Forum:Takedown Notice from Mattel
Hello Uncyclopedia,
On March 14th we received a DMCA takedown notice from the company Mattel. In their notice (which can be made available to you in full by talking with an admin) they claim that File:Fisher_Price_logo.png infringes on their copyrighted logo for their Fisher Price brand of children's toys.
This is a serious legal issue and if we mishandle it, it could end badly. We are not lawyers, and the closest thing to lawyer any of us know is one of our users who is a law student. None of us can afford to pay a lawyer. If you or anybody you know is a lawyer or otherwise well versed in copyright/internet law, please contact your nearest admin.
Our defense is that the image is a parody used on a non-commercial comedy website and is thus protected as fair use. We have never used the image for commercial gain, only for parody. Due to this and the essentially frivolous nature of the takedown notice, it is possible that Mattel will back down after our initial reply, which we will be making in the next few days.
In the interest of transparency we will be keeping the community updated on this case as it develops, both here on the Village Dump and on IRC.
Love, The Uncyclopedia "Legal" Team
-- The Zombiebaron 02:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
-- RAHB 02:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
-- ~ BB ~ (T) 
~ Wed, Mar 19 '14 2:46 (UTC)
-- Kip the Egg 
Talk Works 02:47, Mar. 19, 2014
-— Lyrithya ༆ 02:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Important Note: until further notice, please don't embed the image on any more pages than it already has been. Thanks.
- In a concise e-mail, cite every fair use policy covering parody usage. In addition to this, I suggest we take down Fischer Price for now. We need to end this fast, because copyright laws are a convoluted clusferfuck of insanity. Appease them for now without fully giving in. -- 03:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Er what? I ... that's not 'not fully giving in', that's 'giving in a bit off to the side'... – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 03:47, 19 Mar 2014
- Ten words: "Whose clit I gotta lick to make this dissa pear" --Argylesocks (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Copyright is SRS BSNS. -- 04:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- The file in question, File:Fisher_Price_logo.png, isn't their logo, and what we can do is tell them that if they persist in their frivolous complaint (and of course lawyers will always persist, wanting to rack up the hours and fuck their clients over, so go to the company itself) we will get the press involved. This is one of our honored articles, it is parody and we would win easily, but the legal costs are too prohibitive for court so we will fight it out on the internet and in the press. Or we can change the file and make it three swoops on the bottom and not four, which thus changes their beef without anyone really noticing that it's not the same. Giving in means the toy terrorists win. Aleister 19:49 19-3-'14
- P.S. And the original article doesn't even use the file. So why was that redirected? Are you guys saying that they are complaining about the name itself, or the logo on the file?
- The complaint is about their copyrighted awning design (the part of the Fisher Price logo that isn't the words) -- The Zombiebaron 20:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is great news! It means we have reached the corporate world! High powered execs have foregone their usual wanks and come straight here for stress relief... Fashionable young interns gather around the water coolers to gossip about the latest features... And managers visiting from out of town test the water with their colleagues by making cryptic remarks to yuckie doodies. In all seriousness, let's just take it down. It's not funny, nor key to the article, and we could simply take a vow to making a number of articles attacking Mattel. Leverage (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well we do have a fair use rationale, though, isn't it? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 21:51, 19 Mar 2014
- So the original article Fisher Price isn't in question, so I guess that can be put back (wikia still has it up). As for the awning, maybe someone can just tatochop a new one with three loops at the bottom instead of four, or change the dimension a little. That should keep the bears away, and if they persist after that - publicity is our friend. As for doing a page on Mattel, ask them to take a look at Boone's Farm or Rolex or John Scherer. hehehehehehea Aleister 23:02 19-3-14
- p.s. just checked, wikia removed the logo sometime in January, so Mattel is just getting around to us. I'd go with the phtochop label and a stern letter to them telling them to lay off.
- So the original article Fisher Price isn't in question, so I guess that can be put back (wikia still has it up). As for the awning, maybe someone can just tatochop a new one with three loops at the bottom instead of four, or change the dimension a little. That should keep the bears away, and if they persist after that - publicity is our friend. As for doing a page on Mattel, ask them to take a look at Boone's Farm or Rolex or John Scherer. hehehehehehea Aleister 23:02 19-3-14
- Well we do have a fair use rationale, though, isn't it? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 21:51, 19 Mar 2014
- This is great news! It means we have reached the corporate world! High powered execs have foregone their usual wanks and come straight here for stress relief... Fashionable young interns gather around the water coolers to gossip about the latest features... And managers visiting from out of town test the water with their colleagues by making cryptic remarks to yuckie doodies. In all seriousness, let's just take it down. It's not funny, nor key to the article, and we could simply take a vow to making a number of articles attacking Mattel. Leverage (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- The complaint is about their copyrighted awning design (the part of the Fisher Price logo that isn't the words) -- The Zombiebaron 20:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- P.S. And the original article doesn't even use the file. So why was that redirected? Are you guys saying that they are complaining about the name itself, or the logo on the file?
