Alyssa Milano Claiming Trademark And Copyright On 'Hacktivist'
from the wait-a-second... dept
So, last week at San Diego ComiCon, you may have heard about how actress Alyssa Milano was launching her very own comic book along with Archaia Entertainment, called Hacktivist. As their press release explains:Inspired by current events from around the world and Milano’s own philanthropic endeavors, Hacktivist is a fast-paced cyber-thriller about friendship and freedom in a time of war. The story follows Ed Hiccox and Nate Graft, the young founders of the world’s most innovative social media company who moonlight secretly as one of the most notorious black-hat hacker teams on the planet. When the U.S. government discovers their operation, they must face the real world beyond the code and choose between loyalty and what they believe to be is right.Okay. Sure. At SDCC, to promo this, apparently they gave out 500 copies of a limited edition comic previewing some of the content from this upcoming title. The preview content... might not be my cup of tea and feels a bit too much like the hacking dialog in Swordfish (i.e., what Hollywood thinks hacking is) for my taste, but anything that takes the concept of hacktivism more mainstream certainly is a good thing.
“I’m very involved with in global activism and philanthropy. I like the idea of everyday people doing good,” explained Milano. “My inspiration for Hacktivist is actually Jack Dorsey, the creator of Twitter and Square. I picture him leaving the office at night and going home, where he locks himself in his room and starts hacking to change the world.Okay, I don't generally think of Dorsey as a hacktivist so much, but that's cool. Better than some other folks. Of course, during the SOPA fight, Milano spoke out against SOPA, so it might have been slightly cooler if she'd used someone like Aaron Swartz -- for whom the term is actually accurate -- as an inspiration, but Dorsey's definitely more well known.
But then there's this:
HACKTIVIST™ is © and TM 2013 by Alyssa Milano.Er... considering just how closely hacktivism is associated with fighting back against the abuse of intellectual property like copyright and trademark to wall off the commons, this seems like a bit of a mistake. I'm sure this wasn't done to close off the term on purpose -- it's just "what you do" when you're releasing the comic book. But, you'd think that maybe, just maybe, when putting together a comic book called Hacktivist, you'd be a bit more sensitive to the fact that many hacktivists are fighting situations like this one. Now, to be fair, there doesn't seem to be any registered trademark application on the word yet -- so it could just be that the "trademark" refers to things like the specific logo used (though, then they shouldn't have needed to put that ™ after the word), and the copyright could refer to the specific content (though, given the subject matter, you'd think at least some sort of Creative Commons license might be more appropriate -- but that's their call). But, even if there's no ill intent here, just trying to get that trademark seems potentially questionable -- and it wouldn't be entirely surprising to find out down the road, years from now, that someone coming into possession of the trademark claims much more widespread ownership of the term, and that would be a big problem.
So, again, I don't think there's anything nefarious going on here, with anyone trying to really stake claim to "ownership" of a very common and widely used word -- but just the fact that Milano and Archaia didn't even seem to think about this or how it would look to actual hacktivists, seems, at the very least, careless. And, at worst, it might actually tick off a bunch of hacktivists, who won't look kindly at all at any suggestion that a Hollywood actress is suddenly claiming copyright and trademark on "hacktivist."
Update: Archaia has now published the following response:
“Archaia and Ms. Milano do claim trademark and copyright protection, as appropriate, for the book, the title, the characters, and content included of The Hacktivist. However, no claim is made to other uses of the term ‘hacktivist.’ In accord with Ms. Milano’s wishes, we support the attention to the issues of philanthropy and activism.”That provides a bit of clarification, though it still seems they could have gone further in the spirit of many hacktivists. Still, I appreciate their willingness to address the issue.
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: alyssa milano, comicbooks, copyright, hacktivism, hacktivist, trademark
Companies: archaia entertainment
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Surely you didn't think a publisher would allow printed material to be released without the boilerplate!
Think of the vegetation pickers who provide a service for the ink!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bah. Fingers typing faster than brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
and her not much of an actress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Apple is a trademark (as well it should be). Square is a trademark (as well it should be). Yankees is a trademark. The fact that the term has been around for years literally has no bearing on whether the term can serve as a trademark, nor should it.
