Holy Cow That's One Expensive Character

Ken OBanion

Novica said:

You DEFINITELY need to put in a ticket to get that $61 difference if you're going to keep her. Give it to an animal rescue group or the local homeless shelter if you don't care about it. It's senseless to throw money away, particularly of that amount. That said, you're an adorable spunky man to test this out. Go Ken!

I've already made my annual Christmas donation to St. Jude's (and another to my hometown's animal shelter), to I have those covered.

The simple truth is, I really don't care about having the difference refunded; I set out to do something spectacularly irrational, just for 'S&Gs', and from the feedback here in this thread, I apparently have succeeded beyond my wildest expectations! 

But hey, if DAZ wants to, they can divert the 'refund the difference'  to St. Jude's themselves.  Better yet, match it!

Ken OBanion

mjc1016 said:

Ken OBanion said:

 

Andy Warhol once noted that "art is what you can get away with."  And he would know; after all, his most iconic work was a pretty clear-cut case of copyright infringement!

But he got away with it.

Is it?

Back then companies weren't quite as paranoid and actually liked stuff like that...

http://clancco.com/wp/2010/08/warhol_copyright_campbells-soup/

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/07/i-hear-you-like-tomato-soup.html

And Campbell's soup even issued 50th anniversary labels on its cans...

You are definitely right about that!  If Warhol were alive today, and he tried that stunt, he no doubt would have spent the rest of his life in court!  Companies are now almost insanely territorial about their brands and trademarks. 

(I remember that big-ass legal flap some years ago, over a small, 'mom-and-pop' restaurant calling itself Planet..., something -- if memory serves, it was the town where the restaurant was located; Planet Hollywood's legal team went into full attack-mode, claiming that the name might confuse people, who might associate it with their brand.  As I recall, the judge laughed out loud, and told the Planet Hollywood legal team to get knotted, pull their heads out of their you-know-what's, and not to show up in his court again, until they had something of consequence to litigate.  The judge wasn't Ted Poe, but should have been!)

Taoz

Ken OBanion said:

mjc1016 said:

Ken OBanion said:

 

Andy Warhol once noted that "art is what you can get away with."  And he would know; after all, his most iconic work was a pretty clear-cut case of copyright infringement!

But he got away with it.

Is it?

Back then companies weren't quite as paranoid and actually liked stuff like that...

http://clancco.com/wp/2010/08/warhol_copyright_campbells-soup/

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/07/i-hear-you-like-tomato-soup.html

And Campbell's soup even issued 50th anniversary labels on its cans...

You are definitely right about that!  If Warhol were alive today, and he tried that stunt, he no doubt would have spent the rest of his life in court!  Companies are now almost insanely territorial about their brands and trademarks. 

(I remember that big-ass legal flap some years ago, over a small, 'mom-and-pop' restaurant calling itself Planet..., something -- if memory serves, it was the town where the restaurant was located; Planet Hollywood's legal team went into full attack-mode, claiming that the name might confuse people, who might associate it with their brand.  As I recall, the judge laughed out loud, and told the Planet Hollywood legal team to get knotted, pull their heads out of their you-know-what's, and not to show up in his court again, until they had something of consequence to litigate.  The judge wasn't Ted Poe, but should have been!)

Yea, they're crazy. We had a guy here with a hot-dog stand that called his stand McAllan (his name was Allan). McDonalds sued him but after a 3 year long trial McAllan won with all 5 judges voting in his favour. They also sued a Malaysian restaurant that called themselves McCurry but also lost that case after an 8 year long trial. Good to see that the courts have some common sense.

Taoz

JaguarElla said:

Taozen said:

vex3d said:

I have "a" Bijou... I'm not sure if its the same one.

No, that's not the same one.

http://www.daz3d.com/catalog/product/view/id/05584

Or it was the original V4 version they based it on

Hm, don't know, they don't look that similar to me.

 

Chohole

Ken OBanion said:

mjc1016 said:

Ken OBanion said:

 

Andy Warhol once noted that "art is what you can get away with."  And he would know; after all, his most iconic work was a pretty clear-cut case of copyright infringement!

But he got away with it.

Is it?

Back then companies weren't quite as paranoid and actually liked stuff like that...

http://clancco.com/wp/2010/08/warhol_copyright_campbells-soup/

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/07/i-hear-you-like-tomato-soup.html

And Campbell's soup even issued 50th anniversary labels on its cans...

You are definitely right about that!  If Warhol were alive today, and he tried that stunt, he no doubt would have spent the rest of his life in court!  Companies are now almost insanely territorial about their brands and trademarks. 

(I remember that big-ass legal flap some years ago, over a small, 'mom-and-pop' restaurant calling itself Planet..., something -- if memory serves, it was the town where the restaurant was located; Planet Hollywood's legal team went into full attack-mode, claiming that the name might confuse people, who might associate it with their brand.  As I recall, the judge laughed out loud, and told the Planet Hollywood legal team to get knotted, pull their heads out of their you-know-what's, and not to show up in his court again, until they had something of consequence to litigate.  The judge wasn't Ted Poe, but should have been!)

I think one of the worst of this sort of thing I have heard of is when a certain Hollyfood fillim company wanted to sue the owners of a Pub in the UK for copyright issues, concerning a name that they had been using for more than 20 years.    What was the name you may ask.   It is  "The Hobbit"

Ken OBanion

Chohole said:

Ken OBanion said:

mjc1016 said:

Ken OBanion said:

 

Andy Warhol once noted that "art is what you can get away with."  And he would know; after all, his most iconic work was a pretty clear-cut case of copyright infringement!

But he got away with it.

Is it?

