They should of checked this out if it was alright to use it in the film then that would of been ok. it's not okay to maketheir own copies of it though. that breaks all kinds of copyright laws, very irresponsible of a big company, someone's going to get fired for that if they haven't already.

ok.... i dont' remember dreamworks ever selling these unless she's talking about the air fresheners folks got from botcon. all the ones i've saw weren't from botcon, existed before the movie, and weren't licensed by dreamworks. the woman should be thanking dreamworks, not suing them because on it's own it's pretty, well, stupid.

 

maybe they licensed some stuff i'm not aware of, but the only air fresheners i know of are the ones from botcon and the ones on ebay which have been around for a LONG time. there was even a website selling them in bulk somewhere.

Just to play devil's advocate...

 

Dreamworks should charge her advertising fees for product placement. They should counter-sue and the whole thing should be dropped. Even though they didn't get her permission, her design is getting plenty of exposure. Ask Nokia, PepsiCo, and Microsoft what they payed for their product placement. Without this movie, very few would even know her design, featured on the air freshener, even exists. I don't see how Dreamworks is responsible for a KO air freshener being sold by a vendor at a TF booth somewhere.

Misuse of intellectual property?

 

(BTW I read that the only thing that Dreamworks actually did to alter the air freshener was to remove its copyright info...lol...)

You are misunderstanding the point of copyright infringement.

 

Regardless of whether or not they only produced stuff for BotCon, they still produced it. Therefore, it is infringing on her copyright.

 

The article states she was at a trade show and found the same exact air freshener at a "Transformers" booth.

 

The fact that they are selling her air fresheners is infringing, and she deserves, no, entitled to getting a share of the revenue they get from selling them.

 

If the air freshener is nearly identical to the one Bumblebee has hanging from his rearview mirror, then she deserves royalty. Even more, they removed the copyright of her logo, which is also infringing.

 

So, regardless of how unpopular or stupid her product is, it still belongs to her. The fact DreamWorks is using it without the expressed consent of her is infringing on her design.

just jumped over to the post and read the full thing, she never saw it being sold a booth, just displayed. Also, weren't the air fresheners given out @ botcon and not sold?

 

either way the lawsuit just seems pretty frivolous to me, and i agree with what piggy said.

 

http://www.auctiva.com/hostedimages/showim...=0&format=0

 

those are the only air fresheners i've ever seen sold anywhere and they're clearly not sold by dreamworks and also have the copyright on them. those things have been selling like hotcakes since the movie came out, theres no way at all that being used in the movie has hurt her ability to market and/or move these items. dreamworks hasn't made a dime off her stuff, the movie would have done just as well without them.

 

i guess this means that whoever made the mirrorball hanging from bb's mirror should be compensated too :roll

If she has a valid registered copyright that was infringed, I believe she is at the least entitled to statutory damages (which can be up to $150k? maybe more now?), even if the infringer didn't make a penny or if she didn't lose any money (which would be compensatory).

If she has a valid registered copyright that was infringed, I believe she is at the least entitled to statutory damages (which can be up to $150k? maybe more now?), even if the infringer didn't make a penny or if she didn't lose any money (which would be compensatory).

 

sure, but how far are we going to take this copyright thing? all dreamworks did was display it in the movie.

just jumped over to the post and read the full thing, she never saw it being sold a booth, just displayed. Also, weren't the air fresheners given out @ botcon and not sold?

 

either way the lawsuit just seems pretty frivolous to me, and i agree with what piggy said.

 

http://www.auctiva.com/hostedimages/showim...=0&format=0

 

those are the only air fresheners i've ever seen sold anywhere and they're clearly not sold by dreamworks and also have the copyright on them. those things have been selling like hotcakes since the movie came out, theres no way at all that being used in the movie has hurt her ability to market and/or move these items. dreamworks hasn't made a dime off her stuff, the movie would have done just as well without them.

 

i guess this means that whoever made the mirrorball hanging from bb's mirror should be compensated too :roll

 

the ones that were given out at BotCon - were they the ones they bought from her? Or did DreamWorks produce them?

 

I for one do not know, so I'll present both possibilities.

 

If they were given out and they purchased it from her, there is no copyright infringement there.

 

If they reproduced them as they were basically hers and she didn't receive any money from the studio using her design, that is infringement.

Ask Nokia, PepsiCo, and Microsoft what they payed for their product placement.

......or Burger King ! :king