11 ms·

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 wo

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.
      - ghaff 5y ago
        Not sure why the downvotes. Thor appeared in various Marvel comic book properties starting in the early 1960s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_(Marvel_Comics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_(Marvel_Comics) I'm sure this contributed to public knowledge of Thor at least among a certain demographic.
        Tenoke 5y ago
        Likely because while technically correct, it's probably a very small fraction compared to how many have heard of Loki through other means.
        ghaff 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.

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.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      Not sure why the downvotes. Thor appeared in various Marvel comic book properties starting in the early 1960s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_(Marvel_Comics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_(Marvel_Comics) I'm sure this contributed to public knowledge of Thor at least among a certain demographic.
      - Tenoke 5y ago
        Likely because while technically correct, it's probably a very small fraction compared to how many have heard of Loki through other means.
        ghaff 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.