Lenny Oscow vs. Southern Puff Smokes

Posted by Sheri Harris on Monday, November 30, 2009
IN THE UNITED STATES
CIVIL MATTER

Southern Puff Smokes

Plaintiff

vs.

Lenny Oscow

Defendant

Preliminary Statement

Mr. Lenny Oscow downloaded a picture off the internet. These pictures were from a gallery of sorts entailing that of defunct advertisements. The product by which Mr. Oscow used in picture is now a defunct and the brand is no longer sold or used by consumer. Mr. Oscow used the picture for artistic impression of his own and created another image with the use of this picture. Once the item was re-imaged by Mr. Oscow he began printing items with the re-imaged picture and sold them on his website. The product no longer in use or owned and the copyright protection has lapsed, Mr. Oscow felt it was legal for him to use for his artistic venture. Mr. Oscow was was asked to share of his profit from his newly created image by the company Southern Puff Smokes who bought out Tumor Brands that sold Stoned Tobacco where Mr. Oscow obtained the original image from. Mr. Oscow refused, thus the case of Southern Puff Smokes filing complaint against Mr. Oscow for copyright infringement.

ARGUMENT

Mr. Oscow has since copyrighted his rendition of work prior to it's use. Southern Puff Smokes acquired several brands including that of the now defunct Stoned Tobacco when they bought out Tumor Brands twenty-five years ago. Stoned Tobacco was no longer sold and off the market at the same time Southern Puff purchased Tumor Brands and Stoned Tobacco ceased it's sales fifteen years before Southern Puff Smokes acquired them. Copyrights for the product were never reissued under the Southern Puff Smokes name. So, Mr. Oscow interpreted that the fair use doctrine was appropriate because the image was no longer under copyright protection and therefore free to use.

Southern Puff's Claim

Mr. Oscow used an entire image of original work to manipulate thought. It was Mr. Oscow, who therefore stole someone elses creative process and neglected to share any of the proceeds with the company who acquired the owner of Stoned Tobacco which was Southern Puff Smokes. Furthermore, Southern Puff Smokes states that Mr. Oscow created a negative image of the now defunct product which has now harmed sales of products still used by consumers currently owned by Southern Puff Smokes because of it's brand ownership association with that of Tumor Brands. Thus creating a conflict in advertising with the defunct brand because of the same company association and the negative impetus Mr. Oscow has now placed on Southern Puff Smokes. 

Southern Puff Smokes Vs. Lenny Oscow will resume



null

Lenny Oscow vs. Southern Puff Smokes

Posted by Sheri Harris on Monday, November 30, 2009
IN THE UNITED STATES
CIVIL MATTER

Southern Puff Smokes

Plaintiff

vs.

Lenny Oscow

Defendant

Preliminary Statement

Mr. Lenny Oscow downloaded a picture off the internet. These pictures were from a gallery of sorts entailing that of defunct advertisements. The product by which Mr. Oscow used in picture is now a defunct and the brand is no longer sold or used by consumer. Mr. Oscow used the picture for artistic impression of his own and created another image with the use of this picture. Once the item was re-imaged by Mr. Oscow he began printing items with the re-imaged picture and sold them on his website. The product no longer in use or owned and the copyright protection has lapsed, Mr. Oscow felt it was legal for him to use for his artistic venture. Mr. Oscow was was asked to share of his profit from his newly created image by the company Southern Puff Smokes who bought out Tumor Brands that sold Stoned Tobacco where Mr. Oscow obtained the original image from. Mr. Oscow refused, thus the case of Southern Puff Smokes filing complaint against Mr. Oscow for copyright infringement.

ARGUMENT

Mr. Oscow has since copyrighted his rendition of work prior to it's use. Southern Puff Smokes acquired several brands including that of the now defunct Stoned Tobacco when they bought out Tumor Brands twenty-five years ago. Stoned Tobacco was no longer sold and off the market at the same time Southern Puff purchased Tumor Brands and Stoned Tobacco ceased it's sales fifteen years before Southern Puff Smokes acquired them. Copyrights for the product were never reissued under the Southern Puff Smokes name. So, Mr. Oscow interpreted that the fair use doctrine was appropriate because the image was no longer under copyright protection and therefore free to use.

Southern Puff's Claim

Mr. Oscow used an entire image of original work to manipulate thought. It was Mr. Oscow, who therefore stole someone elses creative process and neglected to share any of the proceeds with the company who acquired the owner of Stoned Tobacco which was Southern Puff Smokes. Furthermore, Southern Puff Smokes states that Mr. Oscow created a negative image of the now defunct product which has now harmed sales of products still used by consumers currently owned by Southern Puff Smokes because of it's brand ownership association with that of Tumor Brands. Thus creating a conflict in advertising with the defunct brand because of the same company association and the negative impetus Mr. Oscow has now placed on Southern Puff Smokes. 