Throwing the (c) in there with regard to Hacktivist is a little eyebrow-raising, since it may be seen as claimning copyright in the *word*, but I suspect they intended to simply claim copyright in the work as whole (which is titled Hacktivist).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
> it could just be that the "trademark" refers to things like the specific logo used (though, then they shouldn't have needed to put that ™ after the word), and the copyright could refer to the specific content
That's all it is. The boilerplate phrasing doesn't say "The content of the comic called HACKTIVIST has copyright protections for its creator, and the creator will be using the term HACTIVIST for all the marketing related to this particular comic." So what?
It also doesn't say "The entire concept implied by the coined portmanteau 'hacktivist', a combination of 'hacker' and 'activist', has been subjugated by a single individual who will deny any and all use of the term in every context in perpetuity."
Stop reading into things that aren't there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On this very site.
Maybe pretending that it never has happened and just hoping that we've forgotten wasn't the best strategy you've had.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I tried to be clear that on its face, this may mean very little, but (1) the risk is real that this becomes an issue down the road and (2) given the subject matter, you'd think they'd have been more careful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You were very clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe it should, or even better maybe those 'boilerplate' entries should not be allowed. Most books have a whole page dedicated to just copyright yet they only slap in a small predefined sentence without even looking to see if it is appropriate to the work. If they spent more time writing those copyrights out by hand it might encourage them to actually think about it rather then leaving that part for the lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think there's anything wrong with that, since trademark rights are limited in scope, and would likely only apply to similar publications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't see any problems with that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm noticing that she's already somehow able to incorporate numbers into her speech. I'm sure it's because the Gibson has been hacktivist-ted. Every Gibson, everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If someone claims to be a "Hacktivist", she cannot claim copyright on that, only to the comic book title and even that's limited. I'd be interested in seeing how this all plays out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As others here have already speculated, I too suspect that whoever put the comic book together added boilerplate like so many people do without understanding the ramifications of doing so.
It's also one thing to claim a trademark or copyright and quite another thing to actually get one registered. The trademark and copyright examiners at the USPTO are a lot harder to satisfy than their counterparts over in the software patent section apparently are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FUD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FUD
You mean except for that block of legalese where this is clearly what's being claimed. And of course it's possible to to claim this. You can claim anything at all, no matter how ridiculous. What you mean, perhaps, is that it's a bullshit claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FUD
Seems about right to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its the content
Perhaps it would have been clearer to place the copyright and trademark statements on separate lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@A/C and @David
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @A/C and @David
However, very generic names might not be protected if they are "inherently generic".
BTW, Apple and Windows are trademarked:
http://bit.ly/170m2Tz
http://bit.ly/170m7qg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @A/C and @David
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @A/C and @David
The PTO won't give a TM reg for a single book title, but they will for a series (and a graphic novel usually comes out as a serial).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Limited trademark
Think of any movie with a generic title, such as Unforgiven, The Dictator, The Patriot, The Shining... the authors don't own all uses of those words, just their use in a specific medium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Limited trademark
http://trademark.markify.com/trademarks/uspto/the+avengers/72278015
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
CBZ/CBR is the preferred format for digital comics. PDF is a bloated format that re-compresses the original scans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YO STUPID CUNT
B) i have rights on uha , united hackers association and others....
C) hacktivist might bee seen as a direct derivitive of one of my rights....as it entails doing what a hacker does as a protest....correct...
THATS no more then a defacement or DDoS
SO your trying to claim you have the rights to "hacker"
MIT hackers came before us....
the word has 12 sections of defintions.
D) im going to confront you by placing the word HACKTIVIST in giant letters on my site as myself being a hacker for 30 years in protest of your stupid tiny fishbowl brain...
GO figure a nut from charmed trying to get a handle of us....
you in for a world of hack now lady
ALL MILANOS are to be ddos'd and attacked....online..till she recants....
p.s. all those nudy images are about to make a comback
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BTW
hackers 2 , go watch it now...when he comes into living room if you have a NON edited early edition ....thats what happens....
perhaps i should begin asserting rights i have and slap all of them once good and hard and donate all the cash to every pirate site...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
difference
Thus "Hactivist" in the context of a comic book title can be trademarked. But you can still state "John Smith is a hactivist" with the lowercase h, without infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jack Dorsey is absolutely a hacker, and -- you could argue -- a whitehat hacktivist. Swartz was also a hacker, but also a cracker and hacktivist.
