7 ms·

Disney Claims Trademark over Loki

137 points by runarberg 5y ago

mikece 5y ago
Nevermind 3000 years of prior art -- literal art!
- underseacables 5y ago
  The Patent Office will give you a patent for anything. If they turn you down, just keep appealing, that’s how most of these patents happen. The USPTO is a joke.
  - thayne 5y ago
    This is trademark, or more likely copyright, not patent.
    - underseacables 5y ago
      Quite Right. Forgive me I was recalling my younger days working at a patent law firm in DC. The attorneys would joke that if a patent examiner turned down your application, you would basically bully them into changing it. If that didn’t work you could just file endless appeals until they eventually said yes.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    Trademark. The rules for trademarks are more clear-cut, most places.
shadowgovt 5y ago
Is this headline accurate for this tweet? Not seeing anything in the tweet that indicates decisively the content was removed on trademark grounds. (Alternatives include copyright protection for fictional character... If the depicted fictional character was Marvel's Loki... yellow horns, green jacket, Tom Hiddleston's face... Disney may have a valid copyright claim, not trademark).
- mikece 5y ago
  "If the depicted fictional character was Marvel's Loki... yellow horns, green jacket, Tom Hiddleston's face... Disney may have a valid copyright claim, not trademark" But who's to say that Disney's rendition of this character was directly inspired by public domain prior art? In this case, why wouldn't the Disney/Marvel character also be in the public domain ab initio due to it's lack of being original?
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    That's a great question that lawyers are paid a ton of money to debate, and the answers tend to resolve on a case-by-case basis.
  - mrkurt 5y ago
    Derivative works get copyright protection.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki#/media/File:Processed_SAM_loki.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki#/media/File:Processed_SAM... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Louis_Huard_-_The_Punishment_of_Loki.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Louis_Hu... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Loki_finds_Gullveigs_Heart_-_John_Bauer.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Loki_fin... Historical art of Loki don't look much like the Disney / Marvel version of Loki.
- rackjack 5y ago
  I was gonna say... since the tweeter's name is "Loki's Buttslut" and he says it's a "comic reference" I wouldn't be surprised if he, as a fan of Loki, just barely crossed the threshold of copyright infringement.
- Talanes 5y ago
  It was Text Art of the words "Low Key." It was a reference to a specific piece of comic art, which itself was possibly a reference to Good Omens, where Low Key Lyesmith is Loki's pseudonym. So there is an element of referencing Marvel Loki, but not in any way that is wholly original to Marvel's depiction.
mikece 5y ago
For the sake of argument, I could see Disney trademarking a specific derivative or version of the mythological Loki... but then the look and actions of that character would need to always stay within a tightly defined scope in order for it to be distinguishable -- and protected under copyright -- from the ancient character of myth. Honestly, I wish Marvel/Disney would lose all challenges like this and that, absent something unique to make it different from the character of ancient myth, that all of Marvel's imagery of that character automatically enters the public domain due to prior art.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  There have been past instances of creators using public domain characters losing such suits to try and claim their character was an independent creation not subject to public domain protections (King Kong's history is probably the most famous, with both Universal killing RKO Picture's exclusive rights by arguing public domain and Nintendo killing Universal's exclusive rights with a similar argument when Universal tried to claim Donkey Kong was a violation of their IP). ... but my memory's telling me the law was changed some time after the Donkey Kong suit to strengthen a company's ability to create independently-protectable derivative work from public domain material. Unfortunately, I lack details.
- coliveira 5y ago
  Then the task is simple for Disney: just make enough movies based on Loki that most reasonable human features are displayed there.
- Cd00d 5y ago
  Doesn't Loki shape shift though? (Gaiman is my only reference)
  - runarberg 5y ago
    Yes, he does. One of the weirder stories has him turn into a mare to separate a builder from his horse help (that builder was promised ridiculous rewards that the gods couldn’t possible give him, if he finished on time). Loki succeeds, however not without being impregnated by the stallion. Loki later gave birth to Sleipnir which became the horse of Óðin.
ameister14 5y ago
I don't think that's an accurate assessment - this person made fan art of the character Loki from the Marvel films* (comics, also owned by Disney). That's a specific character, and much more limited than the mythic Norse God.
- danShumway 5y ago
