I might have the story wrong, but I think this is the story behind the invoice chapter (from Universal):

Universal sent 11th hour a C&D letter. 11th hour removed all the copy righted images, but left up shirts with Chinese characters for the word "serenity" and such. If I recall correctly, where the violation remained (the one that precipatated the invoice from Universal, which came after the initial C&D) is that 11th hour continued to cite Firefly and/or the Serenity film in the product descriptions.

I do think their lawyers are being jerks, but I think 11th hour pushed it after the initial C&D.

Kevin/Simon/anyone in the know, if I've confused things, or made incorrect statements, please feel free to correct me.

---

That was my impression as well. I thought that she was selling items with copyrighted material incorporated in the design, got a C&D, removed those items, and now is being charged the licensing fee for the items she sold that were infringing.

Is that incorrect?

---

To my knowledge all of her original designs were "inspired" by Firefly or Serenity. None of them had copyrighted material, logos, or images. They were gorgeous original designs. What Universal had issue with was that she referenced the TV show and the movie in the item descriptions.

---

I'm reading in the comments here (see one by "ZEEK"), that 11th Hour has done official licensed work for Universal in the past (for their Serenity RPG). From reading on, it seems she may have, and if so, this starting to sound a little more muddled than Universal Shoves Fan in Locker; Steals lunch money. How is this not like "Stan Lee self-publishes Captain America inspired novel"?

In the same thread, 11th hour asks people not to speculate about that (but I think it's likely pertinent, so I am not taking out my mention above) and then says:

The initial notice that Cafe Press sent me was a C&D order, to which I responded to immediately. The "Demand" notice, which prompted this thread, came after the C&D, and also after I had already overhauled my shop in response to the C&D.

What some people do not realize, is that the main issue with my shop was that there were references to the Serenity movie in the product descriptions. This is the part which surprised me. One can feature a design that does not infringe on a copyright... however, if the description refers to the TV show or movie, then it's a violation of intellectual property.

Every design in my shop is/was original, but there were two source designs which allegedly fell into the grey area. I removed those designs. All the rest were absolutely fine, and those are the designs which are still there now. There are designs which incorporate Chinese characters in a creative way. Some of the designs feature the characters for the word "serenity", but there are no references to the movie of that name. And that is perfectly legal.

It was the references and "marketing" of the shop that was the main issue folks. Lesson learned: As to Cafe Press shops, it can be the descriptions, not the images, that will bring the law down on you. So don't refer to the "Serenity" movie.

---

References made above are - to my knowledge - correct. She got a C&D, removed what she thought were the items at issue, and then effectively got the invoice ('you must agree to pay us $8500' etc).

If I had got the C&D, I would have removed all the items personally, because I don't want to get steam rolled by Universal. That said, if she isn't infringing on Universal's property now, does she have a legal right to disbute the matter? Yes. Does she have the money to do it? No.

By links all over the shop, I mean on Browncoat Invoice, certain words are keywords which have related information associated with them.

Personally, I think what happened with SERENITY is absolutely not a surprise, and I have little sympathy for people selling - for example - the SERENITY logo and who complain about getting C&D notices. That said, they are still pursuing Susan -- she's the only person they're pursing -- and she has a limited chance of getting them to discuss the matter due to the size of the company she's dealing with.

More studios than ever are embracing fans as a cheap way of publicity. And that's great. However, those studios need to think about it a bit more. Not running a forum for people to sell shit whilst a movie is on release is a good start.

---

That said, they are still pursuing Susan -- she's the only person they're pursing -- and she has a limited chance of getting them to discuss the matter due to the size of the company she's dealing with.

She needs a lawyer, a good one, one who specializes in copyright cases, because if she did licensed work for them, I can honestly see why they are going after her. It's more complicated than amateur fan art. Don't get me wrong; I still think it's petty, but it's more understandable than targeting a fan whose never done professional work for them.

She should take down her shop entirely until then, even if there's not one thing that could be taken as infringement (and to give her her due, there doesn't seem to be anything now, but still, I'd just take EVERYTHING down, or maybe sell shirts that say something like, "Save Susan," or "11th Hour S.O.S." only pithier [and not a movie or series quote, which is too bad, because there's some fun to be had with "Universal" and "no power in the 'verse"]).

---

I'm not overly sure how designing some of the licensed artwork is an issue. She did the two RPG covers for Margaret Wise Ltd, not Universal directly, so personally I wouldn't have thought they know anything 'bout it anyway.

The last cover she did is here; [link]

---

Okay, so, the C&D was referring to her using their IP to describe her original, non-infringing art?

Or did that art infringe?

Where's Narrator when I need her?

---

Kevin, I can see finding it curious that they found out this person is the same person who did work for Margaret Wise Ltd. But beyond that, can you really not see the larger issue?

ILLUSTRATION: Christopher Golden and Nancy Holder have written BtVS novels. They're published, not by FOX, but by Simon and Schuster (or whatever publishing house). Simon and Schuster pays licensing fees to FOX (like MWLtd would have paid to Universal, for the game) so that Golden and Holder can work with FOX's property.

(Here comes the hypothetical part) Now, let's say that Christopher Golden decides to self publish a (hypothetical) novel on the web. Let's say it's his own story, but it's meant to appeal (hypothetically) to BtVS fans, and that without any permission, he (hypothetically) markets it as being inspired by BtVS.

He's done licensed work with their product, and now he's (hypothetically) self-publishing and selling, for his own profit, stuff he's putting forth as evoking and inspired by BtVS. And it's not even promoting the BtVS DVDs or anything else when doing it. Instead, he's trying to use their property to promote his own for-profit endeavor.

That's what this is like, except Golden both knows better, and could afford a lawyer.

---

It seems to me that ethically, Universal is treading muddy water, but that Susan legally tripped the wire.

The best outcome for both parties would be to settle and slap a gag order on the whole stinky business.

---