Oolite Bulletins

Grrr...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/fire ... -crackdown

My wife has downloaded the hat's pattern from some Browncoat knitters on the 'net and is going to hand-knit me a hat out of protest!

The funny thing is, people who design clothes for a living don’t have this kind of “protection”. You need a TV show license for that.

JensAyton wrote:

The funny thing is, people who design clothes for a living don’t have this kind of “protection”. You need a TV show license for that.

Quite true - which is how the cheap end of the clothing market survives - by copying more expensive designs (not counterfeiting obviously, which is a different issue).

So, if you're going to design clothes - you make a short Internet-based TV show - feature the clothes and then issue a cease and desist via a lawyer because your merchandising rights are being violated...

The whole thing seems to be wrong on so many levels!

I find it quite hard to believe that anyone can claim any rights to those hats. Similar hats have been in use in Scandinavia and probably elsewhere since at least the sixties and seventies. I suppose they could claim something on that colour combination, which is, eh..., unique I guess.

The problem's not with the hat itself, it with selling it as specifically "Jayne's Hat" and including reference to the show in the advertising.

All they have to do is remove references to firefly and there isn't a problem. Call it a Joss Cap or something, I dunno.

I feel sorry for ThinkGeek as well. They've unthinkingly brought down a firestorm of hell on their own heads that isn't their fault - Fox Marketing are the culprits, once again bringing the boot down on the necks of the people that pay their wages.

Selezen wrote:

The problem's not with the hat itself, it with selling it as specifically "Jayne's Hat" and including reference to the show in the advertising.

All they have to do is remove references to firefly and there isn't a problem. Call it a Joss Cap or something, I dunno.

I feel sorry for ThinkGeek as well. They've unthinkingly brought down a firestorm of hell on their own heads that isn't their fault - Fox Marketing are the culprits, once again bringing the boot down on the necks of the people that pay their wages.

True, with regards ThinkGeek - but... what did they think was going to happen? They could not be so naive as to not know what Fox is like...

Gimi wrote:

I find it quite hard to believe that anyone can claim any rights to those hats.

Claiming is the operative word: they don't need to actually own the rights, or even think that they own the rights - but by making a claim, backed up by their giant team of lawyers, they hope to scare away anyone who might think about making and selling anything which might have the vaguest connection to their programmes, out of fear that they might lose some money they're not making anyway, or that someone else might make some money instead of them. Puritanism was once described as "the fear that somewhere, someone might be enjoying themselves". Much of modern rentier capitalism seems dominated by the fear that somewhere, someone might be enjoying themselves without having to pay for the privilege.

The law is being used here not as a means of arbitration or of finding out the truth, but as a threat to keep those with little money away from those with lots of it. Fox can afford the time and money to make a legal song and dance out of this: your average hat-knitter can't.

Who cares about Jane hats? What I want is a Intentionally-Badly-Knitted-Orange-And-Yellow-Hat-That-Totally-Has-Nothing-To-Do-With-Firefly Hat.

Hans Olo wrote:

Who cares about Jane hats? What I want is a Intentionally-Badly-Knitted-Orange-And-Yellow-Hat-That-Totally-Has-Nothing-To-Do-With-Firefly Hat.

Which is exactly what my wife is going to be knitting for me!

i'm positive i wore a hat just like that to school for a winter or two. does that mean i can't sell pictures of that time?

Wyvern Mommy wrote:

i'm positive i wore a hat just like that to school for a winter or two. does that mean i can't sell pictures of that time?

You can, but you cannot call the hat Jayne's Cap. You should, I think, be able to describe it as "a cap similar to the one seen in Firefly".

NB: It is not a "hat" unless it has a brim and a crown. Knitted caps have neither.

Hans Olo wrote:

Who cares about Jane hats? What I want is a Intentionally-Badly-Knitted-Orange-And-Yellow-Hat-That-Totally-Has-Nothing-To-Do-With-Firefly Hat.

You're a grumpy man.

Fandom will grab anything that's fun. The episode was funny, making the hat in it a cult favourite. And it was a cheap and easy thing to produce, making it popular.

So there. <sticks tongue out>