  > this person made fan art of the character Loki from the Marvel films Where are you getting that from? The only artwork I see linked in the takedown request on Twitter is the words "Low Key" in a generic-looking font. Is there a fan art of the Marvel character someplace that I'm not seeing?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Where are you getting that from? The creator specifically says it waa a comic reference, so technically (1) the word “movie” is incorrect and it should be “comic”, but (2) the larger point is correct: it was fan art of the Marvel (Disney subsidiary) property explicitly trading on the name of the character which is a trademark (the name of the work is “Low Key Loki”). This isn't a use outside of the trademarked context, or to refer to the preexisting mythological character, or a phrase which is simply similar coincidentally.
    - agency 5y ago
      If you can't tell it was a comic reference without the creator specifically saying so, is it really "trading on the name of the character"?
    - Retric 5y ago
      Presumably the wrong comic: “calling himself Low Key Lyesmith” as a reference to Loki. https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Loki_(American_Gods) https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Loki_(American_Gods) That’s in American Gods published by Dark Horse comics not Marvel/Disney.
      - 5y ago
bleah1000 5y ago
As much as Disney sucks, it looks like Redbubble is being overly aggressive in removing things that are kind of like Disney's Loki. The specific part: In most cases, this means that the rights holder did not specifically identify your for removal, but Redbubble has detected potential similarity between your removed work and one or more words, phrases or images included in the rights holder's removal guidance. It looks like Redbubble is the one that doesn't understand how to enforce copyright properly.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Upon further inspection, I think Redbubble may be interpreting the situation correctly here, unfortunately. The artwork in question is a definite direct reference to this https://www.reddit.com/r/Marvel/comments/cwiix0/loki_2_cover_by_babs_tarr/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Marvel/comments/cwiix0/loki_2_cover... , which Disney is absolutely going to beat the drum on enforcing (because if they aren't selling that t-shirt in Disney stores yet, they will within a quarter; they're hot on Loki right now with their Disney+ show). Artist may have gotten away with it if they hadn't called the work "Low Key Loki," but their intent seems extremely clear. It sucks, but this kind of thing is actually what intellectual property law is supposed to protect against.
  - Talanes 5y ago
    And Marvel's use is a reference to Neil Gaimain's American Gods: https://americangods.fandom.com/wiki/Low_Key_Lyesmith/Novel https://americangods.fandom.com/wiki/Low_Key_Lyesmith/Novel
  - fnordsensei 5y ago
    Neil Gaiman may be the owner of “Low Key” specifically. The name appears in his book “American Gods”, which I’m sure predates this. IANAL.
    - bena 5y ago
      "Low key" is an easy enough homophone that I don't think that that will fly. I think they even used it on Supernatural at some point. Not as a name, but as a pun on the name. Copyright is kind of loose. Gaiman and Marvel can both base a character off of the character of Norse mythology because that character is public domain. That doesn't mean either is a reference to each other. There are certain character traits that are contained within that mythology. Certain things are added by Gaiman or Marvel that are specific to their interpretations and those could be protected under copyright. But could is not is. It really depends on how much of a deviation those details are. Or how much can be extrapolated from public characterization. Loki and Thor being adopted brothers is probably off-limits to Gaiman as that is something Marvel invented out of whole cloth. Loki being a secret identity of an archangel to hide from his brothers is probably off limits to both Marvel and Gaiman as that's specific to Loki's portrayal in Supernatural. Loki being a manifestation of chaos whose power is waning and running a con out of jail is specific to Gaiman. Although deities being manifestations of belief isn't exactly a stretch itself. But him leading a new pantheon of "New Gods" is novel. That specific characterization is off limits to Marvel. But noticing that Loki and "Low Key" sound similar, that falls squarely in the realm of possible independent discovery.
thedingwing 5y ago
The title seems inaccurate. Disney didn't make a trademark claim on a specific work. A marketplace voluntarily removed a work because it's title contained the word "Loki". From the screenshot in the tweet > [...] We had to remove your artwork from the Redbubble marketplace, because it _may_ contain material that violates someone's rights. (Emphasis added) > In most cases, this means that the rights holder did not specifically identify your work for removal, but that Redbubble has detected potential similarity between your removed work and one or more words, phrases, or images in the right holder's removal guidance. It seems that Disney gave Redbubble a blanket list of keywords. The item in question is entitled "Low Key Loki", and despite not containing any depiction of the Disney/Marvel character, was removed because Loki was in the name.
- crdrost 5y ago
  I mean, “voluntarily” in quote marks. They were likely threatened in some way and had to react pretty strongly, no? This looks like a typical action of a legal-compliance department or individual. “we just want you to know, Disney wanted us to take down everything with the keyword Loki and we are terrified of their legal department so we did.” The title just says “claims trademark over Loki” which may be semi-inaccurate (they may be claiming copyrights or other authorship rights) but I mean, you are complaining that the title is inaccurate for being pointed at “a specific work” and, like, the title doesn't say any such thing. I would have written “claims trademark over ‘low key’” and that might have indeed been a little more misleading in one way, but more illustrative in another...
