6 ms·

Oh this wouldn't hold a hope of winning a copyright lawsuit. They are just hoping to bully the indie developer with their corporate lawyer team. Parodies are

Oh this wouldn't hold a hope of winning a copyright lawsuit. They are just hoping to bully the indie developer with their corporate lawyer team. Parodies are protected.

klodolph 4y ago
1. The game is not parodying Ikea (it’s not protected) 2. This is not a copyright issue (trademark dilution)
- jwilk 4y ago
  The article talks about "copyright infringement", but maybe that's just bad reporting.
  - klodolph 4y ago
    It’s almost certainly bad reporting—there are a lot of copies of this article around.
  - 0xcde4c3db 4y ago
    This appears to just be the CBR article being sloppy in summarizing Kotaku's reporting. The original article makes multiple mentions of trademark infringement, but doesn't mention copyright at all [1]. [1] https://kotaku.com/ikea-furniture-horror-game-store-is-closed-kickstarter-1849715848 https://kotaku.com/ikea-furniture-horror-game-store-is-close...
    - dang 4y ago
      We've changed to that URL from https://www.cbr.com/ikea-the-store-is-closed-cease-and-desist-horror-game/ https://www.cbr.com/ikea-the-store-is-closed-cease-and-desis... now (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33508853 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33508853).
- antiterra 4y ago
  I don’t think you can so easily state it’s not parodying Ikea and there’s an argument for fair-use without that, However, at least in the US (this is maybe in the UK?) arguing fair-use for a trademark can cost a lot of money and is a bit fraught. Also re the ‘our hands are tied, we must protect our mark’ claims, it’s always an option to license the use. https://www.kirkland.com/publications/article/2020/11/trademarks-and-the-first-amendment https://www.kirkland.com/publications/article/2020/11/tradem...
  - klodolph 4y ago
    I just don’t see a fair use angle making it very far here. Obviously the “true” test is to actually argue it in court and get a ruling—but it’s fair game to kibitz and make declarations of how you think a case would get resolved, were it to go to court.
    - antiterra 4y ago
      Yes, it’s all bench racing but caselaw provides some small manner of clairvoyance. I think it really depends on jurisdiction. If it was adjudicated somewhere with the Roger’s test, I think it would have a very decent chance. For example, take Seuss v Comicmix, in which Comicmix didn’t sufficiently meet the bar for parody on copyright grounds but cleared trademark fair use. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ebdcd5aa-17b1-42b7-882a-61f9f542598c https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ebdcd5aa-17b1...
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - GauntletWizard 4y ago
    I was really hoping that your link was going to tell me that Costco will license me their house brand to use in parody.
    - antiterra 4y ago
      hah, we used to volunteer at pax together
- FormerBandmate 4y ago
  The whole premise is essentially making fun of IKEA’s labyrinthine design by imagining it as a literal deadly maze, similar to the mythological Labyrinth
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mywittyname 4y ago
  I think it's parody. If Weird Al did a song about being stuck in an IKEA, it would be parody. If SNL did a skit about being stuck in an IKEA, it would be parody. If The Onion wrote an article about being stuck in an IKEA, it would be parody. Thus, if Jacob Shaw makes a game about being stuck in a (fictional) IKEA, it seems like parody.
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    In all seriousness, there is one stark difference between a song, skit or an article and a videogame - the latter has two+ orders of magnitude of experience time. I'm not sure if it matters in any way for fair use / being a parody, but a 3-minute song feels different than a videogame that takes 3 or 30 hours to complete.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  How is the trademark going to be diluted by a game that isn't using the trademark?
  - klodolph 4y ago
    The game is using the Ikea trademarks, I think that much is clear. The trademark isn’t just the “Ikea” name itself. Just like if you kept the golden arches but changed “McDonald’s” to “O’Brian’s”—the name is only a part of the trademark.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      A color scheme isn't much, and the products don't match. Copying the arches is basically copying a logo, and I'm pretty sure nothing like that happened here?
      - klodolph 4y ago
        Look at the first image: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ziggygamedev/the-store-is-closed-infinite-furniture-store-survival-game https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ziggygamedev/the-store-... If you asked me to describe it from the first picture, I might say, “It’s a picture of a monster in front of an Ikea store,” and I might not even notice that it’s not an Ikea store. I don’t understand the “this isn’t infringement” argument, since it looks super obvious like it is supposed to be an Ikea store. I have a hard time imagining someone looking at the picture and saying, “That’s definitely not an Ikea store.”
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        > If you asked me to describe it from the first picture, I might say, “It’s a picture of a monster in front of an Ikea store,” Well I wouldn't. > since it looks super obvious like it is supposed to be an Ikea store It's supposed to be similar. But trademark isn't an issue unless there's real potential for confusion, and a single glance at a photo where the building is 80% blocked doesn't count. When someone has a pear phone, it's obvious what that compares to, and it's also obvious that it's not the same brand.
404mm 4y ago
Imo, Who can win at a court is meaningful only to entities who can afford and/or spare the $$$ for lawyers and actually go to court.

