PDA

View Full Version : PIXAR being sued for $10 million


SheepFactory
07-17-2003, 03:00 AM
http://money.cnn.com/2003/07/16/news/funny/mr_ray.reut/


looks like someone is trying to make easy money :thumbsdow

MaTaDoR
07-17-2003, 03:03 AM
omg that makes no sense at all, I can say that the teacher's name is Ray and being that these were nice little fishies they called him Mr.Ray..

actually I addressed all of my teachers by Mr.

ok case closed, im gonna go pickup my check from Pixar now.. this is rediculous.

dmonk
07-17-2003, 03:15 AM
Here's his .website (http://mrray.com/)

Bulldog
07-17-2003, 03:18 AM
I think there is a big typo there ,

Mr ray should be Mr Gay!

leigh
07-17-2003, 03:19 AM
Haha what a twat.

gmask
07-17-2003, 03:27 AM
Originally posted by Leigh
Haha what a twat.

Well he has as much of a right to sue over his name as Spike Lee..just because he is not as well known of an artist a reason why he case should not be settled.. don't get me wrong I thought it was ridiculous that Spike Lee's case settled. Would you feel sympathy towards him if Disney sued him over the name?

Did you ever hear about the guy who was name was Jeep and he had a resteraubnt named Jeep's and was sued an dlost to Jeep the manufactuer of jeep's. Apparently this guy was named Jeep before the company Jeep existed. You should only beable to sue over this kind of thig if your products are in direct compitition although I guess Mr. Ray and the Disney probably both sell kiddie tapers.

P_T
07-17-2003, 03:32 AM
heheeh don't u just love america??

leigh
07-17-2003, 03:40 AM
Originally posted by gmask
Well he has as much of a right to sue over his name as Spike Lee..

It's actually just the greed of people that sickens me.

I mean, how can some person that hardly anyone has ever heard of sue for $10M? It's not like that figure is anywhere near to the amount he would ever even earn... Opportunists make me sick to my stomach.

gmask
07-17-2003, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by Bulldog
I think there is a big typo there ,

Mr ray should be Mr Gay!

Yah bigotry... that solves everything!

peanuckle
07-17-2003, 03:43 AM
10 Mil see really extreme I think they should just give him all there movies on DVD or something.

pea~

gmask
07-17-2003, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by Leigh
It's actually just the greed of people that sickens me.

I mean, how can some person that hardly anyone has ever heard of sue for $10M? It's not like that figure is anywhere near to the amount he would ever even earn... Opportunists make me sick to my stomach.

Considering what it will cost to sue a company like Disney it's not so much. Then after taxes he'd be lucky to get away with a couple of million.

peanuckle
07-17-2003, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by gmask
Considering what it will cost to sue a company like Disney it's not so much. Then after taxes he'd be lucky to get away with a couple of million.

Yea still a couple of MILLION...thats a lot of money over something really so little. Also really how is this going to ruin his career if any it would probally boost it.

pea~

Chewey
07-17-2003, 04:27 AM
Well just threatening to sue has got me and the rest of you to introduced to this dolt who I would likely never have heard of ever!

No such thing as bad publicity eh?

Think it's time to get in the car and drive over to Mickey D's and get a really friggin hot cup of joe and spill it on my groin.
:eek:

Lunatique
07-17-2003, 04:28 AM
Why is he sueing for an amount that he would NEVER make in his entire life? His kiddie music wouldn't even make 1 million in his lifetime, let alone 10. And I do not in any way see how Finding Nemo could've caused him emotional damage to warrant that amount.

leigh
07-17-2003, 04:32 AM
Originally posted by Lunatique
Why is he sueing for an amount that he would NEVER make in his entire life? His kiddie music wouldn't even make 1 million in his lifetime, let alone 10. And I do not in any way see how Finding Nemo could've caused him emotional damage to warrant that amount.

That's exactly what I mean too. This kind of greed is just revolting.

Icarus
07-17-2003, 04:34 AM
Urgh, Truly Wrong,

TyR-

gmask
07-17-2003, 04:38 AM
Originally posted by peanuckle
Yea still a couple of MILLION...thats a lot of money over something really so little. Also really how is this going to ruin his career if any it would probally boost it.

pea~

If anything win or lose.. it will probably help his career. It will come down to trademarks.. if he has the name Mr. Ray trademarked then Disney would not beable market a toy with the name Mr. Ray. Would it be legal for him to sell a character called Nemo? It probably wouldn't hurt Disney's sales but Disney owns the name Nemo.. you would be very hard pressed to sell any product or service under that name without getting sued. Remember the movie 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and it's Saptain Nemo.. well it was a Disney picture and they will continue to capitalize on that name.