  - plandis 5y ago
    It’s probably even worse than that because I’d be willing to wager that no smart company wants to risk litigation against one of the biggest companies in the world. Disney doesn’t even need to threaten them because it’s clear that Disney can bury most companies in legal fees. Unless selling “Low Key Loki” is critical to their business it’s just not worth the risk.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
coliveira 5y ago
The next step for Disney is to make a Jesus movie and start collecting royalties on sales of the Bible.
- hirundo 5y ago
  The dude apparently has some impressive superpowers: https://www.simplybible.com/f744-revln-seven-powers-of-christ.htm https://www.simplybible.com/f744-revln-seven-powers-of-chris... Jesus as Superhero is a common Christian theme: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=jesus+superhero https://duckduckgo.com/?q=jesus+superhero But they'd have to either treat him as a Mary Sue, and be boring, or make him a character with human flaws, which would offend people.
  - edoceo 5y ago
    Probably skip the part where you're supposed to love and help your fellow terrans too.
  - TchoBeer 5y ago
    Jesus Christ Superstar did the latter and it was good, though ig I'm not a Christian and thus am not the one who would be getting offended
    - runarberg 5y ago
      Whenever I listen to Superstar I can’t shake the feeling that Jesus was a boring prog rocker unwilling to move to a different genre, while Judas was a funk, much more willing to embrace the full spectrum of rock music. I always root for Judas for that reason.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      I was apparently at least mildly controversial and offended both some Christians and Jews when it came out. Though that's probably par for the course with any production depicting Jesus. I don't think it was highly controversial.
  - bitwize 5y ago
slownews45 5y ago
How can people post these type of outrage bait tweets without linking to an image or something of the artwork that may or may not be infringing?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- crdrost 5y ago
  How can people post these type of outraged replies without first checking if the link indeed contains an image of the artwork that was claimed to be infringing?
- layoutIfNeeded 5y ago
  The artwork is there at the bottom of the image. It’s the words “LOW KEY” in green.
bediger4000 5y ago
Surely the descendants of the Norse person who invented the valuable "Loki" Intellectual Property are the real trademark holders. Oh, gosh, I forgot: trademark protects consumers, not Intellectual Property Purveyors! A different logic holds true in this case: only the real, divinity of Loki deserves the trademark! Some bullshit court ploy by Disney to fob off their fake, CGI-generated non-god as the version that deserves a trademark is essentially blasphemy!
- HWR_14 5y ago
  In fairness, the original divinity of Loki would probably hate to exercise his own trademarks. Isn't confusion one of his main goals.
  - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    The irony is unavoidable.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    I guess the real Loki would be really amused by current mankind. Copyright infringement on his name by an entertainment company explicitly included.
    - foozblayd 5y ago
      Using law to sew chaos is such a delicious irony.
  - krapp 5y ago
    Loki isn't even the only "Loki" in Norse mythology - at one point there's a completely unrelated giant named Utgard-Loki, suggesting "Loki" might not even be a proper name so much as a title.
- bdowling 5y ago
  Trademarks function as source identifiers for particular goods or services, and don't preclude other non-confusing uses of marks. So, Apple Computer Inc. can protect the mark APPLE for computers and I can still sell my Fuji or Red Delicious APPLES and there's no problem. Similarly, Disney can protect the mark LOKI for its comic and movie character and others can use LOKI to refer to the norse god as long as they do it in a way that doesn't cause confusion to consumers (i.e., not confusing people into thinking that the goods/services come from Disney).
lbriner 5y ago
Another painful and predictible chapter in the world of the internet. 1) Does Disney have a claim? Maybe, maybe not. 2) Should redbubble have removed it? Maybe, maybe not. 3) Should the OP take legal action? Maybe, maybe not 4) Do most people know the different between patent, trademark and copyright? Maybe, probably not. The main problem here imho is the use of the middle-man, redbubble. That way you have close to zero protection from whatever they think is legally appropriate regardless of whether Disney would win in Court. If you host your own content then your risk appetite is entirely your own, although you would probably still lose in Court because money buys smart legal teams (usually). Still stinks of bullying though.
- gentleman11 5y ago
  They certainly do not have a claim. It would be like during somebody for using jesus or the devil
- amerine 5y ago
  They have zero claim over the Loki name.
fareesh 5y ago
Disney and the marketplace are private companies and they can do what they want Are many of the users in this community still singing that song?
- erikpukinskis 5y ago
