mersenneforum.org - Intellectual property rites

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)

- Soap Box (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Intellectual property rites (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=20029)

[URL="http://abcnews.go.com/Weird/wireStory/fox-news-anchor-sues-hasbro-toy-hamster-33481020"]Fox News Anchor Sues Hasbro Over Toy Hamster With Her Name[/URL]
[QUOTE]An anchor for Fox News is suing Hasbro for more than $5 million over a toy hamster that shares her name — and possibly even her resemblance.

Harris Faulkner sued Hasbro this week over its plastic Harris Faulkner hamster, sold as part of the Pawtucket, Rhode Island-based company's popular Littlest Pet Shop line. She says the toy wrongfully appropriates her name and persona, harms her professional credibility as a journalist and is an insult.

"Hasbro's portrayal of Faulkner as a rodent is demeaning and insulting," says the lawsuit, which was filed Monday in U.S. District Court in New Jersey.

Faulkner has been at Fox News for a decade. She hosts the daytime show "Outnumbered" and anchors a Sunday evening newscast.

Her lawsuit says that in addition to sharing her name, the toy bears a physical resemblance to Faulkner's traditional professional appearance, including its complexion, eye shape and eye makeup design.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;409453][URL="http://abcnews.go.com/Weird/wireStory/fox-news-anchor-sues-hasbro-toy-hamster-33481020"]Fox News Anchor Sues Hasbro Over Toy Hamster With Her Name[/URL][/QUOTE]

Waaaaaaaaah! :cry:

[QUOTE=only_human;409438]Is this a bizarro universe wherein unfair business practices laws no longer apply?
In this postulated universe do the laws against conterfeit goods still exist?
If selling an ersatz product in lieu of a public domain product, how does one undercut the competition?
[/QUOTE]

No, yes, and huh. But I digress.

My thesis is that intellectual property rights are meaningful and important in a free market economy
running in a constitutionally designed political environment established to protect the rights of individuals.

(1) Property rights are economic, but are necessary to support the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness, which are political rights, the primary ones.

(2) A free market economy is the only way to guarantee the protection of the economic rights of
production and trade.

(3) Intellectual property IS the property right of intellectual creation. It is the mechanism by which
intellectual work of any kin[I]d is [/I]protected.

The particular details of these protections is a matter of legislation. It is certainly open to adaptation.

[QUOTE=davar55;409432]Before I do any more homework on existing copyright law,
let me ask a question or two.

Could I write a book on a math topic, give it the title
"The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevski",
(I assume his American copyright is expired),
publish, advertise and sell it as such, piggybacking
on his fame and reputation for greatness,
and legally or logically get away with it?
And if your answer is yes, does that make sense as
being a proper copyright result?

Isn't the whole issue that of giving credit and reward
where credit and reward are due?

Property rights, intellectual ones, are a prime means
of providing "justice for all." You must not throw out
this baby with the bath-water of complexity of our
physical and electronic society.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster%27s_Dictionary#The_name_Webster_used_by_others[/url]
[QUOTE]The name Webster used by others

Since the late 19th century, dictionaries bearing the name Webster's have been published by companies other than Merriam-Webster. Some of these were unauthorized reprints of Noah Webster's work; some were revisions of his work. One such revision was Webster's Imperial Dictionary, based on John Ogilvie's The Imperial Dictionary of the English Language, itself an expansion of Noah Webster's American Dictionary.

Following legal action by Merriam, successive US courts ruled by 1908 that Webster's entered the public domain when the Unabridged did, in 1889.[38] In 1917, a US court ruled that Webster's entered the public domain in 1834 when Noah Webster's 1806 dictionary's copyright lapsed. Thus, Webster's became a genericized trademark and others were free to use the name on their own works.

