Tag Archive for: Infringement

Estate Of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Alleges Copyright Infringement Over Sherlock’s Emotional Awakening

/in

Let us do a little deductive reasoning, shall we? Copyright law has a term length. While that term length has been extended to the point of near-bastardization, that copyright exists on a term at all leads any investigator to conclude that the makers of that law intended for copyright protections on a given work to come to an end. If distinct characters and settings are offered copyright protections, as they are, then it reasons that those, too, were intended to have those protections end after a prescribed period of time. And if Sherlock Holmes is a literary character, an assertion that cannot be doubted, then it stands to reason that the law as written intended for the copyright protections covering his character were also to end after a period of time.

Therefore, all you Watson-esque readers witnessing my astounding logic, when the Estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle suggested back in 2013 in a lawsuit that the clock didn’t start running as to when a character would enter the public domain until that character had ceased to be developed, the Estate’s assertion clearly and undoubtedly runs afoul of the intention of those that crafted copyright law, since an author could simply forever-develop a character, and have him or her never enter the public domain! It’s elementary!

But not to the Conan Doyle Estate, apparently, which has sued Netflix over its forthcoming movie about Sherlock’s sister, entitled Enola Holmes. In the suit itself, the estate points out in the previous court ruling that, while most of the Sherlock stories and characters are in the public domain, the remaining ten are not. Which is true! But the estate also argues that the Sherlock character is different in those last ten stories because he… wait for it… is more emotional. And, therefore, since the Sherlock character in Enola Holmes is also emotional… copyright infringement!

“After the stories that are now in the public domain, and before the Copyrighted Stories, the Great War happened,” states the complaint. “In World War I Conan Doyle lost his eldest son, Arthur Alleyne Kingsley. Four months later he lost his brother, Brigadier-general Innes Doyle. When Conan Doyle came back to Holmes in the Copyrighted Stories between 1923 and 1927, it was no longer enough that the Holmes character was the most brilliant rational and analytical mind. Holmes needed to be human. The character needed to develop human connection and empathy.”

And so Sherlock “became warmer,” continues the complaint, setting up the question of whether the development of feelings is something that can be protected by copyright and whether the alleged depiction of Sherlock in Enola Holmes is somehow derivative.

Imagine for a moment if this argument were allowed to win the day in court. Suddenly any author who managed to develop the characters in any series of novels would get never ending copyright on those characters. Luke Skywalker is suddenly a dick in Episode 8? New copyright term on his character. Harry Potter goes through puberty and gets romantic with his best friends little sister? Well, first, come on man, but also… new copyright term on his character!

That isn’t how any of this is supposed to work, of course. Again, it’s quite obvious that the framers limited copyright to a term for a reason, and that reason was that works and characters that are protected by copyright are supposed to eventually end up in the public domain. Playing these games as to when a character that is otherwise in that public domain got some characteristic to end run around the term and still get copyright protection doesn’t change that.

If the court has any sense, this suit should find the garbage pail with the quickness.

Techdirt.

Florida Atlantic University Suddenly Decides Owl Tutoring’s Name Is Trademark Infringement After Over A Decade

/in

As some of you may be aware, Florida Atlantic University’s sports teams and mascots are the Owls. As some of you may also be aware, the southeast is home to Owl Tutoring, a college tutoring service with a fairly good reputation. Owl Tutoring has existed for over a decade and has even promoted itself by advertising in FAU publications. That’s probably why it took the folks at the company by such surprise to suddenly get a C&D letter from FAU’s legal team accusing it of committing trademark infringement.

Owl Tutoring has had a close relationship with the university for many years, including operating on campus for almost five years before moving off-campus to the FAU business incubator. Despite this long-standing association, FAU is now claiming that Owl Tutoring is violating its trademark.

Owl Tutoring believes the university can’t claim exclusive rights in the term “owl” in connection with tutoring services because the term is highly suggestive for these services given that owls are a well-known symbol for wisdom and knowledge. The company also notes there are over a dozen coexisting registered and pending trademarks incorporating the term “owl” for educational services.

In addition to pointing out that using the term “owl” for educational services is both widely done and potentially generic, Owl Tutoring also wondered out loud in its response letter to FAU just where the school has been for the past decade if it had a problem with the company’s name.

In response to FAU legal filings, Owl Tutoring asserted that FAU’s claims of trademark infringement are invalid because the university slept on its rights to object for more than 10 years, while actively supporting Owl Tutoring’s activities. Owl Tutoring has advertised its services in the FAU College of Business’ lobby, posted flyers approved by FAU and rendered services in FAU classrooms reserved by university staff explicitly for Owl Tutoring’s use.