  I think what Disney did here is bad, or maybe Redbubble did the bad thing… What I’m not clear on is whether anyone can do anything about it? Let’s take an even more absurd example, let’s say Disney was worried about Snow White merch, and they put the word “apple” on the list of words they would like Redbubble not to allow. And let’s say they removed all my shirts with original paintings of heirloom apple varietals. What recourse do I have? Disney asked Redbubble to do a thing and they did. But Redbubble has no legal responsibility to allow my shirts on their marketplace. I can contact their support and try to resolve it, but if they won’t then I need to find another partner. Maybe on some grounds there is an anti-trust thing here since Disney controls so much of the merch space? But anti-trust cases are hard to win and even harder to find a DA who will take the case. It’s a shitty situation, but any kind of real solution seems so far outside the realm of possibility it’s hard for me to get too excited about it. I guess if there are enough “Disney is bad” articles floating around that maybe affects them negatively, or at least helps out some of their competitors in terms of hiring and viewership. So, I’m glad this article and this thread appeared for that reason.
twirlock 5y ago
Disney and capeshit are total sell out woke garbage, and they further ruined star wars, which is a feat. Their brand is dying. They have to feel important somehow.
villgax 5y ago
Endgame with Ram, Jesus & Mo
rasfincher 5y ago
Watch out Wednesday.
CarelessExpert 5y ago
The creator flat out admitted that this is "a comic reference" (https://twitter.com/YourBoswell/status/1405863275997413384 https://twitter.com/YourBoswell/status/1405863275997413384), which means it's a specific reference to the Disney IP and associated mark. Like it or not, Disney absolutely has the right to enforce that mark.
saurik 5y ago
So for Disney, RedBubble is willing to go to lengths to take down entires which "may" contain material that violates someone's trademarks rights, but when I would complain to RedBubble that someone has literally put an exact trademark I own on a shirt with my name in the title of the shirt (making it 100% obvious that there is no room for "this has nothing to do with you"), I couldn't for the life of me get them to stop selling it, despite repeated attempts (though I didn't try suing them; I might should actually try that)... :/.
chaganated 5y ago
Gross person, gross company, and gross twitter has taken down the tweet. One of these days, Lot is going to leave the premises, and the fires will come down.
sharken 5y ago
Here is one of the first trademarks related to Loki. It was registered by Marvel in 2014 for "LOKI AGENT OF ASGARD", the name of a comic book. https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4801:tv03tt.2.36 https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4801:tv... As others have noted it seems to be a slippery slope, where Disney eventually can block most uses of Loki, though i hope the courts will stop that. I wonder what would happen to this danish cartoon named Valhalla from 1986 if it had been created in 2021. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094238/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094238/
polotics 5y ago
Time for the Scandinavians to wake up and stop this rampant cultural appropriation that's been going on for way too long now, if you ask me. Ban the Marvel universe, save a few trees!
chrismcb 5y ago
Can we please fix the title. Disney didn't claim anything, not is there any trademark involved.
jjk166 5y ago
This has nothing to do with trademark. Trademarks must be registered and are specific to industry, and are only relevant in cases where there can be confusion. Made up words (google, hulu) can be trademarked, but common words and names can not (apple, ford). If disney can't trademark the name Mickey, they obviously aren't going to be able to trademark Loki. Far more likely, this is referring to a copyright violation as the shirt in question can be considered a derivative work. A quick google search of "low key loki" shows dozens of different works depicting the marvel character wearing that shirt.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Trademarks must be registered Untrue, which is why, e.g., both ® and ™ symbols exist to designate trademarks. > they obviously aren't going to be able to trademark Loki. Apparently, the USPTO disagrees with you. https://www.gerbenlaw.com/trademarks/entertainment/marvel/#86600437 https://www.gerbenlaw.com/trademarks/entertainment/marvel/#8...
  - jjk166 5y ago
    Note how those trademarks are for "Marvel Loki" instead of just "Loki" and give a long list of specific goods and services which they apply to. The only one for just Loki applies exclusively to "printed periodicals in the field of comic book stories and artwork."
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Note how those trademarks are for "Marvel Loki" instead of just "Loki" No, there's several Loki-related trademarks (both logos and word marks) on the page, but the link is actually specifically to a word mark for “Loki” by itself.
cannabis_sam 5y ago
Maybe, just maybe, giant eternal corporations should NOT be granted a monopoly on our shared culture?
rkuykendall-com 5y ago
I never expected there would be so few comic readers on HackerNews! This "LOW KEY" shirt depicted here was worn by the Marvel character Loki in the very recent Marvel comic "Loki (2019) #2". This depiction of him was WILDLY popular, especially the second-printing variant cover by Babbs Tarr: https://twitter.com/babsdraws/status/1166461271396507648 https://twitter.com/babsdraws/status/1166461271396507648 & https://www.midtowncomics.com/product/1883000 https://www.midtowncomics.com/product/1883000 which still goes for $20 or $30 on eBay, very uncommon for a modern second printing of anything. This has nothing to do with the Norse mythology or Neil Gaiman's American Gods novel.