Oh this wouldn't hold a hope of winning a copyright lawsuit. They are just hoping to bully the indie developer with their corporate lawyer team. Parodies are protected.

klodolph 4y ago

1. The game is not parodying Ikea (it’s not protected) 2. This is not a copyright issue (trademark dilution)

jwilk 4y ago
The article talks about "copyright infringement", but maybe that's just bad reporting.
- klodolph 4y ago
  It’s almost certainly bad reporting—there are a lot of copies of this article around.
- 0xcde4c3db 4y ago
  This appears to just be the CBR article being sloppy in summarizing Kotaku's reporting. The original article makes multiple mentions of trademark infringement, but doesn't mention copyright at all [1]. [1] https://kotaku.com/ikea-furniture-horror-game-store-is-closed-kickstarter-1849715848 https://kotaku.com/ikea-furniture-horror-game-store-is-close...
  - dang 4y ago
    We've changed to that URL from https://www.cbr.com/ikea-the-store-is-closed-cease-and-desist-horror-game/ https://www.cbr.com/ikea-the-store-is-closed-cease-and-desis... now (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33508853 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33508853).
antiterra 4y ago
I don’t think you can so easily state it’s not parodying Ikea and there’s an argument for fair-use without that, However, at least in the US (this is maybe in the UK?) arguing fair-use for a trademark can cost a lot of money and is a bit fraught. Also re the ‘our hands are tied, we must protect our mark’ claims, it’s always an option to license the use. https://www.kirkland.com/publications/article/2020/11/trademarks-and-the-first-amendment https://www.kirkland.com/publications/article/2020/11/tradem...
- klodolph 4y ago
  I just don’t see a fair use angle making it very far here. Obviously the “true” test is to actually argue it in court and get a ruling—but it’s fair game to kibitz and make declarations of how you think a case would get resolved, were it to go to court.
  - antiterra 4y ago
    Yes, it’s all bench racing but caselaw provides some small manner of clairvoyance. I think it really depends on jurisdiction. If it was adjudicated somewhere with the Roger’s test, I think it would have a very decent chance. For example, take Seuss v Comicmix, in which Comicmix didn’t sufficiently meet the bar for parody on copyright grounds but cleared trademark fair use. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ebdcd5aa-17b1-42b7-882a-61f9f542598c https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ebdcd5aa-17b1...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- GauntletWizard 4y ago
  I was really hoping that your link was going to tell me that Costco will license me their house brand to use in parody.
  - antiterra 4y ago
    hah, we used to volunteer at pax together
FormerBandmate 4y ago
The whole premise is essentially making fun of IKEA’s labyrinthine design by imagining it as a literal deadly maze, similar to the mythological Labyrinth
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mywittyname 4y ago
I think it's parody. If Weird Al did a song about being stuck in an IKEA, it would be parody. If SNL did a skit about being stuck in an IKEA, it would be parody. If The Onion wrote an article about being stuck in an IKEA, it would be parody. Thus, if Jacob Shaw makes a game about being stuck in a (fictional) IKEA, it seems like parody.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  In all seriousness, there is one stark difference between a song, skit or an article and a videogame - the latter has two+ orders of magnitude of experience time. I'm not sure if it matters in any way for fair use / being a parody, but a 3-minute song feels different than a videogame that takes 3 or 30 hours to complete.
Dylan16807 4y ago
How is the trademark going to be diluted by a game that isn't using the trademark?
- klodolph 4y ago
  The game is using the Ikea trademarks, I think that much is clear. The trademark isn’t just the “Ikea” name itself. Just like if you kept the golden arches but changed “McDonald’s” to “O’Brian’s”—the name is only a part of the trademark.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    A color scheme isn't much, and the products don't match. Copying the arches is basically copying a logo, and I'm pretty sure nothing like that happened here?
    - klodolph 4y ago
      Look at the first image: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ziggygamedev/the-store-is-closed-infinite-furniture-store-survival-game https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ziggygamedev/the-store-... If you asked me to describe it from the first picture, I might say, “It’s a picture of a monster in front of an Ikea store,” and I might not even notice that it’s not an Ikea store. I don’t understand the “this isn’t infringement” argument, since it looks super obvious like it is supposed to be an Ikea store. I have a hard time imagining someone looking at the picture and saying, “That’s definitely not an Ikea store.”
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        > If you asked me to describe it from the first picture, I might say, “It’s a picture of a monster in front of an Ikea store,” Well I wouldn't. > since it looks super obvious like it is supposed to be an Ikea store It's supposed to be similar. But trademark isn't an issue unless there's real potential for confusion, and a single glance at a photo where the building is 80% blocked doesn't count. When someone has a pear phone, it's obvious what that compares to, and it's also obvious that it's not the same brand.

404mm 4y ago

Imo, Who can win at a court is meaningful only to entities who can afford and/or spare the $$$ for lawyers and actually go to court.