Greg you need to patent your image.

[DarthIgnurnt]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like Greg put the fear of God into him. His newest auction doesn't have the money800 or fossilman pics.

[/ QUOTE ]

In his other auctions he uses the images of Lindsay Lohan, Angelina Jolie, and some Victoria's Secret model whose name I have understandably forgotten.

Not to mention that I don't suspect Aerosmith, Bon Jovi, and Calvin and Hobbes are getting their royalty checks from this guy.

Wow, he's just classic.

[utmt40]

Well thats good. I hate to see things like that but I will admit it was pretty funny.

Anyone selling poker shirts better come out with something bigger....like sizes XXXL and XXXXL judging by the many puffy poker players populating the tables across the country!

maybe i can get them to make t-shirts for my subway franchises.

[dynamite]

you should ask him for a free shirt greg. or else!

[Beer and Pizza]

Greg is obviously a public figure now. So let us compare him to other public figures. How do movie stars etc. control their image on the internet? Do you guys see these public figures on unauthorized t-shirts on eBay and elsewhere?

(I think politicians are out of luck when it comes to using their image - you see photoshopped images of them all the time)

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
You are correct, Burger King would definitely win for trademark infringement if they sued this clown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure about this? It seems to me that while realistically they would most likely be able to strangle the guy in litigation, they would not win if he could successfully argue that his use of the logo is in parody (e.g. years ago there was a baseball card company that made stickers of well-known products that were renamed to have certain connotations, usually gross (like a Ritz package named 'Rats' or some such). The manufacturers of the stickers were sued by a myriad of companies, and they won every time because their works were protected by the free speech protection of parody).

[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure about this?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm as sure as you can ever reasonably be about litigated matters.

[ QUOTE ]
they would not win if he could successfully argue that his use of the logo is in parody

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, with the term successful in there, of course you are right. However, I do not see his t-shirts as intended to parody Burger King, which is the key element of the parody exception to trademark infringement. His intent certainly appears to be to sell a product which people want to wear because they consider themselves into poker, not because they want to wear it to mock Burger King.

Of course, a stupid jury might buy into any theory, but I don't like this guy's chances in front of any even barely reasonable jury.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, with the term successful in there, of course you are right. However, I do not see his t-shirts as intended to parody Burger King, which is the key element of the parody exception to trademark infringement. His intent certainly appears to be to sell a product which people want to wear because they consider themselves into poker, not because they want to wear it to mock Burger King.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. According to the 1976 Copyright Act which covers this (despite the rather popular opinion that parody protection was instated after Larry Flynt's Supreme Court victory over Jerry Falwell):

[ QUOTE ]
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is by far the weakest point for the defense - it's a commercial use, and it's not obviously poking fun at Burger King (as opposed to say, some animal-rights nut wearing a shirt that says "Butcher King" in the same logo or something)


[ QUOTE ]
"(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what is meant by this that would be relevant to a ruling in the case, so I'll move on.

[ QUOTE ]
"(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion [ CAMPBELL v. ACUFF-ROSE MUSIC, INC., ___ U.S. ___ (1994) , 7] used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

[/ QUOTE ]

Here would be ironically a strong point for his case, since even though he uses 3/4ths of the logo's major components in his shirt, anything that uses the Burger King logo would have to use that much, or close to it.

[ QUOTE ]
"(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

[/ QUOTE ]

And here would be by far the strongest point of his case - there's no way any reasonable person would believe that a shirt sold on ebay to a total of three guys or whatever would have any impact on the effectiveness of Burger King's logo.

So while it's obviously not the most noble use of a logo, I wouldn't be so quick to bet against this moron if the matter were to go to court. On second thought, I would be quick to bet against him, seeing as how it's not very likely that a guy selling crappy, unfunny, unoriginal tshirts on ebay could afford a decent lawyer. But like Judge Pierre Leval said, "First Amendment protections do not apply only to those who speak clearly, whose jokes are funny, and whose parodies succeed."

Don't get me wrong, the guy is of course a total douchebag - I'm just talking minutiae here.

[TomCollins]

Haven't you seen those shirts that say "Drama Queen" in the Dairy Queen logo? I'm assuming those are fine.