 Why CafePress sucks
|
Jun. 23rd, 2006 @ 08:33 am 
|
|---|
Several weeks ago, I noticed that one of my images I uploaded for a CafePress store (note: the domain listen in the store is kaput) had been "Marked for Review." I didn't get around to contacting them about it until recently, and here was my none-too-pleasant conversation with two individuals in their "Image Verification Department"
First, my letter of inquiry about the situation:
To whom it may concern:
None-too-recently, one of the images in my media basked was marked as "Pending Review" with the red background, and products featuring it were no longer available. Not only do I feel that this image clearly falls under fair use parody, I am confused as to why it has been "in review" for such a time with no resolution or contact.
In your FAQ on copyright and trademark, you state: "...Parody may qualify as fair use only if it draws upon the original composition to make humorous or ironic commentary about that same composition..." which this image clearly does. It juxtaposes the iconic image of the iPod with the symbology associated with pirates (the skull-and-crossbones) to allude that in general, iPods are filled up with pirated music. I believe that while the design of the iPod in this image is clearly an iPod, which is covered under various legal protections, the composition is distinct enough from the actual device and any screen it may show to prevent an average consumer from believing it to be an official Apple composition, and recognize it as parody.
I appreciate your attention to this matter and assistance in resolving this issue,
$me
Their first reply:
Dear $me,
Thank you for contacting CafePress.com!
Unfortunately, we will be unable to restore your image, which is in Pending Status at this time. Your use of the strong likeness to that of the iPod is problematic as it may infringe on Apple's trade dress rights.
Trade Dress protects the "total image" of a product, which can include the color scheme of the packaging, the arrangement of certain elements in a design, and the overall shape "silhouette" of the product. For example, the use of the shape of the Heinz ketchup bottle is problematic for similarly infringing on the Heinz corporations trade dress rights.
For more information regarding our Content Usage Policy please visit http://www.cafepress.com/cp/info/help/law.aspx.
Your ticket code is xxxxxx. Please use this code in any further communication.
Best Regards,
Michael M.
Content Usage Associate
(xxx) xxx-xxxx (O)
(xxx) xxx-xxxx (F)
www.cafepress.com
My reply:
Mr. M:
Thank you for your fast reply!
Unfortunately, I am not in agreement with your assertion of Trade Dress infringement. My (albeit limited) research into case law with regards to trade dress cases indicates that there are several issues which must be met for a trade dress infringement to be established. These do include the "total image" as you stated in your reply, however, a critical point of the issue is if the presentation is likely to confuse the general public.
This additional qualification is supported by the "...EXCEDRIN PM/TYLENOL PM case (Bristol Meyers Squibb v. McNeil ppc,973 F2d 1033 (2d Cir 1992), which held, among other things, that, even in the face of clear evidence of intentional copying, the prominent use of famous marks on the packaging may prevent confusion between otherwise similar packages." (http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/trade_dress/, editorial content notwithstanding, merely as a resource for a case summary).
The prominent use of the Apple-And-Crossbones logo on the face of the iPod clearly distinguishes it from the trade dress of a standard iPod.
As I have said, I fail to see how the image of the "iPirate" would suitably mislead the general public to the extent required for a trade dress infringement.
I look forward to hearing back from you with baited breath,
$me
Their final reply and smack-down:
Dear $me,
Thank you for the response. Although we appreciate your reply, we will have to respectfully disagree. As stated in our previous email, we feel that your image could be problematic as it may infringe on Apple's rights. Therefore, at this time, it will remain in pending status.
Further, as stated in our terms of service, we can, in our sole discretion, remove any content that we feel may not be in compliance with our Content Usage Policy.
We apologize for any inconvenience our actions may cause.
Your ticket code is xxxxxx. Please use this code in any further communication.
Best Regards,
Josie S.
Content Usage Associate
(xxx) xxx-xxxx (O)
(xxx) xxx-xxxx (F)
www.cafepress.com
Thanks a ton, CafePress.
Once previously, I lost the originals of some work I had uploaded (of course, in very high res 300+ dpi images), and when I asked if it was possible to get a copy of the uploaded files, I was told that I could not, "due to copyright issues." "Copyright issues" on work I made, I asserted I had the rights to when I uploaded, and I asked for? Bullshit. Between that, and now this, I won't be doing any more business with them in the future.I feel::  annoyed |
![[User Picture Icon]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/4486/7632) |
| From: | ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) badger |
|---|
| Date: |
June 23rd, 2006 01:36 pm (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
"Copyright issues" on the work I made, I asserted I had the rights to when I uploaded...
And that's where you and they disagree, on the assert part. If they gave it back to you, they might feel they were opening themselves up to legal action from the people they think your work is infringing on in the first place, by distributing material they think is in violation. Yes, even back to you. So I would suggest what I tell every creator of anything: Always keep a copy of your work, in some way, somewhere.
I don't like CafePress very much myself, but I can't see any of this as surprising.
(Incidentally and by no means primary or relevant, unless you were trying to be funny in your reply to them, the last of your email should have read "...with bated breath", not "baited". )
![[User Picture Icon]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/25962288/1898253) |
| From: | frijole |
|---|
| Date: |
June 23rd, 2006 02:13 pm (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
the lack of return was for another, non-controversial image, specifically my copyleft ones
and yeah, it was a error on my part :(
![[User Picture Icon]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/62660673/773176) |
| From: | virga |
|---|
| Date: |
June 23rd, 2006 02:15 pm (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
what image was it?
![[User Picture Icon]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/47681482/1898253) |
| From: | frijole |
|---|
| Date: |
June 23rd, 2006 03:13 pm (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
only copy of it i mean
| From: | (Anonymous) |
|---|
| Date: |
May 21st, 2009 05:29 pm (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
That is trademark infringement
|
(Link) |
|
Absolutely no way that anyone can use that image it is totally a trademark infringement. The apple you have used is the officially trademark design by apple company. Who are you kidding - if you want to parody do it yourself. There is no way that a 3rd party company can take the risk you have given them.
And no I am not fond of Cafepress right now they are pissing us all off.
|
| From: | frijole |
|---|
| Date: |
May 21st, 2009 10:25 pm (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
Re: That is trademark infringement
|
(Link) |
|
Go look up 17 U.S.C. Sec. 107, and tell me how parody is not protected speech under Fair Use. I dare you.
| From: | (Anonymous) |
|---|
| Date: |
June 21st, 2009 09:16 pm (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
Cafe Press competes with its own users
|
(Link) |
|
Posted by LinkinMall.net
Recently Cafe Press began competing with its artists.
CP rents shops to its artists. The artist creates a website page and manually loads the desired blank products. The artist imports his image onto each product, arranges the products on the page, describes the products, titles the products and tags the images.
Initially, the artist set a markup and received the markup when a product sold.
However, recently Cafe Press began competing with its artists, using the artists' own images. Cafe Press created a marketplace where a customer can search a keyword. That search brings up artist products. When the customer buys from the marketplace Cafe Press pays the artist 10% of the price Cafe Press set. Both the customer and the artist lose money. If the artist's shop sells a t-shirt for $21, the artist makes $3.01. If the marketplace sells the same shirt for $25, the artist gets $2.50. The customer pays $4 more, and the artist gets $0.51 less. CafePress justifies this bait and switch by telling artists they can opt out if they don't like the new terms; however, many have spent as much as 7 or 8 years creating as much as 88000 images.
Cafe Press tells artists to 'promote your own shop,' but Cafe Press buys Google adwords using the very image tags the artist provided.
Would you franchise an AMOCO station if AMOCO built a company store across the street from you?
|
|
