
Grumpy Cat wins payout in copyright lawsuit - dcgudeman
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42808521
======
lxe
When Keyboard Cat became a thing, I tried making some t-shirts on Teespring or
something of the sort. Got a cease-and-desist very quickly.

That's when I learned that behind the facade of cute internet cats and memes
hides the cold reality of copyright law.

~~~
peterburkimsher
The cold reality of copyright law is having a chilling effect, causing me to
not share content for fear of being sued.

Case in point: bilingual songs.

 _all of the italic items are illegal_

I go to a prayer room in Taiwan, and the musicians there have _translated_
many famous Christian songs into Chinese. I got their lyrics as PDFs and
converted those to TXT so I can use it with my
[http://pingtype.github.io](http://pingtype.github.io) translator app.

They stream their 2-hour sets on YouTube and Facebook. I _downloaded_ those
and cut out the MP3s. I want to combine the audio with the lyrics to make
lyrics videos to _put on YouTube_ (I already made some, actually, and a few
more that I didn't upload).

I _got the lyrics_ from someone in another prayer room in another city,
followed by a message saying basically "Oh no! I shouldn't have sent it to
you! It's copyright and we don't have the license to share those songs so
don't ever share this to anybody!" The reason is that the original English
author didn't authorise the translation, so what they're doing is breaking
copyright and they're afraid that if they become famous, they'll get caught.

I've procrastinated uploading more lyrics to Pingtype because of these issues.
Meanwhile I use my personal copy in church, and it's great to sing along with
everyone else and learn Chinese while doing so.

I tried contacting CCLI to get a license from the original authors of the
songs, but they don't operate in Taiwan. I'm seriously considering just
posting my painstakingly-clipped MP3s and the lyrics files on some pirate
sites and letting the Internet do what it does best.

~~~
geofft
The whole thing where people insist on copyright for worship songs has
bothered me for years. I understand that composers and artists need to get
paid, and I'm certainly fine with enforcing copyright for _recordings_ , but
the whole idea behind this particular style of worship music is that the songs
are easy to memorize and teach orally. It's one thing if you're, say, dc Talk
and people learn your lyrics because they're listening to your albums a lot,
it's quite another if you're, say, Hillsong and you go out of your way to
write melodies and lyrics are easily learnable, and then you (or your agent, I
guess) says that you may not distribute written copies of the lyrics.

I've sort of wondered whether writing a bunch of Creative Commons-licensed
worship music and trying to make it popular would be a good way to solve this
problem.

~~~
analog31
Fortunately, the only worship songs I've ever really enjoyed were out of
copyright by at least 200 years, and typically sung in Latin. ;-)

But interestingly, people have talked about creating public domain or free use
literature for live music performance. A friend of mine tried to do this. He
had the idea to create his own book of tunes (it helps that he's a composer
with a music theory degree) so he could book a band into venues that didn't
have ASCAP/BMI licenses. This was in the jazz genre, rather than worship
music. I'm a jazz musician.

He told me that despite being completely above board, the venues still
received a threatening visit from the performance rights organizations, and
were talked out of hosting live music.

~~~
cafard
I don't wholly disagree with you on the Latin. But indeed everything the
Wesleys did is long out of copyright; the American Sacred Harp and Southern
Harmony hymns are long out of copyright.

------
koolba
> In 2013 Grenade Beverage, owned by father and son Nick and Paul Sandford,
> struck a $150,000 deal to market iced coffee beverages with the cat's scowl
> on its packaging.

I want an article on how the cat’s owner convinced someone to license the cats
image for $150K, let alone just for one line of beer. That’s insane.

~~~
teej
It’s not that hard to fathom. Literally tens of millions of people know the
name Grumpy Cat. Maybe 1% of that number know about Grenade Beverage.

~~~
mikeash
In 2009, I bought a bottle of Barack Obama hot sauce I discovered at the local
grocery store, just for the sheer novelty of it. I have no idea if it’s any
good, as I never opened it. I keep it as a memento.

Grumpy Cat is a big enough phenomenon that they could probably make back the
fee just on purchases like that. Let alone people who would actually drink the
stuff.

~~~
EnderMB
It's surprising how throwing a random name on something will make you want to
buy it. A local pub near my office sells Trooper, a type of ale "created' by
Iron Maiden, and the novelty of it seems to result in most people trying at
least a pint of it.

For those that are interested, it's alright, but not my favourite. I'd
recommend trying it if you get a chance.

~~~
coroxout
When I was in Germany, I bought a bottle of Gorbatschow vodka to bring home.

I thought the name was something to do with Mikhail Gorbachev, but it isn't -
the brand has been produced in Berlin since 1921 after its founder Leo
Gorbatschow left Russia during the October Revolution (thanks, wikipedia).

Fairly decent vodka for the price though; would drink again, but since
Stolichnaya and bisongrass vodka are also much cheaper in Germany than the UK
they're a better candidate for limited luggage space.

------
cobbzilla
For those interested in getting in on the game, you should checkout The
Handbook [1], it's a must-read.

[1] [http://liartownusa.tumblr.com/post/152912631875/breed-and-
pu...](http://liartownusa.tumblr.com/post/152912631875/breed-and-publicize-
your-own-congenitally-deformed)

------
guelo
The verdict seems wrong. You can't copyright a cat. Per the constitution only
"works" are copywritable. So you can copyright a photo of the cat. Or in this
case a sketch of a cat. But unless the owners of the cat also drew the logo
they shouldn't have a copyright claim on it.

~~~
vortico
Yes, the drawn graphic of the cat is exactly what the defendent infringed on.
See the similarity on page 4 of
[http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/grumpy-c...](http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/grumpy-
cat-complaint/2720/) between the second image and the image used on the
coffee.

