4 ms·

Agreed, but this article neglects to mention most pertinent details while the 13yo autistic girl is bandied about to make it ok. 1. This was not HBO, but one o

Agreed, but this article neglects to mention most pertinent details while the 13yo autistic girl is bandied about to make it ok. 1. This was not HBO, but one of their many, often hyperactive IP firms. 2. IP firms are hyperactive because the law tells them if they aren't, they lose credibility in the eyes of the court in future cases. 3. The content, clearly GoT inspired, was likely posted in places that have agreements jeopardizing the ownership of said content and, yes i am stretching, copyright and trademark. Is it ham fisted? Absolutely, I opened with that. But is it expected? Is this bad journalism? Absolutely it is.

paulddraper 10y ago
> This was not HBO, but one of their many, often hyperactive IP firms I don't think the distinction between the company and its employees/contractors is relevant here. If the employee/contractor consistently went against the company's wishes, they wouldn't be an employee/contractor.
greedo 10y ago
At least judging by the picture itself, there's no indication the painting was inspired by GoT. The character doesn't look like any GoT characters, there's no iconic imagery, it's just a girl in purple holding a dying plant.
TheGrassyKnoll 10y ago
> "3. The content, clearly GoT inspired,..." Really ? You see a GoT theme in that picture ? I don't.
dkonofalski 10y ago
> 3. The content, clearly GoT inspired, was likely posted in places that have agreements jeopardizing the ownership of said content and, yes i am stretching, copyright and trademark. You're not just stretching it, you're confusing the two. The law doesn't say anything about the need to protect trademark, only copyright. Additionally, there is nothing there to indicate that the artwork ("content" as you called it) has any inspiration from GoT. It's not based on a character from the show or the book and it doesn't depict an event or scene from either.

paulddraper 10y ago

> This was not HBO, but one of their many, often hyperactive IP firms I don't think the distinction between the company and its employees/contractors is relevant here. If the employee/contractor consistently went against the company's wishes, they wouldn't be an employee/contractor.

greedo 10y ago

At least judging by the picture itself, there's no indication the painting was inspired by GoT. The character doesn't look like any GoT characters, there's no iconic imagery, it's just a girl in purple holding a dying plant.

TheGrassyKnoll 10y ago

> "3. The content, clearly GoT inspired,..." Really ? You see a GoT theme in that picture ? I don't.

dkonofalski 10y ago

> 3. The content, clearly GoT inspired, was likely posted in places that have agreements jeopardizing the ownership of said content and, yes i am stretching, copyright and trademark. You're not just stretching it, you're confusing the two. The law doesn't say anything about the need to protect trademark, only copyright. Additionally, there is nothing there to indicate that the artwork ("content" as you called it) has any inspiration from GoT. It's not based on a character from the show or the book and it doesn't depict an event or scene from either.