How the Grinch’s Intellectual Property Stole Christmas
The estate of Dr. Seuss is obviously no stranger to playing the intellectual property maximalist, having appeared on our pages many times in the past. But more specifically for this post, the estate has also, ironically enough, been more than happy to stomp on the Christmas joy of others in favor of jealously guarding its IP when it comes to The Grinch Who Stole Christmas. I have to say, I have no concept of just how much cognitive dissonance one would need to have attained to take a story that is all about sharing and celebrating the Christmas holiday with others and use control over it to do the exact opposite, but it's impressive nonetheless.
And it's had a chilling effect, at least in the state of Louisiana where messages are going out proactively to photographers ahead of the holiday season, merely to warn them not to specifically promote or charge for pictures including the Grinch character, lest the estate come calling.
As the festive season approaches, photographers in Louisiana are beingcautioned about the potential legal pitfalls of Grinch-themed photo sessions.These holiday photo ops, popular alongside traditional Santa pictures, may inadvertently lead to serious trademark infringement issues.
Aviral reminderis circulating among photographers, warning that using the Grinch theme could attract legal action from Dr. Seuss Enterprises. Although there's no specific data on the likelihood of being sued, the risk is significant enough for many photographers to err on the side of caution.
So, would a photographer charging for a picture that included a Grinch character constitute copyright infringement in every instance? I could argue plenty of scenarios in which I don't think it would, especially if that character was not working directly with the photographer. Notably, copyright isn't like trademark where you have to police it all as brutally as possible or risk losing it. The estate could simply let all of this go and it would suffer no negative consequences whatsoever. In fact, I would argue that pictures like that only server to promote Grinch-type products and projects, serving as free advertising for the estate.
As for advertising using pictures that include the Grinch, that's a little more on the nose when it comes to trademark infringement. Still, I refuse to believe that the estate would lose its mark over some independent photographers' advertisements.
And the larger point is that the original book by Dr. Seuss was published nearly 70 years ago. Unless any depictions of the Grinch treaded on more recent adaptations of the character, exactly what would the estate be losing by letting some people, especially children, engage in a little Christmas joy? The law aside, what is the moral calculation that allows family members of a deceased author wield this kind of power?
None, of course. Instead, photographers are expected to instead find creative" ways to skirt around the legalities of all of this instead.
This issue was highlighted when Dr. Seuss Enterprises' corporate counsel, Nicole Gates,reportedly sent cease and desist communications to infringing photographers.While the legitimacy of these notices hasn't been fully verified, they align with standard legal practices in such cases.
Photographers are advised to avoid using any copyrighted or trademarked materials in their work. Instead, they can create inspired" sessions that evoke a general theme without infringing on specific protected elements. It's also recommended to seek permissions where available, although acquiring permission from Dr. Seuss Enterprises has been difficult due to existing licensing agreements.
Well, Merry Christmas, I guess. I suppose we should all just be glad that Dr. Seuss didn't live long enough to watch his own descendants turn into the very character he created.