Has anyone noticed this? Cant the curious george creators sue them for copyrighted material of some sort.
Has anyone noticed this? Cant the curious george creators sue them for copyrighted material of some sort.
intellectual properties maybe. if its a parody of said characters in questions no.
legal case Starbucks vs dumb Starbucks. by technicality dumb Starbucks won
by legal parodying Starbucks even having the almost the same exact name.
even down to the menu and items both shops had were and are the same.
except dumb Starbucks had the items on said menu cheaper.
I can't find said character on Google Image search. I'm going to assume the character's usage was minimal. Paradoying a character is perfectly legal and considered separate from profiting off their IP.
If I put a Coke logo on my product to trick people into buying it because they think they are supporting Coke, that is illegal.
If I put a Coke logo on my product to send a message about Coke (i.e. it's clear to the audience that I'm not personally affiliated with Coke, but just talking about them), that's legal.