What do you think?

This is odd!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to What do you think?

  1. Robertdee says:

    I think you should rape their mouths with a cancerous whale’s penis covered in fire ants.

  2. Ricky says:

    I’d like to say they’ve been influenced by you but it’s way too similar.

  3. Mike Baehr says:

    This says “homage” to me more than “rip-off” but that’s just me.

  4. Rich Janney says:

    What?! He calls it “Eaty Crow.” Totally different.

  5. Jwbalsley says:

    It’s okay, they just owe you a few dozen checks.


  6. Bristow says:

    Digital Drinky?

  7. Pandy says:

    I think you’ve had enough candy for one evening.

  8. Rich Janney says:

    What?! He calls it “Eaty Crow.” Totally different!!

  9. David Margowsky says:

    I think those eggs are way too big for those Drinky Crows.

  10. John M. says:

    Who are these bastard thieves? Do want me to break their hands for you? I will! I can bust up their feet real good, too! Please, just say the word!

  11. Random Interloper says:

    No way that’s fair use. Worse yet is that they rip it off for a lousy piece of spot art.

  12. Darren says:

    They even copied the exclamation marks!
    At least they didn’t use the “?” bubble.

  13. stantheman says:

    Please sue them. It ain’t right – your crow deserves better.

  14. Goofy Gorilla says:

    7. What constitutes trademark infringement?

    If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. �� 1114, 1125. The standard is “likelihood of confusion.” To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant’s intent. Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820 (1961).

    from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm

    It’s from Harvard!

    • Bristow says:

      Put in that way, I would never confuse this as the work of Tony Millionaire.
      Unless of course he had been hitting the ‘vics’ ‘n Budweisers again while trying to give Drinky a new look.

      • John M. says:

        I was momentarily confused, as were others who commented. It’s enough to present a fact quesiton to a jury.

        A jury of hammer-wielding chimpanzees!

  15. Goofy Gorilla says:

    If you want evidence of actual confusion, I was confused and was going to post: “YOU SELLOUT!” So you could also perhaps claim material damage to your brand. After all, you’ve been on TV several times, so it’s not like they could claim they were entirely unaware of where that image came from.

  16. SomeRandomLurker says:

    The resemblance is uncanny.
    Bright side is you’re both in California, so much of the red tape for a lawsuit wouldn’t apply.

  17. TonyMillion says:

    It’s just one illustrator doing something weird. I wonder what he was thinking.

    • John M. says:

      I bet he was thinking, “Oh fuck I’ve got to come up with some cartoon birds by tomorrow and these tech assholes have rejected my first ten drawings! Hmm, this cartoon crow is pretty compelling. I bet nobody will ever know! Who has ever heard of this ‘Maakies’ thing anyway?”

  18. Nic Farra says:

    Property is robbery. Death to all tyrants.

  19. David says:

    So they borrowed your way of drawing a bird. Sure, it’s a crime, but no one really got hurt. I say forget it, let ‘em get away with this, as you would want others to let you get away with stuff.
    Don’t discourage odd events.

  20. I would agree with David and say let it go, except that Zillow is neither a person or a business, it is a corporation. It is a self-perpetuating machine that worships a strange god called “The Bottom Line.” It is a monster that eats everything and leaves nothing behind it but waste. Corporations don’t like to produce content, they prefer to steal because stealing yields greater profit. I say, find a lawyer and nail their balls to the floor.

    …Or better yet, nail Zillow in Maakies. Repeatedly.

    • TonyMillion says:

      Yeah but this is just an illustrator who likes Drinky Crow and did an illo about Zillow. It’s not Zillow. Take a pill-o!

  21. JP says:

    I agree with goofy gorilla: I think much of your fan base would be offended if you lent your characters to corporate advertising.
    Also, they are making money from your work. Even if you are not offended, at the very least you should be compensated. If you borrowed someone else’s work and made money from it, wouldn’t you feel it was right to compensate them?

  22. JP says:

    Was it just an illustration for a newspaper article? Then forget it. At most send him a polite letter stating your concerns.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>