of trademark and copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess you had a reading comprehension failure - Trademark, Copyright and Contract Violations - The Beverage Company felt there was enough interest in a product with the Trademark to contract with the Owners for legal use but then decided it was cheaper to simiply expand the products offered

      Guess you simply have a comprehension problem. The original grumpy cat owners never had a valid trademark on "Grumpy Cat Coffee". If the beverage maker contracted with them originally, they paid for something they didn't need to contract for.

      thus not only did they violate the Contract, they violated the license they agreed to and the folks want a Cease and Desist order from the Courts with legal fees to be paid - Same as many of the GPL violations that have been pursued in court.

      The GPL is only enforceable if there is a valid copyright to begin with. If someone agrees to the GPL and the copyright wasn't originally valid, then they are also not bound by the GPL. The same is true for trademarks.

      Licenses for intellectual property rights don't create intellectual property rights, they simply grant permissions to use something.

  15. They have everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but they are not happy, and want more.

  16. Comment by WallyL · · Score: 1

    So how much trouble would the judge get in by replying to the email with the "Grumpy cat NO" meme?

  17. Grumpy Cat has no need for money. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    Grumpy Cat does not want $600k. Why would a cat want money? What's it going to do, bury it's poop in it.

    Grumpy Cat's OWNERS want $600k.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Grumpy Cat has no need for money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would a cat want money?

      Drugs. You can buy a lot of nip with that kind of money.

    2. Re:Grumpy Cat has no need for money. by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      Actually it is the owner of the trademark and/or copyright: Grumpy Cat, LLC. And, since we often drop the suffix of incorporation when speaking informally, "Grumpy Cat, LLC." becomes "Grumpy Cat".

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    3. Re:Grumpy Cat has no need for money. by antdude · · Score: 1

      Grumpy Cat would buy you grammar nazis. ;)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  18. Misleading Title by Baby+Duck · · Score: 1

    Makes in sound like Grumpy Cat pirated a Coffee maker.

    --

    "Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins

    1. Re:Misleading Title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes in sound like Grumpy Cat pirated a Coffee maker.

      It's waiting for International Talk Like a Pirate Day...MEOWAAAAARRRRRGGGG!

  19. Well deserved... by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    For almost any other meme I could say that the lawsuit was dubious, but not really for Grumpy Cat.

    Of course a whole lot of people will come saying that the owners "don't deserve it", that they've done nothing to make Grumpy Cat famous, and that the cat is only famous because someone picked up an image and made a meme out of it.

    These people are plain wrong. There is a reason why the cat is still known to this day, and it has a whole lot to do with how much the owners are managing her image. Contrary to other popular memes, Grumpy Cat's owners were very smart to ride the fame. They have been running blogs, merchandise, movie deals, book deals, public appearances, interviews and all the stuff you'd expect from a regular celebrity very professionally and very closely from start.

    Grumpy Cat really is a brand that is taken care of and was built upon the hard work of several people, like any business.

    But that does not need to be proven in this case... the beverage company already recognizes this because they made a deal there. The matter at hand seems to be either a breach of contract or unauthorized usage outside contractual stipulations, which if true will be plenty easy to prove. And the fine could get way more expensive than that. They are exploiting commercially a brand that does not belong to them.

    For those wondering about the intellectual property violation at hand, here's an image of the products:
    http://sprudgewire.com/wp-cont...
    There is absolutely nothing dubious about it being related to Grumpy Cat. The decision will be whether there was a breach in contract or not.

  20. Morristown, Arizona by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    I just looked up Grumpy Cat on Wikipedia. It says she was born in in Morristown, Arizona. Holy crap, I used to work there. It's like three trailers and a gas station. I'd be grumpy if I was from there too.

  21. Trademark confusion? Not clear to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can get a trademark for a cat for one thing (soda) and not have it for another (dog food). Lots of examples like this. I'm not sure if this is a valid trademark complaint. My company has a trademark for which other companies have also trademarked for other business. One is in publishing, one is in computers accessories, one is in selling ICE. There is a computer company called Apple and a record company called Apple.

  22. Re:Seems about wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually Grumpy cat has very referable prior art with similar cats. Would be very difficult to hold a copyright outside of proving it was the same cat.