Comments | sophie_448: Of fandom and intellectual property (but not like you think)

sophie_448

Of fandom and intellectual property (but not like you think)

Jul 08, 2010 00:00

I know you don't see me around SPN fandom much anymore. Okay, okay, at all really. (I'm not dead, I'm resting!) But something's come up that I think as many people as possible should be aware of.

So, you know Zazzle, right? (Like CafePress only better, but less successful). Well, eons ago (I'm fairly sure it was mid 2007) I created some ( Read more... )

srs bzns, spn, stick it to the man

Comments 32

missyjack July 8 2010, 04:09:35 UTC

Yes entirely skeevy. i think its a case of where being a big corporation will win out. i suspect that at some point WB may have taken out a copyright on the word - possibly because commerical merchandisers started using it. The history of the use of the term on merchandise can be found here.

You don't have to create something to copyright it - eg companies copyright particular colours or general words eg Apple) associated with their brands. It sucks of course, esp when there is no threat to the companies profit. And look at all the stuff on eBay that uses photos from the show on keyrings etc!

eta I remember years ago anteka had a claim from the WB agianst some stuff she had on Cafe press - i think it was a black silhouette of the car!!

sophie_448 July 8 2010, 04:17:34 UTC

Oh, I have no doubt the big corporation holds all the cards in this situation. Like I said, I know next to nothing about copyright law, but I do think it's generally the case when it is something unique like this, that strictly speaking they would need to obtain the rights from the original creator. I don't know about elsewhere, but in the US, I believe things like colors and "Apple" tend to be trademarked rather than copyrighted for exactly that reason, although I don't know what the difference would be in terms of enforcement.

Oh, that's interesting! It seems like if anyone could make that claim it would be Chevy.

missyjack July 8 2010, 04:23:10 UTC

I just thought that the other factor here may be the band Metallica!

I checked and their music is under license to Warner Brothers, so the claim may have come from that direction rather than Supernatural.

sophie_448 July 8 2010, 04:25:40 UTC

I did wonder if that could be a factor, but their email back to me did specify that it was Supernatural specifically.

Thread 7

jesseofthenorth July 8 2010, 04:29:14 UTC

Well doesn't this just have layers of suck.
Honestly? I wonder what they hope to gain?

sophie_448 July 8 2010, 04:38:02 UTC

It does indeed! missyjack pointed out above that there has been some use of the term on commercial merchandise, so possibly their actual aim is to make more money off Creation and the like, but ... that doesn't really make it less skeevy.

onepunkymisfit July 8 2010, 05:27:58 UTC

That's absolutely ridiculous. D:

sophie_448 July 8 2010, 12:25:54 UTC

It is! Even if there's somehow a legitimate way that they got the rights to it (which there could be) it still SKEEVES ME RIGHT OUT :-(

heidi8 July 8 2010, 11:07:58 UTC

Ive gone through this process before with Harry Potter products, and the way CafePress and iTunes Apps work - and I assume Zazzle too - is that they have a list of terms related to various media properties and they don't even bother to go to the IP rightsholder. Thte just do searches through their system every so often and pull things that match up with a keyword and pull them.

sophie_448 July 8 2010, 12:25:15 UTC

Not that I would put it past a big company to lie, but the notification did say that they had been contacted by the copyright holder. And since the product had been around so long, it seems like maybe WB just started looking at products either on Zazzle or with the use of Metallicar specifically.

(I like your sparkly fair use icon!)

heidi8 July 8 2010, 13:41:54 UTC

Technically they didn't say they had been contacted about your product specifically. They may have just done a search for everything with the term Metallicar at WB's request, which is still overreaching but not particular to you. Fwiw, they don't have a pending trademark application or registration at the USPTO for "Metallicar" And back in the Olden Days like 2001 and 2002, companies like CafePress used to require a filing before stamping on usages. So frustrating that it seems they don't anymore.

jehane_writes July 8 2010, 12:42:22 UTC

IAAL, though not an IP lawyer, and not a US-based one. It seems unusual that a fan-coined term would be subject to copyright (or trademark). There's a common law tort of passing off - essentially if Warner Bros/SPN can assert your keychain looked strikingly similar to WB/SPN merch or was passing itself off as authorised by/affiliated with WB/SPN, then it could make some argument that you infringed its IP rights. Which is crap, because this law is designed to catch intentional piracy, but I can possibly see an assertion being made in this case, even if your sale ID thing came with a disclaimer.

Sadly, if it's a fan-coined term, then it's unlikely any fan would have true rights over it! Such is the nature of fan creation. :(