Copyrights, Trademarks, Patents, and branding irons

[KingRoyal]

This guy is also public domain



Feel free to make your own characters based on his likeness. Perhaps a criminal who thinks crime is funny? Chilling

[Thad]

You could have him fight Zorro. Or the Scarlet Pimpernel.

[KingRoyal]

In two years he could fight the Shadow, maybe. Though that would just be the radio play version, which doesn't have a visual. Maybe combine him with Dracula?

[Thad]

I think the Shadow's look was defined by 1931. Definitely by 1932. So not too far past his radio debut.

[Thad]

Amazon refuses to pay screenwriter for the right to reboot Road House

So, this is kind of an interesting one, if you're as interested in copyright minutiae as I am.

Lance Hill wrote the script for Road House and then, through his company, Lady Amos Literary Works, sold it to United Artists.

As 35 years have elapsed since the sale, he's seeking to reclaim the copyright from the increasingly-ironically-named United Artists, which is now owned by Amazon. He's represented by Marc Toberoff, who is *the guy* for copyright transfer termination litigation (he represented Jerry Siegel's heirs against Warner and Jack Kirby's heirs against Disney; both cases had mixed results in court but ended in settlements that made his clients very happy).

Now, Amazon's doing something that AFAIK is novel: they're claiming that the Road House script wasn't produced on spec, it was work-for-hire. That's normal enough, but the unusual part is they're claiming it wasn't work-for-hire for UA, it was work-for-hire for Lady Amos Literary Works. If that were the case, then it's a work of corporate authorship. If it's a work of corporate authorship, then the copyright transfer can't be terminated; only natural-person authors (or their statutory heirs) can terminate a copyright transfer.

As Lady Amos is merely a legal entity that Hill uses to do business, has no employees, and did not pay him to produce the script, this seems like a reach to me. He did sign a contract with UA agreeing that it was WFH by Lady Amos, but that's not necessarily relevant; if a work is for-hire then it's for-hire and if a work is spec then it's spec, you can't retroactively change the terms under which it was created, no matter what you sign. (At least, starting in 1978. Determining whether a pre-1978 work is for-hire is more complicated.)

I'm curious how a court would actually rule on this, but I don't think a ruling is what Hill's really after here. This will most likely end in a settlement where Amazon gives him some amount of money and/or credit for the Road House remake.

[Thad]

Company sells "Fuck the LAPD" T-shirts.
LAPDF's attorneys send vexatious takedown demand.
Company's attorneys send response letter consisting entirely of "LOL, no."

And then follow it up with a more detailed letter which concludes,

The LAPD is not expected to like the existence of “Fuck the LAPD” merchandise. But their sole remedy is to not do things that result in people wanting to buy and wear “Fuck the LAPD” merchandise. I understand that would be a difficult task. But I promise you that it would still be easier than trying to get a court to rule that “Fuck the LAPD” shirts violate the LAPDF’s intellectual property rights.

Within a week of receipt of this letter, please either provide us with an explanation of why your initial letter was not in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 512, or contact us to make arrangements to remit payment sufficient to compensate The Cola Corporation, LLC for the attorneys' fees it was forced to expend to deal with the false takedown notice.

[Mongrel]

Let it be entered into the record that the shirts aren't just banal text, but this excellent design riffing off the Lakers logo.

[Büge]

404: Scalpers have reverse-engineered how Ticketmaster creates non-transferable tickets, and are now generating and selling them on their own parallel infrastructure.

[Mongrel]

Ahahahaha

That could not possibly happen to a better gang of assholes.

[Thad]

I'm seeing reports that Nintendo and The Pokemon Company are suing the makers of Palworld for patent infringement. The primary source appears to be this Nintendo press release, which is thin on details, such as what patents they're claiming Palworld infringes.

My first guess, frankly, is that the press release was written by a PR person who doesn't know what a patent is and this suit is over copyright and/or trademark infringement, but I guess we'll see when people actually post the filings instead of relying on press releases.

[nosimpleway]

As outlined in that other thread, the only surprise is that it didn't happen sooner.

[Thad]

I mean I'm a little surprised. Nintendo tends to pick legal fights it can win. I don't think this would be a slam-dunk under US law, though I admit I don't know anything about Japanese law or, you know, any specifics about the legal claims they're actually making here. (I still think there's a high probability that the press release is wrong and it's not a patent case at all.)

[Newbie]

I forget where I read it, now, but it seems like the violation is, in essence, the pokeball. Throwing a thing to try to capture and throwing a thing to deploy a fighter. I'm not familiar enough with Palworld to evaluate how closely their mechanics match that functionality.

[nosimpleway]

I forget where I read it, now, but it seems like the violation is, in essence, the pokeball. Throwing a thing to try to capture and throwing a thing to deploy a fighter. I'm not familiar enough with Palworld to evaluate how closely their mechanics match that functionality.

In Pokemon you encounter a wild monster and throw a capture sphere at it. The percentage chance of it staying in the ball and being added to your party/collection is low, but can be increased by reducing the monster's HP or inflicting it with status ailments. If you knock the creature to 0 HP, it's defeated and can no longer be captured.

In Palworld you encounter a wild monster and throw a capture sphere at it. The percentage chance of it staying in the ball and being added to your party/collection is low, but can be increased by reducing the monster's HP. If you knock the creature to 0 HP, it's defeated and can no longer be captured.

[Thad]

I forget where I read it, now, but it seems like the violation is, in essence, the pokeball. Throwing a thing to try to capture and throwing a thing to deploy a fighter. I'm not familiar enough with Palworld to evaluate how closely their mechanics match that functionality.

Yeah, I've seen that speculation too. Could be.

I don't think that would be a slam-dunk in the US patent system (I could absolutely see somebody getting that patent here but I'm not sure how it would go if they tested it in court) but Japan's got much stricter laws and enforcement. I don't think Nintendo would be doing this if they didn't think they had a strong case.

[nosimpleway]

PocketPair hires identical lawyers, with guns

[beatbandito]

When I think of videogame trademark and copyright I always think of an old comparison with Street Fighter and knock-offs of it. You can have a game with punch, kick, high punch, throw buttons. You can have the same number of characters characters, one being a japanese guy in a gi, one being a chinese woman in a traditional chinese outfit, american GI, etc etc. But the issue is with the placement and color of health bars, round timer, things like that.

I wonder how that extends to pokemon designs. "This is an elk and it's grass type so it's green" definitely feels like it should be pretty universally allowed. But there's certainly a closer comparison between palworld and pokemon designs than "dark haired man in white gi".

[Cait]

I forget where I read it, now, but it seems like the violation is, in essence, the pokeball. Throwing a thing to try to capture and throwing a thing to deploy a fighter. I'm not familiar enough with Palworld to evaluate how closely their mechanics match that functionality.

That is actually just wild speculation by people skimming Nintendo's patents looking for an idea. The patent in question is specifically for using a device to simulate the throwing motion (read: Joycons).

[Thad]

"Superhero" is no longer a trademarked term.

[Mongrel]

According to Richold, DC accused his company of infringing the "Super Hero" marks and threatened legal action after Superbabies Ltd applied for U.S. trademarks covering the "Super Babies" name.

lmao