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

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."

Comments

Seems about right

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Seems about right

[houghi]

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.

Re: Seems about right

[AmiMoJo]

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

Re:Seems about right

[EvilSS]

Actually, it's a trademark.

Re:Seems about right

[EvilSS]

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.

Re:Seems about right

[cob666]

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.

Re: Seems about right

[hawguy]

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.

Re:Seems about right

[Pascoea]

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)

Re: Seems about right

[garyebickford]

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!

Re:Whole lawsuit probably planned....

[ChunderDownunder]

2012, actually.

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

Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

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.

Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat

[93 Escort Wagon]

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

Re:Paying for pussy

[Salgak1]

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

Re:They want 600k

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:copyright holder problems

[DirkDaring]

It's not purrfect is it?

Something is hinkey here

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Something is hinkey here

[rahvin112]

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.

Re:Meme

[mindwhip]

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.

Re:They want 600k

[PopeRatzo]

What kind of idiot puts SJW shit into their sig?

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

Re:They want 600k

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Paying for pussy

[AmiMoJo]

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

Re:They want 600k

[PopeRatzo]

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?

Re:They want 600k

[Rakarra]

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.

Re:They want 600k

[jodokast98]

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.

Re:They want 600k

[BronsCon]

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.

Re:Paying for pussy

[garyebickford]

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. ;)