crabra comander
Master Member
He got burned on his own comments and had to go to a burn ward
colorsuits.com stealling designs
- Thread starter orhadar
- Start date
There are two differences, first, I know Joe and Shawn, having bought a fine Lawgiver from them. It is like when a friend wants to dump his tale of trouble on you. Because you know them you do the courteous thing and sympathize.....like people are here. If you hear the same thing from someone you don't know, it is simply annoying. Second, as I clarified previously, I loath recasters....would never knowingly buy from them.Joe and Shawn have other irons in the fire,not just one item to ring their hands over. Yes, I would tell them the same thing. It is part of the game...a risk you take. It is one reason I don't sell my stuff. Maybe I was too strong in condeming this case as whining. I stand by my opinion though about this tangled issue. Not that it makes a lot of difference legally but the Lawgiver is unlikely to be a mass market niche, unlike Spiderman. That, and the movie production company is unlikely to initiate a dispute over that gun. When you contemplate the long arm of Disney and the eventual result of pirating their property.....he may eventually may have way more to worry about than recasters. Anyway, sorry if I seemed overzealous about his original post but I stand by the overall sentiments.
DeathFromADesk
Active Member
I understand your opinion and it makes perfect sense. And you may be right. By making an awesome prop and sharing them or selling them the makers may very likely have that work taken by someone else.
I don't know these spider-guys, or Joe and Shawn for that matter, but think that they both have a legitiamte complaint, that is primarily the same complaint. They both had their work stolen and used by others who took credit for the work they did. In my short time on these boards, I have read and learned from a lot of threads. One of the things I've learned is that the RPF and its members, are a community, and we should try to support each other, as a community. Just because one type of prop isn't as popular as the other, as you said, doesn't make any difference when it's stolen and used and abused by someone else. :cheers
Nice. Now if your answer actually "held any water" you might have a point.
And by your own logic, since you are posting here with us "criminals" and are apparently a prop-builder yourself, doesn't that make you an accomplice?
If that's the case, you have one of two choices here:
A) Stop complaining, because as an accomplice you have no moral high ground.
or
B) Go away and stop complaining, because you cannot be amongst us and maintain your supposed moral high ground.
hoggworks
Well-Known Member
Two things:
1) Why do you think an email from a random address would be convincing as coming from a lawyer?
2) Pretending to be a lawyer is illegal in a lot of different places...
- - - Updated - - -
Many people seem to be pointing to the fact that Lucas, Marvel and others encourage fans making props/costumes of their favourite characters for their own enjoyment, and extending that to all actions taken with them. This doesn't hold water when money gets involved. While it absolutely sucks that colorsuits stole from the OP, that doesn't mean that the OP is on solid ground while colorsuits isn't. Both are in the wrong. If the OP made a one-of-a-kind suit and sold it, that would technically still be a violation of Marvel's intellectual property rights, but they'd probably let that go. But it seems like he's creating a product to sell, and Marvel gets to determine who has the right to sell Spiderman merchandise.
A thousand people making their own pepakura Iron Man suits is fan service; those people selling them is counterfeiting merchandise. The amount of work that went in to the counterfeit has no bearing on whether it was still illegal. Would you expect to be able to avoid penalties for stealing someone's car just because you spent 100 hours planning the theft, or that if someone else stole the car from you, you should be considered the victim, not the original owner?
Colorsuits taking someone else's work and selling it as their own is obviously crappy. My post does not in any way constitute an endorsement of them. But come on; many people in this thread are acknowledging that the OP acted shady, but somehow a theft of stolen property changes things.
As far as everyone who is saying "but he made the suit, and spent so many hours on it, so he has the right to this expression of the Spiderman suit" don't understand the law in this regard. Consider: You design and build a handbag. You spend a lot of hours figuring out the best cuts for the fabric, the way to make it as strong as possible, so you can make and sell them in large quantities. You do a lot of work on it, and it's a really good job. Then, before selling it, you make a "Marc Jacobs" log on it.
Also, to all the people saying "Marvel doesn't sell this product," they *DO* license costumes. That they don't make this exact costume in this exact way doesn't mean they wouldn't be in the right if they chose to take the sellers down (which they could do without impacting cosplayers on the whole, incidentally; the standard would be your making a profit off of it). That line of reasoning would get you to thinking you could make your own product for sale called an iPod that looks like Apple's iPod just because you offer it with a storage capacity Apple currently doesn't. For copyright, the issue is one of brand confusion: whether or not a customer might be confused by product A, and think it is product B, or by the company that makes product B. A quick perusal of the available Spiderman costumes for sale on eBay, which includes some Zentai affairs, doesn't exactly lead people saying "this is my one-of-a-kind Spiderman suit I built and am selling." Rather, many seem to be being sold in quantity, by people purporting to be real and proper companies. Marvel may be taking these folks down slowly, or not doing it for fear that they'll appear to be attacking the fans, but it's their legal right to pursue action or not; it's nobody else's legal right to sell said products.
