Copyright Infringement??

If you're just making the comparison based on evil smiley faces with crossed bones then they've obviously both ripped ME off. I've got high school sketchbooks from the mid-80s with variations of that theme, including the dog collar.

....and I'm not claiming originality over it either, I'm fairly sure the smiley face drawings were just a natural progression from drawing that green guy off "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" book covers.

Am I wrong or is the 3D mesh showing on the Fellers version? That's kind of odd.

 

While there are some of the same bases being covered, one could, at most, conclude that one was an inspiration for the other. It certainly is not a copy or a derivative. And the ultimate test is not, IMHO, met either, which is:

Would a normal person viewing the one be confused and think it was the mark of the other?

 

the subject matter aside i think the title of this post kind of stinks. as it implies fellers is engaging in copyright infringement...when more correctly your post is about a vendor of a product who submitted an ad that may or may not be infringing on someone's content. sort of like those misleading headlines on tabloid newspapers to sell copies when the story is very different than the implied headline on the cover. but i am sure many people will look at this topic because of the title...not cool imo.

 

Copyright would make it a "COPY" they are not 100% the same so in comes trademark
TOO ME-- they are very different not close to being the same

 

the squeegee version has more of a skull like appearance. I would never have made the connection

 

Yeah dont let frank see this post cause he will hawg tie your Arse!!! lol Fellers is great

 

I'm with you on that! I love Fellers they are the only supplies company that called me thank me for my business over the holidays.

 

dan, I have to agree with you 110%. I thought the same thing when I first opened this thread.

It doesn't matter much what we say or do.... everyone is trying to make a big deal out of nothing at someone else's expense and in this case.... Feller's

No regards for truth or claim.... just waving their hands around yelling they got someone and want to nail 'em to a cross.

I would feel so happy if Feller's swooped in here and nailed your butt to the cross for misrepresentation, falsely accusing others and defamation.

It has to do with the way you handled it coming in. Content means nothing. You just made a public spectale of someone totally unwarranted.


I would like to ask the administrators if this title could be corrected to help save the innocent.

 

I dont think they are close enough to be misconstrued as one being the other. Certainly not a copy. I think the fellers one is possibly inspired by the other one. I wouldn't say there was a copyright issue there.

On a side-note my 6 year old grandson thinks they are different. And he wouldn't see the nuances that we might.

 

I thought forrest gump came up with the smiley face???

 

If the creator wishes to pursue infringement, he has every right to. It doesn't mean he'll win a suit though.

Here's a story of a similar case...

http://www.centralpennbusiness.com/article.asp?aid=71983

and their respective websites with logos in question...

http://members1st.org/

http://mymetrobank.com/

I think what makes this case interesting is the similarities with the logo "M" and the fact that they're both "financial institutions".

If they were in different industries or offering dissimilar services, members 1st would have a much more difficult case.

Checkers

 

No. Not someone come in and kick you butt.... Fellers come in to see how you titled it, worded and tried to implicate they are doing something wrong, when it just happens to be your personal opinion.

Although you title it as a question.... the damage is still being done. You put it out as if the reader is going to open your thread and find some horrible practices by Fellers, when in fact.... there's nothing wrong here.

It's one thing to pose a question and try to find all sides of an argument, but to take someone's good name and do what you did..... well, that's just plain wrong in my book.

I don't try to make anyone feel good or bad at someone else's expense. However, I will point out what I see wrong and try to make the guilty pay, but if I'm wrong... I'll admit it.

Last week's discussions were not like this. Anyway, my main beef is your title. The cheap way you tried to get people to check this out. Heck, look at who many of your first responders are. Look at their reactions. Doesn't that mean anything to you ??

Respect does not justify false claims at someone else's expense. There has got to be a better way you could've treated this, but you took the cheap route. I'm not trying to belittle you, but you did a rather mean thing here and don't seem to have any regrets for doing it. That's what messes with my head.

​

 

They are both derivatives of the original yellow smiley face, so I don't think either could complain (if the comic place was still in business).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Ball