137 points by runarberg 5y ago

mikece 5y ago

Nevermind 3000 years of prior art -- literal art!

underseacables 5y ago
The Patent Office will give you a patent for anything. If they turn you down, just keep appealing, that’s how most of these patents happen. The USPTO is a joke.
- thayne 5y ago
  This is trademark, or more likely copyright, not patent.
  - underseacables 5y ago
    Quite Right. Forgive me I was recalling my younger days working at a patent law firm in DC. The attorneys would joke that if a patent examiner turned down your application, you would basically bully them into changing it. If that didn’t work you could just file endless appeals until they eventually said yes.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  Trademark. The rules for trademarks are more clear-cut, most places.

shadowgovt 5y ago

Is this headline accurate for this tweet? Not seeing anything in the tweet that indicates decisively the content was removed on trademark grounds. (Alternatives include copyright protection for fictional character... If the depicted fictional character was Marvel's Loki... yellow horns, green jacket, Tom Hiddleston's face... Disney may have a valid copyright claim, not trademark).

mikece 5y ago
"If the depicted fictional character was Marvel's Loki... yellow horns, green jacket, Tom Hiddleston's face... Disney may have a valid copyright claim, not trademark" But who's to say that Disney's rendition of this character was directly inspired by public domain prior art? In this case, why wouldn't the Disney/Marvel character also be in the public domain ab initio due to it's lack of being original?
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  That's a great question that lawyers are paid a ton of money to debate, and the answers tend to resolve on a case-by-case basis.
- mrkurt 5y ago
  Derivative works get copyright protection.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dragontamer 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki#/media/File:Processed_SAM_loki.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki#/media/File:Processed_SAM... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Louis_Huard_-_The_Punishment_of_Loki.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Louis_Hu... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Loki_finds_Gullveigs_Heart_-_John_Bauer.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Loki_fin... Historical art of Loki don't look much like the Disney / Marvel version of Loki.
rackjack 5y ago
I was gonna say... since the tweeter's name is "Loki's Buttslut" and he says it's a "comic reference" I wouldn't be surprised if he, as a fan of Loki, just barely crossed the threshold of copyright infringement.
Talanes 5y ago
It was Text Art of the words "Low Key." It was a reference to a specific piece of comic art, which itself was possibly a reference to Good Omens, where Low Key Lyesmith is Loki's pseudonym. So there is an element of referencing Marvel Loki, but not in any way that is wholly original to Marvel's depiction.

mikece 5y ago

For the sake of argument, I could see Disney trademarking a specific derivative or version of the mythological Loki... but then the look and actions of that character would need to always stay within a tightly defined scope in order for it to be distinguishable -- and protected under copyright -- from the ancient character of myth. Honestly, I wish Marvel/Disney would lose all challenges like this and that, absent something unique to make it different from the character of ancient myth, that all of Marvel's imagery of that character automatically enters the public domain due to prior art.

shadowgovt 5y ago
There have been past instances of creators using public domain characters losing such suits to try and claim their character was an independent creation not subject to public domain protections (King Kong's history is probably the most famous, with both Universal killing RKO Picture's exclusive rights by arguing public domain and Nintendo killing Universal's exclusive rights with a similar argument when Universal tried to claim Donkey Kong was a violation of their IP). ... but my memory's telling me the law was changed some time after the Donkey Kong suit to strengthen a company's ability to create independently-protectable derivative work from public domain material. Unfortunately, I lack details.
coliveira 5y ago
Then the task is simple for Disney: just make enough movies based on Loki that most reasonable human features are displayed there.
Cd00d 5y ago
Doesn't Loki shape shift though? (Gaiman is my only reference)
- runarberg 5y ago
  Yes, he does. One of the weirder stories has him turn into a mare to separate a builder from his horse help (that builder was promised ridiculous rewards that the gods couldn’t possible give him, if he finished on time). Loki succeeds, however not without being impregnated by the stallion. Loki later gave birth to Sleipnir which became the horse of Óðin.

ameister14 5y ago

I don't think that's an accurate assessment - this person made fan art of the character Loki from the Marvel films* (comics, also owned by Disney). That's a specific character, and much more limited than the mythic Norse God.

