Harris Faulkner Suit Against Hasbro Over A Toy Hamster Ends In Settlement, Hasbro To Discontinue The Toy

from the sigh dept

While we cover a lot of silly intellectual property disputes here, none has the potential to upend our society into a circus of hilarious litigious stupidity as much as publicity rights do. This barely-arrived form of intellectual property has been the star of all kinds of legal insanity, with one needing only to note its use by such upstanding denizens of our reality as Lindsay Lohan and the brother of Pablo Escobar. But I have to admit I had reserved a special place in my humor-heart for Harris Faulkner, the Fox News anchor that sued toy-maker Hasbro for making a a hamster figurine that shared her name. Because the sharing of a name isn't sufficient to arise to a publicity rights violation, the IRL-non-hamster-Faulkner had to claim that the ficticious-hamster-Faulkner also borrowed from her physical likeness, an argument which her legal team actually made. As a reminder, here are images of both.

Just to be clear, one of the depicted is an African-American female news anchor, while the other one is a pale-furred hamster with what appears to be a melted turd on its head. Hasbro pointed this out in its response to Faulkner's suit. I just want to hammer this point home: Hasbro had to point to the differences between a human female news anchor and a cartoon hamster in a legal filing before a very real court of these here United States. Because of publicity rights. If your head hasn't hit the desk in frustration yet, don't worry, because the two sides of this lawsuit have settled and Hasbro has agreed to stop producing the toy hamster.

The judge set up future fact-finding about children's opinions about the toy hamster and whether there was real confusion in the marketplace, but that won't happen due to the settlement.

No terms have been released by the parties, but in a joint statement, they say, "The ‘Harris Faulkner’ toy is no longer manufactured or sold by Hasbro. However, since there still may be ‘Harris Faulkner’ toys or packaging with the ‘Harris Faulkner’ name in the stream of commerce, Ms. Faulkner reiterates that she has not endorsed or approved this product."

Now, it certainly sounds like Hasbro decided that the legal action brought against it by IRL-Faulkner was entirely too much of a pain in its corporate ass compared with whatever revenue was being generated by hamster-Faulkner. But just the fact that this wasn't laughed immediately out of court is a canary in the mine of our sanity when it comes to publicity rights. This will only get worse, I fear, particularly in a country where the cult of celebrity grows at a pace that should terrify us all.

Filed Under: dolls, harris faulkner, trademark
Companies: hasbro

Hasbro Sued For Font Piracy On My Little Pony Merchandise

from the live-by-the-copyright,-die-by-the-copyright dept

Live by the copyright, die by the copyright, as I've said before. See, copyright protectionism is sort of like taking a moral stand: when someone asserts the importance of their copyright, they assert it for all copyrights. For most of us, this is not a problem, because we don't spend a great deal of time bashing others over the head with the copyright cudgel. But when you're Hasbro? Especially considering all of the many various actions taken by the company to shut down anything having to do with its My Little Pony property? Well, then it would be nice if the company might at least make sure it wasn't committing copyright infringement in selling that property as well.

But that appears to be asking too much. Hasbro is finding itself the subject of a copyright infringement action over the font it uses on basically everything My Little Pony.

According to Font Brothers, American toy multinational Hasbro did so when it started to use the “Generation B” font for its My Little Pony products, without permission. The Generation B font was created by Harold Lohner and is commercially exploited by Font Brothers. One of the best known uses of the font is for the popular My Little Pony toys and videos. However, according to a complaint filed at a New York federal court Hasbro failed to obtain a proper license, so My Little Pony is using a pirated font.

