JFLNYC wrote:I’m glad people recognized him because he’s (wink, wink) so different.

Seriously, the standard for copyright infringement is substantial similarity. Could any reasonable person look at the “new” version and conclude that it’s not substantially similar to the old?

Plus, if we are to believe the Phils’ complaint, they have rights “forever” so they didn’t need to change the Phanatic. They’re undermining their own legal position by making the changes they did and then didn’t make enough changes to avoid infringement anyway!

SwingOnThis wrote:Remember when Jennifer Grey got a nose job and became unrecognizable and it killed her career?

Ace Rothstein wrote:

SwingOnThis wrote:Remember when Jennifer Grey got a nose job and became unrecognizable and it killed her career?

Who?

Ace Rothstein wrote:

SwingOnThis wrote:Remember when Jennifer Grey got a nose job and became unrecognizable and it killed her career?

Who?

JFLNYC wrote:

The Dude wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

Rockinghorse wrote:The shorter snout looks odd, but I honestly may not have noticed anything different if not for the publicity. Still can't believe this satisfies a copyright case, it's so trivial

It won’t. It’s a pathetically poor attempt.

You think they didn’t do their due diligence and figured out this would settle it? Genuinely interested in hearing more

There is no evidence the Phils consulted copyright counsel when they first had the Phanatic created, there’s no evidence they had competent copyright counsel when the deal was renegotiated in 1984 and, having read the complaint they filed in the case, their current counsel has what might kindly be referred to as an interesting grasp on the copyright issues in this case.

Frankly, judging by their decades-long history of how they’ve dealt with the matter there’s no evidence they have any idea what they’re doing from a copyright perspective. The changes they’ve made to the Phanatic would be like changing Scarlett O’Hara’s makeup, hat and shoes and claiming the movie was no longer Gone With the Wind.

cartersDad26 wrote:why not settle out of court and pay these folks a few million, keep the phanatic as is and move on?? i know it's not my money but it has to be peanuts in the long run.

heyeaglefn wrote:

cartersDad26 wrote:why not settle out of court and pay these folks a few million, keep the phanatic as is and move on?? i know it's not my money but it has to be peanuts in the long run.

Do we know they didn't try this?

JFLNYC wrote:

heyeaglefn wrote:

cartersDad26 wrote:why not settle out of court and pay these folks a few million, keep the phanatic as is and move on?? i know it's not my money but it has to be peanuts in the long run.

Do we know they didn't try this?

Based on public reports there have been talks. Based on the Phils’ complaint the team believes the $250k they paid
Harrison/Erickson 30+ years ago was enough.

WhiteyFan wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

heyeaglefn wrote:

cartersDad26 wrote:why not settle out of court and pay these folks a few million, keep the phanatic as is and move on?? i know it's not my money but it has to be peanuts in the long run.

Do we know they didn't try this?

Based on public reports there have been talks. Based on the Phils’ complaint the team believes the $250k they paid
Harrison/Erickson 30+ years ago was enough.

I need to know what Harrison/Erickson are asking before I can determine my level of outrage.

Seventh, in the alternative, in the event that the Court holds that H/E is somehow permitted to terminate pursuant to Section 203, H/E is liable to The Phillies for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment. H/E should not be permitted to retain all of the $215,000 paid to H/E in 1984 while at the same time terminating an agreement that H/E agreed would last “forever.” The portion of the $215,000 paid to H/E that reflects the value of the terminated copyrights from the date of termination to the expiration of the copyrights should be returned to The Phillies. It would be unjust for H/E to keep the full amount that The Phillies paid for a permanent assignment if the Phillies will have received the benefit of only a 35-year term.

"The Phillies lack of good faith in negotiating for an extension of the copyright assignment for the Phillie Phanatic is disappointing. But the unveiling of the so-called 'new' Phanatic on Sunday is an affront to our intellectual property rights and to Phillies fans everywhere.

"For more than 40 years, we have worked closely with the Phillies, making all the Phanatic costumes, providing artwork and ideas until June of 2018. The Phanatic has performed successfully for the Phillies and the city of Philadelphia for decades. The 'business decision' by the Phillies to roll out this 'new' Phanatic is a transparent attempt to deny us our rights under of the Copyright Act. We would love to have the real Phanatic continue with the Phillies."

BigEd76 wrote:Statement from Harrison/Erickson today:

"The Phillies lack of good faith in negotiating for an extension of the copyright assignment for the Phillie Phanatic is disappointing. But the unveiling of the so-called 'new' Phanatic on Sunday is an affront to our intellectual property rights and to Phillies fans everywhere.

"For more than 40 years, we have worked closely with the Phillies, making all the Phanatic costumes, providing artwork and ideas until June of 2018. The Phanatic has performed successfully for the Phillies and the city of Philadelphia for decades. The 'business decision' by the Phillies to roll out this 'new' Phanatic is a transparent attempt to deny us our rights under of the Copyright Act. We would love to have the real Phanatic continue with the Phillies."