Summit Entertainment Claims To Own The Date November 20, 2009; Issues Takedown On Art Created On That Day
from the hello-ip-fraud dept
Summit Entertainment, the movie studio behind the Twilight films, is no stranger to ridiculous-to-insane overreaches of intellectual property law. In fact, the studio seems to make a habit out of it. The company has sued Zazzle because some of its users made fan art inspired by Twilight. It's shut down a Twilight fanzine. It's said that only it can make a documentary about the real town where the fictional Twilight story is based. It's sued to stop a fashion designer from factually stating that a character in one of the movies wore its jacket. It shut down a silly 8-bit YouTube game. It issued a takedown on a song that was written years before the Twilight movies. It went after Bath & Bodyworks for daring to to sell a body lotion called Twilight Woods, which had nothing to do with the movies. It aggressively sued a fan and pressed criminal charges for tweeting some behind the scenes photos of a Twilight movie. It also sued the guy who registered twilight.com back in 1994.This is a company that thinks that the world revolves around its trademarks, and it appears to have little concern for what the law actually says.
Its latest move is particularly asinine. The company came across the following lovely image created by artist Kelly Howlett and posted to Zazzle, and issued a takedown.
Summit has no legitimate claim here. At all. And yet it took the artwork down anyway, because that's the kind of IP abusers they are.
Either way, the company has such a long and consistent history of abusing intellectual property law, isn't there a point at which we just say that the company no longer deserves any such power? If you regularly abuse monopoly privileges, shouldn't they be taken away?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dates, ip abuse, ip fraud, kelly howlett, november 20th, painting, takedowns, trademark
Companies: summit entertainment, zazzle
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's like not getting your kid a pet until they can prove they are responsible enough. Clearly their goldfish died and enough innocent lives have been lost.
Never mind the damage their movies have done...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey...that's my...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey...that's my...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey...that's my...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey...that's my...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even the principles of Love and Tolerance have their limits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Would like them to try Twillight Zone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps?
"Perhaps your product contained search tags or descriptions that references elements from The Twighlight Saga, for example titles, character names, etc."
Perhaps? So, Zazzle removed content based on a claim and there isn't even an explanation as to what is infringing? Shouldn't this be a mandatory part of any takedown request? Unless you're a Twilight fan -- and I hope you're not -- how in the world would you connect that particular date with anything owned by Summit Entertainment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perhaps?
You'd think so, wouldn't you? This is more proof of the DMCA's status as a horseshit law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Perhaps?
All of the incentives are on the side of "take it down," there are no incentives at all for getting it right.
Why would any online company spend extra time and resources investigating the claims in the take down notice when the only possible outcomes are:
1. They increase their risk of getting sued; or
2. They take down the material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perhaps?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not "steak"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not "steak"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not "steak"
Here is some help in getting rid of them:
http://waynet.hubpages.com/hub/Zombie-Survival-How-To-Kill-A-Zombie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not "steak"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not "steak"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not "steak"
Problem being the twilight franchise doesn't HAVE vampires in it....it has blood-sucking paedophile monsters but those ain't vamps....
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it's still a deranged hobo only CLAIMING to be a duck....no matter how many bread crumbs he eats...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, what?
What's next, they sue My Little Pony for Twilight Sparkle because it's a combination of their movie franchise's name and what overly emo vampires do in sunlight?
Someone bring back scummy politicians again. At least they won't eradicate braincells...
Wait, no! I take it back!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 01-20-xxxx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 01-20-xxxx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rights holders should recognize that the takedowns are not helping their cause. Takedowns do not produce a penny of revenue. They only look good in internal performance reports. Rights holders could make the problem of DCMA abuse go away if they only issued notices for major infringement, such as posting a full copy of the movie. Stockholders would be better served if most of the cases of "infringement" were treated as marketing opportunities rather than kills on monthly reports.
Ridiculous and bogus takedowns are only fueling the demand to apply penalties to false DCMA, copyright, and trademark claims. The IP rights holders could derail that whole movement by just making responsible DCMA claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A note from Summit Entertainment
Also forbidden: photos or drawings of people who may be thinking about the Twilight films, or any elements thereof, including (but not limited to) vampires, werewolves, the concept of sparkling, unrequited love, destiny, improvised caesareans, requited love, uncomfortable subtext, and melodrama.
We feel this is an entirely reasonable interpretation of our rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A note from Summit Entertainment
http://twilightsaga.wikia.com/wiki/Imprinting
Give them exactly what they want and watch them squirm under the pressure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A note from Summit Entertainment
It seems that the morons at Summit Entertainment just love flogging a dead horse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A note from Summit Entertainment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A note from Summit Entertainment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_20
Startling discovery: Windows 1.0 was released November 20 1985. I guess the twilight people should expect a takedown notice soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disgusting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give the *AA's a couple more years and there won't be a public domain left. Or a calendar!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course, you might be able to successfully argue that you didn't intentionally infringe on their copyright. Then it'd only cost you $30,000. (Or $60,000.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I HAVE A SOLUTION..
tend to NOT know their rights, or have much money to Fight back..
Lets deal with this problem...
IF the company that is SUING, LOOSES...THEY OWE the same amount to the person/company BEING SUE'D..
I could really, SEE, the RIAA/MPAA lowering the amounts, majorly. because if they LOOSE...they LOOSE the amounts Sue'd for..
