The Energon Pub

by **Auto Bot** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:01 am

She ought to get something.

It's enough that she was not approached for permission. What added to the injury is that the public thought she was the one who copied the design from the movie.

More than the cash she deserves, she should also be awarded the recognition of designing that air-freshener.

by **Galvatron628** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:42 am

someone needs to slap that bitch. I have one of those air freshners and I would probably had no interest in buying one if I hadn't seen it in the movie. The movie just made her 99 cents off me, so if anything the movie is free advertising for her. If anything SHE should be the one paying the movie to advertise her product, but fortunatly she got free advertising thanks to it!

Theres so many little details in a movie, how can you remember to go out and copyright every little thing. Whats next are the Strokes going to sue Shia for whereing there shirt in the movie?

I really want to meet the lady and slap her. Seriously this is the stupidest thing I think I have ever heard of! No wait nevermind, the dumbest lawsuit was the guy who stuck his junk in a hot apple pie trying to copy Jason Bigg's scene in "american pie" and tried to sue the creators of the movie for giving him the idea... thats the dumbest lawsuit I have ever heard of! This might be second though

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:10 am

Cormaster628 wrote:Seriously this is the stupidest thing I think I have ever heard of!

Oh I dunno, i've heard stupider. Stuff like

someone needs to slap that bitch

and

I really want to meet the lady and slap her.

I mean really, how bloody stupid is it to want to slap someone you've never met just because they're trying to get money owed to them for something they created?

Honestly ... like I said before, some people need to seriously grow up, and maybe get a touch of reality.

And one parting thought. I am truly disgusted by some of the attitudes from my "fellow Seibertronians" in this thread. This woman created something. Sure, it may not have taken her long to do, but the fact is, she created something. She was approached to offer up a sample of her work, which she did in good faith. That work was then used WITHOUT HER PERMISSION. That work was also mass produced, WITHOUT HER PERMISSION AND FOR WHICH SHE RECEIVED NO ROYALTIES.

So please, all of you who want to call her something derogatory or inflict physical harm on her, please enlighten me as to why you would support someone's intellectual property being stolen and why you feel the need to criticise and abuse someone you don't know.

by **Galvatron628** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:14 am

I bought one because of the movie. It didn't say dreamworks or transformers or anything on it, it was in a cheap generic Air freshner bag. I don't think Dreamworks is selling "transformers bee-otch" air fresheners. Like I said its free advertising and if it was my product I'd be flattered. If anything she should be Paying them to put it in the movie!

People will sue for anything these days, its just ridiculous. She should just be flattered her air freshener gets to appear in a movie. I think its ridiculous how many people are suing borat! If theres money to be had, people will have it.

by **Auto Bot** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 11:50 pm

It's a small thing. Copyright may not be necessary.

But at least the production could have informed her, or asked permission.

Since this item will be a central piece in the most important car of the movie.

by **AxiomScion** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 1:55 am

If dreamworks was selling the knock offs, and
she was wasn't getting paid for these knock offs,
then she would deserve the 850K from DW

If dreamworks was not selling the knock offs, and
she can't link them to those who were,
then she would not deserve the 850K from DW

Robinson wrote:Whether or not she's got a legit case is to be determined. Most likely she will have to go after the company that produced the item for the actual infringement.

however, not being credited for the creation of the item might warrant 85K from DW w/ an apology.

Movie credits do tend to feature clothing designers, makeup artist/product, and vehicle company/product, are prop designers to be left out in the cold?

A little foresight from the production team and the lady could have been working with DW rather than suing them now... ain't that a bee-otch? :-B

by **Auto Bot** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 6:33 am

That Bee-otch thing is the main reason why the movie became successful.

News Credits: 11 · by **Robinson** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:26 am

Auto Bot wrote:That Bee-otch thing is the main reason why the movie became successful.

Um, for some odd reason I don't think that an air freshener is the "main" thing that caused the movie to make over 600 million.

by **Auto Bot** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:20 am

Robinson wrote:
Auto Bot wrote:That Bee-otch thing is the main reason why the movie became successful.

