Yeah lol, the idea being that web crawling tshirt bots are scanning for popular images and keywords to automatically steal content for printing
it's insane when people on reddit defend disney in that bullshit lawsuit about how they HAVE to sue a daycare for using its characters in a mural, they HAVE to in order to keep their other bullshit going. i've seen multiple posts! acting like it's smart business!
Not copyright, trademark. At least, that's the rules those comments assume Disney is following. It's pretty dumb, I can't think of any world those characters get genericised, but eh.
Disney is largely protecting its characters with trademark law now, yes. That's why there's no particular effort to extend copyright any further than they have.
Now, as long as there are companies in a capitalist system, or even in something closer to market socialism, trademark makes a certain amount of sense. You have certain branding that's associated with your company (even if it's a worker-owned co-op), and you don't want your customers confused over its use by another company. We can certainly think of ways the current system can be approved--wider protection for satire, or easier ways to shut down bullshit lawsuits without spending a lot of money--but the idea makes sense in this context.
Now, if we're aiming for a more commune-based system beyond market socialism, then no, we don't need trademark at all.
So IANAL but my brother used to do IP law before it broke him. The way he explained it to me was that it's not that it's a business decision, it's that they can lose the trademark if they don't try to defend it. So if something comes to their attention, they aren't really allowed to pick and choose who gets to infringe on their IP rights.
I'm sure there's a better explanation out there but I'm a tax guy, but an IP guy.
That being said, the situation you described (I am unfamiliar with the case) sounds like such bullshit. The point of trademark is to avoid confusion. Unless that daycare was in Anaheim, Orlando, or Burbank I wouldn't assume any connection to Disney (and if it was in those cities I'd assume the connection was that they'd hired a Disney artist to paint their wall). There's gotta be a fair use defense here.
it’s that they can lose the trademark if they don’t try to defend it
So the copyright and trademark system needs to change then.
Also, those laws were essentially ghostwritten by Disney and the like, so I very much doubt that wasn't an intentional thing so they can go "look, we have to sue you, our hands are tied!"
To clarify, you don't need to defend copyright to maintain it, only trademarks. They're very different things. Copyright is meant to protect you from people just reprinting your stuff (and privacy). Trademarks are meant to protect the distinguishing features your company uses to separate it from other companies.
Copyright, trademarks, etc. do nothing but hinder innovation and create wealth inequality.
Copyright (and patents - they're different, but have similar ideas behind them) were meant to be a compromise. Creator gets to profit from their idea for a predetermined time, with protection from the state, then when that time is up, it becomes owned by "the people" and therefore nobody's use is any more legitimate than anyone else's. But Disney broke copyright by extending it to its current ridiculous extent...
So I guess what I'm saying is, as long as the period is short, it can be a net benefit - but when it's life plus 75 years or whatever it is now, it stifles creativity.
It doesn't need to be stronger, fair use needs to be expanded and lawyers need to be fined for taking on and wasting court time with obviously unnecessary cases.
Or just put everything into the public domain after 28 years.
Did you see the "Fables" creator's recent action and commentary on IP law? https://billwillingham.substack.com/p/willingham-sends-fables-into-the
they can lose the trademark if they don’t try to defend it
This is true, but that's if another company is using a similar logo as their own. Like, if a pet store used the Mickey Mouse logo, of course they're going to be sued.
If a daycare uses Mickey Mouse to decorate their classroom, Disney doesn't have to sue because the trademark isn't be used separate from Disney. The Daycare, and kids, are using it because it's Disney, so there is no confusion about trademark ownership.
At the very least, Disney could simply write them a letter allowing them to use depictions of Disney characters inside the school so long as it's not for advertising or commercial purposes and the art is done by a student or teacher.
A simple crease and desist letter surely suffice for this, right? No need to waste resource suing a daycare for copyright infringement?
in case you haven't seen the acronym before (it took me a minute the first time I saw it too!), it means "I Am Not A Lawyer". It's a disclaimer that the advice given is NOT legal advice.
If your post was just a joke: a) I thought the same thing when I first saw that b) no kink shaming 😅
No shame, just seems like a weird thing to declare before talking about your brother.
And it was a joke lol
You could sue a random Lemmy user for seemingly giving legal advice? Or what's the need for a disclaimer? That sounds so strange
This is used by non-lawyers who are seeking to avoid accusations of unauthorized practice of law and are not making any recommendation to the particular addressee of their remarks. -Wikipedia
Basically it's a disclaimer to avoid any potential issues, given how litigious some situations can get, it's best to be overprotective with any potentially legal advice
There's PLENTY if people ready to sue left and right (and attorneys happy to take their money) at the drop of a hat if they feel they have been wronged because they can't look at themselves in the mirror and say "yeah, I was an idiot on that one".
Have you looked at the "florida man" or "not the onion" communities? People are crazy.
No really such thing as fair use in trademark but it's definitely possible to not be an asshole about it. You can definitely allow use, the question is whether you assert control over use of the mark or not.
