Following up to http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html I fell off thread
Found this link: http://www.crowleylaw.com/IPNews/IP018.htm [quote] The same lack of similarity was fatal to Stouffer?s claim for copyright infringement of the cover illustration for her booklet, Larry Potter and His Best Friend Lilly. While both Harry Potter and Larry Potter are depicted as young boys with dark hair and eyeglasses, the court observed that copyright law does not protect these generic elements. The court found that the protectable elements in Stouffer?s illustrations ? Larry Potter?s facial features, the shape and color of his eyeglasses, and the style and color of his hair ? are not present in illustrations of Harry Potter [/quote] It clearly states that some elements of an illustration are "protectable." A young boy with dark hair and eyeglasses is not protectable, but a young boy with eyeglasses, similar facial featurs, style and color of hair *clearly intending to be Harry Potter* is a violation. I said you'd have to contact a lawyer, because I'm not sure if the Duracel batttery copying the color pattern and "plus" sign of Duracel is infringement, but common sense tells me that's what it's supposed to be. It's not "insane" to be talking about it, but I don't think it's as big a deal but that's just because people are inconsistent. Why take the risk? It's clearly supposed to be "Duracel Battery" not "Battery". A blue battery would be "battery." This is a "Duracel battery." I still don't know if it's a violation but it's certainly not open-and-shut case. Google around some more you'll see legal cases have been built off this sort of thing. If you were to put that image on a T-Shirt with Calvin peeing on it you'd certainly get sued by Calvin's creator and Duracel.