exactly.
didn't you got the memo about hasbro actually, ehm, paying them? 

 

I think your problem here is that you're comparing 3P to three guys who wanted to.make a nice set of books of photos of their toys.

You can't make that comparison. I don't know where Brrr-icy is located, but when you use a site like Kickstarter it draws attention to the project and, according to KS's TOS, the IP owner has the right to remove any project that is related to it.

Meanwhile, most 3Ps are in China, and most are in different locations so it's not as easy to track. And, China doesn't give a shit about IP laws. Basically, they are untouchable.

The book guys were not. They used a platform that has specific rules about IP and are using pictures of Hasbro's IP to boot. It doesn't matter if they're not making any profit off of it, they are capitalizing on the idea.

Hasbro may want to be part of that idea. They may not. We don't know the outcome of the project's cancellation.

"Competition" isn't taking someone else's idea and taking photos of.it to sell to others. In order to be legitimate competition, you have create your own product with your own IP. Creating an "unofficial" photo book isn't competition when you don't own the IP you're taking photos of in the first place.

 

It's not only not competition, it's impossible to be a violation of IP since it's simply taking pictures of products widely available in public. There would have to be some kind of terribly authoritarian law on the books to allow a corporation to prevent the publication of photos of products they've released to the public! I doubt any of our current laws are *that* absurd.

 

They aren't in public domain though.

Welcome to the Public Domain

 

Annnd I should have listened to myself about changing the way I worded that, given how pedantic some posters here can be.  
I was using the words "public domain" colloquially not in the formal legal sense of the term. They are in the public domain but are not Public Domain. *edits previous post* There, I went back and changed it. Now you can consider the general thrust of the statement and not over-focus a particular word choice.
I'm agreeing with you: The products are on the hands of the public and they can photograph them all they want. It's not competing with Hasbro.

 

While your snark is duly noted, "public" and "public domain" are, according to that article, the same thing.

Keep reading it. It even points out a photo book as an example of single images versus an entire collection of them.

"Fair use" doesn't apply here.

 

Wow. Again, I edited my post to remove your hangup over my word choice of "the public domain". I'm not reading your article, it's irrelevant since I wasn't claiming the products are in Public Domain in the legal sense. The rest of my post already made my intent abundantly clear though, but you're still hyper-focusing on something that's not what you assumed. Relax.

 

Yet this entire topic is about the basis of IP, C&D, and law.

By law, you cannot post an image of trademarked material if you do not own said trademark, if the IP owner decides to pursue action against the infringement.

Usually, images on the internet are ignored. But when you are selling a collection of the photos, you can violate the trademark law protecting it.

I'm not against anyone here. I'm just trying to prevent further confusion based on preconceived fallacies.

 

Says the person with a preconceived fallacy of what I was saying, who only partially quotes my clarification post in order to continue to operate based on the fallacy rather than acknowledging what my actual intent was. I think I see what the issue is here. You're got locked onto a misunderstanding and can't let it go. I'm going to let it go for you. You "win". Have a good day.

 

I'm not misunderstanding anything. You said that the products are in the hands of the public and they can take photos all they want. Yes. That's true.

They cannot sell those product Images singularly or as a whole. That's the point here. It becomes "competition" because Hasbro is not capitalizing on an idea that is relevant to their IP. So they either collaborate with the Ocular Echo, or they decide to come up with their own to make their profit off of it. Or, they don't do anything at all and just protect their IP.

It doesn't matter that the public owns the products, Hasbro owns the likeness, trademark and the rest.

This isn't a pissing contest of opinion. It's fact.

 

Anybody remember how the makers of Candy Crush Saga tried to trademark the word "candy"? The word bumblebee is used in other markets, dating from times far before the character was created for Transformers. The courts will most likely strike down this particular lawsuit, saying that the word "bumblebee" cannot be copyrighted. Hasbro may even know this, but decided to take a long shot, and at least get some press from it. Like the saying goes, "There is no such thing as bad press".

But you are right, this whole situation sucks.

 

Actually the DC character Bumblebee came out in 1977. Comics were hot at that time, so DC Comics probably got legal rights to the character they named "Bumblebee".

 

edgecrusher... MnemonicSyntax is just right. Whether or not you think he should be, he is. That is literally how the law actually works.

Think about it.

There are lots of images of Mickey Mouse out there in the public. There are many Mickey Mouse officially licensed products, with both official and unofficial pics. Let's set all that aside for a moment to create a scenario in which the 'book creator' is even more in the right:

Let's say you're trying to publish the 'comprehensive Mickey Mouse collecting guide' using only pics you yourself took of items you yourself bought and own, in your own house -- literally your personal collection (let's say you're insanely rich and actually own every Mickey Mouse item ever made). Do you think that is okay under IP law? NO. Because the sheer scope of the pictures would exceed 'fair use'; it would essentially be a merch item "about Mickey Mouse", and Disney has the right to decide who gets to do that. (and I specifically used Disney in the example because they are singlehandedly responsible for 1) retroactively extending copyright laws to ridiculous lengths, and 2) making it so nothing new has entered the public domain for roughly 20 years)

 

They aren't trying to copyright "Bumblebee " they are protecting their trademark, huge difference.

 

IP law is such that when you become aware of a potential infringement and choose NOT to take action, you can lose any future claims to the rights you allowed to be infringed. So Hasbro's hands may have been tied. They probably know they can't win that (Bumblebee the Teen Titan predates Bumblebee the Autobot, and what about Bumblebee tuna, etc.) but they also don't want to lose those rights either. (What if DC sued them? Technically Bumblebee, the Autobot, is originally a comic book character... and DC did have a character with that name in a comic book before Hasbro/Marvel did)

 

For years Hasbro was not able to use the name Bumblebee. They don't want that to happen again.

 

No, it's exactly the same. The makers of Candy Crush weren't 'copyrighting' the word Candy either, they were trying to trademark it. just like 'candy', 'bumblebee' is an actual word, but they are protecting its use in a particular context.

That is actually very different from the copyright laws that govern, for instance, the appearance of the character Bumblebee. Even if somehow Has/Tak lost the Trademark claim to that name (which they did in the past, as you pointed out), they absolutely own the image and all the stories associated with "Bumblebee." (which is why they were able to make new DW and IDW comics with 'bumblebee' in them even though they didn't own the Trademark). Kind of how the makers of Candy Crush might not own the trademark to the word 'candy' but they still totally own the game Candy Crush.

 

Thanks for the insight into IP, I did not know that about this particular law. So, Hasbro filed this lawsuit, almost certainly knowing that they would not get DC (or other market producers) to quit using the name Bumblebee. It really is apples and oranges. (Or in this case 15-20 foot tall transforming alien AI to 5-6 foot tall teenage girls (or 8 oz. cans of tuna) 

 

I thought King games was trying to trademark the word "saga" because of that whole Banner Saga debacle.

And speaking of Disney.

Daycare Center Murals

 

I was responding directly to the statement: "The courts will most likely strike down this particular lawsuit, saying that the word "bumblebee" cannot be copyrighted. Hasbro may even know this, but decided to take a long shot, and at least get some press from it."