This site is a great resource, and I love being able to see so many talented, passionate people making such great work. So my response isn't meant to be denigrating anybody for their fandom in any way.
(Apologies if this is a double-post: I got logged-out mid composition)
StaggzCosplay
Sr Member
Well, I wasn't planning on pretending to be a lawyer, but making an email with the title "Marvel" in it, and then kindly asking him to stop that it's illegal may actually do something. Rather or not it's likely to work, it IS worth a try.
StaggzCosplay
Sr Member
Woah woah woah, I just read this, and unfortunately, you are somewhat right. Seeing as this is where problems come into play, I have a very easy fix.
Have you guys ever been to any of the big cities where they sell toys on the side of the road? Really cheap toys that look just like popular characters? Well, have you noticed that although the toy looks exactly like a character, the box says that it isn't that character. Like, a spider-man figure may be called "The Spider" or something stupid like that.
There's your fix to your legal problems. Base it off of the character, but don't advertise it as that character. Then, you have a right to sell it. No one can "prove" that it's Spider man, or Batman, or whomever, due to the fact that even though it looks exactly like it, you may name it something completely different.
ManitobaMando
Well-Known Member
Nope. Will not fly in a court of law. This is not a fix. Why would you even suggest this? Those side of the road people are issuing bootlegs. Which, as you can guess, is copied product from licensed merchandise on a different packaging. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
That being said, we (those of us who do try to reproduce costumes and props by visual references or other) are all infringing on copyright and trademark, but lots of us do so for personal use, not to make a commercial product for sale, and that is when lines blur on behalf of people who will take advantage of digital files sent to them through the sale of (or in trust) for fabric printing. There really isn't a way to secure a PDF file as you don't want a watermark, and the file needs to be clean for printing, so what, really can one do? You cant password protect it because the printer will need said password to access the print function. In this regard, it IS a risk a person has to take and have their own work pirated.
There really is no way to stop it, other than to simply spread the word and have the community boycott those who do take advantage of others work. This in of itself is only going to help marginally, as ebay or any other kind of online auction or sales or e-commerce sites are not going to be doing due diligence to do background checks on the millions of users.
I feel for folks who put a lot of hard work into their digital creations and it sucks that others will take advantage of it, but it is a risk we all take when we make something for commercial intent based off an-others IP.
Last edited:
StaggzCosplay
Sr Member
So if that doesn't work, then why haven't the people who sell these products gotten in trouble?
And no, they are not bootlegging products because they are making their own products based off of the look of something. It's no where near "copying" a product from a mold and then calling it their own.
ManitobaMando
Well-Known Member
Then you and I are talking different things. A Star Wars figure, obviously a bootleg and sold cheaper than what most retail does, exact in every way from the licensed retail figure, but named different and on different packaging, is infringement based on likeness alone, wether made from an original mold or not. Bootleggers do get nailed for it sooner or later, usually due to reporting it to the right people. So do prop makers and costume replicators when it is sold on a scale large enough to garner attention.
Telling someone to simply change the name of the suit they create and sell to avoid legal issues is misleading. LIKENESS is still covered under the holder of said copyright.
To answer your question, as to why there are not people getting into trouble over copyright infringement (that we are aware of on a large scale) is due to the fact that there is no real heavy duty enforcement for it, otherwise we wouldn't be here on a public forum board discussing our various builds or having information handed over to officials who sell on the Junkyard. As I mentioned before, there are more people who create for personal use than there are people who create and replicate for monetary purposes. Those who do make copies of their work for financial gain, do not make enough for them to be a blip on the original copyright holders. Those who do get noticed, usually get a simple C and D order to begin before it gets serious.
Take into consideration that a person can change their online identity, create a false address to hide tracks and a possible paper trail, etc. and add to that, the fact that many transactions in purchasing props or costumes is done online, and you literally have a nightmare and near impossible time to try to hold accountability. The logistics to doing so are near impossible to enforce or regulate, which is why, and it needs to be repeated, that if you create for monetary gain in this type of environment, you take the risk of having your work copied and sold. Until there are regulations in place we can only police ourselves in the community and spread the word.
Last edited:
DeathFromADesk
Active Member
Those who do sell counterfeit merchandise DO get in trouble...
Queens Crap: Counterfeit Angry Birds toys seized
From the article linked above...
"Ying Jiang, 38, Deqiang Luo, 49, and Haiwei Chen, 54, were charged with first-degree trademark counterfeiting, a crime that could net the trio up to 15 years in prison, the DA's office said."
Hit the nail on the head. The people re-producing and selling stuff in the Junkyard and etsy and eBay aren't really big enough to get noticed.
Orhadar has every right to be upset that his work was stolen, but sending a fake C&D letter will likely cause more trouble than anyone needs. If you think that colorsuits would never know, you'd probably be wrong. They have likely read every post in this thread.
