3 ms·

I've seen a lot of speculation that they've been slowly pivoting Steamboat Willie in preparation to use trademark litigation where copyright will no longer be e

I've seen a lot of speculation that they've been slowly pivoting Steamboat Willie in preparation to use trademark litigation where copyright will no longer be effective.

bentley 3y ago
This kind of thing has been attempted in the past. For example, after the Lego brick patents expired, Lego sued Mega Bloks (in Canada) claiming a trademark over the design of the brick. They lost the case, because the Supreme Court (of Canada) ruled you can’t double‐dip on IP protection by turning a functional (i.e., patentable) design into a trademark. Disney putting Steamboat Willie in their logo is unlikely to actually allow Disney to effectively extend restrictions on the cartoon—but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a calculated move to deter people from reproducing Steamboat Willie after its liberation simply by the implicit threat of expensive litigation from a very large team of lawyers.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  > They lost the case, because the Supreme Court (of Canada) ruled you can’t double‐dip on IP protection by turning a functional (i.e., patentable) design into a trademark. There's case history on that in the US as well.
  - ronsor 3y ago
    IIRC, non-Nintendo-licensed Gameboy games were allowed to reproduce Nintendo's trademarked logo because it was necessary for the game to run. Trademarks are restricted to brand identification only; attempting to use them for anything else will result in trouble and wasted money.
    - bentley 3y ago
      Nintendo did attempt that trick, although the case you’re thinking of is Sega v. Accolade, which as you said, ruled that forcing your competitor to display your trademark unwillingly doesn’t mean you can smack them down for trademark infringement.
    - kmeisthax 3y ago
      The case was SEGA v. Accolade, but the lockout system on the Genesis worked on the same legal theory (e.g. induced trademark infringement equals Doctorowian[0] interpretations of "intellectual property"[1]). For the Game Boy, the problem was that Taiwan[2] didn't have a copyright treaty with Japan, but they did have a trademark treaty, so if you induced pirates to commit a trademark violation you could get them with something. Same idea, but the jurisdiction is different, so all the existing case law about not turning trademark into mutant perpetual copyright wouldn't apply here. [0] "Intellectual property is any law that allows you to dictate the conduct of your competitors." - Cory Doctorow, paraphrased [1] Yes, it's a shitty made-up term to make you confuse four different kinds of law, no I don't care. There's enough negative sentiment around "intellectual property" these days that the Stallmanian position sounds like a defense of it now. [2] It's a country, get over it
- 8note 3y ago
  This makes much more sense with a patent than copyright. How do you trademark the exact shape of a Lego brick? On the other hand, trademarks tend to be some form of art, so copyright and trademarks make sense to coincide
  - HenryBemis 3y ago
    > How do you trademark the exact shape of a Lego brick? ..and the hundreds of differently shaped bricks that come with it.
  - EvanAnderson 3y ago
    > How do you trademark the exact shape of a Lego brick? You can trademark a shape, actually. It's called Trade Dress[0], and The Lego Group uses it, too. The Minifig, for example, is registered[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress [1] https://trademarks.justia.com/865/37/n-86537461.html https://trademarks.justia.com/865/37/n-86537461.html
- bloak 3y ago
  And Philips tried to use trademark law after their patent on triple-headed rotary shavers expired, and they failed: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/jun/19/marketingandpr.uknews https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/jun/19/marketingandpr...
- fennecfoxy 3y ago
  >Disney putting Steamboat Willie in their logo is unlikely to actually allow Disney We're talking about a company that caused copyright duration to be extended, ha ha.
jauntywundrkind 3y ago
At very best, I'd say Disney might possibly be a tiny bit excited that something from inside Castle Disney is entering the world & will become semi exciting on its own. Sure there'll be bad & ugly & awful things done with Steamboat Willie. But no press is bad press. And there's going to be some press about the things people do with the mouse.
- wodenokoto 3y ago
  Wasn't "Winnie The Pooh: Blood and Honey" a result of the characters entering public domain? I don't think it really did a lot to bring Winnie the Pooh to peoples mind, and I don't recall anything else based on Winnie coming out.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    That movie ... seems messed up (but was a success, so more is coming). And the only other thing coming out I am aware of, is a Meme, leading to Winnie the Pooh being banned in china.
    - zozbot234 3y ago
      Ironically, the meme is based on the Disney-specific Winnie the Pooh that's very much covered by copyright.