Owl Tutoring, which is headed by an FAU alumnus, ends its response by politely suggesting that perhaps the legal team for FAU wasn’t aware of the close relationship between the two entities. Regardless of whether or not that is true, it sure would be hard to imagine a jury or court finding that the company suddenly infringed after a decade of coexisting with the university.

Let’s hope this is just a case of an overeager legal partner.

Techdirt.

We’re not hijacking your lion! Midstate firm claws back at Penn State’s trademark infringement lawsuit – PennLive

/in

We’re not hijacking your lion! Midstate firm claws back at Penn State’s trademark infringement lawsuit  PennLive
“HTTPS hijacking” – read more

Infamous Pinkerton Detectives Claim Red Dead Redemption’s Use Of Historically Accurate Pinkertons Is Trademark Infringement

/in

Take 2 Interactive is no stranger to fighting bogus complaints about “infringement” concerning how it represents characters in its various games. Most of these fights have been over its flagship franchise, the Grand Theft Auto series, where the developer often enjoys poking fun at pop culture and society through settings and characters that are an amalgam of several stereotyped individuals. This has resulted in entitled celebrities and property owners attempting to sue over trademark and publicity rights in the past, with Take 2 typically coming out victorious by pointing out that its work is that of parody and covered by fair use.

This is now happening with a different game but the basic story remains the same. In this case we have the added insanity of a rather infamous company trying to profit off of its infamous history. Pinkerton Consulting & Investigations sent a cease and desist notice to Take 2 after Red Dead Redemption 2 was released due to the game including characters who were a part of the company during ye olde olden times. In response, Take 2 filed suit.

Pinkerton sent Take-Two Interactive a cease-and-desist letter over the characters of Andrew Milton and Edgar Ross, a pair of Pinkerton agents and major antagonists in the game. Now, Take-Two is suing to have the characters declared fair use, arguing that they’re part of Red Dead Redemption 2’s detailed historical setting.

Pinkerton Consulting & Investigations (now a subsidiary of security firm Securitas AB) delivered its cease-and-desist order in December, roughly two months after Red Dead Redemption 2’s release. It commended game development studio Rockstar’s “clear affection” for Pinkerton, but claimed it was trading on the “goodwill” associated with the company’s trademarks, creating a false impression that the game was made by or connected with Pinkerton. The order demands that Take-Two pay either a lump sum or ongoing royalties. But Take-Two contends that Red Dead Redemption 2 — which the lawsuit describes as a “gripping Wild West adventure” and “essentially an interactive film” — is protected by the First Amendment.

Okay, so a lot to get into here. First and foremost, including Pinkerton in a story about the old west absolutely is an obvious aim at being historically accurate. I didn’t realize it until reading this story, but the Pinkerton operation around today is the same Pinkerton organization that has a sordid history working with both government and industry specifically to infiltrate, investigate, and ultimately stop the spread of labor unions, while encouraging strikebreaking. The infamous Pinkerton agency goes all the way back to the 1800s and was somewhat notorious for its tactics. The company also was very much involved in investigating and tracking down notorious outlaws such as Jesse James, Butch Cassidy, and the Sundance Kid. All of this, of course, makes their appearance in an old west outlaw game perfectly reasonable fodder.

Take 2 notes all of this in its declaratory judgment suit, along with mentioning all of the other cultural media that includes references to Pinkerton in stories about the old west.

Take-Two notes that the Pinkerton National Detective Agency is referenced in plenty of other Western fiction, and that the agency played a major role in real 19th- and early 20th-century American history. (It was not, however, the inspiration for the Weezer album Pinkerton.) Among other places, Pinkerton agents appear in the 2000s-era TV series Deadwood; the 1980 film The Long Riders; and the 2010 game BioShock Infinite, where the protagonist is a former Pinkerton agent.

Yet, when it comes to the wildly successful game Take 2 released, Pinkerton suddenly wants to lean on trademark law as a way to profit over a historical reality. This is absurd on many levels, including that the use by Take 2 — much like with its GTA series — is obviously fair use. On top of that, Pinkerton’s claim in its C&D that the public is going to somehow be confused into thinking that Red Dead is the product of, affiliated with, or approved by Pinkerton is laughable at best. I would posit that most people playing the game likely won’t know that Pinkerton is a real company, whereas those that do will see it as the inclusion of historical characters that are prevalent throughout the game.

In response to the lawsuit, the Pinkerton folks claim that part of their complaint is that this is a historically inaccurate picture of the Pinkertons, and that it’s harming their good will. Given the existing reputation of the Pinkertons from back in the day, it’s difficult to see how there is much good will to harm here in the first place, and litigating the reputation of the Pinkertons from the 1800s in the old west doesn’t seem like a productive use of anyone’s time.

We’ll see how the court decides this, but it’s quite difficult to imagine works of art having to license history in the way Pinkerton has suggested Take 2 should.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Techdirt.