Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'Memes Have Rights Too': Grumpy Cat Wins $710,000 In Copyright Lawsuit (thewrap.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the your-rights-online dept.

Zorro shares a report from TheWrap: The Grumpy Cat Limited company was awarded $710,001 in damages on Monday when a California jury decided that the beverage company Grenade was guilty of infringing on its copyright and trademark. Grumpy Cat Limited, formed by Tabatha Bundesen to monetize the viral fame of her sour-faced cat (real name, Tardar Sauce), sued Grenade in 2015, claiming the company used the cat's image on several of its products, despite only having the rights to sell a line of iced coffees called "Grumpy Cat Grumppuccino." The Grumpy Cat image appeared on Grenade's roasted coffee line and tee-shirts, neither of which were part of the original deal. Grenade filed its own countersuit, claiming Grumpy Cat didn't hold up its end of the bargain and failed to promote the brand as outlined under the terms of the deal. However, the jury wasn't moved by its argument and ultimately decided in favor of the meme. "It's important precedent when you have something like a meme online," David Jonelis of Lavely & Singer, Grumpy Cat's lawyer, told TheWrap. "It's the first verdict ever rendered in favor of a viral meme. Memes have rights too."

11 of 62 comments (clear)

  1. Say what? by Daetrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm failing to see the link between a lawsuit over contract violation and "memes having rights". I'm unsure whether the lawyer is an idiot, or just knows that making outrageous statements will grab headlines. Probably the later, and Slashdot apparently fell for it hook line and sinker.

    Oh wait, who do we have to pay for violating the rights of the "hook line and sinker" meme?

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:Say what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm unsure whether the lawyer is an idiot, or just knows that making outrageous statements will grab headlines.

      Or maybe he just has a, you know, sense of humour?

    2. Re:Say what? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the point he is trying to make is that even if something becomes a meme it retains its copyright and you can't just use it in your products without licensing.

      It's different to say a trademark where you have to defend it, for example.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Say what? by Quirkz · · Score: 4, Funny

      fell for it hook line and sinker.?

      Hi. I'm a lawyer from Abshagen and Dillard, and we represent Fishing Cliches, Inc. You have made use of their patented expression without the express written consent of FCI or MLB. You must pay $100 or be guilty of infring-meme-nt.

      --
      The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
    4. Re:Say what? by xevioso · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not from an attorney, no. I know of many jokes *about* them, but none *from* them.

    5. Re:Say what? by AC-x · · Score: 2

      Clickbait has rights too you know!

    6. Re:Say what? by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 2

      Key phrase is "trademark". The cat's likeness was trademarked by the owner and cannot be used for commercial purposes without their permission.

      It is hardly a new concept, as many estates of famous people also trademark the likeness of them. Einstein's family still owns his likeness which cannot be used for commercial purposes without their permission.

      --
      Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
  2. Re:"copyright" by mi · · Score: 2

    thanks to artificial scarcity

    What "artificial scarcity"? There are plenty of cats — most of them capable of hilarious "facial" expressions...

    So if all I get, is a worthless mere copy

    If the "mere copy" of this particular cat's expression were really "worthless", then why would the company use that image in particular? I guess, it was not... They wanted that image in particular for some reason.

    I worked just as hard for the original money as somebody worked hard for the original work.

    Marx got it all wrong. The value of something — anything — is measured not by the amount of labor (Marx' theory of value), that went into it, but rather by other people's willingess to pay for it.

    That is, if nobody cares for your cat's picture, it is worthless even if you spent three months of trying to photograph the creature.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  3. Tardar Sauce? by Quirkz · · Score: 2

    So, I can't tell if they're just really dumb and don't know how to spell, or if they're making a kind of tasteless joke, but either way, that's got to be about the worst name for a cat that I've ever heard.

    --
    The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
    1. Re:Tardar Sauce? by xevioso · · Score: 5, Informative

      They were, in fact making a tasteless joke. The cat was named "tardar sauce" and the owner originally called her "Tard" for short, but once the cat became famous, a number of people objected to the use of the word Tard, which is short for "retard", and complained; the owner refers to the cat by her name in full now, supposedly.

  4. Re: What a joke by Dr+Fro · · Score: 2

    It's called public domain... It applies to anything created before Steamboat Willie

    --
    ********************
    I object to Intellect without Discipline.