Somebody suing a movie company for copyright violation.

[kengr]

Seems that the artist who did a tattoo on Mike Tyson, owns the copyright and is suing Warner Brothers for copyright violation for using a repro of oit on an actor in a movie about Tyson.

WB is (naturally) complaining that he never said anything about the previous movie they did and that filing the injunction days beforee the movie is to be released will be devastating.

Me, I think it's great that for once it's a *major* movie company on the receiving end of a copyright suit.

Alas for them, unlike trademarks, the fact that the copyright owner let them get away with it *last* time doesn't mean they get a free pass this time. And if it costs them tons of money, maybe they'll be a bit less arrogant in the future.

Given the MPAA's attitude, this is an excellent case of "what goes around, comes around" (aka, vastly accelerated karma)

Comments

[brockulfsen.livejournal.com]

Trademarks in the US are strange. In Australia a trademark is a Trademark, you don't have to spend your days chasing people about it, but, you cant gain a benefit by trademarking something that is already in use.

The classic example is the Ugg Boot. A US company bought a small Ugg Boot manufacturer, trademarked "Ugg Boot" and started sending rude letters to everyone else. Under Australian Law they were held to be paying for the right to distinguish their Ugg Boots from all other Ugg Boots by appending the Trademark Symbol to theirs. They could only take action against others for unauthorized use of the words Ugg Boot coupled with the symbol. They were also warned that threatening tiny charity workshops was viewed dimly by Australian Courts and could see them facing charges of Barratry...

[kengr]

Ah, but the artist isn't claiming trademark. If he was *then* the argument that he hadn't gone after them for the first movie would work.

He's talking copyright which allows for selective prosecution.

I;'m pretty sure that in the US you usually can't get away with trademarking a term already in use. But "Ugg Boot" probably got by because *in the US* it wasn't a known term.

Trying to trademark "compact car" wouldn't fly. Neither does trying to trademark chemical names (or things close to them) for drugs)

[fayanora.livejournal.com]

o_O