There is some murky water here.. pun intended.. but he could very well win but if both parties are smart they'll just settle out of court.

For those who say who's every heard of Mr. Ray well who would have ever thought that a giant purple dinosaur named Barney would become a super mega giant of a kids product etc.

Oh yeah and here's another one I saw on Celebrity Justice.. Donald Trump is sueing the organizers of Miss Gay Universe.. apparently Trump owns Miss Universe and feels the name is an infringement. Actually he hasn't sued yet it was a cease and desist letter.

jeremybirn
07-17-2003, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by gmask
It will come down to trademarks.. if he has the name Mr. Ray trademarked then Disney would not beable market a toy with the name Mr. Ray.

Actually, thousands of people could have the name Mr. Ray trademarked, each used to identify a different kind of product or representing a business operating in a different area, and as long as it's not a source of consumer confusion, and nobody is attempting to profit from the good name of another, there's no violation of trademark law. (That's why he's stretching to make another claim, not a claim based on trademark law, in his case.) Because this performer is only known in parts of New Jersey, and is not known to design or manufacture toys, nobody who got a Mr. Ray toy in their Happy Meal will think it was based on that opportunistic bar mitzvah singer.

Remember, trademark law is not designed to reward innovation like copyright or patent law, it is designed only to protect the public from confusion over the identity of a business or the source of a product or service.

-jeremy

Mr. Ray Saltwater, ladies and gents:
http://www.ch.cam.ac.uk/CUCL/staff/rfreshwater.html

gmask
07-17-2003, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by jeremybirn
nobody who got a Mr. Ray toy in their Happy Meal will think it was based on that opportunistic bar mitzvah singer.


LOL.. probably not but more people may know who the hell he is in the end..

leuey
07-17-2003, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by Lunatique
Why is he sueing for an amount that he would NEVER make in his entire life? His kiddie music wouldn't even make 1 million in his lifetime, let alone 10. And I do not in any way see how Finding Nemo could've caused him emotional damage to warrant that amount.


Guys - it's not him it's his attorneys. I'm quite sure he doesn't have enough cash on hand to pay a team of lawyers to sue Disney. Disney is big enough to bury anybody but a large team of lawyers in sheer paperwork. A suit will cost millions. A group of lawyers is just feeling around to see if it's worth the risk to sue Disney and perhaps see a payday at the end of it. They start big (10 mil) and negotiate down from there seeing if they can work a settlement.

In all likelihood this will never go anywhere. It's not like Disney can't defend itself from silly lawsuits like this one.


(As an aside - it's not at ALL like the McDonald's coffee lawsuit. That $ number was so high b/c it was punitive. McD's had been warned time and again by the courts to stop serving their coffee so hot b/c there were so many cases of 3rd degree burn victims. When the old lady got the coffee dropped on her lap she hit the jackpot b/c the judge was trying to punish McDonalds - NOT reward the woman. You punish a trillion hamburger selling company by fining them a LOT of money (thus punitive damages).)

how's that for an off topic render walk : )

yippie,

Greg

gabe28
07-17-2003, 06:50 AM
Hopefully, this stupid lawsuit will do more to hurt his reputation than any thing Pixar has done. What a joke. Well, if he wins the suit (he won't of course) I'm going to start combing the media for uses of the name 'Gabe'.... hehe.... no, I just couldn't sink that low.

Chris88
07-17-2003, 06:54 AM
Disgusting. This guy just wants some quick cash. The sad thing is though, that he has a chance to win. I think that this is a huge joke, and that this guy should be punished, but he will probably walk away with some money. Too bad.

Airflow
07-17-2003, 07:22 AM
I know its not the point, But I really liked Entrophy, so Im with Mr Ray on this one.. :)

Sky_DaBomB
07-17-2003, 07:53 AM
This is ridiculous but that's what happens when you make too much money and someone just think you need to share him a little... :shrug:

SkyNet
07-17-2003, 07:56 AM
I've got a friend called Mr.Ra

He's going for about $7.5 million. c00l huh ?:)


( Damn "y" costs $2.5 million :( )

Anyway Ray is a 0

$ 10 . 0 Million
$ Mr . Ray

see? :p ... So probably Mr is what he's mad about ?!