You wouldn't want to allow extreme cases (a daycare Disney-theming itself completely associating itself, unilaterally, with all your IP and by extension looking like a Disney-licensed and associated daycare) but "as minor part of a larger artwork, or a single mural of a single character not publicly visible" avoids damage to the mark's image.
From the other POV, as a daycare, you should only ever do murals of Mickey if he's holding a giant cookie.
The standard for losing a trademark essentially boils down to "no reasonable person would expect the public to know it's a trademark, so any infringement can be assumed to be accidental". So things like dry ice, heroin, escalator, gasoline, trampoline, flip phone, and teleprompter. Common words where the fact that they were once trademarks is obscure trivia. The more commonly cited examples of genericized trademarks like Kleenex or Band-Aid are not actually genericized, that's a myth, they're in no danger of being genericized because people know they're trademarks.
You wrote some fuckery to reword "...they HAVE to sue a daycare for using its characters in a mural, they HAVE to in order to keep their other bullshit going." with more corporate sympathy.
Fuck Disney, fuck you, and fuck copyright law.
It should be rewritten, and culture should be allowed to function normally again.
C'mon we are better than this here. Firstly be friendlier. Secondly they just tried to explain why, given the current legal system, sometimes a company has to do stuff that at first glance seems like a bad business decision.
I agree that the system is flawed, and that IP laws need a big reformation, that's the case pretty much worldwide I might add. But just describing the status quo is not "corporate sympathy" and attacking people for it is bad manners at least.
Edit: Also, just for clarification, this whole issue is not copyright but trademark right related, which can be even stranger than copyright laws.
Let me know if you ever register a trademark. I'll be delighted to infringe on it day one so you can lose it. After all, according to you, defending it is utter bullshit.
There’s a subset of the population that is absolutely fine with businesses fucking over regular people in the name of profit in no-harm crimes like you mention. Heck, they even want certain political figures to screw over regular people because they’re great businessmen.
Of course they’d probably change their tune if they’re the ones getting screwed over.
I wish I could have this on a T-shirt! That would be so funny and cool
I want this on a mug so bad
I would pay money to see this on a mousepad!!!
Don't put this on Lemmy, you're compromising all the instances who download it! These guys can't afford the legal defense.
IANAL, but I think in this context this would count as political commentary/expression and therefore fair use.
Yeah and they're being extra weak as this is the steamboat willy Micky which falls into public domain Jan 1st 2024 which is only a couple of months away.
I expect a Disney short featuring Steamboat Willie Mickey to be released on December 31st, 2023.
They changed the logo of the Disney animation studio to steamboat Willie some years ago and trademarked it, that's the new plan.
Nooooo, the Internet has told me several times over the past 4 years that Disney has a secret plan to push a hidden bill to extend copyright another 100 years. This is the worst thing that could happen, and therefore it definitely will.
I'm not very informed on this issue, but is there any good reason a company should lose their ownership of IP just because enough time has passed? Not trying to defend Disney, just wondering.
IP rights were always intended to expire. If you look up original copyright and patent laws you will see the words "for limited Times" very quite prominently. Originally the idea was you create something, you control it for awhile, then it becomes a cultural asset that belongs to everyone. The law was changed to keep extending the period these pieces of our culture "belong to them" instead of belonging to all of us.
Reading your question I worry how many people assume their cultural icons should rightfully be controlled by corporations instead of belonging to everyone who grew up with them.
Referencing or reinterpreting old works used to be a stable in culture. But even with fair use laws (and not every contry has them) it is a legal minefield to use anything that isn't public domain. So while copy right laws are intended to foster culture work production, the extreme long terms (105 years) actually harm it.
ps disney itself build their animation film success partially on public domain fairy tales while simultainosly working on getting copyright laws to a point where no new public domain fairytales will be created ever again.
That definitely happens with trademarks. In fact, they're designed that way. You get to keep it as long as you're using it.
Trademarks can also become so widespread that they become generic, and then the company is in danger of losing it. Kleenex, for example. This is something of a "victim of your own success" problem.
I wish there was a better mechanism for this on copyright and patents. There's no good reason that a 30 year old video game that isn't being actively developed should still be in copyright. Patent trolls who figure they can make more money by suing people than by licensing out the tech should be shut down.
As a musician, IP law is anathema to the development and expression of culture. As musicians we are raised on music in the public domain (classical music, folk songs), we cover bands that are inspirational to us, we reference famous melodies or ideas in our work. It isn't all just cold-hearted capitalist thievery. Quotation used to be a normal aspect of music (even the greats like Beethoven did it) but it you get organizations like the Marvin Gaye estate who frivolously sue any artist who even considers referencing his music. What does that leave culture? Is it a good likelihood that Gaye's music will have as much staying power over the centuries if his estate fights bitterly to quash his music from being referenced and disseminated?