- The file in question, File:Fisher_Price_logo.png, isn't their logo, and what we can do is tell them that if they persist in their frivolous complaint (and of course lawyers will always persist, wanting to rack up the hours and fuck their clients over, so go to the company itself) we will get the press involved. This is one of our honored articles, it is parody and we would win easily, but the legal costs are too prohibitive for court so we will fight it out on the internet and in the press. Or we can change the file and make it three swoops on the bottom and not four, which thus changes their beef without anyone really noticing that it's not the same. Giving in means the toy terrorists win. Aleister 19:49 19-3-'14
- Copyright is SRS BSNS. -- 04:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer
My father and brother are lawyers, though, and I've worked as a paralegal for half my career, so I have some dim understanding of the law. But I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
Parody law is complicated and basically a huge grey area. There is no clear bright-line standard for what's parody and what's infringement. In general, parody should 1) aim for comment or criticism, preferably but not necessarily of the original work; 2) contain sufficient originality to separate the original from the parody.
I don't think we have a problem on #2, but I think we do have a serious problem on #1, because - well, what comment or criticism is meant by the image? That's what the courts really try to figure out: what's the joke? Does the joke need to be told? Does the joke make any social commentary? Is the joke meant to criticize Fisher Price? Would our culture be diminished if we could not tell this joke in this fashion?
My understanding of the joke is that it's making fun of a particular vandal who chose a completely inexplicable pairing of subject matter and content. And my impression is that a court would likely not find that to be sufficient social commentary or principle to qualify as fair use. It doesn't comment on a public figure or social trend or corporate practice - it just comments on some anonymous asshole from who-knows-where. And the "commentary" it makes is limited to basically drawing a picture of what his ridiculous pairing would look like in image form.
My two cents: I think if this case went to court, we might win it, and we might lose it, but even paying the filing fee to file a Reply would mean we'd lose more than we gain. I think we should get rid of the image. Not the article, just the image. Also, I don't think the image is very funny and I don't think the article suffers from its absence. 
pillow talk 17:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- So what you are saying in short might be "pick your fight", and that this one's not worth it. Possibly, or likely, or most definitely maybe. Is the original Fisher-Price back up yet, that's what counts in this donnybrook. Thanks Hyperbole (I miss Horace), for your backroom lawyerly advice. Aleister 22:24 20-3-14
- This all sounds plausible enough - haven't got a lot to say. I think whether the picture is funny is in the eye of the beholder though, and obviously whoever made it thought it was funny. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:31, 20 Mar 2014
- I know this argument wouldn't hold up under legal scrutiny, but they did just send us a notice to which any sane person would respond "go eat shit fuckers". They sorta-kinda made it a parody, themselves. (YES I KNOW. SEE MY FIRST SENTENCE.) ~ BB ~ (T)
~ Fri, Mar 21 '14 4:54 (UTC)
- At most we can very slightly change the background or make the shade of red more rouge like. We should also write an unnews about this now. --ShabiDOO 06:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm all for writing a million articles about this, but let's hold our fire until after they've decided whether they're going to sue us or not. -RAHB 19:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- We might be waiting a long time. The laws vary from state to state; they may have many years to decide whether to file a lawsuit. pillow talk 22:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- What'll you do if I vectorise the image and upload it? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:31, 24 Mar 2014
- What'll I do?? I'll, um, play Marvel Puzzle Quest Dark Reign. It's quite fun. pillow talk 23:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Good idea. Let's all just play Marvel Puzzle Quest Dark Reign until further notice. We won't be waiting indefinitely to bring up the gates, but we're going to probably wait a little while if we don't get a response before deciding whether we should start resuming eating shit fuckers as usual. We'd just like to be tactful for some duration of time so as not to incite someone's ire before we've got some idea of how Irisih they already are. -RAHB 23:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sure - but I didn't realise we had been eating the shit fuckers. I thought we were feeding them to Fisher Price or whatever. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 23:40, 24 Mar 2014
- Good idea. Let's all just play Marvel Puzzle Quest Dark Reign until further notice. We won't be waiting indefinitely to bring up the gates, but we're going to probably wait a little while if we don't get a response before deciding whether we should start resuming eating shit fuckers as usual. We'd just like to be tactful for some duration of time so as not to incite someone's ire before we've got some idea of how Irisih they already are. -RAHB 23:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- What'll I do?? I'll, um, play Marvel Puzzle Quest Dark Reign. It's quite fun.