PS : just kiddin on this post
PS2: PS x 2

rawgon
07-17-2003, 09:51 AM
I think he s cool!:applause:

halo
07-17-2003, 12:01 PM
macdonalds sued a baker in scotland for using the name macdonalds for his bakery that had run for 20 years....why did he use the name macdonalds? because that was his name...i think macdonalds (the burger joint) won!

astrofish
07-17-2003, 12:30 PM
Wow, just think how much money Warner Bros must owe all those Mr Andersons out there in reality-land. There's probably quite a lot of Agent Smiths as well.

Ever since the Matrix came out people have no doubt been having a hard time telling them apart from their fictional counterparts, no doubt resulting in severe damage to their reputations.

At last, they'll be able to get some well-deserved compensation...

Hmm - thinks....

Damn - I've just checked on the IMDB, and nobody has ever used my name as a character name in a film! How am I supposed to get compensation now?

Cheers - Steve

TheGreenGiant
07-17-2003, 12:41 PM
That is like the dumbest thing I have ever read. Let's see.. if they called the Manta Ray... Mr Sting..

maybe Sting should sue.
.
..
..
.
STUPIDEST thing ever.. if there's such a thing. There is NO way, Disney and Pixar will not fight this.

Chewey
07-17-2003, 01:14 PM
Maybe Tolkien's estate should sue Sting.

anieves
07-17-2003, 01:47 PM
You know, we wouldn't have this kind of nonsense in this coutry if we had a "looser pays" system. All this silly law suits would drop drastically.

If we had "looser pays" system Mr. Ray would have to pay Disney and Pixar for their suit related expenses (which I bet will be darn high), on top of that he would have his own attorney fee expenses, in that case I seriously dbout that Mr. Ray would even consider making such a claim and waste everybody's valuable time.

Lee3dee
07-17-2003, 02:46 PM
mr Ray, should sue Hanson instead, since he sounds like one of them. Leave pixar alone! thats why all movies say "some character names maybe coincidental and are not intended to reflect individuals."

People like these need to get a life!

Neil
07-17-2003, 03:50 PM
They didn't explain HOW this is ruining his reputation... shouldn't this be good publicity to be associated with an awesome movie like Nemo?

Nick75
07-17-2003, 04:38 PM
i dont see how in any way that the name in movie can be of any harm to him ....like someone said WHADA TWAT!!

easy money....which i hope he doesnt get....they should lock his ass up for being a friggin dumbass

BeeVee
07-17-2003, 04:52 PM
Hey Nick75,

You come from Noo Joisey, you ever heard of this Mr. Ray before?

B

Nicodemus
07-17-2003, 05:16 PM
He is an oppourtunist taking advantage of the situation. I have to take note of the fact that Finding Nemo was out long before TNN started advertisting Spike TV. So he has had plenty of opporunity to sue. He probably saw what Spike Lee did (which I think was stupid too) and just jumped on the idea as a way to get some publicity and maybe some cash.

The worst part of it is that he will probably get some kind of settlement since going to court will probably cost more money than just settling.

~L~

gmask
07-17-2003, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by anieves
You know, we wouldn't have this kind of nonsense in this coutry if we had a "looser pays" system. All this silly law suits would drop drastically.

If we had "looser pays" system Mr. Ray would have to pay Disney and Pixar for their suit related expenses (which I bet will be darn high), on top of that he would have his own attorney fee expenses, in that case I seriously dbout that Mr. Ray would even consider making such a claim and waste everybody's valuable time.

Actually in copyright lawsuits the defendant can sue for court costs if they win.

Larry_g1s
07-17-2003, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by Leigh
It's actually just the greed of people that sickens me.

Originally posted by Lunatique
Why is he sueing for an amount that he would NEVER make in his entire life? His kiddie music wouldn't even make 1 million in his lifetime, let alone 10. And I do not in any way see how Finding Nemo could've caused him emotional damage to warrant that amount.

I couldn't agree more. I'm almost speachless with how dumb this is. How does that in anyway shape or form ruin his career or cause him emotional damage.

It's laughable! I would love to be in the court room when this guy tries to keep a straight face as he tries to discribe his "emotional damage". LOL

ZeroNeuro
07-17-2003, 06:10 PM
Two words that I think the United States of America should adopt from Great Britain. (And this is coming from an American)

"Loser Pays"

Cheers

Cod
07-17-2003, 07:36 PM
My question is: did this guy not see that Spike Lee tried the same thing with TNN (Spike TV)?

