Re: CRAP Poll 77C Part III Subsection 2 Paragraph 19: Them Thar Words At The Bottom Of The Screen

On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 18:16:48 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

On 10/22/2024 2:16 PM, Justisaur wrote:

On 10/18/2024 3:32 AM, JAB wrote:

On 17/10/2024 18:41, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Although if you really want, maybe I could dig up a new
game-industry-does-NFT story to keep things fresh? ?

>
There you go.
>
https://kotaku.com/flappy-bird-nft-crypto-blockchain-telegram-1851649000

 
WTF!?!?!  I didn't think you could take control of a trademark that'd
been abandoned?
 
Even so, wouldn't copyright apply?  Don't we have 100 years after the
author's death?
 

I suspect the answer to both questions depends on what country you are in.

But generally, copyright trademark and patent all have different laws
applying to them.

A trademark is much more fluid than the other two. It's designed to
protect a company from imitators, so if you see the mark you have a
reasonable confidence that the product you're buying comes from a
trusted source and isn't a counterfeit. As such, trademarks can often
be 'shared' between different companies if they're different enough
(hence, "Apple Records", "Apple Computers"*, "Apple" juicemakers, etc.
But similarly, unused trademarks can be snatched up too. The idea is,
if your trademark is important to your company, you will continue to
use it (and pay the registration fees) but if you no longer do that,
another company can make use of it themselves. Furthermore, trademarks
must be proactively defended -if you learn somebody is using your
trademark and don't do something to get them to stop- then you risk it
being declared generic and losing control of it. That's why Disney,
for instance, is so litigious against people using their characters;
it isn't _just_ that they are greedily trying to milk every dime out
of their IPs, but many of those characters are also registered
trademarks and not chasing after violators might cause them to lose
the trademark.

Copyrights are different. You generally get life-of-author+70 years
(or 95 years from publication if work for hire) automatically,
regardless of whether or not the book is being sold, or if you
register the copyright or not (registering the copyright does allow
you to claim greater damages if somebody violates your copyright, but
the copyright remains with you regardless of whether or not you
register).

Similarly, patents last 15 to 20 years, depending on type (and when
the patent was applied for, and actually granted). You do have to make
effort to get the patent granted -it isn't automatic as with
copyright- but it's permanent within that period once its granted.


TL;DR:
    - trademark: must use actively, must protect against violators
    - copyright: automatic, remains even if not used, not going
      after violators doesn't negate it
    - patent: must apply, automatic even if not used, not going
      after violators doesn't negate it


In the Flappy Bird case, the original owner allowed his trademark
rights to lapse. Whether this was a mistake or because they felt the
flappy-bird craze was over and didn't think it worth the cost and
effort is unclear (the creator did purposefully pull the game from
online markets some years ago, so it wasn't being used commercially).
This allowed the NFT company to swoop up and register it to
themselves. The actual game -the code, the (exact) visuals- remain in
the creators hand, but the trademark belongs to somebody else. And
because game mechanics can't be copyrighted or patented, and the
simplistic visuals are easy to duplicate (with just enough difference
to make them legally distinct) it's easy enough to create a clone and
slap the name on their NFT-riddled game. Unfortunate, but sadly
perfectly legitimate.

That this new version might get confused with the old just proves why
its so important to protect those trademarks.




* although Apple did run afoul of this when they started selling music