4 ms·

It is in the public domain. You can play the cartoons in your bar, you can sample the recordings, etc, etc. You cannot violate the trademark which is different

It is in the public domain. You can play the cartoons in your bar, you can sample the recordings, etc, etc. You cannot violate the trademark which is different than violating the copyright which you still do not seem to understand. To violate a trademark you have to TRADE under the MARK. If you aren't purporting to be Disney or to use the Mickey Mouse trademark to confuse customers into thinking you are Disney, then you aren't violating a trademark. It might behoove you to do some minor research on the law if you are going to type pages about it here.

hnlmorg 5y ago
> It is in the public domain. Not by the accepted definition of "public domain": "The public domain consists of all the creative work to which no exclusive intellectual property rights apply." -- Wikipedia Trademarks are specifically listed as a form of intellectual property that does apply within that article as well. > You can play the cartoons in your bar, you can sample the recordings, etc, etc. You cannot violate the trademark which is different than violating the copyright which you still do not seem to understand. I do understand that actually; but we weren't discussing the technicalities of how you violate IP. I was discussing why Mickey Mouse shouldn't be in the public domain. > If you aren't purporting to be Disney or to use the Mickey Mouse trademark to confuse customers into thinking you are Disney, then you aren't violating a trademark. In theory, yes. But companies have successfully upheld trademark disputes where one could reasonably say no confusion exists. Plus the threat of legal action from Disney (even if it wouldn't be upheld) is enough to bend people to their will. So in practice it's not so simple. > It might behoove you to do some minor research on the law if you are going to type pages about it here. That's ironic given your points are more factually inaccurate than mine! Also there's no need for that tone in your post. We are all peers.
- freejazz 5y ago
  "I do understand that actually; but we weren't discussing the technicalities of how you violate IP. I was discussing why Mickey Mouse shouldn't be in the public domain." That's not violating a trademark. You can research what violating a trademark entails if you are confused.
  - laumars 5y ago
    Did you actually read their comment before replying or are you just here to troll? Because your comment here is even more nonsensical than your previous one.
    - freejazz 5y ago
      It's not nonsensical. That guy is conflating violating a copyright with violating a trademark. There are many things you cannot do now because of the copyright that would not be violating the trademark, I even gave examples. Rather than acknowledge this, he doesn't.
      - laumars 5y ago
        > It's not nonsensical. It had nothing to do with the passage you were quoting. So yes it was nonsensical. > That guy is conflating violating a copyright with violating a trademark You keep saying that but I’ve not seen anyone discuss IP violations apart from you. They didn’t even mention copyright, the OP was discussing trademark preventing Mickey Mouse from being public domain. Ok they lacked eloquence but at least they weren’t making bullshit up like you were. > I even gave examples. Rather than acknowledge this, he doesn't. They literally replied to it. Which is more than you deserved given it was a stupid straw man argument. By the way, what makes you so sure they identify themselves as “he”? Another of many assumptions you’ve made about them today.
laumars 5y ago
That must be a new record for the number of straw man arguments in a single reply! Public domain typically does centre around copyright but it’s not exclusive to copyright. So in a way you’re right. But in a more correct way you’re not. As for the rest of your reply, sure. It’s a tangent but at least you’re semi-accurate.

hnlmorg 5y ago

> It is in the public domain. Not by the accepted definition of "public domain": "The public domain consists of all the creative work to which no exclusive intellectual property rights apply." -- Wikipedia Trademarks are specifically listed as a form of intellectual property that does apply within that article as well. > You can play the cartoons in your bar, you can sample the recordings, etc, etc. You cannot violate the trademark which is different than violating the copyright which you still do not seem to understand. I do understand that actually; but we weren't discussing the technicalities of how you violate IP. I was discussing why Mickey Mouse shouldn't be in the public domain. > If you aren't purporting to be Disney or to use the Mickey Mouse trademark to confuse customers into thinking you are Disney, then you aren't violating a trademark. In theory, yes. But companies have successfully upheld trademark disputes where one could reasonably say no confusion exists. Plus the threat of legal action from Disney (even if it wouldn't be upheld) is enough to bend people to their will. So in practice it's not so simple. > It might behoove you to do some minor research on the law if you are going to type pages about it here. That's ironic given your points are more factually inaccurate than mine! Also there's no need for that tone in your post. We are all peers.

freejazz 5y ago
"I do understand that actually; but we weren't discussing the technicalities of how you violate IP. I was discussing why Mickey Mouse shouldn't be in the public domain." That's not violating a trademark. You can research what violating a trademark entails if you are confused.
- laumars 5y ago
  Did you actually read their comment before replying or are you just here to troll? Because your comment here is even more nonsensical than your previous one.
  - freejazz 5y ago
    It's not nonsensical. That guy is conflating violating a copyright with violating a trademark. There are many things you cannot do now because of the copyright that would not be violating the trademark, I even gave examples. Rather than acknowledge this, he doesn't.
    - laumars 5y ago
      > It's not nonsensical. It had nothing to do with the passage you were quoting. So yes it was nonsensical. > That guy is conflating violating a copyright with violating a trademark You keep saying that but I’ve not seen anyone discuss IP violations apart from you. They didn’t even mention copyright, the OP was discussing trademark preventing Mickey Mouse from being public domain. Ok they lacked eloquence but at least they weren’t making bullshit up like you were. > I even gave examples. Rather than acknowledge this, he doesn't. They literally replied to it. Which is more than you deserved given it was a stupid straw man argument. By the way, what makes you so sure they identify themselves as “he”? Another of many assumptions you’ve made about them today.

laumars 5y ago

That must be a new record for the number of straw man arguments in a single reply! Public domain typically does centre around copyright but it’s not exclusive to copyright. So in a way you’re right. But in a more correct way you’re not. As for the rest of your reply, sure. It’s a tangent but at least you’re semi-accurate.