Um, for some odd reason I don't think that an air freshener is the "main" thing that caused the movie to make over 600 million.

Bee-otch contributed the "$6" in the "$600" million. Without it, it will all be a bunch of zeros!

:lol:

Come, on. Smile for the new year. :grin:

News Credits: 2 · by **Moonbase2** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:40 pm

I don't think she really has a case. But at least her design elicited a pretty good response from the audience. And Bumblebee approves.

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:29 pm

Moonbase2 wrote:I don't think she really has a case.

Why's that?

News Credits: 38 · by **Methusalen** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:29 pm

If they had ONLY used the air freshener in the movie, I don't think this would be an issue. Maybe a nice "Thank you" to her in the credits for the use of the air freshener would've been nice...

So, while her own buisness of her Bee-otch air fresheners might have gone up a bit because of the movie, I think the issue here is that Hasbro/Dreamworks/whomever are now making (or licensing out) "Bee-otch" air fresheners of their own, and not going through her company to make them, so she's losing out on all the profits from THOSE air fresheners...

I'm pretty sure that this is the air freshener in question is the same one I received from a paramount rep. ("Agent X") a while back after helping out with the "StopSectorSeven" Buzznet page...

PARAMOUNT LOGO, HASBRO LOGO, TransformersMovie.com, DreamWorks logo
Copywright (c) 2007 DreamWorks LLC and Paramount Pictures. All Rights Reserved.
Hasbro, Transformers, and all related characters are trademarks of Hasbro (c)2007. All Rights Reserved.

I wish her the best of luck with her lawsuit, and while I don't know if $850k is the right amount, I hopes she gets what she should have otherwise in royalties...

by **Sylus** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:56 pm

I hope she wins because I DO remember seeing that Air Freshener before the movie ever came out. I think it's unfair the way her reputation has been pushed down to "copy cat" or "replica salesperson" and it will probably take a lot for her to get back to norm if this falls through.

News Credits: 2 · by **Moonbase2** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:52 pm

Burn wrote:
Moonbase2 wrote:I don't think she really has a case.

Why's that?

From what I understand, they haven't mass produced them for profits. Her version is continuing to be sold, but without their logo, right? Wasn't the one with the logo for promotion purposes only and not sold? I guess if this is the case, she could lay claim to money, but don't know if it would mess with her own profits.

This is from my understanding.

by **Auto Bot** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:18 am

I was not aware that the TF production made and sold their own version of Bee-otch.

In that case, they should be sued big time. The original designer should win the case and get a multi-million dollar payment.

by **Dran0n** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:32 pm

That's stupid.

by **zorian** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:12 pm

It depends where she is based out of. In many (all? I"m a little vague) places in the US if you know about a copyright infringement and fail to do something about it you lose the copyright.

The issue is the fact the Studio makes/licenses out an altered version of her product without permission, not that it was used in the movie.

by **CJH** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:23 pm

That is pretty bad.. what with all of the product placement in the film, couldn't they have just done the same for the air freshener??
Seeing that in the film made me go out and buy a mug with the logo on it too! lol

They are going to feel pretty stupid, a successfully film in trouble over an Air Freshener...

by **Uber Galvatron** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:58 am

Uh-oh!
If some bee-otch is suing the movie over an air freshner.
Then Primus will sue The Movie over mis-use of his creations. (Including the Decepticons)

by **AxiomScion** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 4:36 pm

Dran0n wrote:
Auto Bot wrote:I was not aware that the TF production made and sold their own version of Bee-otch.

In that case, they should be sued big time. The original designer should win the case and get a multi-million dollar payment.
That's stupid.

Yeah I thought so too, but if she did win the case... :-?

-Cost of legal fees
-All profits of TF produced Bee-otch freshener
-Possibly profits from all merchandise using the logo
-A PR royalties or 'I'm sorry' check

This could easily grouse the TF production company a multi-million dollar payment :-B