Back then companies weren't quite as paranoid and actually liked stuff like that...

http://clancco.com/wp/2010/08/warhol_copyright_campbells-soup/

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/07/i-hear-you-like-tomato-soup.html

And Campbell's soup even issued 50th anniversary labels on its cans...

You are definitely right about that!  If Warhol were alive today, and he tried that stunt, he no doubt would have spent the rest of his life in court!  Companies are now almost insanely territorial about their brands and trademarks. 

(I remember that big-ass legal flap some years ago, over a small, 'mom-and-pop' restaurant calling itself Planet..., something -- if memory serves, it was the town where the restaurant was located; Planet Hollywood's legal team went into full attack-mode, claiming that the name might confuse people, who might associate it with their brand.  As I recall, the judge laughed out loud, and told the Planet Hollywood legal team to get knotted, pull their heads out of their you-know-what's, and not to show up in his court again, until they had something of consequence to litigate.  The judge wasn't Ted Poe, but should have been!)

I think one of the worst of this sort of thing I have heard of is when a certain Hollyfood fillim company wanted to sue the owners of a Pub in the UK for copyright issues, concerning a name that they had been using for more than 20 years.    What was the name you may ask.   It is  "The Hobbit"

Shakespeare was right: "The first thing we must do, is kill all the lawyers."  (Henry IV Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2)

Even though I have both friends and family who are lawyers (one of the latter is a former state district court judge), I can certainly sympathise with the sentiment.

Charlie Judge

Taozen said:

Ken OBanion said:

mjc1016 said:

Ken OBanion said:

 

Andy Warhol once noted that "art is what you can get away with."  And he would know; after all, his most iconic work was a pretty clear-cut case of copyright infringement!

But he got away with it.

Is it?

Back then companies weren't quite as paranoid and actually liked stuff like that...

http://clancco.com/wp/2010/08/warhol_copyright_campbells-soup/

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/07/i-hear-you-like-tomato-soup.html

And Campbell's soup even issued 50th anniversary labels on its cans...

You are definitely right about that!  If Warhol were alive today, and he tried that stunt, he no doubt would have spent the rest of his life in court!  Companies are now almost insanely territorial about their brands and trademarks. 

(I remember that big-ass legal flap some years ago, over a small, 'mom-and-pop' restaurant calling itself Planet..., something -- if memory serves, it was the town where the restaurant was located; Planet Hollywood's legal team went into full attack-mode, claiming that the name might confuse people, who might associate it with their brand.  As I recall, the judge laughed out loud, and told the Planet Hollywood legal team to get knotted, pull their heads out of their you-know-what's, and not to show up in his court again, until they had something of consequence to litigate.  The judge wasn't Ted Poe, but should have been!)

Yea, they're crazy. We had a guy here with a hot-dog stand that called his stand McAllan (his name was Allan). McDonalds sued him but after a 3 year long trial McAllan won with all 5 judges voting in his favour. They also sued a Malaysian restaurant that called themselves McCurry but also lost that case after an 8 year long trial. Good to see that the courts have some common sense.

The problem with that sort of thing is that the little guy frequently lacks the resources to fight the big corporations no matter how out of line they may be.

Taoz

Charlie Judge said:

Taozen said:

Ken OBanion said:

mjc1016 said:

Ken OBanion said:

 

Andy Warhol once noted that "art is what you can get away with."  And he would know; after all, his most iconic work was a pretty clear-cut case of copyright infringement!

But he got away with it.

Is it?

Back then companies weren't quite as paranoid and actually liked stuff like that...

http://clancco.com/wp/2010/08/warhol_copyright_campbells-soup/

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/07/i-hear-you-like-tomato-soup.html

And Campbell's soup even issued 50th anniversary labels on its cans...

You are definitely right about that!  If Warhol were alive today, and he tried that stunt, he no doubt would have spent the rest of his life in court!  Companies are now almost insanely territorial about their brands and trademarks. 

(I remember that big-ass legal flap some years ago, over a small, 'mom-and-pop' restaurant calling itself Planet..., something -- if memory serves, it was the town where the restaurant was located; Planet Hollywood's legal team went into full attack-mode, claiming that the name might confuse people, who might associate it with their brand.  As I recall, the judge laughed out loud, and told the Planet Hollywood legal team to get knotted, pull their heads out of their you-know-what's, and not to show up in his court again, until they had something of consequence to litigate.  The judge wasn't Ted Poe, but should have been!)

Yea, they're crazy. We had a guy here with a hot-dog stand that called his stand McAllan (his name was Allan). McDonalds sued him but after a 3 year long trial McAllan won with all 5 judges voting in his favour. They also sued a Malaysian restaurant that called themselves McCurry but also lost that case after an 8 year long trial. Good to see that the courts have some common sense.

The problem with that sort of thing is that the little guy frequently lacks the resources to fight the big corporations no matter how out of line they may be.

We have something here you can apply for called "free process" which means that the state pays all expenses whether you win or lose. Your case needs to fulfill certain conditions though to be eligible for it, e.g. that you have a good case in general.  

fixmypcmike

Please remember the TOS -- this line of discussion has the potential for getting political.

Ken OBanion

Fixmypcmike said:

Please remember the TOS -- this line of discussion has the potential for getting political.

I honestly think we are seriously and conscientiously trying to steer clear of that; for "down this path lies madness" -- or words to that effect.

We're just observing how comprehensively correct Shakespeare was when he noted that "the law ia a ass" -- although it wasn't Shakespeare who said -- or wrote -- it; it was, in fact, Charles Dickens who introduced that phrase to the cultural lexicon (in Oliver Twist).

Yes, Shakespeare has much to answer for, but this is not one of his many crimes against the vernacular....