Apparently he didn't because Spike Lee quickly lost that case. In fact, it never made it to court because the judge posted a restrictive bond that was to high for Spike Lee to meet. If Spike Lee can't reach a restrictive bond, I doubt Mr. Ray can......unless of course he charges kids there allowance money for 2 weeks to hear him sing.

Nicodemus
07-17-2003, 07:58 PM
Yeah that was the other part that was funny as hell. The judge recognized the frivolity of the case and made Spike Lee put up a $2 million dollar bond right at the outset. This was later dropped after their was an agreement to drop the suit.

~L~

gmask
07-17-2003, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by Cod
My question is: did this guy not see that Spike Lee tried the same thing with TNN (Spike TV)?

Apparently he didn't because Spike Lee quickly lost that case. In fact, it never made it to court because the judge posted a restrictive bond that was to high for Spike Lee to meet. If Spike Lee can't reach a restrictive bond, I doubt Mr. Ray can......unless of course he charges kids there allowance money for 2 weeks to hear him sing.

I found a reference to the bond.. this was to cover TNN's legal fee if Spike lost his case..

http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/0625SpikeLee-ON.html

I found these other articles as well.. they have apparently settled... and would you have guessed Spike Jones also entered into the dispute but on the side of TNN?

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,12112,00.html

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,12041,00.html

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,12018,00.html

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,11916,00.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/spikelee1.html

The Cross
07-17-2003, 08:08 PM
Man made, makes money.

Of coarse the judge would have to take the time to watch finding Nemo. And it would probably be one of the most delightful things he/she exsperienced that's job related. (Unless the judge is a saddist). :wip:

Maybe Mr. Ray will just get a sentance for a few years in emotional rehab.

PokeChop
07-17-2003, 08:19 PM
Money can't buy you happiness, but it can buy a lot of anti-depressants.

Hookflash
07-17-2003, 08:52 PM
I suppose this type of opportunistic behaviour is natural (other animals are just as bad, and sometimes worse), and a couple million bucks does sound rather tempting. Still, it sickens me. All animals are ass-holes.:annoyed:

gmask
07-17-2003, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by PokeChop
Money can't buy you happiness, but it can buy a lot of anti-depressants.

Yeah sitting on a couple million.. that's pure sadness right there.. wouldn't want that. Of course most people here would probably have a hard time giving up their computers and other material items for the bliss of a existential way of life.

Sil3
07-17-2003, 09:16 PM
Its kind of funny to see things like these happen in the USA where u can sue anybody for about anything. If this was in Europe all the judges would do was laught at this....this is simply RIDICULOUS.

Oh and by the way Captain NEMO for is not an invention from Disney but from Julio Verne, the man who wrote the original story many years ago :D

gmask
07-17-2003, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by Sil3
Oh and by the way Captain NEMO for is not an invention from Disney but from Julio Verne, the man who wrote the original story many years ago :D

I didn't say they invented the Character Captain Nemo but that they owned the name although I've been poking around and the story "20000 leagues under the sea" may very well have been in the public domain by the time they made the movie as Verne died in 1905 and they made the movie in 1954 which ids aproximately 50 years later and I think by old standard the authors copyright would have expired.

Apparently there were several of filmic versions of the story prior to disney's but I cannot find any refrence to the licensing of it to disney.

Boot Guy Joe
07-17-2003, 09:42 PM
I'm suprised anyone would defend his actions. People use the word "Boot" all the time. I guess I have the right to sue them as well? :rolleyes:

gmask
07-17-2003, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by Boot Guy Joe
I'm suprised anyone would defend his actions. People use the word "Boot" all the time. I guess I have the right to sue them as well? :rolleyes:

You have the right to sue but does not mean you'll win :rolleyes:

Boot Guy Joe
07-17-2003, 11:22 PM
And that proves my point. That's the same thing as he is doing.

FabioMSilva
07-17-2003, 11:31 PM
this is just ridiculous... do even courts of law waste theyre time on such stupid things while there are murderers around?

"oh my sons name is woody...im gonna sue u for that"!

gimme a break :thumbsdow

gmask
07-17-2003, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by Boot Guy Joe
And that proves my point. That's the same thing as he is doing.

Not exactly because unless you were an entertainer or in some other way selling products to kids it would be totally irrelevant that you name was the same. So if your name was Paul Newman and you wanted to sell salad dressing sunder the name Newman you wouldn't beable to.