======================
Also,
Dont you think that Twilight would be making more money, IF' they wernt paying the LAWYERS?? or are they doing this OUT OF HAND, where they foot the costs and if they WIN, they keep the money..(Twilight gets nothing)
wouldnt that be Against the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I HAVE A SOLUTION..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fucking sucks.
2.Summit needs to go choke on something.
3.They will probably come after me for just typing twilight on here.
4.Did I mention twilight fucking sucks lawl..
5.Also twilight fucking sucks.
6.I have no clue how Kristen Stewart got into acting with the same monotone voice in every single thing. Plus twilight fucking sucks.
If anyone thinks I'm trolling well I am but it's directed at Summit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "Entertainment" Industry
I get all my entertainment needs abundantly met by the newsfeeds.
And, I don't have to fret and worry about 'downloading' vs
'streaming'; maybe getting flak over an on-line purchase, which necessarily exposes my personal data.
--
Igor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You wish.
Did you spank off when you wrote that? I suspect this is your true fantasy, the ability to randomly, based on your own criteria, to decide who does and does not merit something.
You make HADOPI look totally democratic!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But just in case:
" I suspect this is your true fantasy, the ability to randomly, based on your own criteria, to decide who does and does not merit something."
No I will design a bot to do it for me so it's fair...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Glaze on Mar 19th, 2012 @ 1:55pm
(I almost hope they do just to see Scummit Nontertainment receive a very righteous beatdown from Mike.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They Don't Deserve any Trademark/Patent/Copyright Rights
- First abuse offense should result in a warning (because people and companies make mistakes, all of us know that).
- The second should be a fine of $10,000.
- The third should be fine of $500,000.
- The fourth should be a temporary block on all legal action from the company lasting a minimum of 6 months as well as a fine of $10 million.
- The fifth should be a fine of $250 million, a 2 year ban on legal action from the company, and a 2 year disbarment of all the involved lawyers and law firms from the legal action end.
- Finally the sixth should be a fine of $500 million, a complete forfeiture of all trademarks, patents, and copyrights currently owned by the company/individual, AND permanent disbarment of all the lawyers involved.
The idea is to make them absolutely radioactive to continue to do business with as a lawyer or legal institution and to prevent others from doing the same thing in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twilight of freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Twilight of freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Providing even more cases and examples of why this system is completely screwed.
I wonder if all of their targets got together if they could file a class action lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
they are THAT stupid.
And the fact that they market paedophilia to young girls as being "romantic" is kind of the icing on their cake of evilness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gee, where did Mad (copy)Max go ? ? ?
hee hee hee
not that it matters...
ho ho ho
he simply talks past the salient, cogent points...
ha ha ha
"blah blah blah pirate freetards are insulting me, dimwitted assnoses..."
"blah blah blah entitled gatekeepers are entitled..."
(insert endless litany of circular 'logic' here)
ak ak ak
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vampires don't have souls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
News flash -- Summit Entertainment doesn't own the word 'twilight.' Using their own control freak mentality against them, they shouldn't be allowed to utilize: colors, the moon, trees/forests, humans and vampires, mist, day/night, any form of living quarter (e.g. houses, manors, cabins, et al.), clothing, music, cameras, oxygen, wind and elements, nor anything else they themselves didn't create in order to make their 'motion picture' (which, again, is not their idea to be used for profit).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to contact Summit's copyright agent
Summit's Copyright Agent for notice of claims of copyright or other intellectual property infringement can be reached as follows:
By e-mail: copyrightagent@summit-ent.com (with subject "Copyright Complaints");
By phone: (310) 309-8400 (ask for General Counsel�s Office);
By postal mail:
Summit Entertainment, LLC
1601 Cloverfield Boulevard
Suite 200, South Tower
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Attn: General Counsel � DMCA Agent
(with subject "Copyright Complaints")
I'm willing to send them a letter regarding "copyright complaints"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not?
Unfortunately, too many content providers will simply take down "offending" material so the copyright holder won't take the next step and sue. Yes, everyone knows the copyright holder doesn't have any legal ground to stand on, but as usual, it takes time and money to fight these issues. And as we should expect, sites like Zazzle probably aren't going to spend their money defending a user, even if the copyright holder is 100% wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
give it away!
On an unrelated note, if anyone had an accident, or a favorite pet died, or they lost their job / ate a particularly bad sandwich (etc) on November 20,2009 then I heartily recommend suing the living hell out of Summit and their crappy franchise.
If several thousand of us ALL do this we can bankrupt them within 6months easy......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Owning the date? That's so Yesterday.
They are wealthy and powerful and they have an unlimited legal budget, and you're nobody.
Enforcing your obedience to your betters is what the courts are *for*.
Get over it. They can buy the whole of Congress and the Senate if the law doesn't work as it's intended to.
And it's not like anyone's actually going to vote for a politician who's against personal enrichment and campain funds: there aren't any. At least, none who matter.
Meanwhile, look for your freedoms elsewhere... And don't test them in London this year by starting a business or publishing an image or running an event with '2012' in or on it: not only can you be sued into oblivion, but warrantless raids by orivate contractors have been authorised to secure all infringeing material. 'Authorised' as in as in: this is the law and the Police will intervene, on request, to beat down resistance and obstruction.
...Oh, and the owner of any property so raided is legally ibliged to reimburse the costs.
Owning the date? That's so Yesterday.
Someone owns everything you say that intersects a published quote, and probably your genes, your name, and the sound of your breathing. You are infringeing their copyright by existing. And if you can prove that you don't, you can still go bankrupt defending your 'rights' at law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]