3 ms·
No, they didn't. A. The link is very clear that Redbubble does this proactively and it doesn't mean the rights holder filed anything. B. Redbubble does not sa
by torstenvl 5y ago
No, they didn't.
A. The link is very clear that Redbubble does this proactively and it doesn't mean the rights holder filed anything.
B. Redbubble does not say what kind of rights were potentially violated. Names of things aren't covered by copyright, and - if anything - this would fall under trademark, not copyright.
C. It bears mentioning that I agree with the general idea that even a trademark claim over the Norse god Loki in a way divorced from the MCU would be ridiculous. However, see again point A.
- olodus 5y agoIf they are doing it proactively they probably should have filtered by time. If I'm not mistaken the artist in the article says their artwork had been up for years. Prior art should not be in danger at all for the company.
- smsm42 5y agoOK, you're right, it'd probably be trademark, not copyright claim, though the difference in effect is minimal. And they did try to trademark Dia de Los Muertos and did trademark words "Hakuna Matata", so it wouldn't be out of character for them. As for whether they initiated it, given that things with Loki on it start disappearing right when Disney premiers it's new series called Loki... I'd call it a bit too much of a coincidence. > and it doesn't mean the rights holder filed anything. The article says: "The rights holder, in this case, is indicated to be Disney Enterprises, Inc.". So apparently the rights holder did something, otherwise how would Redbubble know who holds the rights?
- smsm42 5y agoSee also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27600169 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27600169
- torstenvl 5y ago{{cn}}