But just because your name is Newman does not mean you have any reason to sue unless you have a simialir product.. you could try but it truly would be pointless as the case would be with you, the name boots and the manufacturer of boots.

gmask
07-17-2003, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by The Solid Snake
this is just ridiculous... do even courts of law waste theyre time on such stupid things while there are murderers around?

"oh my sons name is woody...im gonna sue u for that"!

gimme a break :thumbsdow

That is rather a naive view of the legal system.

Boot Guy Joe
07-18-2003, 12:20 AM
So, because he is a singer he can sue because he was trying to be a Fish school teacher? :surprised

Put down the opium...

gmask
07-18-2003, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by Boot Guy Joe
So, because he is a singer he can sue because he was trying to be a Fish school teacher? :surprised

Put down the opium...

It is certainly more of a similairity than somebody with the nickname of "boot" sueing the boot industry otherwise you'd have anyone named smith sueing smith and wesson etc.

Anyway don't get to hung up on my devil's advocation ... especially if you have to resort to insinuations to defend your point of view. :love:

..not to mention that from what I have ever heard about opium addicts..doing anything but lay there would probably not be a possibility...

Boot Guy Joe
07-18-2003, 12:50 AM
Look down at my sig. I make things for kids to play. I go by that nickname, and they know my "products" by that name, Boot Guy Joe. But I don't like how something that has been around before that name was, Boots, have been misrepresenting that word. So I will now sue.

I'm sorry, but there is very little difference between the two, either. How you can defend his actions and not mine is a odd way of thinking.

gmask
07-18-2003, 01:06 AM
>>But I don't like how something that has been around before that name was, Boots, have been misrepresenting that word. So I will now sue.

Well even if you could sue the boot industry.. boots have been around way longer that you or I. Now if somebody else wanted to sell some boots under the name "Boot Guy Joe" then maybe you'd have a case to complain about..maybe..

I couldn't find any reference on the net doing a search for your "works" listed in your sig BTW.. your marketing must be pretty sparse if you are trying to sell commercial products.

Is "Boot Guy Joe" your legal name or even the name of a legal business that you own? Nicknames don't count for squat.

If somebody else on the net started to sell game levels or even give them away and their name was "Boot Guy Joe" would you not have a problem with that.. it's more specific than the case above but that would be a problem for you wouldn't it?

>>How you can defend his actions and not mine is a odd way of thinking.

Your only "actions" have been to bicker with me so what's your point?

Boot Guy Joe
07-18-2003, 01:14 AM
I'm still trying to make the point that both my example and his case are so ridiculous it's not even funny. You proved that mine has not valid, but even though you said some examples of why the man has a valid case, they aren't good ones at all. The movie was out before he got that show or whatever he has, and I doubt that's his real name, most people change their names for show. They have nothing in common. Nothing.

Ah, forget it...

gmask
07-18-2003, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by Boot Guy Joe
I'm still trying to make the point that both my example and his case are so ridiculous it's not even funny. You proved that mine has not valid, but even though you said some examples of why the man has a valid case, they aren't good ones at all. The movie was out before he got that show or whatever he has, and I doubt that's his real name, most people change their names for show. They have nothing in common. Nothing.

Ah, forget it...

Well according to the whois for his website his name is..

Ray Andersen and he first registered the domain mrray.com on 09-Jul-1999 so it sounds like it could have been before the PIXAR character was conceived of.

Boot Guy Joe
07-18-2003, 01:28 AM
The character were created along time ago. Back when Monsters Inc was being made.

gmask
07-18-2003, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by Boot Guy Joe
The character were created along time ago. Back when Monsters Inc was being made.

Where did you get that information?

Boot Guy Joe
07-18-2003, 01:33 AM
I'll try to dig up the info. But there is another example, if you don't want to wait..there are Finding Nemo easter eggs in Monsters Inc. :)

gmask
07-18-2003, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by Boot Guy Joe
I'll try to dig up the info. But there is another example, if you don't want to wait..there are Finding Nemo easter eggs in Monsters Inc. :)

Well regardless of when he registered the Domain name it would have more to do with this being his born name and how far back he can prove that he has been working under this name as well I owuld think. Wether or not Nemo was in development as a movie prior to 1999 may not mean all the characters were named or final or existing. Are saying Mr. Ray was in Monster Inc.. was he?

Given that Spike lost his suit or basically was not able to pursue it because of the cost then it will not bode well for Mr Ray's case as the legal systems loves precedence.