Since then, use of the name Webster has been rampant. Merriam-Webster goes to great pains to remind dictionary buyers that it alone is the heir to Noah Webster.[39] The issue is more complicated than that, however. Throughout the 20th century, some non-Merriam editions, such as Webster's New Universal, were closer to Webster's work than modern Merriam-Webster editions. Indeed, further revisions by Merriam-Webster came to have little in common with their original source, while the Universal, for example, was minimally revised and remained largely out of date. However, Merriam-Webster revisionists find solid ground in Noah Webster's concept of the English language as an ever-changing tapestry.

So many dictionaries of varied size and quality have been called Webster's that the name no longer has any specific brand meaning. Despite this, many people still recognize and trust the name. Thus, Webster's continues as a powerful and lucrative marketing tool. In recent years, even established dictionaries with no direct link to Noah Webster whatsoever have adopted his name, adding to the confusion. Random House dictionaries are now called Random House Webster's, and Microsoft's Encarta World English Dictionary is now Encarta Webster's Dictionary. The dictionary now called Webster's New Universal no longer even uses the text of the original Webster's New Universal dictionary, but rather is a newly commissioned version of the Random House Dictionary.

The Webster's Online Dictionary: The Rosetta Edition is not linked to Merriam-Webster OnLine. It is a multilingual online dictionary created in 1999 by Philip M. Parker.[40] This site compiles different online dictionaries and encyclopedia including the Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913), the Wiktionary and Wikipedia.[41][/QUOTE]

I think it's fair to say Noah Webster "reinvented" the dictionary.
His innovations were essentially self-generated. He deserves
the credit he gets. Having said that, he AS ORIGINATOR did
not lose anything by the expirations of his copyright, and the
legislature properly has the power to grant or rescind a copyright
if it sees fit to do so. The use of the name WEBSTER is an
option that reputable dictionary preparers value, and such
dictionaries as Random House Webster have earned the
respectability that name purports to convey.
By market principles, a new lousy dictionary might succeed
temporarily by using the name WEBSTERS, but most
dictionary aficianados would soon critique it appropriately
so that it would lose the benefit of the respected name.
There is no current issue I know of in reference to any
copyright infringement or "borrowing" of the influence of
Webster's name. I do remember once having a Websters
that I considered of poor quality; I eventually discarded it -
no big problem.

[QUOTE=davar55;409661][QUOTE]Originally Posted by davar55
Before I do any more homework on existing copyright law,
let me ask a question or two.

[B]Could I write a book on a math topic, give it the title
"The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevski",
(I assume his American copyright is expired),
publish, advertise and sell it as such, piggybacking
on his fame and reputation for greatness,
and legally or logically get away with it?
And if your answer is yes, does that make sense as
being a proper copyright result?

Isn't the whole issue that of giving credit and reward
where credit and reward are due?[/B]

Property rights, intellectual ones, are a prime means
of providing "justice for all." You must not throw out
this baby with the bath-water of complexity of our
physical and electronic society.[/QUOTE]
I think it's fair to say Noah Webster "reinvented" the dictionary.
His innovations were essentially self-generated. He deserves
the credit he gets. Having said that, he AS ORIGINATOR did
not lose anything by the expirations of his copyright, and the
legislature properly has the power to grant or rescind a copyright
if it sees fit to do so. The use of the name WEBSTER is an
option that reputable dictionary preparers value, and such
dictionaries as Random House Webster have earned the
respectability that name purports to convey.
By market principles, a new lousy dictionary might succeed
temporarily by using the name WEBSTERS, but most
dictionary aficianados would soon critique it appropriately
so that it would lose the benefit of the respected name.
[B]There is no current issue I know of in reference to any
copyright infringement or "borrowing" of the influence of
Webster's name. I do remember once having a Websters
that I considered of poor quality; I eventually discarded it -
no big problem.[/B][/QUOTE]
I'm glad to see that you answered your own question.

all your words are belong to us

In today's episode we look at the word [I]Suburu[/I].

