I was curious how different the GB logo would need to be to be considered parody and not be sued? I know most of you are not lawyers, just looking for ideas. For instance, if you completely changed the face but kept everything else is it still the GB logo? Or perhaps changed the face and hands and had him holding something? How much different does it have to be do you think?
9 Likes
Assuming you are asking because you are going to be profiting off of the parody? If not, it really doesn’t matter.
Otherwise… redraw everything, and make it ALL look different.
Don’t duplicate anything from an original copy. IE. Don’t just copy the logo image, and then change the face.
From the research I have done it doesn’t “ALL” have to be different. For instance, I think if the hands were the same but everything else was different it would be “legal”. Or the shape of the head was the same but everything else was different. But I may be wrong.
I definitely think the red “no ghosts” image would need to be changed. That’s a huge part of the image and what makes it theirs. I was thinking of changing the red “no ghosts” image, change his arms, his face but keep the shape of his head. So the only thing that would remain the same is the outline of the head, everything else would be different and redrawn.
1 Like
Why not draw a whole new image and not worry about it? If you’re changing 99% of it, just change it all.
Why not explain why you need a logo that looks like it, but isn’t exactly it? It’d help us give better advice.
Give the ghost a mohawk and put it in a wheelchair. That ALWAYS works!
some people that want to make money on the franchise believe it only takes 10% to change the logo. that’s total bullshit, and you cant figure a percentage difference from something like that.
either way, people will still know the point that’s trying to be made and it will get you in trouble the more it looks like it.
If your question is “how different does it have to be to not get sued?” the answer is: if someone decides they really want to sue you, they can. And you can say “but.. but.. but.. it’s 74.39% different!” and it won’t matter. Another good question is, “how similar to the original does it have to be for them to sue me and win?” but that doesn’t matter either because the ONLY question you should be asking is “can I afford to mount a prolonged legal defense against a huge company?” If the answer is no, then you should shoot for 100% different.
Anyway, the powers that be have been pretty cool with letting us use the Ghostbusters IP (intellectual property) for our GB fan purposes. Let’s not potentially do anything to draw unwanted attention from lawyers, eh?
There is no percentage difference like most people think.
What you will want to look into is “Fair Use” and how a parody uses the fair use law to it’s advantage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody#Copyright_issues
If you ask me. The logo needs to be completely redrawn from scatch, and the ghost itself should be 100% different (and I don’t mean you just made it a different color, or moved it over a few pixels).
I know that the company that owned Casper the ghost sued Paramount over the logo and lost. The judge said “there are only so many ways to draw a ghost”. I don’t think Paramount would stand a chance suing based on the fact of the “ghost look”. I would redraw the entire thing I’m just saying a few small details would remain that looked like the original logo, but most of it would be different.
Not really worried about being sued if it was 80 percent different. They can only sue for loss or profit made unless they can prove defamation, like if the ghost was on toilet or something. Look at MAD magazine for example, they redid the ghost logo for their magazine. There are a few similar things like the red "no ghost " emblem and the shape of the head but the rest is different.
1 Like
How do you calculate the percentage of difference between two images?
Ghostbusters is owned by Sony, not Paramount.
You blatantly have no comprehension of the legal fine points regarding the logo, and despite your so-called “professional opinion”, you are obviously not a lawyer. Mad Magazine didn’t get sued because they put their own copyrighted content, the head of Alfred E. Neuman on the logo which applied under the fair use/parody allowance.
They didn’t, and weren’t attempting to make any money off of Sony’s Intellectual property.
Do not do whatever it is you’re planning to do with your variation the logo, as you have no understanding of the quagmire you could be walking into.
And the red “prohibition” symbol is not copyrighted by Sony, as it existed on road signs and other warnings prior to Ghostbusters.
Mad magazine didn’t’ make money doing a parody of Ghostbusters for their magazine?
The logo has been parodied for money many times. Just recently two porn videos “parodied” it and altered the logo. This is an example of what I am talking about. You know what the logo is originally but they changed it enough so that it is their own property. I am not reinventing the wheel, this has been done countless times.
I don’t think you understood what I was saying about the red prohibition symbol. My point was that by changing that it goes a long way into making it my own symbol. That is a major aspect of the logo, if that was gone or changed into something else it is much less like the original. I know they don’t own that particular shape.
I don’t think I ever used the words “my professional opinion.” But you are right I did want input into the “legal fine points regarding this logo” That’s why I asked the question on this board. I may be wrong, but you seem kinda angry about my question for some reason.
Thank you for the correction on Paramount.
1 Like
Also, what is so offensive or scary about my post that it has been “buried by the community”. I never advocated doing anything illegal. In fact that was the point of my post. How to create and image that is legal (like the mad magazine, porno, etc.)
Although not for profit, there are tons of altered logos on this site alone. I would think the discussion would be interesting to a lot of you.
I appreciate those that have responded.
2 Likes
Short answer: No matter how much you alter an image, if it can be reasonably traced back to someone elses’ property, and they have the penchant to come after you, they can. Even some of the more involved franchise patches floating around, even though wildly original and different would still be based on Sony’s IP; It’s just the fact that, for the moment, it’s not worth their effort to try to make a stink.
You are right, they could sue you if you had a bunny rabbit behind the red “no ghost” symbol. They wouldn’t win but they could sue you if they wanted. That is a risk I am willing to take. But I want it different enough that the odds of them suing / winning are slim to none.
Large companies don’t have to “win.” They just have to bankrupt you with legal fees.
And I think you miss the point. The “different enough” thing is a bit of a fallacy, since it’s all subjective. If ANY design you make can be reasonable attributed to being based on someone elses’ intellectual property, it can be a legal issue.
Since Sony doesn’t seem to mind in this particular case, what’s the point of worrying about it? If they haven’t pinned far more obvious examples to the wall, why would yours be an issue?
The whole trademark/Copyright thing has been discussed here so this might help you somewhat:
http://www.gbfans.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=23978&hilit=trademark
http://www.gbfans.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=21870&p=264516&hilit=trademark#p264516
http://www.gbfans.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=13880&p=140088&hilit=trademark
Awesome thank you.