From Wikipedia:
[American legal scholar] Pamela Samuelson has identified eight "values" that can arise from information and works in the public domain
Possible values include:
- Building blocks for the creation of new knowledge, examples include data, facts, ideas, theories, and scientific principle.
- Access to cultural heritage through information resources such as ancient Greek texts and Mozart's symphonies.
- Promoting education, through the spread of information, ideas, and scientific principles.
- Enabling follow-on innovation, through for example expired patents and copyright.
- Enabling low cost access to information without the need to locate the owner or negotiate rights clearance and pay royalties, through for example expired copyrighted works or patents, and non-original data compilation.
- Promoting public health and safety, through information and scientific principles.
- Promoting the democratic process and values, through news, laws, regulation, and judicial opinion.
- Enabling competitive imitation, through for example expired patents and copyright, or publicly disclosed technologies that do not qualify for patent protection.
Commentary doesn't need to be parody and, intentional or not, this is commentary and therefore protected.
Really curious how an intern added this at the last minute in a completely unrelated law... Oh well, stuff happens I guess.
He stumbled on his way to the paper trash and dropped it into the outgoing-laws binder
Disney seems to have seen some writing on the wall and pivoted into a trademark focus instead of endless copyright extensions. This is probably why they've been using Steamboat Willy more in some logos in the past few years. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see another extension, but it's never gotten this close before and they don't seem to be campaigning to extend it at the moment.
There is no way that happens at this point. It's not procedurally possible for Congress to pass one by the end of the year. Even a Congress that can get things done faster than the Congress we actually have would not be able to do it. Disney would have to have started the process 5 years ago.
And there's a very good reason for that. Since the last copyright extension, Disney can get everything they want with trademark law instead of copyright. They also saw what happened with public outrage over Net Neutrality; the Internet was nascent the last time copyright was extended, but grassroots mobilization would rise up against them this time around. The fight would be expensive, and they don't need to have it. They can let Steamboat Willy go into public domain on Jan 1 without any great loss.
I've been saying this for three years now: https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/lbyttl/comment/gm00zl0/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
And 5 months ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/12yh7to/comment/jhnj7k4/
People seem to be convinced that the worst thing that can happen will definitely happen. It shows little understanding of how copyright and trademark works, how Congress gets things done, and why Disney doesn't need to pick a fight on this issue. Their lawyers are evil, but not dumb.
People seem to be convinced that the worst thing that can happen will definitely happen.
I mean... The last decade or so of general events seems to suggest that's the most likely outcome in most situations.
So much so that their brain fell out?
Especially when Disney has been going through a bunch of bullshit against DeSantis. His petty fight against the company also means the party that controls the House will be actively working against them just because they can.
Can you point to any effort in Congress to extend copyright? Remember, they have less than 3 months.
Is this guy not public domain yet, I thought that was coming up. Maybe next year? John Oliver did a whole bit on it
Disney realized that Mickey's copyright value is low compared to his trademark value, which they'll never lose so long as the ear shaped icecream never stops flowing.
so long as the ear shaped icecream never stops flowing.
I spent way too long trying to understand what the heck this was a euphemism for.
If your cynicism needs feeding, then know that the reason is that they expanded trademark protection in the courts, and they just don't need to extend copyright anymore. They don't need to pick this fight. Doubly so when they've allienated the party that controls the House due to their spat with DeSantis.
I didn't immediately find the John Oliver video about it, but here ya go...
Commenting on my own comment because I'm having editing issues with Jerboa, in case anyone is having issues with Piped...
Well, neither seem to embed on Jerboa to my knowledge, so I don't really know what to say on that.
I would also buy this on a shirt. Where can I buy this? I want to buy this. This shirt I want to buy.
If you didn't know, I believe this image was made in response to specific bots that would throw up a link to an automated listing, with stolen art copy pasted on a t-shirt jpeg, whenever people on twitter said "I want this on a shirt".
Small artists had trouble defending their art from being stolen by these bots, and this image (and subsequent comments like "I want to buy this shirt") was a trap to get these bots in trouble with disney.
If you knew all this and I'm just rambling, ignore me
the problem is that I would actually purchase this on a t-shirt, but there is no way to legitimately purchase it from the original creator (if i even knew who that was) for obvious Disney-suing-to-the-ground reasons.
I think maybe you're out of the loop here. This is part of a trend to screw over bots that automatically steal art and sell it on random sites. That's why others are commenting stuff like "I'd buy this on a t-shirt!".
The tactic has already been proven to work several times, when people post stuff like this, and then report the shops that steal it to Disney's legal team. It's a clever way to leverage Disney's lawyers to protect regular artists who couldn't afford to sue all these random websites.
Thanks. Other comments and replies have been alluding to this, but this is the only one that described the mechanism.
Wow! Does anyone know where i can get this? A link to a site that steals my credit card info perhaps?
You and your dad dragged the Mickey actor onto space mountain and then your dad puked? Did he puke on Mickey?
