1003
This picture kills X bots
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
1003 points (97.5% liked)
internet funeral
6883 readers
19 users here now
ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤart of the internet
What is this place?
• !hmmm@lemmy.world with text and titles
• post obscure and surreal art with text
• nothing memetic, nothing boring
• unique textural art images
• Post only images or gifs (except for meta posts)
Guidlines
• no video posts are allowed
• No memes. Not even surreal ones. Post your memes on !surrealmemes@sh.itjust.works instead
• If your submission can be posted to !hmmm@lemmy.world (I.e. no text images), It should be posted there instead
This is a curated magazine. Post anything and everything. It will either stay up or be lost into the void.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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!
Maybe we should fix the insanity that is US copyright law.
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.
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.
Ha so now you're arguing copyright should be stronger? jfc
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
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.
I anal as well
It's all anal in the end
Inshallah 🙏☪️🍆💦
A simple crease and desist letter surely suffice for this, right? No need to waste resource suing a daycare for copyright infringement?
I'd think so, but again, not a lawyer.
U ANAL?
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.
IANAL and my stepbro used to work in DP law until it broke me
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.