Skate Book Being Sued For Bart Simpson Feature

[ticklefingers]

"First the bad news, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and its related entities (collectively "Fox") is sueing Skatebook for paying tribute too and turning Bart Simpson Pro, illustrating him ripping the most famous spots in skateboarding's history. So more than likely Skatebook is a wrap because of the legal fees and cost this suit will bring down on this non profit dig. Second if your selling this classic book Fox is demanding it be pulled from the shelf's and destroyed or else.

But the good news is, your classic edition of "Skatebook Lance Mountain Edition" will surely go up in worth, it will probably be worth more then the coveted Cardial cover book that has recently been sold for 240 bucks on Amazon.com

We will keep everyone posted on the case, pray for us that we can somehow survive the wrath of the Fox Intellectual Property Department, they seem to think Skatebook is a big company with deep pockets.

From the entire Skatebook staff, (meaning me, myself and I)

Thanks for your support, Mike Ballard"

[fulfillthedream]

this came out like 2 years a go? and they are suing them now? weird.

[bakedRice]

wow ive never heard of skate book but i really really want one now. those pictures are so rad.

fuck fu fox.

[highgrade]

Fuck i had like 2 of those skatebooks, dont know here they are now though

[grimcity]

Fair use.

[pollutedvision]

Bluntside el toro? or Back Tail? Is he goofy or regs?

[svilleantigo]

Someone should sue Fox for the last 10 years of the Simpsons.

Amazing photos, by the way.. first time I've seen em.

[skate_bored]

its kind of fucked and ironic that almost every episode of the simpsons uses somebody elses "likeness". not to mention the fact that it is done in a joking manner, as is the simpsons television show.

[The Donger]

Bluntside el toro? or Back Tail? Is he goofy or regs?

Judging by the other tricks I'm guessing he's goofy. Switch flip Wallenberg, sick. Looks like backside noseblunt slide to me

[smokecrack]

wait, you could sue someone even if it's for a non-profit?

and how did they not know they didn't have the right to use Bart's image?

Grim, do you have anymore info on this?

[anblue]

Bluntside el toro? or Back Tail? Is he goofy or regs?

Judging by the other tricks I'm guessing he's goofy. Switch flip Wallenberg, sick. Looks like backside noseblunt slide to me

i thought fakie flip but still sick and noseblunt on hubbas abd so......

[Dishonest John]

Someone should sue Fox for the last 10 years of the Simpsons.

[choke mayne]

suing pisses me off

[Josh McLaughlin]

simpsons did it. simpsons did it.

[buzz]

skatebook was/is dumb anyway. they still owe a lumpsum of money to photographers who's images were used in the articles. they deserve to be shut down either way.

[1dxxxx]

Mike Ballard is probably lying about it to sell the book. Once something is banned it is more in demand. Let it die.

[brent]

[MOUNTAIN]

What the? Matt Groening did the illustrations! This doesn't make any sense.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

What the? Matt Groening did the illustrations! This doesn't make any sense.

Is that true? That makes it a bummer, but Fox still has the right to license out the likeness of Bart, even if Groening gave the ok. I'm sure fox is the owner of the simpsons and just gives matt a cut.
Honestly, why the fuck would you put images of a cartoon you don't own the rights to in your mag/book without first getting permission.

And for those wondering, they obviously fucked up hard on this one. You can't simply decide to use an exact Bart Simpson in your magazine without getting permission. It's not fair use, its not a likeness thing, because Bart is a fictional and illustrated character. If you were allowed to just use images like that then you'd see all sorts of cartoons and logos all over the place in different shows, advertizing, restaurant menus, whatever.  But you only see it on some. Also, simpsons gear- there is bootleg shit, but that's obviously illegal, but companies make millions off of merchandising. If anybody could sell merchandise with a certain logo on it, then there would be no money in merchandising, and really, with shit like the simpsons, most of their money is made in merchandising and syndication, so if they see their shit on unauthorized merchandise, such as a feature in a coffee table book, they are definitely going to sue, and almost certainly will win.

[BuddyPal]

still cant believe Bart was overlooked for Leo for SOTY.

[MyUserName]

What the? Matt Groening did the illustrations! This doesn't make any sense.

Are you sure on this? If so, it's absolutely unorthodox not to have this little stamp of approval on each drawing:



I had a lot of images to choose from with the signature, but I felt like we needed some Maggie up in this bitch.

