Dear readership, you might have noticed that Garfield is absent from my blog. There is an explanation for this.
Jan 21st, 2007 I contacted Paws, Inc., the company owned by Mr. Jim Davis, the creator of “Garfield” regarding permission to use the character Garfield on my personal blog. Paws owns all copyrights in the “Garfield” comic strip and characters.
On Jan 23rd, 2007 my request for permission was granted, subject to including a copyright disclaimer and a statement that Garfield was used with permission of Paws, Inc in which I did. General Counsel for Paws, Inc stated that they reserved the right to revoke permission in the future, but such revocation would have prospective effect only.
Today, April 4th, 2007 I received an email that effective immediately, they were revoking permission for me to use any of Paws, Inc copyrighted characters, or trademarks after receiving several complaints.
I know who sent those complaints. I have a copy of the emails and my correspondence with Paws Inc.
Quoting from the email that I received Jan 23, 2007. “Your requested permission, set forth for reference below, is granted, subject to including the following copyright line: “Garfield” Character: © Paws. Used by Permission. We reserve the right to revoke this permission in the future, but such revocation would have prospective effect only.”
Email received April 4th 2007, “Rose, effective immediately, we revoke permission to use any of our copyrighted characters, or trademarks. We have received several complaints.”
I have not done anything wrong. I complied with their first wishes and I have now complied with their second wishes. I’m disappointed and appalled that a company as large of Paws, Inc would listen to the words of internet trolls. After feeling as though I have been convicted of a crime I did not commit, I realize that it happens. I know that I have done nothing wrong. My opinion of this company now is that I boycott Paws, Inc. As for Garfield, I will always be a fan.
If you liked this post, why not buy me a coffee?
RSS
15 responses so far ↓
Cparker
// Apr 4, 2007 at 5:24 pm
errr… i just wrote a whole reply and lost it!! arghh… anyway, what i said was…
It’s a shame that a company such as that listen to trolls. The fact that you asked permission and did everything they asked of you shows that you weren’t trying to steal anything and were playing by the rules. I hope that those trolls find something better to do than to figure out ways of pestering you. I hope this sort of thing doesnt happen again.
Viola Jaynes
// Apr 4, 2007 at 5:42 pm
I am so sorry Rose this has happend. I know you must feel terrible about this. Don’t let it get to you!
Knowing you and as careful as you always are, you’ve done everything right and someone just felt like throwing their weight around. Hang in there!
Hammer
// Apr 4, 2007 at 6:11 pm
I don’t understand people who go out of their way to mess with others.
Are these trolls the ones that linked your article without asking?
yoshi
// Apr 4, 2007 at 6:12 pm
That’s crazy. But I guess they have the right to revoke no matter how ridiculous the reasons.
What can we do in these situations except to sit back, shake our heads and move on. (and scheme. scheming is always fun!)
Gene Bach
// Apr 4, 2007 at 8:33 pm
That stinks! Why would anyone complain about it?
Ian
// Apr 4, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Sounds like a perfect opportunity for you to create your own character…
Ian
Teena in Toronto
// Apr 4, 2007 at 9:24 pm
That sucks! That’s so mean!
Rose DesRochers
// Apr 4, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Hello Ian, that is what I was thinking though I’m no artist, but I know someone who is.
Gene, they are contacting anyone and everyone that I’m associated with. Quoting their words. “How much did you pay Paw for Garfield btw?
What kind of a person hosts an adult content site featuring a child’s cartoon image? That’s rather sick and questionable, if you ask me. People assume Garfield is a symbol of something wholesome and if they did give you permission, I’m disgusted with them.”
My blog is not an adult blog, though I have discussed many topics on here including those of an adult nature.
Yoshi, you are absolutely right. They do have every right to revoke their use, but they did not explain why and I complied with their wishes.
Hammer, no they are not. I sent you an email.
Viola I do feel terrible. Thank you for your support.
Cparker I so hate when that happens. Yes, you would think that my contacting them requesting permission and their granting me permission would have been enough, but it wasn’t.
Rose DesRochers
// Apr 4, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Teena, there is one word to describe it. Malice!
Shawn DesRochers
// Apr 4, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Talk about ludicrous. It’s absolutely pathetic that any company (Paws Inc) would do business this way. It’s unethical. First they grant permission. Then they revoke permission when you clearly stayed within the guidelines and then they ask you to remove it because of some trolls who made up some bogus BS. That is just plain stupid.
These same trolls are all over the sites looking for a shred of anything that they think they can make accusations from, which is all they have is accusations. There’s no truth in anything they claim or say and they have no proof of any wrong doing by us, so they decide to go after those who already granted permission or who are associate with us or our web sites. It’s getting really childish and stupid on their part.
Just now one of the trolls is trying to claim that Invision-Graphics.com is also breaking copyright violation by asking if I have permission to publish the following wallpaper http://www.invision-graphics.com/wallpaper-231.html that was submitted to our gallery by Sadtranz,
This wallpaper has a clear signature tag right on the wallpaper that states it was created by http://www.TYFINwallpapers.co.uk . Sadtranz the author of the wallpaper has been a long time member and must have some 50+ wallpapers uploaded to our gallery. Sadtranz joined Jun 02, 2005, yet their claiming that I ripped it off.
Sadtranz is also a link partner and has been for 1 1/2 years, but because he submits to me they go after him or I because we are associated.
Now that’s what you call a dedicated TROLL!
These trolls need to get a grip, and live their own lives and quiet worrying about what we are doing.
Shawn DesRochers
Andrew
// Apr 4, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Rose - this is interesting, and saddening. Do you know how this came about, just out of interest?
I agree with one of the comments above that this could be a great time to make a cartoon Rose to add to your posts - would look great.
David
// Apr 5, 2007 at 2:57 pm
shiete.. thats shoddy !!
D
Rose DesRochers
// Apr 5, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Shawn is absolutely right. You don’t see these individuals who are harassing us sending complaints regarding the several websites and blogs online that are using Garfield without written permission of Paws Inc. Why have they not contacted Paws Inc about those sites? I’ll tell you why, because they are conducting a personal vendetta against Rose DesRochers and Shawn DesRochers. They have shown that they intend to continue the personal vendetta against us.
Andrew, yes I do. These trolls sent several complaints to Paws Inc, though I have no clue what the emails said.
David, it is!
Adam
// Apr 6, 2007 at 10:18 am
Sad to hear that. Anyway, it’s a loss for them.
I wonder what they are going to do about the hundreds of blogs carrying Garfield images without any permission.
Rose DesRochers
// Apr 6, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Adam, the trolls are not reporting those blogs.
Leave a Comment