Array
07-18-2003, 01:47 AM
anyone remember that idiot that tried to sue pixar/disney because allegedly they "stole" the concept of Sulley from him? Those guys should get an apartment together.

gmask
07-18-2003, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by Array
anyone remember that idiot that tried to sue pixar/disney because allegedly they "stole" the concept of Sulley from him? Those guys should get an apartment together.


Right and somebody also tried to sue because Ice Age had a squirrel character in it.. he could move in too. ;-)

Then of course there were the guys that won their suit against Taco Bell for the Dog with attitude character.. they got $30 mil.

Disney has also been sued for ripping off the Lion King but hey disney wouldn't do anything wrong would they?

BiTMAP
07-18-2003, 09:55 AM
hehe I wouldn't let mr. Ray around my kids :S ew...

Gentle Fury
07-18-2003, 01:37 PM
honestly though, hasnt this happened for every pixar movie.....the fact is, Pixar is one of the richest and successful production companys in the world....and likeness rights is like the lottery.....it is the easiest thing to sue for and the hardest to disprove.

and you really mean to tell me that a SINGING manta ray in the highest grossing children watched movie of the year would hurt his already devoid childrens song carreer?????

and all i have to say about Spike TV.......ITS TNN!!!!!! Spike is the name of a big dog!!!!! like in a junkyard!!!

Think "Do The Right Thing" was ever meant to be shown on TNN?????????

silly people....stop wasting my tax money on petty lawsuits!!!

JohnD
07-18-2003, 02:29 PM
Public executions should be held for ding-a-lings like this. Up yours Mr. Ray.:annoyed:

Nicodemus
07-18-2003, 03:12 PM
It is as simple as him using this to get more exposure. How much you want to bet his publicitiy has tripled since this took place. I know I had never heard of him or his work till this lawsuit was filed. I would not be surprised if this was mainly a publicity stunt.

No one with sense would really pursue this unless they would profit from this.

~L~

gmask
07-18-2003, 05:00 PM
>>>No one with sense would really pursue this unless they would profit from this.


He is sueing for $10 million.. it kind of goes without saying that he's looking for a profit.. usually people start law suits that the aim to lose just out of principal :rolleyes:

nerrazzi
07-18-2003, 05:15 PM
"Mr." is used as a conventional title of courtesy except when usage requires the substitution of a title of rank or an honorific or professional title before a man's surname ... (got that from the dictionary)

If this guy thinks that he can profit from this type of litigation, then why not all the "Mr. Ray's" across the U.S.? You might as well turn this whole thing into a class-action lawsuit. It's nothing more than a frivolous attempt to profit from someone else's success and sadly, it happens in U.S. courts everyday. I could see it if Pixar were using a bony middle-aged character toting a guitar entertaining people in a demeaning manner, then maybe I could see the possible "obliteration and destruction of the plaintiff's reputation", that's not the case in Finding Nemo.

It was a Manta Ray! First name Manta last name Ray, said with respect, Mr. Ray. I believe the human Mr. Ray will have a tough time proving Disney / Pixar intended to try and ruin Mr. Rays career.

gmask
07-18-2003, 05:57 PM
>>If this guy thinks that he can profit from this type of litigation, then why not all the "Mr. Ray's" across the U.S.?

I allready covered this.. if you do not have a product or service that you sell etc under the said name of infringement then you simply have no case whatsoever.

Although it does bring to mind the dislaimer you used to see after alot of moovies that says something like all characters are fictional and do not resemble any person living or dead..

I think in this case it has more to do with the market for products rather than slander.

>>>I believe the human Mr. Ray will have a tough time proving Disney / Pixar intended to try and ruin Mr. Rays career.

"Use of the "Mr. Ray" name would "obliterate and destroy Plaintiff's reputation" and the market for his products, the Mr. Ray from New Jersey said. "

He isn't trying to prove that it was their intention but that it would interfere with his market.. probably a stretch none the less.

Neil
07-18-2003, 07:55 PM
Gmask: with the way you're arguing it sounds like you're saying this guys has an actual case :shrug:
Are you serious, or just bored?

gmask
07-18-2003, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Neil
Gmask: with the way you're arguing it sounds like you're saying this guys has an actual case :shrug:
Are you serious, or just bored?

If you read the whole thread you would know that I'm only playing the devil's advocate.. get over it :love:

Neil
07-18-2003, 08:56 PM
Well isn't that what he was doing too? :D
I guess 2 people playing devil's advocate against each other is an endless cycle. hehe

gmask
07-18-2003, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Neil
Well isn't that what he was doing too? :D
I guess 2 people playing devil's advocate against each other is an endless cycle. hehe

Who was also playing the devils's advocate?