Southern Puff Smokes Vs. Lenny Oscow will resume



null

Lenny Oscow vs. Southern Puff Smokes

Posted by Sheri Harris on Monday, November 30, 2009
IN THE UNITED STATES
CIVIL MATTER

Southern Puff Smokes

Plaintiff

vs.

Lenny Oscow

Defendant

Preliminary Statement

Mr. Lenny Oscow downloaded a picture off the internet. These pictures were from a gallery of sorts entailing that of defunct advertisements. The product by which Mr. Oscow used in picture is now a defunct and the brand is no longer sold or used by consumer. Mr. Oscow used the picture for artistic impression of his own and created another image with the use of this picture. Once the item was re-imaged by Mr. Oscow he began printing items with the re-imaged picture and sold them on his website. The product no longer in use or owned and the copyright protection has lapsed, Mr. Oscow felt it was legal for him to use for his artistic venture. Mr. Oscow was was asked to share of his profit from his newly created image by the company Southern Puff Smokes who bought out Tumor Brands that sold Stoned Tobacco where Mr. Oscow obtained the original image from. Mr. Oscow refused, thus the case of Southern Puff Smokes filing complaint against Mr. Oscow for copyright infringement.

ARGUMENT

Mr. Oscow has since copyrighted his rendition of work prior to it's use. Southern Puff Smokes acquired several brands including that of the now defunct Stoned Tobacco when they bought out Tumor Brands twenty-five years ago. Stoned Tobacco was no longer sold and off the market at the same time Southern Puff purchased Tumor Brands and Stoned Tobacco ceased it's sales fifteen years before Southern Puff Smokes acquired them. Copyrights for the product were never reissued under the Southern Puff Smokes name. So, Mr. Oscow interpreted that the fair use doctrine was appropriate because the image was no longer under copyright protection and therefore free to use.

Southern Puff's Claim

Mr. Oscow used an entire image of original work to manipulate thought. It was Mr. Oscow, who therefore stole someone elses creative process and neglected to share any of the proceeds with the company who acquired the owner of Stoned Tobacco which was Southern Puff Smokes. Furthermore, Southern Puff Smokes states that Mr. Oscow created a negative image of the now defunct product which has now harmed sales of products still used by consumers currently owned by Southern Puff Smokes because of it's brand ownership association with that of Tumor Brands. Thus creating a conflict in advertising with the defunct brand because of the same company association and the negative impetus Mr. Oscow has now placed on Southern Puff Smokes. 

Southern Puff Smokes Vs. Lenny Oscow will resume



null

Lenny Oscow vs. Southern Puff Smokes

Posted by Sheri Harris on Monday, November 30, 2009
IN THE UNITED STATES
CIVIL MATTER

Southern Puff Smokes

Plaintiff

vs.

Lenny Oscow

Defendant

Preliminary Statement

Mr. Lenny Oscow downloaded a picture off the internet. These pictures were from a gallery of sorts entailing that of defunct advertisements. The product by which Mr. Oscow used in picture is now a defunct and the brand is no longer sold or used by consumer. Mr. Oscow used the picture for artistic impression of his own and created another image with the use of this picture. Once the item was re-imaged by Mr. Oscow he began printing items with the re-imaged picture and sold them on his website. The product no longer in use or owned and the copyright protection has lapsed, Mr. Oscow felt it was legal for him to use for his artistic venture. Mr. Oscow was was asked to share of his profit from his newly created image by the company Southern Puff Smokes who bought out Tumor Brands that sold Stoned Tobacco where Mr. Oscow obtained the original image from. Mr. Oscow refused, thus the case of Southern Puff Smokes filing complaint against Mr. Oscow for copyright infringement.

ARGUMENT

Mr. Oscow has since copyrighted his rendition of work prior to it's use. Southern Puff Smokes acquired several brands including that of the now defunct Stoned Tobacco when they bought out Tumor Brands twenty-five years ago. Stoned Tobacco was no longer sold and off the market at the same time Southern Puff purchased Tumor Brands and Stoned Tobacco ceased it's sales fifteen years before Southern Puff Smokes acquired them. Copyrights for the product were never reissued under the Southern Puff Smokes name. So, Mr. Oscow interpreted that the fair use doctrine was appropriate because the image was no longer under copyright protection and therefore free to use.

Southern Puff's Claim

Mr. Oscow used an entire image of original work to manipulate thought. It was Mr. Oscow, who therefore stole someone elses creative process and neglected to share any of the proceeds with the company who acquired the owner of Stoned Tobacco which was Southern Puff Smokes. Furthermore, Southern Puff Smokes states that Mr. Oscow created a negative image of the now defunct product which has now harmed sales of products still used by consumers currently owned by Southern Puff Smokes because of it's brand ownership association with that of Tumor Brands. Thus creating a conflict in advertising with the defunct brand because of the same company association and the negative impetus Mr. Oscow has now placed on Southern Puff Smokes. 

Southern Puff Smokes Vs. Lenny Oscow will resume



null