The best bet is to spread the word, report the eBay auctions as deceptive, and send emails to Colorsuits, letting them know that the cosplay and prop communities know they are a bunch of lying liars. Hit them in the wallet, and they'll get the hint.
An added thought:
Is there a thread that lists known recasters, pattern thieves and what not? If not, perhaps one should be created?
StaggzCosplay
Sr Member
I don't know, but if not, I personally believe that one should be created.
While I also support that idea, it would probably not provide more than a false sense of security since, if the info was available to everyone, the recaster would simply use the sock puppet route. The other problem is that the RPF would bear the responsibility if the information later turns out to be false. They would spend an undue amount of time seeking conclusive evidence. You can ban someone with less conclusive evidence but approach a red line with direct accusation which, if false, could be libel....at least in the USA. Unless I'm mistaken, libel and slander are criminal issues in other countries like Italy. Here, you just lose your home and income. Well, I'm done with this topic....got more important issues like making illicit props for myself....which I don't sell. Before I go, I should apologize for being critical of the "whining" about recasters.....was having a bad day and it is certainly the right of anyone to do so, regardless of my opinion on that. That said, I think it is obvious what risk you create when you release digital files of your work. I suspect there has been way more sharing of that file than this blatant theft and probably, regardless of the Colorsuits people, the under the radar sharing will doubtless go on for years.
There's so much misinformation about trademark laws in this thread. (most coming from one or two members) Guys, if you don't actually know IP law, don't go making claims, you're just adding to the confusion.
Here are some basics just to clear some things up:
-A specific comic cell IS copyrighted
-If you replicate that and sell it, you are infringing.
-Spidey's chest emblem is trademarkable, as it is a specific logotype.
-The name "Spider-Man" is trademarked, however like generic brands, saying something like "compare to the ingredients in Purell" or "compare to the design of Spider-Man" is not an infringement and serves as a point of comparison.
-A drawing of a suit however is different from a physical suit. And a physical suit inspired by drawings is a much harder case since the drawings will naturally vary and the two things are actually separate. It's not impossible to make a claim against someone in this case, and all that's needed is enough time and money.
And ANYONE who believes that the creators here are to the studios what the recasters are to us really need to retread the rules you agreed to when you registered here.
Now can we get back to not feeding the trolls?
-Nick
Here are some basics just to clear some things up:
-A specific comic cell IS copyrighted
-If you replicate that and sell it, you are infringing.
-Spidey's chest emblem is trademarkable, as it is a specific logotype.
-The name "Spider-Man" is trademarked, however like generic brands, saying something like "compare to the ingredients in Purell" or "compare to the design of Spider-Man" is not an infringement and serves as a point of comparison.
-A drawing of a suit however is different from a physical suit. And a physical suit inspired by drawings is a much harder case since the drawings will naturally vary and the two things are actually separate. It's not impossible to make a claim against someone in this case, and all that's needed is enough time and money.
And ANYONE who believes that the creators here are to the studios what the recasters are to us really need to retread the rules you agreed to when you registered here.
Now can we get back to not feeding the trolls?
-Nick
StaggzCosplay
Sr Member
If there was a way to stand up and clap for you over the internet, I would do so.....
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY.
And as you said, Spider Man's chest emblem is copyrighted, but, Orhadar's suit uses an emblem that looks to me like it was made by him.
So now, I have all this that you said to back up my point... Thanks again for looking out for the honest guys :thumbsup
So, as I said before, would my idea work of saying NOT calling it a Spider Man suit OR using Spider Man's Emblem? Marvel can't own the rights to a suit that technically original, but based off of theirs can they?
Ps: Yeah, I don't know anything about any legal laws, so that's why I just went along with what other members tell me on this thread, thinking they probably know their stuff if they're saying it.
ManitobaMando
Well-Known Member
I do not think anyone here is in disagreement to this. Its more to the point that making patterns in a digital format for sale in any capacity runs the risk of having the work put into it resold by another, and not being able to do much about it legally.
ManitobaMando
Well-Known Member
Its really not hard to look up copyright, likeness and trademark law. In this day and age, there's lots to read and it changes constantly. At the end of the day, it still boils down to the basic rule of thumb. If you are re-creating to such an extent that the product is a near exact copy of a copyrighted property, you are infringing by using such for monetary gain unless you have permission. It's that simple, which is why in this case, the OP does not really have a legal leg to stand on, and has put word to the community for his work being stolen and sold elsewhere. As I said before, the community will need to police this.
yoopees
Well-Known Member
That is actually very true, look at SYFY's new series "cosplay heroes" or whatever poop they call it! There is a legal battle with photographers and SyFy because they are using the pictures without the photographers permission and there is also a battle against them regarding the costume belongs to "insert designer/artist here" not sure if they dropped or not, but it has been around the web.
that being said, there isn't much legally anyone can do since we are technically copy writing their source materials via cosplay. Only way is to "police" by word of mouth, facebook, twitter, and any social media outlet.