Usually when you say you are playing the devils's advocate then you are argueing for the unpopular side of the argument.

This discourse really does not take the debate anywhere.

Neil
07-18-2003, 09:24 PM
Uh, by acting like he should sue too, which obviously he couldn't

gmask
07-18-2003, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Neil
Uh, by acting like he should sue too, which obviously he couldn't

Oh yea.. and I shot down his scenario because it was not comparitable to the one at hand.

For example if my name was car and I made go-carts I could not sue the car industry for using the word car. That was basically his scenario.

The problem with this case is that unless there has been substantial marketing for products related to Mr. Ray the stingray then the similairities otherwise are small. Now if this guy's name had been Nemo and he had a whole product line of tapes and toys with an aquatic theme it would be a better case but since I do beleive now that the literary character Captain Nemo is in the public domain that it would sully his case (pun intended).

BiTMAP
07-18-2003, 11:38 PM
gmask, thanks for playing devils advocate, it really helps us learn, even if some of us close our minds ;) I still find the guy creapy and well, not someone who should be around kids. However I do find that his case seems rediculus as well (as usual :hmm: :rolleyes: )

gmask
07-18-2003, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by BiTMAP
gmask, thanks for playing devils advocate, it really helps us learn, even if some of us close our minds ;) I still find the guy creapy and well, not someone who should be around kids. However I do find that his case seems rediculus as well (as usual :hmm: :rolleyes: )

I love U, you love me, we're a happee fam ee lee..

I dunno.. alot of kids stuff can be pretty creepy.. but it's usually a little more innocent when you don't have to look at the dummy in the giant purple dinosaur suit etc.

Anyway I think Michael Jackson has him topped for the all time creepiest person around kids.

Boone
07-20-2003, 07:55 PM
Looks like I should sue PIXAR as well...:cool:

CG.p
07-20-2003, 08:42 PM
Ah the irony when everyone bitches about copyrights when at least 25% of people's avitars are someone else's copyrighted images. :)

gmask
07-20-2003, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by Boone
Looks like I should sue PIXAR as well...:cool:

Why would you do that?

Boone
07-20-2003, 08:52 PM
Re: Gmask.

Well...I don't...want to announce my second name...here on CGTalk - DOH!:eek:

gmask
07-20-2003, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by Boone
Re: Gmask.

Well...I don't...want to announce my second name...here on CGTalk - DOH!:eek:

You can call me ray, you can call me ray jay.. Remember that guy.. maybe he could sue both of them.

Unless you have some product you're selling under you second name then it doens't really matter..except to be sarcastic.

Boone
07-20-2003, 11:17 PM
Re: GMask.

Come to think of it - it's my name and I don't feel like parting with it!

(...I think I've had that name for long enough...)

gmask
07-21-2003, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by Boone
Re: GMask.

Come to think of it - it's my name and I don't feel like parting with it!

(...I think I've had that name for long enough...)

Why would you have to part with it?

Andy741
07-21-2003, 07:23 AM
I like the fight scene in Matrix Reloaded. Numero uno!

FabioMSilva
07-21-2003, 09:11 AM
"That is rather a naive view of the legal system."

It was a joke dude :annoyed:

Neil
07-21-2003, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by CG.p
Ah the irony when everyone bitches about copyrights when at least 25% of people's avitars are someone else's copyrighted images. :)

<--- How do you know that I didnt model and render that myself?
:p

But on a more serious note, doesn't the copyright law only apply to degrees of 'borrowing'. Radios get away with playing sound bites from movies all the time, b/c they are only a few seconds and not considered enough of the entire product. Likewise, if i crop an image and change it around, is it still protected?

gmask
07-21-2003, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by The Solid Snake
"That is rather a naive view of the legal system."

It was a joke dude :annoyed:

I'ts not really funny and it took you this long to respond?:surprised :rolleyes:

Kieguy
07-21-2003, 05:59 PM
Hey, there, Meatloaf!! Meatloaf...seeee Mr. Ray? See 'im, boy? See 'im?......SIC HIM! SIC HIM, MEATLOAF! CHEW 'IM UP!!!!!

http://mrray.com/Meat5.jpg

That's a goooood boy, Meatloaf.

gmask
07-21-2003, 06:52 PM
>>> But on a more serious note, doesn't the copyright law only apply to degrees of 'borrowing'. Radios get away with playing sound bites from movies all the time, b/c they are only a few seconds and not considered enough of the entire product. Likewise, if i crop an image and change it around, is it still protected?