[buzz]

What the? Matt Groening did the illustrations! This doesn't make any sense.

Is that true? That makes it a bummer, but Fox still has the right to license out the likeness of Bart, even if Groening gave the ok. I'm sure fox is the owner of the simpsons and just gives matt a cut.
Honestly, why the fuck would you put images of a cartoon you don't own the rights to in your mag/book without first getting permission.

And for those wondering, they obviously fucked up hard on this one. You can't simply decide to use an exact Bart Simpson in your magazine without getting permission. It's not fair use, its not a likeness thing, because Bart is a fictional and illustrated character. If you were allowed to just use images like that then you'd see all sorts of cartoons and logos all over the place in different shows, advertizing, restaurant menus, whatever.  But you only see it on some. Also, simpsons gear- there is bootleg shit, but that's obviously illegal, but companies make millions off of merchandising. If anybody could sell merchandise with a certain logo on it, then there would be no money in merchandising, and really, with shit like the simpsons, most of their money is made in merchandising and syndication, so if they see their shit on unauthorized merchandise, such as a feature in a coffee table book, they are definitely going to sue, and almost certainly will win.

because the dude is DUMB. tried to get away with not paying atiba for photos. how the fuck that even crosses someone's mind is beyond me. screwing atiba...!?!

[juja]

What the? Matt Groening did the illustrations! This doesn't make any sense.

Is that true? That makes it a bummer, but Fox still has the right to license out the likeness of Bart, even if Groening gave the ok. I'm sure fox is the owner of the simpsons and just gives matt a cut.
Honestly, why the fuck would you put images of a cartoon you don't own the rights to in your mag/book without first getting permission.

And for those wondering, they obviously fucked up hard on this one. You can't simply decide to use an exact Bart Simpson in your magazine without getting permission. It's not fair use, its not a likeness thing, because Bart is a fictional and illustrated character. If you were allowed to just use images like that then you'd see all sorts of cartoons and logos all over the place in different shows, advertizing, restaurant menus, whatever.  But you only see it on some. Also, simpsons gear- there is bootleg shit, but that's obviously illegal, but companies make millions off of merchandising. If anybody could sell merchandise with a certain logo on it, then there would be no money in merchandising, and really, with shit like the simpsons, most of their money is made in merchandising and syndication, so if they see their shit on unauthorized merchandise, such as a feature in a coffee table book, they are definitely going to sue, and almost certainly will win.

well put...

but seriously who drew them?

[grimcity]

It's fair use because it's satire... the images are all based on photos, and Ballard isn't trying to sell this as a Simpson's book so there's obviously no market confusion. I posted a link on his FB page to a summary of Mattel v. Walking Mountain Productions:
http://danfingerman.com/dtm/archives/000171.html

Also, just look up Tom Forsythe and Barbie on Google... it's definitely debatable in court.

[Lenny the Fatface]

I got that issue of skatebook, yay me.

[Edward Sebastian]

it's definitely debatable in court.

yeah, but you have to actually have the money to take it to court, i think that's the problem

[buzz]

not saying that twentieth century fox is ALWAYS right, but i'm pretty sure they have grounds to make skatebook suffer. the lawyers they have are probably the best ones money can buy, aka, they know what the fuck they're doing. skatebook used bart simpson in  a (nationally?) distributed book. there's no way they could even put up a fight.

the only debatable issue is whether they'll take action on ballard himself. it's a small group of people (just him?). it could do a lot to their image if they absolutely bulldoze one dude and throw him in to be forever indebted to them.

[Beer Keg Peg Leg]

rupert murdoch hates skateboarding.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

It's fair use because it's satire... the images are all based on photos, and Ballard isn't trying to sell this as a Simpson's book so there's obviously no market confusion. I posted a link on his FB page to a summary of Mattel v. Walking Mountain Productions:
http://danfingerman.com/dtm/archives/000171.html

Also, just look up Tom Forsythe and Barbie on Google... it's definitely debatable in court.

What were they satirizing?
With the barbie thing, barbie is a cultural icon of training women to strive for a certain feminine role from a young age, its a satire on that. He is criticizing barbie as a cultural icon.
Bart as a skateboarder is not satirizing bart as a skateboarder, its copying it.

[Belligerent Irish Cop]

What the FUCK is skatebook?