4 ms·
MIT is a trademark; even assuming it was original enough to warrant copyright protection, it was founded in 1861 (by someone who died in 1882). Even under today
by torstenvl 4y ago
MIT is a trademark; even assuming it was original enough to warrant copyright protection, it was founded in 1861 (by someone who died in 1882). Even under today's expansive copyright duration scheme, any copyright would have fallen into the public domain half a century ago.
Agree on your other points.
- fsckboy 4y agonames of things are not copyrightable, even the title of books and films are not part of the copyright (that's why we see different movies come out with the same title). The reason is, there is not enough space in a title to exhibit the type of creative expression that copyright is meant to protect.
- torstenvl 4y ago> even assuming it was original enough to warrant copyright protection > not enough space in a title to exhibit the type of creative expression I think we're saying the same thing. See 37 CFR § 202.1(a). However, even if that weren't the case, it still wouldn't be subject to copyright.
- perbu 4y agoTrademarks and copyright are different things. As long as the owner of a trademarks keeps defending it, the trademarks will remain valid. This implies that unless MIT wants to lose their trademark, they must defend it, ie going after things like this. And MIT is pretty clear on their willingness to defend their trademarks; https://policies.mit.edu/policies-procedures/120-relations-public-use-mit-name-and-facilities-use/123-use-institute-name https://policies.mit.edu/policies-procedures/120-relations-p...
- torstenvl 4y agoYes. Obviously. I encourage you to reread my comment; you appear to have misunderstood it.