- What'll you do if I vectorise the image and upload it? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:31, 24 Mar 2014
- We might be waiting a long time. The laws vary from state to state; they may have many years to decide whether to file a lawsuit.
- I'm all for writing a million articles about this, but let's hold our fire until after they've decided whether they're going to sue us or not. -RAHB 19:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- At most we can very slightly change the background or make the shade of red more rouge like. We should also write an unnews about this now. --ShabiDOO 06:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- I know this argument wouldn't hold up under legal scrutiny, but they did just send us a notice to which any sane person would respond "go eat shit fuckers". They sorta-kinda made it a parody, themselves. (YES I KNOW. SEE MY FIRST SENTENCE.) ~ BB ~ (T)
- This all sounds plausible enough - haven't got a lot to say. I think whether the picture is funny is in the eye of the beholder though, and obviously whoever made it thought it was funny. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:31, 20 Mar 2014
How about...
...we get a photochopper to change the four bottom-loop awning to three-loops or five loops, and make it a little longer, which makes it just an awning and not a symbol for Fisher Price. We then rename the file to "Red Awning with words on it" or something. It's then no longer the logo. Or just ditch it altogether. It's not very funny anyway, but it is part of a feature page which was one of the top 10 of the year. Solomon would have trouble deciding what path to go on this, and it's getting kind of boring typing things about it. Aleister 3:01 20-3-14
- Bleh? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 03:09, 21 Mar 2014
Are the dildos safe?
Leverage (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, considering dakimakuras are a no-no... -- Kip the Egg
Talk Works 08:18, Mar. 25, 2014
Heaps better idea
Just pass him a joint and tell him to chill the fuck out. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 
10:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- No trap yaoi? -- 04:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Worked for Lawyers before
Now then I worked for lawyers before I went crazy. I used to design the software they used and I had to learn legal terms (Black's Law Dictionary) and the term in use for this is 'Trade Dress' in which one product or logo looks like another. For example the eMachines One PC looked too much like an Apple G3 iMac, and Apple had sued eMachines over 'Trade Dress' and won and they had to stop making it and pay Apple a boatload of money. Later on Apple changed the design of their iMac to look like a lamp or something with a LCD screen on it. But it doesn't matter because nobody can copy that original G3 iMac design Steve Jobs (Who is a saint now, because he died of AIDS after stealing Unix from AT&T Bell Labs and ripping off Dennis Ritchie and filing IP patents for all of the Unix IP Apple stole and claimed to be original, which only proves that if you can afford high priced lawyers you can get away with anything even a 1971 operating system named Unix that powers your smartphones renamed as iOS in 2007). Whew, anyway just change the logo to turds instead of curves or something like that make it brown instead of red. My advice to any lawyer representing Mattel in this action "Go Eat Shit Fuckers!" because they most likely work at that law firm that fired me when I got sick in 2001. Orion Blastar (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- I betcha Puppy could do a great gif of the design (not the logo itself, which would be wrong, but everything about it) in some form or other, a gif we could be proud of and show off. Aleister 14:03 25-3-14
- And I could do an svg. This kind of stuff is best vectorised anyway. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 14:41, 25 Mar 2014
TAKEDOWN! OH NOZ
--ShabiDOO 10:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE
So, we've drafted and sent our reply to Mattel. Until this situation is resolved, we've temporarily deleted the image. We hope to have it back up, after they realize it's protected under fair use/parody/non-commercial. Stay tuned for the results. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Thu, Mar 27 '14 0:17 (UTC)
- I see. Who, may I ask, is this we you speak of? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 02:08, 27 Mar 2014
- The image was taken down. What incentive does Mattel have to do anything other than say "Good. Don't put it back up or we'll sue you"? pillow talk 02:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with Hyperbole. This seems like we're giving in. I think there should have been a vote, or something, but this...seems wrong. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 03:14, 27 Mar 2014
- No... This is wrong... -- 00:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with Hyperbole. This seems like we're giving in. I think there should have been a vote, or something, but this...seems wrong. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 03:14, 27 Mar 2014
We're most certainly giving in. Change the colour and alter the shape of the logo slightly. There's nothing they can do about it if it's altered. --ShabiDOO 09:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- "We" is the list of people up at the top who helped draft the reply, as well as others. As for why... it seemed like a bad idea to poke the bear. I have no idea what Mattel's gonna do, but if they insist we can't use the image, we're gonna replace it with a cartoon of Mattel's entire board of directors sucking hobo cocks (or something worse). This is not an idle threat, btw. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Fri, Mar 28 '14 18:23 (UTC)
