[Waiting]

In another thread someone attached some pics of a t-shirt they'd done and was admonished for copyright violation (http://www.t-shirtforums.com/dye-sublimation/t862899.html). Since attachments aren't working I can't view the images, though one thumbnail does show (or it did, even that's gone, now). The design just says "The Incredible Dad" and the letters are made of some kind of cut up graphic.

I didn't understand what it violated so I binged "Incredible Dad" and now assume (yes, I know what I do when I "assume") it has something to do with the movie "The Incredibles" and the character "Mr. Incredible". Maybe there's something specific in the graphic from which the letters are made that relates it to the movie, or maybe that graphic was used in an advertising campaign, I don't know.

Are we not allowed to use the word "incredible"? I'm pretty sure "Mr. Incredible" was used long before Disney glommed on to it. Can we not use "Mister Incredible", or "My Incredible Dad", or "Mary's Incredible Dad", or "World's Most Incredible Dad", or a whole litany of other "incredible" things?

 

[kimura-mma]

You can use the word Incredible as long as it doesn't specifically relate to any existing trademarks like The Incredibles, The Incredible Hulk, etc.

 

[DrivingZiggy]

The image the guy posted showed The Incredible Hulk behind the letters. Also, seems like I also saw pretty much the exact image advertising the movie.

 

[Waiting]

Thanks for the replies. I could only see one of the two thumbnails and couldn't really make it out. I also don't pay much attention to movies anymore and haven't for a long time.

 

[DrivingZiggy]

Just be careful about copyright infringement. Marvel can afford the best lawyers to come after you!

 

[Waiting]

Do you think my "Amazing Bulk" superhero character will be a problem?

 

[DrivingZiggy]

Did you want to use me as your model? I'm ~340 pounds these days...

 

[Amw]

Do you think my "Amazing Bulk" superhero character will be a problem?

If it resembles the hulk in anyway it will be infringement.

 

[freebird1963]

Do you think my "Amazing Bulk" superhero character will be a problem?

That mostly depends on how what it looks like. Does it confuse the market place into thinking its a preexisting Marvel Character or that Marvel approved it ?
If it looks like the Hulk or could be confused with the Hulk then you should probably bury him deep in your backyard. And no just changing the color of the skin won't do it either.

 

[kanihoncho]

There is a grey area called "Parody". You have the legal right to make fun of something. You could conceivably create an "Incredible Bulk" tee in the style of Marvel . . . say with a very, very bulky, lets say blue, but you could stay with green . . hulk-like character. .

If taken to court it would depend on how the INDIVIDUAL judge feels about it. Some people win, some don't. If you wanted to go ahead with your tee and Marvel, or any other copyright holder for that matter, felt it was an infringement you usually receive a "cease and desist" letter from their legal firm first and that's the end of it . . . unless you continue to print the shirt.

 

[TABOB]

There is a grey area called "Parody".

Parody is not a grey area... It is a solid exemption.
However, it has to actually be parody. Just calling it parody will not do.

If taken to court it would depend on how the INDIVIDUAL judge feels about it.

No it doesn't. A parody is a parody.
for example, Meet the Spartans is a parody of the 300. The scenes, the costumes, and pretty much everything is very similar to the original, but they are used for ridiculing... Like the scene where the 300 look more like 10. https://youtu.be/RY-zJtYYolo?t=16


This is NOT parody. It is not ridiculing hulk in any way. It just implies that this dad, is like hulk, or whatever, and it is using a copyrighted image without permission. If the image was of a fat man painted green, there would be no issue.

 

[kanihoncho]

Many people over my lifetime have lost parody cases. It is a very grey area. This article goes on to describe some of the specific context.

"The courts have continually struggled with parody cases when ascertaining whether a particular parody falls within the parameters of fair use or is instead copyright infringement."

https://corporate.findlaw.com/intellectual-property/parody-fair-use-or-copyright-infringement.html

 

[TABOB]

Many people over my lifetime have lost parody cases. It is a very grey area. This article goes on to describe some of the specific context.

Tell me one such case .

 

[kanihoncho]

Here ya go, bigboy . . . parody losses and evidence of parody as a grey area for judges . . . there is a link below if you care like to read the legal article


1. That leaves five parody losses in the past twenty years, only two of which appeared in the twenty-first century.106 Dogan and Lemley also note a nonprecedential opinion at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board cancelling a parody mark.107

2. But whether the grand total over some four decades is twelve examples or twenty, that number is a tiny fraction of all parody cases . ..

3. Dogan and Lemley also state that “courts have struggled with the evaluation of parody under trademark law. While many trademark courts have protected parodies, there are a surprising number of cases that hold obvious parodies illegal.”

https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1626&context=faculty_articles

 

[TABOB]

First of all, five cases over 20 years, means that you have better chances winning the lottery.Second, because these 5 cases were "a grey area" themselves, does not make parody a grey area too. The document in your link says exactly what I've said. Just because you call it parody, it doesn't make it true.

The Court took pains to emphasize that fair use for parody did not mean that “anyone who calls himself a parodist can skim the cream and get away scot free.

Also, note this on page 8:

At least four of the other losing alleged parodists noted above also competed in the same market as the mark holder.

Doing this can still be parody, but it becomes dangerous, as you automatically loose one of the fair use factors (the effect of the use upon the potential market).
Just to be clear... When "parody" is used in the context of copyright, it refers to a "fair use exemption" using parody (the purpose and character of the work) as the main factor for the exemption.