There is no set measure for degrees of borrowing. In regards to advertising for movies the material is provided by the films marketing. If you take and image and crop around it the image in part is still protected unless you were able to claim fairuse. While using at as an avatar is not going to qualify as fair use alone it seems unlikely that somebody would sue over that.

FabioMSilva
07-22-2003, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by gmask
I'ts not really funny and it took you this long to respond?:surprised :rolleyes:

i wasnt around ... i was shooting far away for 3 days, only returned yesterday :rolleyes:

gmask
07-22-2003, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by The Solid Snake
i wasnt around ... i was shooting far away for 3 days, only returned yesterday :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

goosh
07-23-2003, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by anieves
You know, we wouldn't have this kind of nonsense in this coutry if we had a "looser pays" system. All this silly law suits would drop drastically.

If we had "looser pays" system Mr. Ray would have to pay Disney and Pixar for their suit related expenses (which I bet will be darn high), on top of that he would have his own attorney fee expenses, in that case I seriously dbout that Mr. Ray would even consider making such a claim and waste everybody's valuable time.

EXACTLY!!!

That's what's sooo wrong with the american way of justice (sorry)

In a lot of other places, if you don't win, you have to pay for your lawyer AND the lawyer of the person you are suing.. (in the states, you don't even have to pay for your lawyer, since he'll only take a big chunck if you win)

That way you'll think twice about suing for the most stupid of reasons.. the way things stand, there is no reason not to sue.. might as well through 1,000 lines out there.. one of them might catch something..

pathetic!!!

G

gmask
07-23-2003, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by goosh
In a lot of other places, if you don't win, you have to pay for your lawyer AND the lawyer of the person you are suing.. (in the states, you don't even have to pay for your lawyer, since he'll only take a big chunck if you win)


Actually you can be coutnersued in any case for such expenses but especially in copyright cases.

As far as lawyers go some will do the case on spec ..mainly ones looking to make a name for themselves or one who are battling for cases that are a worthy or charitable cause.

CG.p
07-23-2003, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by Neil
<--- How do you know that I didnt model and render that myself?
:p

But on a more serious note, doesn't the copyright law only apply to degrees of 'borrowing'. Radios get away with playing sound bites from movies all the time, b/c they are only a few seconds and not considered enough of the entire product. Likewise, if i crop an image and change it around, is it still protected?

My post originated by all the Matrix reloaded avitars I saw that day. I excluded 75% of the avitars in my post.

As for your cropped image question. Yes it is, depending on what it contains.

mark_wilkins
07-23-2003, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by Lunatique
Why is he sueing for an amount that he would NEVER make in his entire life?

He's almost certainly suing for actual and punitive damages. Punitive damages are intended under the law to deter future malicious action, not to compensate the plaintiff, though the actual money does go to the plaintiff.

Usually punitive damages are a multiple of the actual damages... in cases where there are statutory guidelines or caps, like in civil suits for things like writing bad checks, they tend to be at three or five times the actual damages.

So, if someone's livelihood were ruined and they'd make $100K a year for 20 years, actual damages would be $2 million and punitive damages might reasonably be an additional $8 million if the jury found that the plaintiff had acted with actual bad faith or malice.

In most U.S. states, punitive damages are generally awarded to the plaintiff when there's evidence of actual malice or bad faith, though the terminology differs depending on the type of suit and the state. Punitive damages are required to be in "reasonable proportion" to the actual damages, which has never been defined by the courts, but multiples like two or four times actual damages have generally been found reasonable. Punitive damages, if awarded, are also supposed to be large enough to deter the behavior in question, which is why the numbers tend to be large when large corporations are sued.

Anyway, filing a suit is one thing -- there will be many opportunities for a court to dismiss such a case if they find it to be obviously frivolous in light of the evidence.

-- Mark

Jason S
07-24-2003, 04:46 AM
We should all sue him!!! hes making the animation industry look bad, Im going to loose work because of him!!!!!

J

gmask
07-24-2003, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by Jason S
We should all sue him!!! hes making the animation industry look bad, Im going to loose work because of him!!!!!

J

Naw.. he makes geeky guiter playing losers look bad.. let him burn himself out on his own. He just wants attention.. don't give it to him.

CGTalk Moderation
01-15-2006, 04:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.