-
-
Agreed. There is a limit to such. "Candy Crush," I can see, but simply the word "Candy" no! Does that make "Eye Candy" off limits in blogs and as a software? I used to use Eye Candy years ago. It is now in its "7th" iteration. I can see a real legal showdown taking place. I personally think the Patent office will have to recant at some point.Hank Lee
Experience is what you get when you don't get what you wanted!
-
In blogs, no, it wouldn't be illegal. Apple is a common word that was in use LONG before the computer or the record label.
Better listing of the story and I do expect some backlash and/or prior art type challenges:
She couldn't tell the difference between the escape pod, and the bathroom. We had to go back for her.........................Twice.Comment
-
Absolutely we are.
About 15 or so years ago, my employer decided to name it's new compressor valve design, the "Magnum Valve". I don't particularly go for such nonsense, but almost imediately the company received a letter from a law firm stating that the use of "Magnum" was a copyright violation. I never really got the details of that, but was basically told to hold off using the label on any of the brochures or technical documentation that I was in the process of designing. It eventually got worked out, but it did cause us some delay.
I also remember quite a few years ago that some rock band got into trouble with the copyright office, regarding a piece of music they produced. Something about four notes, that somehow duplicated another artist's music of a decade or so before that. FOUR NOTES!? I thought that was a real joke, but apparently it wasn't and some kind of monitary penalty had to be paid the originator.
On the other hand, one gets a really sinking feeling when someone else makes claim to your artwork, music, idea or effort and it can be tough to then make claim that it was yours. In many cases, even opening your mouth about it makes you look petty. I've had that happen to illustrations that I've done (which is easy to prove if I've published it), but I've had a couple of instances when I've put some serious effort into a presentation or proposed a solution to someone's problem and then had that individual claim that it was their own. I've had that happen several times, and usually it was a person at a much higher level... you just get told to "leave it alone".
CWSThink it Through Before You Do!Comment
-
Wouldn't candy crush be a direct rip off of candyland?
Both are games. I remember my sister having candyland when we were kids.LeeComment
-
We usually used a project code name until the copyright search was complete. That way at least the design work can move forward without worrying about what the marketing people are up to.
Now, if marketing printed brochures or committed to other brand-identifying artwork before checking copyrights it was a hanging offense!JRComment
-
We used to refer to them as "Marketeers", as in "privateers" (pirates).
I grew up in the industry as a "Technical Illustrator and writer", which basically put me in the Engineering dept and working with engineers both in R&D and in Product Engineering. That sort of dried up in the mid-90's and I was transferred to Marketing, where I did everything from database design and implementation to high-level product illustration and brochures.
Amazing what the difference between Engineering and Marketing, but even more so with corporate Marketing Communications where 'creative license' appeared to break all the rules I had ever known. It was best that I retired.
CWSThink it Through Before You Do!Comment
-
One of my first thoughts was, are trademarks, copyrights, etc., actually retro-active?
In that case I would see a lot of possibilities.
Do like you always do,,,,,,Get what you always get!!Comment
-
No, to my knowledge they are not retroactive... how would that work? You build something or draw something and next year somebody see's it, maybe even copies it, and then labels it with their "copyright" and then turns around an sue's you for infringement? Then you'd have to either pay them or an attorney to defend yourself!
For a very long time, I'd just be happy that someone liked my work good enough to want to pay me for it. And in the case where I'm working under a contract or the employ of someone, the work is really their's anyway, they just paid me to do it and they actually owned it.
But in the case of my employer, they paid me to do a particular kind of work and the forbid me from doing work for others (or at least tried to forbid me). But, as my attorney clarified, I AM NOT their slave or endentured servant. While I certainly could not do work for any other competitor, I was certainly entitled to use my talants and skills for whoever I liked.
Further, if I volunteered to do artwork or writing outside my job description for my employer or the employee organization, I could certainly do so AND, I could copyright it!
This came out of some cartooning that I did for an open house that the employees association did. I happily volunteered my services for that one event and I wrote it up that way. But then the company started using those cartoons for it's commercial benefit, reasoning that since I was an employee, any and everything that created was their property to do as they please.
Legally, that was NOT true!
CWSThink it Through Before You Do!Comment
-
I did similar training manuals for a commercial cleaning company that I used to work for. They hired me to do all the art work as well as text. They had to approve it. I then got paid to update it a few times LOML got paid to translate it to Spanish. They have used many of the images that were used in the original as well as a bunch more that didn't actually make the manuals, but were included on the CD's they bought. They use them all the time in newsletters. I did give them express permission to use that artwork anywhere they wanted to. That signed letter is also on the original and subsequent CD's they bought from me.
They offered me a good paying position in the ad department more than a dozen times and each time I declined.
I am simply not cut out for work in a busy office environment. I am fine in my own home office working for myself though.
I own all the copyrights to the artwork, but they own the rights to publish in company publications and promotions only. In other words, they cannot sell the artwork to another company without my permission. It is not clip art.
When I sold cartoons to magazine publications, they bought one time use only. Some magazine's like the New Yorker want to republish them in collections, however you get paid for that again. I sent more to the New Yorker than anywhere else, but never got my foot in the door.
I did sell to about 1/2 a dozen magazines and a few more than once. So I retired.
LeeComment
-
The biggest problem I see in this area I think are sometimes called Patent Trolls. The idea is that somebody interested only in money works hard to get patents on some aspect of a technology that is moving forward. Maybe something having to do with flash memory, for instance. Once you get the patent, you research other patents and try to find similar technology. If you think it infringes your patent, always a judgement call, you sue or threaten to sue, solely to get a payout. Large companies will pay rather than litigate because the litigation will be six figures in cost regardless of the outcome and there is always a chance they will loose.
So you can make money doing nothing other than getting patents and threatening legitamate businesses. That isn't really the purpose of patents. All the messing around with lawyers discourages real businesses.Comment
-
Agree. One characteristic of patent trolls is that they don't have any manufacturing or sales interests. They are just in it to essentially blackmail going business concerns. The threat of having an lost time, court and legal costs and injunction and lost sales and or possible large royalty payments due to the unpredictability of juries causes companies to settle out of court even if they feel they have a good position.
Not the way the law was intended to work.
One of the prime cases of us on BT3central is a patent troll who brought suit against Kreg, maker of the pocket hole jigs,
Loring in Katy, TX USA
If your only tool is a hammer, you tend to treat all problems as if they were nails.
BT3 FAQ - https://www.sawdustzone.org/forum/di...sked-questionsComment
-
She couldn't tell the difference between the escape pod, and the bathroom. We had to go back for her.........................Twice.Comment
-
I think "first to file" is correct. I am not very familiar with "patents", and probably not as familiar with "copyright" as I think I am.
But my understanding of copyright is this, all that is needed is for me to simply state on my artwork... "Copyright 2014, CWSmith All rights Reserved" (or something to that effect.
The second and most important step perhaps as that I have published this in some manner, and have proof of such. It doesn't necessarily have to be registered. However, the evidence of proof of origin is extremely important.
With a patent, I would think that very early on in your design, you might well want to have a good attorney involved.
CWSThink it Through Before You Do!Comment
Tweet
Comment