This a Japanese word for the Pleiades, a star constellation sometimes assigned to the seven daughters of Atlas (when he is not shrugging off or shirking irksome burdens).
[QUOTE]Subaru (name) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_(name)‎[/url]
Subaru (昴, スバル, すばる), is the Japanese name for the Pleiades star cluster. ... [/QUOTE]
This is not copyrightable as a word but is a trademarked name for automobiles. Nevertheless they are still sending out Digital Millennium [B]Copyright[/B] Act takedown notices as in this blog address:
"samandjenna[B]subaru[/B]leavenotracetravelingtrainerapplication[noparse].com"[/noparse]

[URL="http://news.softpedia.com/news/subaru-asks-people-to-blog-about-them-then-sends-dmca-notice-to-take-their-blog-down-491607.shtml"]Subaru Asks People to Blog About Them, Then Sends DMCA Notice to Take Their Blog Down[/URL]
[QUOTE]The irony was that the blog was set up to participate in a Subaru social media campaign, in which Subaru asked users to create social media buzz about the Leave No Trace Traveling Trainer Program, in which the company was participating together with The Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics.

The blog in question contained articles detailing the road trip of two educators who traveled across the US in Subaru Hybrids teaching people how to protect and enjoy the outdoors.

Since WordPress admins have quite an experience with absurd takedown requests, they refused to take any action, but passed the DMCA to the site's owners.

The site was eventually taken offline by its creators, but this only comes to show what happens when you don't understand what copyright infringement really means.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;410249]In today's episode we look at the word [I]Suburu[/I].

This a Japanese word for the Pleiades, a star constellation sometimes assigned to the seven daughters of Atlas (when he is not shrugging off or shirking irksome burdens).

This is not copyrightable as a word but is a trademarked name for automobiles. Nevertheless they are still sending out Digital Millennium [B]Copyright[/B] Act takedown notices as in this blog address:
"samandjenna[B]subaru[/B]leavenotracetravelingtrainerapplication[noparse].com"[/noparse]

[URL="http://news.softpedia.com/news/subaru-asks-people-to-blog-about-them-then-sends-dmca-notice-to-take-their-blog-down-491607.shtml"]Subaru Asks People to Blog About Them, Then Sends DMCA Notice to Take Their Blog Down[/URL][/QUOTE]You can't copyright a single word. Only trademark would cover that. Perhaps there was something else in the blog that was violating copyright?

[QUOTE=retina;410250]You can't copyright a single word. Only trademark would cover that. Perhaps there was something else in the blog that was violating copyright?[/QUOTE]
Afraid not,
[QUOTE]According to WordPress, Subaru's legal department has issued a request to have the blog "samandjennasubaruleavenotracetravelingtrainerapplication[noparse].com[/noparse]" taken down because it used the [B]trademarked[/B] Subaru name in its domain, saying that "this use is clearly designed to cause confusion, deception, and mistake on the part of individuals visiting the site."[/QUOTE]
I know and you know that you can't copyright a word and this domain name is clearly not constructed to deceive visitors into believing that they are visiting an official business site unless untypeably long names are how businesses attract patrons. Nor is the word actually in the domain. But that is a quibble when it's clear they are talking about the impression of a URL. It's not like lawyers should need to be accurate. Long URLs are often munged to convey visitor specific data.

Now, not being a lawyer I don't know how the URL could look less like a violation of trademark but I'm pretty sure that DMCAs are not supposed to assert trademark protection anyway.

[url]http://phys.org/news/2015-09-california-court-tougher-music-movie.html[/url]

If you read most of the way through the article you find that the attorneys for Prince(or whatever he calls himself nowadays) think it would be horrible if they had to examine each and every possible copyright takedown notice before deciding if it was a good idea to send it out.

Because, you know, it would be horrendous to make it very slightly more of a hassle, instead of no hassle at all, to harass people with takedown notices.

Oh, and the dancing toddler that was in the original video, that kid's 10 now. So it's a very old lawsuit.