What was the outcome for this? Has their been a resolution?
Is it because he's a FORMER artist? As it's been said, what about those ameature or independent artists who do similar parodies and sell those? (Not an artist so don't know how common this is).
What's the difference between artists who do this and the 'fan art' you sometimes see for sale online (Except for its often been terrible fan 'art' versus the pro artists) in terms of eligibility to sell?
Lots of illegitimate items are printed and sold often from abroad back into the countries of origin (where the franchise is 'from) but rarely are people sued for it despite them clearly turning a profit.
After looking at the case link, I think his card captions are funnier but unfortunately he can't copy their style EXACTLY even if he was an ex-artist of theirs.
A bit like if you worked for a famous guitar company then set up your own using their styles for guitar neck and body shapes which are patented and copyrighted designs.
If he'd been a bit more original and not out right parody he might have avoided this lawsuit.
Posts: 937 | Location: UK | Registered: December 21, 2005
Lots of things happening under the radar it seems. I can't wait for the next major update. From a website on the case it looks like his claim that Topps is infringing on his designs might pass which means that Topps now has something to lose in the case.
Posts: 9 | Location: VA | Registered: November 03, 2017
I still don't understand how legally, certain artists can produce their own cards depicting Star Wars and Marvel characters, and sell them at shows like San Diego and on ebay, and get away with it. I'm not talking about sketches, but painted images which are for the most part, very good and professional looking.
And these are not overseas produced cards, but stuff made right here in the USA.
Posts: 4211 | Location: NY | Registered: August 03, 2010
I don't understand the idea behind giving artists blanks to use as they wish or somehow letting the blanks get out the door. These are blank sketch cards that are the same ones as used for the products and the completed sketches can't be identified as not coming straight from the product, which may have had restrictions on the images available to be used.
Anybody can draw anything on these blanks and there is no way to say its not licensed. Blank sketch cards are being actively sold you know where and apparently its fine with the license holders because its out in the open and no one is objecting.
Some could even be erased pencil sketches advertised as blanks. But still no one objects.
I have no idea about this case, but in general, license holders should pursue copyright violations if it occurs, or else there is no point in spending the money to get a license and it all may as well be unlicensed. This message has been edited. Last edited by: Raven,
Posts: 10529 | Location: New York | Registered: November 20, 2007
This case is more about trademark defamation than copyright, I think using a font and design identical to Garbage Pail Kids is problematic. It's the entire reason Trademark exists.
Originally posted by Raven: I don't understand the idea behind giving artists blanks to use as they wish or somehow letting the blanks get out the door. These are blank sketch cards that are the same ones as used for the products and the completed sketches can't be identified as not coming straight from the product, which may have had restrictions on the images available to be used.
Because Topps pays artists $1-3 per sketch card. Artists only make money selling "proofs" from extra blanks they are given (no such thing for original art, proofs are for printed material only).
It's Topps and other manufacturer's way of not paying artists but having the collector do it instead.
So that's why so many blanks end up out there. Topps, and other companies business practices.
Originally posted by Studio-Hades: Would YOU work for $1 an hour?
I have heard that argument before and my answer is NO, I wouldn't take the job in the first place.
If an artist can not get more than $2 to make the premium hit that's going into a $90 box, he/she should decline. If an artist has to put his/her name to unacceptably poor art because they need to crank out too many sketches to make enough money, he/she should decline.
Artists have accepted the terms of employment because they get other compensation besides pay, like artist returns and blank cards. They also see it as a stepping stone to get their name out there for private commissions.
By all accounts TOPPS has always been cheap with the majority of sketch artists. It still doesn't stop the same artists from signing up though and that is their business. But the practice of releasing licensed blank sketch cards has long term consequences to sketch card collectors that neither the card companies or the artists care about.
Posts: 10529 | Location: New York | Registered: November 20, 2007
This lawyer seems to be following the case closely. Diaz has counter claimed saying that Topps has infringed some of his designs so he turned it around on them now. What do you think about that?!
Originally posted by Ana Napoles: What do you think about that?!
Just curious why you are so interested in this case -- seems like you signed up just to post about this case (registered the same day this thread was created), and every post you've made on Card Talk has been in this thread.
Posts: 5484 | Location: Parts Unknown. | Registered: January 25, 2001
My boyfriend makes a line of space characters and sells prints in comic book conventions from time to time. There has been some restrictions on selling fan art online and in other places. I'm interested where this case is going generally because I used to buy some of the 2003 GPKs when I was in junior high. I've had some cards signed by Diaz and other artists. So I'm generally interested in what happens to him and other artists who try and make their own sets.
Posts: 9 | Location: VA | Registered: November 03, 2017
Originally posted by barobehere: Got to agree with Batman on this one. Some guy on twitter gives his opinion and you agree with it does not mean anything.
You are right, but the guy on twitter is also an attorney and he's agreeing with what a judge said about the law.
He was totally destroying Diaz in his first article. [URL=Article 1]https://www.cardboardconnection.com/law-of-cards-topps-garbage-pail-kids-parody[/URL]
Then he saw Diaz's counter claim. [URL=Article 2]https://www.cardboardconnection.com/law-of-cards-luis-diaz-vs-garbage-pail-kids[/URL]
He should make a new article with what's been happening lately.
Posts: 9 | Location: VA | Registered: November 03, 2017
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Raven, 
