6 ms·

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-

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
  Does the DMCA not provide a safe harbor from trademark claims as well?
  - gruez 5y ago
    >digital millennium copyright act Judging by the name, and the fact that the wikipedia article contains zero instances of the word "trademark", I'm going to guess "no".
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  I'm honestly more concerned about reducing >800 years of mythology to a filmed image of a photogenic dude with cheekbones and silly costumes than about questionable copyright claims. Although the claims are an outrage too.
  - krapp 5y ago
    >I'm honestly more concerned about reducing >800 years of mythology to a filmed image of a photogenic dude with cheekbones and silly costumes than about questionable copyright claims. Why? Most people will never have even heard of, much less care, about Loki or Norse mythology in any context until Marvel and Disney came along. Now far more people are aware of the mythological version through the popular version than ever. Also, no one is attempting to replace the mythological Loki with the Marvel version, not even Disney is trying to burn copies of the Eddas or break carvings of Loki Taliban style. That's not even the only version of Loki that appears in modern pop culture. Also, don't talk about cheekbones or silly costumes when this[0] is your template. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Processed_SAM_loki.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Processed_SAM_loki.jpg
    - Tenoke 5y ago
      >Most people will never have even heard of, much less care, about Loki or Norse mythology I doubt that's the case. Thor for example at least has been pretty popular from before, maybe on the level of Zeus, I'm guessing Loki was at least half as popular of a mythological character. Even separately, I must've read at least 10 fantasy works with a trickster god named Loki.
      - krapp 5y ago
        Bear in mind that Marvel started their Asgardian mythology in the 1960s. This didn't all just start with the MCU.
        ghaff 5y ago
        Short-lived, but there was at least one other 1960s vintage cartoon Asgardian series as well. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0156221/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0156221/ From my perspective, Norse mythology was maybe not quite as generally known as the Greek/Roman pantheon (outside of northern Europe anyway). But it was certainly not obscure--at least as far as the Odin, Thor, Loki basics.
        5y ago
- mLuby 5y ago
  > bury most companies in legal fees I can't stand that this is part of the "justice" system. The outcome of a case should depend on its merits, not the litigants' war chest. Anything less invites corruption.
  - Retric 5y ago
    It doesn’t invite corruption, it was designed that way. The English legal system was setup for aristocrats not peasants. We changed a lot about how the criminal side works, but very little about the civil.
danShumway 5y ago
> I mean, “voluntarily” in quote marks. They were likely threatened in some way and had to react pretty strongly, no? No, I don't think so. It wouldn't completely shock me if it was true, but I wouldn't expect it. My prior is that Redbubble has a list of words that just trigger takedowns or at least reviews, and "Loki" is one of them. I don't think Disney needs to threaten companies like Redbubble over every individual item, they can file a normal takedown request. I suspect that Redbubble is just generally scared of Disney overall, and that fear leads them to issue broad takedowns without the need for any other inputs. I don't know for certain, but I suspect this is an unprompted, voluntary move by Redbubble.
- brundolf 5y ago
  Which is still a story, just a different story: the mere possibility of legal action has a chilling effect on entire creative domains because platform owners are too scared to get within half a mile of where the actual line is drawn.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    Oh sure, the DMCA absolutely has a chilling effect on creative industries, and Redbubble is probably justifiably scared of Disney, and that fear is a huge source of unjustifiable takedowns online. Disney in particular has a lot of responsibility for this, they have fought hard to expand copyright and are famously litigious. In my mind, the company very consciously and deliberately contributes to a culture of fear around fan works, references, and fair use in general. The DMCA in its current form chills both free speech and industry, and it should be revised or repealed. But, I suspect that Disney did not directly threaten Redbubble over this specific shirt. My guess is that this takedown is a product of the system, not a product of a specific phone call from a lawyer.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Oh sure, the DMCA absolutely has a chilling effect on creative industries Are you using “the DMCA” as shorthand for “the risk of contributory infringement lawsuits which predates the DMCA and which the DMCA safe harbor provisions mitigate”, or something else?
judge2020 5y ago
This is effectively what rights holders did to YouTube and lead to the creation of content ID.