- I thought that this fork was supposed to bring an egde to uncyclopedia and freedom. Because of one serious worded letter from Matel (and be sure they'll ask us to take it down) we're going to take down an essential image from one of our most important articles? --ShabiDOO 18:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I feel the exact same way as you do. If I had a dime (or a free lawyer) I would fight this all the way to the Supreme Court. You got any money, though? ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Fri, Mar 28 '14 20:52 (UTC)
- I thought we wanted publicity, and poking the bear was a good way to get publicity or something. Then I thought the community at large were supposed to leave the decision up to the nonexistent cabal and stop butting in. Now...I'm not sure what to think. I'm probably still wrong, though whether I'm more or less wrong remains to be seen. Or something. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 20:58, 28 Mar 2014
- I can't really defend deleting it without holding a vote, but two people advised temporarily deleting it, I fucking hate lawyers, and I really didn't need a lawsuit right now. If you all want to get pissed off at somebody, go ahead and get pissed off at me. Buck stops here. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Fri, Mar 28 '14 21:55 (UTC)
- Also, @shabidoo: The strongly-worded letter from Mattel said "Take it down" already. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Fri, Mar 28 '14 22:01 (UTC)
- I don't care enough to get pissed off. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:27, 28 Mar 2014
- Yikes, no one is angry with you BB. When were you ever blamed for anything? It's simply sad compromising like this...that's all. --ShabiDOO 00:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- I know. That's life, I guess. A series of principle compromises until we don't have any left. And then we die. FU, humorless lawyers. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sat, Mar 29 '14 1:09 (UTC)
- I don't care that much about this one either, but hopefully we won't make a habit of it. There will be one where we should draw the line, and then draw a circle, and a nice kitten with whiskers. And a sun over a house, with mommy and daddy out front. The line is a fickle thing, but we should draw it real purty sometime. Aleister 1:48 29-3-14
- There is a child in each one of us, but all too often it is unable to talk, silenced by the layers of dull grey adulthood that have formed around it. If the inner children could talk to each other, the world would be a different place; but in fact they cannot, so we get the impression that they are 'humourless lawyers', when they would probably much rather escape from that state, though no single one of them can step outside the box for fear of the others getting in the way, and so they must stay in the box. Such is life, such is necessity; such is the silence of our minds.
- Aw why can't I say stuff in a funny way. I'm just boring. I also failed miserably to express what I actually wanted to express, but then I usually do. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 02:17, 29 Mar 2014
- When I was reading it I thought it was beautiful. Then when I got to your last bit I thought it was sad and wanted to reach out to you by posting these comments. So just where did you go wrong in painting about a dozen pictures in one post? Nice writing, me thinks. Aleister 3:18 29-3-14
- Aww, thanks. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 03:33, 29 Mar 2014
- When I was reading it I thought it was beautiful. Then when I got to your last bit I thought it was sad and wanted to reach out to you by posting these comments. So just where did you go wrong in painting about a dozen pictures in one post? Nice writing, me thinks. Aleister 3:18 29-3-14
- I don't care that much about this one either, but hopefully we won't make a habit of it. There will be one where we should draw the line, and then draw a circle, and a nice kitten with whiskers. And a sun over a house, with mommy and daddy out front. The line is a fickle thing, but we should draw it real purty sometime. Aleister 1:48 29-3-14
- I know. That's life, I guess. A series of principle compromises until we don't have any left. And then we die. FU, humorless lawyers. ~ BB ~ (T)
- Yikes, no one is angry with you BB. When were you ever blamed for anything? It's simply sad compromising like this...that's all. --ShabiDOO 00:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't care enough to get pissed off. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:27, 28 Mar 2014
- I can't really defend deleting it without holding a vote, but two people advised temporarily deleting it, I fucking hate lawyers, and I really didn't need a lawsuit right now. If you all want to get pissed off at somebody, go ahead and get pissed off at me. Buck stops here. ~ BB ~ (T)
- I thought we wanted publicity, and poking the bear was a good way to get publicity or something. Then I thought the community at large were supposed to leave the decision up to the nonexistent cabal and stop butting in. Now...I'm not sure what to think. I'm probably still wrong, though whether I'm more or less wrong remains to be seen. Or something. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 20:58, 28 Mar 2014
- I feel the exact same way as you do. If I had a dime (or a free lawyer) I would fight this all the way to the Supreme Court. You got any money, though? ~ BB ~ (T)
- I thought that this fork was supposed to bring an egde to uncyclopedia and freedom. Because of one serious worded letter from Matel (and be sure they'll ask us to take it down) we're going to take down an essential image from one of our most important articles? --ShabiDOO 18:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- "We" is the list of people up at the top who helped draft the reply, as well as others. As for why... it seemed like a bad idea to poke the bear. I have no idea what Mattel's gonna do, but if they insist we can't use the image, we're gonna replace it with a cartoon of Mattel's entire board of directors sucking hobo cocks (or something worse). This is not an idle threat, btw. ~ BB ~ (T)