I've seen a lot of speculation that they've been slowly pivoting Steamboat Willie in preparation to use trademark litigation where copyright will no longer be effective.

bentley 3y ago

This kind of thing has been attempted in the past. For example, after the Lego brick patents expired, Lego sued Mega Bloks (in Canada) claiming a trademark over the design of the brick. They lost the case, because the Supreme Court (of Canada) ruled you can’t double‐dip on IP protection by turning a functional (i.e., patentable) design into a trademark. Disney putting Steamboat Willie in their logo is unlikely to actually allow Disney to effectively extend restrictions on the cartoon—but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a calculated move to deter people from reproducing Steamboat Willie after its liberation simply by the implicit threat of expensive litigation from a very large team of lawyers.

JoshTriplett 3y ago
> They lost the case, because the Supreme Court (of Canada) ruled you can’t double‐dip on IP protection by turning a functional (i.e., patentable) design into a trademark. There's case history on that in the US as well.
- ronsor 3y ago
  IIRC, non-Nintendo-licensed Gameboy games were allowed to reproduce Nintendo's trademarked logo because it was necessary for the game to run. Trademarks are restricted to brand identification only; attempting to use them for anything else will result in trouble and wasted money.
  - bentley 3y ago
    Nintendo did attempt that trick, although the case you’re thinking of is Sega v. Accolade, which as you said, ruled that forcing your competitor to display your trademark unwillingly doesn’t mean you can smack them down for trademark infringement.
  - kmeisthax 3y ago
    The case was SEGA v. Accolade, but the lockout system on the Genesis worked on the same legal theory (e.g. induced trademark infringement equals Doctorowian[0] interpretations of "intellectual property"[1]). For the Game Boy, the problem was that Taiwan[2] didn't have a copyright treaty with Japan, but they did have a trademark treaty, so if you induced pirates to commit a trademark violation you could get them with something. Same idea, but the jurisdiction is different, so all the existing case law about not turning trademark into mutant perpetual copyright wouldn't apply here. [0] "Intellectual property is any law that allows you to dictate the conduct of your competitors." - Cory Doctorow, paraphrased [1] Yes, it's a shitty made-up term to make you confuse four different kinds of law, no I don't care. There's enough negative sentiment around "intellectual property" these days that the Stallmanian position sounds like a defense of it now. [2] It's a country, get over it
8note 3y ago
This makes much more sense with a patent than copyright. How do you trademark the exact shape of a Lego brick? On the other hand, trademarks tend to be some form of art, so copyright and trademarks make sense to coincide
- HenryBemis 3y ago
  > How do you trademark the exact shape of a Lego brick? ..and the hundreds of differently shaped bricks that come with it.
- EvanAnderson 3y ago
  > How do you trademark the exact shape of a Lego brick? You can trademark a shape, actually. It's called Trade Dress[0], and The Lego Group uses it, too. The Minifig, for example, is registered[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress [1] https://trademarks.justia.com/865/37/n-86537461.html https://trademarks.justia.com/865/37/n-86537461.html
bloak 3y ago
And Philips tried to use trademark law after their patent on triple-headed rotary shavers expired, and they failed: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/jun/19/marketingandpr.uknews https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/jun/19/marketingandpr...
fennecfoxy 3y ago
>Disney putting Steamboat Willie in their logo is unlikely to actually allow Disney We're talking about a company that caused copyright duration to be extended, ha ha.

jauntywundrkind 3y ago

At very best, I'd say Disney might possibly be a tiny bit excited that something from inside Castle Disney is entering the world & will become semi exciting on its own. Sure there'll be bad & ugly & awful things done with Steamboat Willie. But no press is bad press. And there's going to be some press about the things people do with the mouse.

wodenokoto 3y ago
Wasn't "Winnie The Pooh: Blood and Honey" a result of the characters entering public domain? I don't think it really did a lot to bring Winnie the Pooh to peoples mind, and I don't recall anything else based on Winnie coming out.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  That movie ... seems messed up (but was a success, so more is coming). And the only other thing coming out I am aware of, is a Meme, leading to Winnie the Pooh being banned in china.
  - zozbot234 3y ago
    Ironically, the meme is based on the Disney-specific Winnie the Pooh that's very much covered by copyright.