Copyright Claims Lead To Removal Of Popular Pebble Watch Faces
from the because-copyright,-that's-why dept
Like many folks, I recently got the Pebble smartwatch that I ordered through Kickstarter (still the highest grossing Kickstarter project ever). I've played around with a few of the different watch face options, but hadn't noticed this until another Pebble owner (and Techdirt reader), Tim K, alerted us to the fact that a bunch of watch faces designed by the community (not Pebble itself) that had been available for free have been removed due to copyright claims, including some of the top rated, most popular watch faces. Illusion, seen as taken down below, is still the 4th most popular watch face, and was as high as the top 3 just recently (I would imagine that having it taken down will hurt its popularity).
Of course, this sort of thing is not exactly unprecedented, even if it does seem ridiculous. Just last year we wrote about the Swiss Railway Service (SBB) accusing Apple of trademark and copyright infringement because of a clock face in the clock app in iOS6 that is strikingly similar to the SBB's iconic clock.
Even if these claims are legit from a legal standpoint, it seems rather silly and extreme to issue such a takedown. Sure, TokyoFlash will claim that the Pebble is a competing watch, but does anyone really think that someone who was thinking of buying a TokyoFlash watch would suddenly switch to a Pebble because of the interface? It seems likely that issuing the takedown will do more to drive potential customers away from TokyoFlash than the availability of the watch face on Pebble ever could.
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: pebble watch
Companies: tokyoflash
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
or, in fact, the opposite.
the problem is with the whole copyright/trademark/patent fuck up that those in congress left everyone else to deal with, once they had managed to ignore all of the suggestions put to them to correct problems before they arose. in typical fashion of the 'those that know all-know fuck all, that wont be told anything by anyone' this is the crap that's left!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It never ceases to amaze
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It never ceases to amaze
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One of the faces looked like this
I can't see how the hell that could be considered copyrightable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One of the faces looked like this
FWIW, here's the tokyoflash version:
http://www.tokyoflash.com/en/watches/kisai/optical_illusion/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One of the faces looked like this
Code of Federal Regulations
Title 37: Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights
PART 202�PREREGISTRATION AND REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS TO COPYRIGHT
� 202.1 Material not subject to copyright.
Also see Policy Decision on Copyrightability of Digital Typefaces.
Does it matter if the typeface is composed of diagonal strokes forming digits?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One of the faces looked like this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being user submitted, it is to be expected that many would push the "copyright envelope", whether intentionally or not. Noting instances where the envelope has been exceeded and requesting removal does not make one a bully, unless the definition of "bully" has now been expanded beyond instances such as your Prenda line of articles (which do relate to "bully-ish-ness".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's called backlash. Copyright has been so abused that anyone flexing their copyright muscle is instantly despised... Might not always be right, but I understand it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, that cloud's got a silver lining, anyway: for the vultures to outright lie like that, they must be growing desperate. Maybe businesses are gradually catching on to the fact that they've basically been paying their lawyers to generate bad press for them, hence the "you HAVE to!!!" fake justification. Wonder what they'll do when that stops working...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
these copyright claims have advantage
Pebble watch team is too small to fight them. maybe at later stage it will be possible. till then, it is possible to do small changes to adjust the designs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Settling doesn't necessarily mean they didn't think the claim was ridiculous at all. It indicates to me that they felt the claim to be an annoyance and threw chump change at it to make it go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tokyoflash's response
Thank you for your email. The reason why we kindly asked Pebble to remove the copyright designs was our designers spend months developing these designs. Trial and error seeing what would work and what wouldn't. Some of the designs were designed by other people via the blog, and to protect their rights we hold patents on their designs as well, that can be signed over to the rightful owner at any time.
Often people do not understand what they did wrong when they steal another persons hard work, but it is really the same as stealing a physical item or plagiarized.
We are very impressed with Pebbles new watch and truly wish them great success and our motives are not to suppress designers but to rather encourage them to design their OWN designs. There are a lot of great designers out there so I'm sure you will see many new designs much better than ours in many cases.
I have to agree with TF here. Copyright bully is like saying a person who was caught stealing saying to the person they stole from, Hey you're greedy. You have enough so I have the right to steal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tokyoflash's response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tokyoflash's response
That is a strange sentence. Why do they hold patents on someone else's designs? Why aren't they signed over to their rightful owner already, but instead wait for 'any time'? This sounds like Tokioflash is crowdsourcing designs only to patent them themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I spent a long time designing something and had spent money copyrighting it, I would be very upset to see it being copied and freely available.
I hope for all us Pebble users, lots more cool designs become available that are not copied from other artists but are original.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]