Milano seems to get the difference, but I'm not sure Masnick does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Never said he wasn't a hacker. Just that he's not really a "hacktivist." I'm unaware of any of his activist efforts.
Swartz was also a hacker, but also a cracker and hacktivist.
I see. You're trying to make the distinction between hacker and cracker. That's an old, dead debate and has nothing to do with whether one is a "hacktivist" at all, which is all I was talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shit I ate all the popcorn reading Pretenda stories... what other snacks do we have?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trademark is correct
Alissa Milano has all the right in the world to protect her content and trademarks under 17 USC § 106 and under the Lanham Act. She can write as many TM (the symbol for a pending trademark) after the word, any word, that is registered in the USPTO, for determination what logo (i.e.: an image for the word) can be created later.
As for Creative Commons, that is NOT copyright law, just a jumble garbage bag like Bitcoins that attempts to alter law for the masses that don't want to pay for anything; rather, a way to get a high on education, whether academia or entertainment, from button pushing theft in a few minutes.
You wrote a zealot like article, wanting creative commons instead of law, and know nothing about Trademark law, thinking that if the USPTO doesn't show their application, having a TM next to a word is inappropriate, when in fact it is filed.
Get a law degree, and then resign from the Internet, you socialist civil war freak.
Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trademark is correct
Stop acting like children, please, then maybe someone will take note of any actual points you have to offer. You might have some factual insight to offer, but it's lost in your idiotic obnoxious behaviour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trademark is correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trademark is correct
Nor did I say she did not. I just questioned whether or not it was the most appropriate thing to do, given the subject matter and how it might be viewed.
She can write as many TM (the symbol for a pending trademark) after the word, any word, that is registered in the USPTO, for determination what logo (i.e.: an image for the word) can be created later.
Yes, and in fact, you do not need to register to claim a common law trademark, which can actually be quite effective. But that wasn't the point I was making. The question was whether she was trademarking the logo or the title -- and it wasn't clear which she was doing. Trademarking the logo is fine. Trademarking the title... is okay but could be borderline.
As for Creative Commons, that is NOT copyright law, just a jumble garbage bag like Bitcoins that attempts to alter law for the masses that don't want to pay for anything; rather, a way to get a high on education, whether academia or entertainment, from button pushing theft in a few minutes.
Um. For someone who accuses me of not knowing anything, the above paragraph is so ridiculously uninformed (or, more likely directly misinforming) it's rather incredible. Creative Commons are a form of licenses that use copyright law as a basis. There are some who believe that they are not proper licenses, but the courts have ruled against you. So, no. Creative Commons have never attempted to change the law. And it has nothing to do with whether or not people want to pay -- just a recognition of the nature of culture.
You wrote a zealot like article, wanting creative commons instead of law,
I barely mentioned CC, nor do I want it. It was just a suggestion that it might have been more appropriate, given the subject matter.
and know nothing about Trademark law, thinking that if the USPTO doesn't show their application, having a TM next to a word is inappropriate, when in fact it is filed.
That's not what I said or meant, and I apologize if you thought I implied that. I'm not sure why you would immediately jump to an insult though.
Do you feel so threatened by someone raising a legitimate question about the choices in publishing this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response from Archaia, publisher of 'Hacktivist'
“Archaia and Ms. Milano do claim trademark and copyright protection, as appropriate, for the book, the title, the characters, and content included of THE HACKTIVIST. However, no claim is made to other uses of the term ‘hacktivist.’ In accord with Ms. Milano’s wishes, we support the attention to the issues of philanthropy and activism.”
If you have further questions, please send them to feedback@archaia.com. Thank you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response from Archaia, publisher of 'Hacktivist'
I've added that to the post. Thanks for clarifying and responding. I still think that it's a *little* tone deaf for the subject, but I appreciate the willingness to engage. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]