~~~
Idontknowmyuser
I feel like this is bullshit. It's very clear that the photo is inspired by
the cat, not the photo of the cat. There are many different details between
the two images to the point that it is a totally different photo of the cat (
see ear position,left eye ..)

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Grumpy Cat is a brand, not a logo.

This is no different to protecting a business name.

I'm bemused that critics of copyright believe that IP Protection is Evil, but
have no problem understanding that they're not going to be able to call their
startup "Microsoft", "Google", or "Apple" \- because that would be an obvious
and ridiculous branding infringement.

But copyright of a single work isn't a brand? In a practical sense it is,
because the whole point of IP is that it has market value - and brands,
individual works, band and artist names, logos, and the rest, all generate
income for creators.

(Or more often for middle men and managers - but that's a different problem,
and one that's hardly going to be solved by eliminating IP.)

~~~
jdmichal
Branding is in the realm of trademark, not copyright. This was a copyright
lawsuit, so branding has nothing to do with it.

If Disney finally loses copyright of Steamboat Willie, you will still not be
able to use the trademarked Disney Ears. (The one that's three circles.)

~~~
khedoros1
This was a copyright, trademark, and breach of contract lawsuit, not only a
copyright lawsuit.

------
pavel_lishin
I vaguely remember reading that Tardar Sauce is a retcon of the cat's real
name.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
I hadn't come across this words before.

[ret-kon] noun a subsequent revision of an established story in film, TV,
video games, or comics.

~~~
cperciva
And the possibly illuminating etymology: _Ret_ roactive _Con_ tinuity.

------
iamdave
_Grumpy Cat Limited_

I genuinely don't know if I'm impressed or incredibly depressed that the
owners of a disgruntled looking cat are turning the facade of a discontented
feline into a company. Snarky types would point at this and scream "LATE STAGE
CAPITALISM" or some such....

but...it's weird, to me.

~~~
make3
I understand, but they own the cat, and it has a commercial appeal, the proof
being that people sold t-shirts with it's face on it. this is in no way fair
use. this is just to regulate proven commercial worth, it's no different then
Disney charging to print pictures of their star wars birds with teeth things
on t shirts, etc. you find something. you own it. it has commercial appeal
that is not against ethical free uses. you make money

~~~
iamdave
Oh no, I don't object to anything you're saying--I literally have no objection
on the merits of the lawsuit.

It's just...we've made it to the point of profiting off of a cat. For looking
humorously pissed off by cat standards. The year she (she? I think?) came to
sxsw and I saw the lines of people spilling out onto the street for people to
take a selfie with said cat, I was bewildered (and also slightly disgusted,
pondering how anxious and probably stressed out/tired the cat must have been
to be handled and fondled all day long so her keepers could pocket some coin
and notoriety)

Maybe I'm just getting old and this sort of thing doesn't impress me; not the
target demographic. Not here to rain on the parade, just...the whole
phenomenon is something to behold.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Grumpy Cat arguably has more substance than, say, Coca Cola, which is little
more than a _brand_ \+ sugar + water + CO2.

Or that other brand which is little more than "three stripes".

~~~
iamdave
That seems...highly subjective but I get your point. It's similar to how my
reaction was when everyone lost their minds over the Kylie Jenner Pepsi
commercial.

I think it was something to the effect of: "You're getting bent out of shape
because a company that makes money selling sugar water had a lukewarm message
about protest movements? It's PEPSI, not Sesame Street".

~~~
spondyl
Unless I'm misusing the term, I think this is a good example of the phrase
"the optics of a situation".

~~~
iamdave
Yeah I think I'm going to stand by my "It's Pepsi Cola, not Sesame Street". Do
the optics look bad? Oh well?? Why is anyone looking for positive optics
coming from an advertisement paid for by billionaires featuring the sibling
and daughter of millionaires on a commercial that cashes in on the features
and 'optics' of a group of people that are one astronomical unit away from
_being_ millionaires themselves?

It's Pepsi. Not Sesame Street. If you looked at that commercial expecting a
message full of deep moral conviction on the state of affairs that exists in
the space between the citizenry and the constabulary, you got played, son.

------
mhb
You may also be interested in the _Monkey Selfie_ case:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16228390](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16228390)

------
krylon
Huh. When reading the headline, I thought "Grumpy Cat" was the name of a
company, because, you know, cats do not win many law suits. That was actually
what made me read the article, because I thought that "Grumpy Cat" was an odd
name for a company.

It seem a little childish to think that the face of a cat is subject to
copyright.

~~~
qbrass
Well, it is the name of a company. It's just a company holding the rights to
the face of the cat.
[https://www.grumpycats.com/](https://www.grumpycats.com/)

------
partycoder
Grumpy cat generates and sustains jobs: photographer, the community manager,
agent, advertisers, the t-shirt people, and an army of people working in the
various products going from books to calendars, the movie cast... you get it.

It also helps people release stress, which improves their immune response.

Grumpy cat is a force for good.

------
devoply
More likely that someone is going bankrupt than someone is getting paid.

------
slivanes
Good.

