So the new Phanatic costume design is a money thing

[slag]

What a surprise:

https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelph...t-new-phanatic

[DEERSPINE GUY]

SURE IT IS. I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH IT. SOMEONE TRYING TO CASH IN FOR SOMETHING FROM YEARS AGO.

ALL GOOD HERE.

[jimbo]

I'm just happy that they didn't make him look like his methed-out cousin Gritty.

[Snakebitten]

It seems like Elton John had a hand in the new look.

[slag]

SURE IT IS. I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH IT. SOMEONE TRYING TO CASH IN FOR SOMETHING FROM YEARS AGO.

ALL GOOD HERE.

I'm not an intellectual property expert, but if the article is accurate, the Phillies' rights to the design expire on a particular date and the poor destitute Phillies decide to make a few independent cosmetic changes with the sole purpose of generating a legal argument to beat those who came up with the idea out of some money ... and you're all good?

You telling me you wouldn't howl like a scalded dog if you came up with the idea and continued to make the artistic changes for the mascot until a couple of years ago and they did this shit independently to generate an argument to fuck your original rights just as their rights were about to expire.

I sure as shit would.

[DEERSPINE GUY]

I HAVE BIGGER THINGS GOING ON IN MY LIFE TO GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT A COSTUME FOR A PRO SPORTS TEAM.


.WHO FUCKIN CARES.

[slag]

I HAVE BIGGER THINGS GOING ON IN MY LIFE TO GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT A COSTUME FOR A PRO SPORTS TEAM.


.WHO FUCKIN CARES.

You're right ... what do pro sports really matter to our lives?

Why does this board exist?

What the fuck am I doing here typing this shit?

[McCarthy12]

I HAVE BIGGER THINGS GOING ON IN MY LIFE TO GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT A COSTUME FOR A PRO SPORTS TEAM.


.WHO FUCKIN CARES.

Oh, I bet you'd care if you or your family had created the Phanatic and now the Phillies were trying to pass it off as their own by adding a few blue stage props in order to stop paying you.

[Raptor]

I'm not an intellectual property expert, but if the article is accurate, the Phillies' rights to the design expire on a particular date and the poor destitute Phillies decide to make a few independent cosmetic changes with the sole purpose of generating a legal argument to beat those who came up with the idea out of some money ... and you're all good?

You telling me you wouldn't howl like a scalded dog if you came up with the idea and continued to make the artistic changes for the mascot until a couple of years ago and they did this shit independently to generate an argument to fuck your original rights just as their rights were about to expire.

I sure as shit would.

It smells, rather Bannerish IMO.

I remember when the Ravens tried to pull some stunt for their logo when they first started.....it was more of direct ripoff but they lost in court and had to to create a new design

i don’t believe the Phils are in a good place to defend this one as there is a very public work history in place that has created some precedents.

[Drama Queen]

Oh, I bet you'd care if you or your family had created the Phanatic and now the Phillies were trying to pass it off as their own by adding a few blue stage props in order to stop paying you.

SI had an article in the summer providing more details of the case. Without knowing the specifics of the Copyright Act, I would tend to agree with the Phillies that once Ericsson/Harrison assigned all of their rights “forever” to the Phillies in 1984, they shouldn’t be able to enrich themselves once again. By 1984, there appeared to be enough financial history regarding the Phanatic’s value for Ericsson/ Harrison to make an informed decision at that time.

I can’t imagine that the Copyright Act was designed to give the “well informed” a chance to double dip.

I believe Ericsson/ Harrison were well informed because they renegotiated with the Phillies once they had a chance to see the various revenue streams that were created.

https://www.si.com/.amp/mlb/2019/08/...wsuit-phanatic

[DEERSPINE GUY]

SI had an article in the summer providing more details of the case. Without knowing the specifics of the Copyright Act, I would tend to agree with the Phillies that once Ericsson/Harrison assigned all of their rights “forever” to the Phillies in 1984, they shouldn’t be able to enrich themselves once again. By 1984, there appeared to be enough financial history regarding the Phanatic’s value for Ericsson/ Harrison to make an informed decision at that time.

I can’t imagine that the Copyright Act was designed to give the “well informed” a chance to double dip.

I believe Ericsson/ Harrison were well informed because they renegotiated with the Phillies once they had a chance to see the various revenue streams that were created.

https://www.si.com/.amp/mlb/2019/08/...wsuit-phanatic

I REMEMBER READING THAT AS WELL. COULDN'T REMEMBER WHERE.

I GUESS BACK IN 84', THAT 215K THEY RECIEVED, AND SELLING THAT COSTUME, EVERYWHERE AND FOREVER DIDN'T MEAN ANYTHING.

LIKE I SAID, WHY I SAID. WHO CARES.

[McCarthy12]

SI had an article in the summer providing more details of the case. Without knowing the specifics of the Copyright Act, I would tend to agree with the Phillies that once Ericsson/Harrison assigned all of their rights “forever” to the Phillies in 1984, they shouldn’t be able to enrich themselves once again. By 1984, there appeared to be enough financial history regarding the Phanatic’s value for Ericsson/ Harrison to make an informed decision at that time.

I can’t imagine that the Copyright Act was designed to give the “well informed” a chance to double dip.

I believe Ericsson/ Harrison were well informed because they renegotiated with the Phillies once they had a chance to see the various revenue streams that were created.

https://www.si.com/.amp/mlb/2019/08/...wsuit-phanatic

Interesting. Thanks. Unless there is something wrong with the assignment, it sounds like seller's remorse. Wonder why they were willing to give up their rights forever given the trajectory of its popularity. Too bad they didn't have a crystal ball to see how NBA players negotiate contracts today.