danShumway 5y ago
> this person made fan art of the character Loki from the Marvel films Where are you getting that from? The only artwork I see linked in the takedown request on Twitter is the words "Low Key" in a generic-looking font. Is there a fan art of the Marvel character someplace that I'm not seeing?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Where are you getting that from? The creator specifically says it waa a comic reference, so technically (1) the word “movie” is incorrect and it should be “comic”, but (2) the larger point is correct: it was fan art of the Marvel (Disney subsidiary) property explicitly trading on the name of the character which is a trademark (the name of the work is “Low Key Loki”). This isn't a use outside of the trademarked context, or to refer to the preexisting mythological character, or a phrase which is simply similar coincidentally.
  - agency 5y ago
    If you can't tell it was a comic reference without the creator specifically saying so, is it really "trading on the name of the character"?
  - Retric 5y ago
    Presumably the wrong comic: “calling himself Low Key Lyesmith” as a reference to Loki. https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Loki_(American_Gods) https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Loki_(American_Gods) That’s in American Gods published by Dark Horse comics not Marvel/Disney.
    - 5y ago

bleah1000 5y ago

As much as Disney sucks, it looks like Redbubble is being overly aggressive in removing things that are kind of like Disney's Loki. The specific part: In most cases, this means that the rights holder did not specifically identify your for removal, but Redbubble has detected potential similarity between your removed work and one or more words, phrases or images included in the rights holder's removal guidance. It looks like Redbubble is the one that doesn't understand how to enforce copyright properly.

shadowgovt 5y ago
Upon further inspection, I think Redbubble may be interpreting the situation correctly here, unfortunately. The artwork in question is a definite direct reference to this https://www.reddit.com/r/Marvel/comments/cwiix0/loki_2_cover_by_babs_tarr/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Marvel/comments/cwiix0/loki_2_cover... , which Disney is absolutely going to beat the drum on enforcing (because if they aren't selling that t-shirt in Disney stores yet, they will within a quarter; they're hot on Loki right now with their Disney+ show). Artist may have gotten away with it if they hadn't called the work "Low Key Loki," but their intent seems extremely clear. It sucks, but this kind of thing is actually what intellectual property law is supposed to protect against.
- Talanes 5y ago
  And Marvel's use is a reference to Neil Gaimain's American Gods: https://americangods.fandom.com/wiki/Low_Key_Lyesmith/Novel https://americangods.fandom.com/wiki/Low_Key_Lyesmith/Novel
- fnordsensei 5y ago
  Neil Gaiman may be the owner of “Low Key” specifically. The name appears in his book “American Gods”, which I’m sure predates this. IANAL.
  - bena 5y ago
    "Low key" is an easy enough homophone that I don't think that that will fly. I think they even used it on Supernatural at some point. Not as a name, but as a pun on the name. Copyright is kind of loose. Gaiman and Marvel can both base a character off of the character of Norse mythology because that character is public domain. That doesn't mean either is a reference to each other. There are certain character traits that are contained within that mythology. Certain things are added by Gaiman or Marvel that are specific to their interpretations and those could be protected under copyright. But could is not is. It really depends on how much of a deviation those details are. Or how much can be extrapolated from public characterization. Loki and Thor being adopted brothers is probably off-limits to Gaiman as that is something Marvel invented out of whole cloth. Loki being a secret identity of an archangel to hide from his brothers is probably off limits to both Marvel and Gaiman as that's specific to Loki's portrayal in Supernatural. Loki being a manifestation of chaos whose power is waning and running a con out of jail is specific to Gaiman. Although deities being manifestations of belief isn't exactly a stretch itself. But him leading a new pantheon of "New Gods" is novel. That specific characterization is off limits to Marvel. But noticing that Loki and "Low Key" sound similar, that falls squarely in the realm of possible independent discovery.

thedingwing 5y ago

The title seems inaccurate. Disney didn't make a trademark claim on a specific work. A marketplace voluntarily removed a work because it's title contained the word "Loki". From the screenshot in the tweet > [...] We had to remove your artwork from the Redbubble marketplace, because it _may_ contain material that violates someone's rights. (Emphasis added) > In most cases, this means that the rights holder did not specifically identify your work for removal, but that Redbubble has detected potential similarity between your removed work and one or more words, phrases, or images in the right holder's removal guidance. It seems that Disney gave Redbubble a blanket list of keywords. The item in question is entitled "Low Key Loki", and despite not containing any depiction of the Disney/Marvel character, was removed because Loki was in the name.

crdrost 5y ago
I mean, “voluntarily” in quote marks. They were likely threatened in some way and had to react pretty strongly, no? This looks like a typical action of a legal-compliance department or individual. “we just want you to know, Disney wanted us to take down everything with the keyword Loki and we are terrified of their legal department so we did.” The title just says “claims trademark over Loki” which may be semi-inaccurate (they may be claiming copyrights or other authorship rights) but I mean, you are complaining that the title is inaccurate for being pointed at “a specific work” and, like, the title doesn't say any such thing. I would have written “claims trademark over ‘low key’” and that might have indeed been a little more misleading in one way, but more illustrative in another...
- plandis 5y ago
  It’s probably even worse than that because I’d be willing to wager that no smart company wants to risk litigation against one of the biggest companies in the world. Disney doesn’t even need to threaten them because it’s clear that Disney can bury most companies in legal fees. Unless selling “Low Key Loki” is critical to their business it’s just not worth the risk.
  - HWR_14 5y ago

coliveira 5y ago

The next step for Disney is to make a Jesus movie and start collecting royalties on sales of the Bible.

