(Oh, language advisory for the comments beneath the article.)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
There is no indication, given the blogger's information, that the use of the character is not already licensed. The two parties may have come to a quiet agreement 17 years ago, for all we know. Leave it to the bloggers to jump to conclusions- I'll wait until I hear from someone reliable before casting judgment.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There is some evidence: not listing the author at all when listing influential authors.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's not at all clear that there's any legal remedy for any wrong that may or may not have occurred here. Beyond the threshold question of whether any type of violation existed under either trademark or copyright, there's also the question of laches and statute of limitations (the first Emily picture is clearly outside the statute).
As to trademark, it's not clear the original character is a trademark at all.
As to copyright, the question is whether the first appearance of Emily is a copy or derivate work of the original. Each subsequent Emily work would have to be examined as well to determine if it is a copy or derivative of a particular piece of expression, not just the idea of a strange girl with long hair and cats. All of this is highly fact dependent. None of the blog post or comments really analyze the question.