Shamus, you hit the nail on the head with this. Brand names are covered by trademark law, and that's easily the most useful branch of IP law as far as I can see. In fact, I'd go so far as to claim it's the only one that actually makes logical sense, but that's a whole other debate.Shamus Young said:We've got laws to keep the bad guys from using the brand names of the good guys, and anything more might just be asking for a worse kind of trouble.
What? He infringed He's So Fine by The Chiffons, one of the recognizable and top songs of the 1960s. And it only cost him $580,000 because he bought the company that owned the copyright instead of playing the $1.6 million.Dorkmaster Flek said:Shamus, you hit the nail on the head with this. Brand names are covered by trademark law, and that's easily the most useful branch of IP law as far as I can see. In fact, I'd go so far as to claim it's the only one that actually makes logical sense, but that's a whole other debate.Shamus Young said:We've got laws to keep the bad guys from using the brand names of the good guys, and anything more might just be asking for a worse kind of trouble.
Suing for being "too similar" to another game/song/movie/any form of art is a very slippery slope. George Harrison had to pay $1.6 million because a song he wrote sounded similar to a different song by another artist that he claimed he had never heard before. They were able to show that he had previously been exposed to it in some context, and so the judge actually ruled that he had "subconsciously" plagiarized the song. That's the kind of shit we have to look forward to if people can sue over ideas.
A major difference is that Fogerty successfully defended himself, and was acquitted.Hitchmeister said:If you're going to talk about music lawsuits, don't stop at George Harrison getting sued over My Sweet Lord. John Fogerty once got sued for sounding too much like himself.
As someone that recently served on a jury, I take offence.draythefingerless said:Juris suck anyway. no one ever bothers to do homework while theyre juri, or cares for that matter, or knows anything relevant to the case.
Yeah, it's not really anything that's held against a jury, even more so with this in mind. Any big name would destroy little guys with such an easy law to manipulate.krellen said:As someone that recently served on a jury, I take offence.draythefingerless said:Juris suck anyway. no one ever bothers to do homework while theyre juri, or cares for that matter, or knows anything relevant to the case.
The most important point against you here: Juries are not allowed, by punishment of law, to research the cases they are hearing. It is the job of the judge and the lawyers to present the issue, not of the juries to discover it for themselves. A juror that independently researches a case can be found in contempt of court, fined and possibly jailed.
Yup.Shamus Young said:Is imitation the sincerest form of flattery?
Fantastic, well written and argued piece and point of view. This should really be required knowledge in the digital ageShamus Young said:Copyrights and Copycats
Is imitation the sincerest form of flattery?
Read Full Article