3 ms·
Even if "DID" was indeed, unambiguously referring to the dance show, what would need infringed on? It's not a copyright violation, since the article would just
by ajmurmann 7y ago
Even if "DID" was indeed, unambiguously referring to the dance show, what would need infringed on? It's not a copyright violation, since the article would just be talking about the show and not reproducing the copyrighted content. If anything the name would fall under trademark, but even that wouldn't be violated here.
In short: why would just mentioning something covered by copyright ever make for a legitimate takedown?
- rdiddly 7y agoIf anything, a mention (a real one) should be thought of as free publicity for their shitty who-cares show! Like if you had a mind to firmly put an end to any possibility of a viral word-of-mouth campaign (which is the fondest wish of most producers of attention-based product e.g. entertainment, but let's say you were a dangerously stupid one), this is how you would do it.
- olodus 7y agoLet's hope the people behind the dance show maybe get word of how this copyrights defender company used the money they gave them to protect their brand, realized how bad this publicity is and fire the Rights Hero team.