hirundo 5y ago
The dude apparently has some impressive superpowers: https://www.simplybible.com/f744-revln-seven-powers-of-christ.htm https://www.simplybible.com/f744-revln-seven-powers-of-chris... Jesus as Superhero is a common Christian theme: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=jesus+superhero https://duckduckgo.com/?q=jesus+superhero But they'd have to either treat him as a Mary Sue, and be boring, or make him a character with human flaws, which would offend people.
- edoceo 5y ago
  Probably skip the part where you're supposed to love and help your fellow terrans too.
- TchoBeer 5y ago
  Jesus Christ Superstar did the latter and it was good, though ig I'm not a Christian and thus am not the one who would be getting offended
  - runarberg 5y ago
    Whenever I listen to Superstar I can’t shake the feeling that Jesus was a boring prog rocker unwilling to move to a different genre, while Judas was a funk, much more willing to embrace the full spectrum of rock music. I always root for Judas for that reason.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    I was apparently at least mildly controversial and offended both some Christians and Jews when it came out. Though that's probably par for the course with any production depicting Jesus. I don't think it was highly controversial.
- bitwize 5y ago

slownews45 5y ago

How can people post these type of outrage bait tweets without linking to an image or something of the artwork that may or may not be infringing?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
crdrost 5y ago
How can people post these type of outraged replies without first checking if the link indeed contains an image of the artwork that was claimed to be infringing?
layoutIfNeeded 5y ago
The artwork is there at the bottom of the image. It’s the words “LOW KEY” in green.

bediger4000 5y ago

Surely the descendants of the Norse person who invented the valuable "Loki" Intellectual Property are the real trademark holders. Oh, gosh, I forgot: trademark protects consumers, not Intellectual Property Purveyors! A different logic holds true in this case: only the real, divinity of Loki deserves the trademark! Some bullshit court ploy by Disney to fob off their fake, CGI-generated non-god as the version that deserves a trademark is essentially blasphemy!

HWR_14 5y ago
In fairness, the original divinity of Loki would probably hate to exercise his own trademarks. Isn't confusion one of his main goals.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  The irony is unavoidable.
- hef19898 5y ago
  I guess the real Loki would be really amused by current mankind. Copyright infringement on his name by an entertainment company explicitly included.
  - foozblayd 5y ago
    Using law to sew chaos is such a delicious irony.
- krapp 5y ago
  Loki isn't even the only "Loki" in Norse mythology - at one point there's a completely unrelated giant named Utgard-Loki, suggesting "Loki" might not even be a proper name so much as a title.
bdowling 5y ago
Trademarks function as source identifiers for particular goods or services, and don't preclude other non-confusing uses of marks. So, Apple Computer Inc. can protect the mark APPLE for computers and I can still sell my Fuji or Red Delicious APPLES and there's no problem. Similarly, Disney can protect the mark LOKI for its comic and movie character and others can use LOKI to refer to the norse god as long as they do it in a way that doesn't cause confusion to consumers (i.e., not confusing people into thinking that the goods/services come from Disney).

lbriner 5y ago

Another painful and predictible chapter in the world of the internet. 1) Does Disney have a claim? Maybe, maybe not. 2) Should redbubble have removed it? Maybe, maybe not. 3) Should the OP take legal action? Maybe, maybe not 4) Do most people know the different between patent, trademark and copyright? Maybe, probably not. The main problem here imho is the use of the middle-man, redbubble. That way you have close to zero protection from whatever they think is legally appropriate regardless of whether Disney would win in Court. If you host your own content then your risk appetite is entirely your own, although you would probably still lose in Court because money buys smart legal teams (usually). Still stinks of bullying though.

gentleman11 5y ago
They certainly do not have a claim. It would be like during somebody for using jesus or the devil
amerine 5y ago
They have zero claim over the Loki name.

fareesh 5y ago

Disney and the marketplace are private companies and they can do what they want Are many of the users in this community still singing that song?

