Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ISMFOF123 t1_jcvqmxp wrote

So does someone get money for something like this? The inspiration is obvious

28

SoCalThrowAway7 t1_jcvvhk1 wrote

Idk if this woman could or not but I know Riot Games once lost a lawsuit because a World Cup theme skin they made looked too much like an actual player and copied some iconic part of his look or something. He sued them and won years after having acknowledged and having thanked riot for the tribute. Riot had to disclose how much money the skin had made so they could decide on a percentage cut he’d get. Internet tells me it was a Dutch court though so who knows how it’d go in the US

19

SongOfChaos t1_jcwio7g wrote

It should not have. The idea that the image for Edgar Davids’ likeness being the inspiration for the Lucian skin helped its sales or otherwise harmed Davids is absurd. He lost no money; I sincerely doubt his popularity affected the sale of the skin. But that’s my humble opinion.

Same mentality is probably why people in this *thread are asking if she’s owed money. Inspiration, homage, and references aren’t plagiarism or copyright infringement.

5

zamfire t1_jcyavtz wrote

Call of Duty got in trouble with a skin as well.

1

Lemesplain t1_jcvx8j1 wrote

Legally, no… unless this look is her trademark.

Compare Steve Jobs and his turtlenecks. If someone used that outfit for a character, there might be some money involved. But this lady probably has plenty of other outfits she wears regularly, none of which are tied to her identity.

6

machado34 t1_jcvzrpn wrote

>Compare Steve Jobs and his turtlenecks. If someone used that outfit for a character, there might be some money involved.

Nah, Glass Onion did it and it's at least covered by parody laws

12

ComputerSavvy t1_jcwnd6u wrote

> Compare Steve Jobs and his turtlenecks. If someone used that outfit for a character, there might be some money involved.

Why?

Steve Jobs would have to have previously applied for and been granted a trademark for his particular look which is not in any way "unique".

The purpose of trademarks is to make a clear distinction between one entity and another so they can be clearly identified as such.

Millions of people wear turtleneck sweaters, not making it unique and distinguishable enough from others to be trademarked.

Now if he dressed in a colorful, striped uniform similar in design to a Vatican guard on a daily basis, that would be very unique and it would probably have been granted trademark protection, bringing a whole new meaning to the word, trade dress.

2