tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7294499213897153104.post2679926996365903102..comments2024-03-29T09:23:53.797-05:00Comments on The Signal Watch: The final (open) letter from Joanne Siegel to Warner Bros.The Leaguehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04836241071795980225noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7294499213897153104.post-20813282668803915302011-03-30T09:02:00.418-05:002011-03-30T09:02:00.418-05:00I need to be fed regularly and tips are welcome.
...I need to be fed regularly and tips are welcome.<br /><br />-NTTAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7294499213897153104.post-5879839986205336192011-03-29T19:39:14.888-05:002011-03-29T19:39:14.888-05:00Ah! See, that all makes sense. This is why we ke...Ah! See, that all makes sense. This is why we keep attorneys around this place.The Leaguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04836241071795980225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7294499213897153104.post-17179151920683035992011-03-29T17:34:32.840-05:002011-03-29T17:34:32.840-05:00In addition, the Coca Cola recipe is a trade secre...In addition, the Coca Cola recipe is a trade secret, NOT a copyright. <br /><br />They make it a trade secret for the very reason that they cannot copyright it. You can't make a creative work, make it secret so that no one knows what it is, then sue for copyright infringement against all your competitors when no one even knows what's written, expressed or filmed. That's insane.<br /><br />-NTTAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7294499213897153104.post-28001827486706429552011-03-29T17:30:48.249-05:002011-03-29T17:30:48.249-05:00There's a huge difference between a trademark ...There's a huge difference between a trademark and a copyright. A trademark is tort based right, where it works on the continued use of the "name" or "logo" of a company. There are vastly different rules between a copyright and a trademark. Trademarks protect against consumer confusion. If there is no confusion, you can't assert trademark infringement. There defined legal tests for consumer confusion to prove in a court of law. That's why you can have SAFEGUARD for soap and SAFEGUARD for locks. It doesn't matter if no one is confused in copyrights. If it's similar it's infringement. That is a powerful deterrent to other creators.<br /><br />Again, a copyright is a wholly government created right. You don't naturally get it. In addition, when you take possession of a tangible object like a bat you don't get to stop all others from using a bat similar to yours. We call copyrights intellectual property for a reason. It's not land or tangible. You are stating that one family or corporation can stop the rest of humanity from creating a character that is from another world and imbued with superpowers. The origin of copyrights again is that society created it for creators. Society can take it away. If you take advantage of copyright laws you also make an implicit agreement to give it up at some certain future point. Society created these laws to encourage creativity and art. You keep allowing a copyright to exist in perpetuity, you will kill creativity. If Shakespeare's estate was give copyrights in perpetuity, the world would be a much more barren place for creative expression.<br /><br />Also, a trademark can be lost if not continued to be used. You have to prove you are using your trademark correctly under the law every 5 years. You don't have to do that in copyrights. The author isn't required to continue to produce works under the copyright. <br /><br />If you think comics, books and movies are expensive now. Wait until you provide copyright perpetuity to the Tolkein, Speilberg, George Lucas and J.K. Rowling estates. <br /><br />-NTTAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7294499213897153104.post-54049260915985612672011-03-29T15:21:48.539-05:002011-03-29T15:21:48.539-05:00See, but I'm not sure why that is... I am not...See, but I'm not sure why that is... I am not trying to be difficult, but "oh, its old, anyone who wants to use it should be able to do so..." isn't terribly compelling to me as a logical argument. We don't treat physical objects that way, be it a painting or home or baseball bats. We don't just hand out the recipe to Coke. It seems that its fictional works and characters that fall into this particular realm. Nor do we allow companies to falsely identify themselves as, say "Coca-Cola" simply because the company has passed an imaginary line in the sand.<br /><br />I don't see why age means, necessarily, that anyone can make money off a property WB has spent millions to imbue with value, ie - ongoing effort and hard work. <br /><br />We've only had mass communication for a few generations, and are just now seeing the first trademarks of what's sure to be an avalanche of everything from Disney Princesses to Brady Bunch kids to the Rollerball franchise.The Leaguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04836241071795980225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7294499213897153104.post-1499966351866819002011-03-29T12:58:24.398-05:002011-03-29T12:58:24.398-05:00For an "author" created work, it's t...For an "author" created work, it's the lifetime of the creator PLUS 70years. For a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first.<br /><br />The first listed is MORE than enough time to compensate a creator, his/her family and his pet immortal tortoise for his/her creation. At a certain point, an author or an author's assigns should not dictate to the entire world how to use a creative work. If so, you get crazy things like the James Joyce estate that sues every entity that even references a sentence from the work of Joyce. That's absurd. <br /><br />Copyrights is a government created right. You don't get it naturally when you are born. It's born out of the principal that society should reward creative expression because it's HARD WORK. But for that right, you implicitly agree to GIVE IT UP after a period of time, not to hold everyone ransom because their story uses the name Clark and Clark has superpowers. Creative works should be passed to the public domain at some certain point.<br /><br />Frankly, the duration of a copyright should be shortened. At this point in time, neither WB nor the Seigels should get to dictate to society how to use Superman. <br /><br />-NTTAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com