erikpukinskis 5y ago
I think what Disney did here is bad, or maybe Redbubble did the bad thing… What I’m not clear on is whether anyone can do anything about it? Let’s take an even more absurd example, let’s say Disney was worried about Snow White merch, and they put the word “apple” on the list of words they would like Redbubble not to allow. And let’s say they removed all my shirts with original paintings of heirloom apple varietals. What recourse do I have? Disney asked Redbubble to do a thing and they did. But Redbubble has no legal responsibility to allow my shirts on their marketplace. I can contact their support and try to resolve it, but if they won’t then I need to find another partner. Maybe on some grounds there is an anti-trust thing here since Disney controls so much of the merch space? But anti-trust cases are hard to win and even harder to find a DA who will take the case. It’s a shitty situation, but any kind of real solution seems so far outside the realm of possibility it’s hard for me to get too excited about it. I guess if there are enough “Disney is bad” articles floating around that maybe affects them negatively, or at least helps out some of their competitors in terms of hiring and viewership. So, I’m glad this article and this thread appeared for that reason.

twirlock 5y ago

Disney and capeshit are total sell out woke garbage, and they further ruined star wars, which is a feat. Their brand is dying. They have to feel important somehow.

villgax 5y ago

Endgame with Ram, Jesus & Mo

rasfincher 5y ago

Watch out Wednesday.

CarelessExpert 5y ago

The creator flat out admitted that this is "a comic reference" (https://twitter.com/YourBoswell/status/1405863275997413384 https://twitter.com/YourBoswell/status/1405863275997413384), which means it's a specific reference to the Disney IP and associated mark. Like it or not, Disney absolutely has the right to enforce that mark.

saurik 5y ago

So for Disney, RedBubble is willing to go to lengths to take down entires which "may" contain material that violates someone's trademarks rights, but when I would complain to RedBubble that someone has literally put an exact trademark I own on a shirt with my name in the title of the shirt (making it 100% obvious that there is no room for "this has nothing to do with you"), I couldn't for the life of me get them to stop selling it, despite repeated attempts (though I didn't try suing them; I might should actually try that)... :/.

chaganated 5y ago

Gross person, gross company, and gross twitter has taken down the tweet. One of these days, Lot is going to leave the premises, and the fires will come down.

sharken 5y ago

Here is one of the first trademarks related to Loki. It was registered by Marvel in 2014 for "LOKI AGENT OF ASGARD", the name of a comic book. https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4801:tv03tt.2.36 https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4801:tv... As others have noted it seems to be a slippery slope, where Disney eventually can block most uses of Loki, though i hope the courts will stop that. I wonder what would happen to this danish cartoon named Valhalla from 1986 if it had been created in 2021. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094238/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094238/

polotics 5y ago

Time for the Scandinavians to wake up and stop this rampant cultural appropriation that's been going on for way too long now, if you ask me. Ban the Marvel universe, save a few trees!

chrismcb 5y ago

Can we please fix the title. Disney didn't claim anything, not is there any trademark involved.

jjk166 5y ago

This has nothing to do with trademark. Trademarks must be registered and are specific to industry, and are only relevant in cases where there can be confusion. Made up words (google, hulu) can be trademarked, but common words and names can not (apple, ford). If disney can't trademark the name Mickey, they obviously aren't going to be able to trademark Loki. Far more likely, this is referring to a copyright violation as the shirt in question can be considered a derivative work. A quick google search of "low key loki" shows dozens of different works depicting the marvel character wearing that shirt.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Trademarks must be registered Untrue, which is why, e.g., both ® and ™ symbols exist to designate trademarks. > they obviously aren't going to be able to trademark Loki. Apparently, the USPTO disagrees with you. https://www.gerbenlaw.com/trademarks/entertainment/marvel/#86600437 https://www.gerbenlaw.com/trademarks/entertainment/marvel/#8...
- jjk166 5y ago
  Note how those trademarks are for "Marvel Loki" instead of just "Loki" and give a long list of specific goods and services which they apply to. The only one for just Loki applies exclusively to "printed periodicals in the field of comic book stories and artwork."
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Note how those trademarks are for "Marvel Loki" instead of just "Loki" No, there's several Loki-related trademarks (both logos and word marks) on the page, but the link is actually specifically to a word mark for “Loki” by itself.

cannabis_sam 5y ago

Maybe, just maybe, giant eternal corporations should NOT be granted a monopoly on our shared culture?

rkuykendall-com 5y ago

I never expected there would be so few comic readers on HackerNews! This "LOW KEY" shirt depicted here was worn by the Marvel character Loki in the very recent Marvel comic "Loki (2019) #2". This depiction of him was WILDLY popular, especially the second-printing variant cover by Babbs Tarr: https://twitter.com/babsdraws/status/1166461271396507648 https://twitter.com/babsdraws/status/1166461271396507648 & https://www.midtowncomics.com/product/1883000 https://www.midtowncomics.com/product/1883000 which still goes for $20 or $30 on eBay, very uncommon for a modern second printing of anything. This has nothing to do with the Norse mythology or Neil Gaiman's American Gods novel.