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
Does the DMCA not provide a safe harbor from trademark claims as well?
- gruez 5y ago
  >digital millennium copyright act Judging by the name, and the fact that the wikipedia article contains zero instances of the word "trademark", I'm going to guess "no".
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
I'm honestly more concerned about reducing >800 years of mythology to a filmed image of a photogenic dude with cheekbones and silly costumes than about questionable copyright claims. Although the claims are an outrage too.
- krapp 5y ago
  >I'm honestly more concerned about reducing >800 years of mythology to a filmed image of a photogenic dude with cheekbones and silly costumes than about questionable copyright claims. Why? Most people will never have even heard of, much less care, about Loki or Norse mythology in any context until Marvel and Disney came along. Now far more people are aware of the mythological version through the popular version than ever. Also, no one is attempting to replace the mythological Loki with the Marvel version, not even Disney is trying to burn copies of the Eddas or break carvings of Loki Taliban style. That's not even the only version of Loki that appears in modern pop culture. Also, don't talk about cheekbones or silly costumes when this[0] is your template. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Processed_SAM_loki.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Processed_SAM_loki.jpg
  - Tenoke 5y ago
    >Most people will never have even heard of, much less care, about Loki or Norse mythology I doubt that's the case. Thor for example at least has been pretty popular from before, maybe on the level of Zeus, I'm guessing Loki was at least half as popular of a mythological character. Even separately, I must've read at least 10 fantasy works with a trickster god named Loki.
    - krapp 5y ago
      Bear in mind that Marvel started their Asgardian mythology in the 1960s. This didn't all just start with the MCU.
      - ghaff 5y ago
        Short-lived, but there was at least one other 1960s vintage cartoon Asgardian series as well. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0156221/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0156221/ From my perspective, Norse mythology was maybe not quite as generally known as the Greek/Roman pantheon (outside of northern Europe anyway). But it was certainly not obscure--at least as far as the Odin, Thor, Loki basics.
      - 5y ago
mLuby 5y ago
> bury most companies in legal fees I can't stand that this is part of the "justice" system. The outcome of a case should depend on its merits, not the litigants' war chest. Anything less invites corruption.
- Retric 5y ago
  It doesn’t invite corruption, it was designed that way. The English legal system was setup for aristocrats not peasants. We changed a lot about how the criminal side works, but very little about the civil.

danShumway 5y ago

> I mean, “voluntarily” in quote marks. They were likely threatened in some way and had to react pretty strongly, no? No, I don't think so. It wouldn't completely shock me if it was true, but I wouldn't expect it. My prior is that Redbubble has a list of words that just trigger takedowns or at least reviews, and "Loki" is one of them. I don't think Disney needs to threaten companies like Redbubble over every individual item, they can file a normal takedown request. I suspect that Redbubble is just generally scared of Disney overall, and that fear leads them to issue broad takedowns without the need for any other inputs. I don't know for certain, but I suspect this is an unprompted, voluntary move by Redbubble.

brundolf 5y ago
Which is still a story, just a different story: the mere possibility of legal action has a chilling effect on entire creative domains because platform owners are too scared to get within half a mile of where the actual line is drawn.
- danShumway 5y ago
  Oh sure, the DMCA absolutely has a chilling effect on creative industries, and Redbubble is probably justifiably scared of Disney, and that fear is a huge source of unjustifiable takedowns online. Disney in particular has a lot of responsibility for this, they have fought hard to expand copyright and are famously litigious. In my mind, the company very consciously and deliberately contributes to a culture of fear around fan works, references, and fair use in general. The DMCA in its current form chills both free speech and industry, and it should be revised or repealed. But, I suspect that Disney did not directly threaten Redbubble over this specific shirt. My guess is that this takedown is a product of the system, not a product of a specific phone call from a lawyer.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Oh sure, the DMCA absolutely has a chilling effect on creative industries Are you using “the DMCA” as shorthand for “the risk of contributory infringement lawsuits which predates the DMCA and which the DMCA safe harbor provisions mitigate”, or something else?

judge2020 5y ago

This is effectively what rights holders did to YouTube and lead to the creation of content ID.