From the complaint itself, it appears Hasbro was not only using the font internally without a license, but was distributing it to third parties as well.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Hasbro has used or instructed others to use unauthorized copies of the GENERATION B Font in the creation of, but not limited to, all products, goods, merchandise, television and film properties, and advertising materials connected with the “My Little Pony” product line and by way of third party vendors authorized to sell “My Little Pony” branded goods bearing the term “My Little Pony” using the GENERATION B Font, showings of which are annexed hereto as Exhibit D.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Hasbro has not purchased the special license from Font Brothers which authorizes the use of the GENERATION B font software as a resource for use on goods for sale and for distribution to third parties or in the creation of its various HASBRO “My Little Pony” branded goods, products, and/or services.

Oops. The complaint goes on to note that Hasbro had repeatedly been made aware of the lack of license and authorization for the font, but that the company had failed to even bother to respond. Keep in mind that the company appears to have used this font on tons of products and merchandise, including on its own site. And distributed it as well. All while being aware that it was unathorized to do so. Sort of puts a couple of fan-made My Little Pony games into perspectrive, doesn't it?

And, lest you think that this is all some misunderstanding in which Hasbro used a different font that was somewhat simliar to GENERATION B:

While small differences can sometimes be tricky to prove that an unauthorized font is used, in this case it is also used on Hasbro’s website. The stylesheet of the website specifically mentions the Generation B and a copy of the font stored and distributed through Hasbro’s servers.

Hasbro has since removed all uses of the font from its website, which rings more as an admission at this point than complying with any requests. And, sure, maybe super-aggressive copyright protection over the use of fonts can be a little silly at times, but it's going to be hard to find any friends to fight in your corner when you've been beating everyone over the head with copyright all these years.

Filed Under: copyright, fonts, my little pony
Companies: hasbro

Disney Sending Out DMCA Notices Over Pictures Fans Took Of Their Legally Purchased Star Wars Toy

from the the-dark-side dept

We see abuse in the way some companies and people use the DMCA takedown process all the time. Those stories typically range from anywhere between mildly frustrating to truly infuriating. But to really abuse the DMCA process in the most heartless, idiotic, disingenuous and fan-hating manner, we of course must bow before the masters over at Disney.

All of this started not that long ago, in a Walmart not particularly far away, when someone with a Facebook Star Wars fan group walked into a store and legally purchased a Star Wars figurine and then uploaded a photo of it to the Facebook group. Turns out the figurine contains a sort of spoiler within it or something. As such, plenty of other websites, such as Star Wars Unity, linked to it, embedded the photo of the figure, and discussed its implications. You know, like Star Wars fans do on all kinds of sites all the time. Well, that's when the DMCA notices began rolling in and the images started coming down.

This morning I woke up to numerous DMCA takedown notices on the @starwarsunity Twitter account, the Facebook account, the Google+ Page, and my personal Twitter for posting the image of an action figure that was legally purchased at Walmart. My webhost also received a takedown email from them with a threat of a lawsuit of the image wasn’t removed. I of course removed the image because I can’t afford to be sued by a toy company who likes to bully Star Wars fans.

The exact wording of the “infringement” is:

“Description of infringement: A screen shot of an unreleased figurine for Star Wars: Force Awakens”

Except, of course, the figurine wasn't "unreleased," it was very much released at a Walmart where it was legally purchased. If the Walmart made a mistake in putting it out on the shelves too early, that doesn't suddenly make it copyright infringement for someone who bought it in good faith to take a picture of it. And, taking a step back, even if the figurine had not been released by the Walmart, how is taking a picture of it copyright infringement? It isn't, by any sane reading of copyright law. Because it was a picture of a Star Wars toy made by Hasbro, most people logically assumed the takedowns were coming from the toy company.

This wasn’t a figure that was stolen off the back of a truck or stolen out from behind closed doors at Hasbro. It was legally purchased in a store by a fan and they posted a picture of their purchase on the internet. But because Hasbro is terrified of pissing off Disney and losing the Star Wars license early, they’re threatening and bullying fans online with legal action for sharing pictures of their purchases. Due to this I urge all Star Wars fans to avoid Hasbro product and not purchase any of their Star Wars releases. Until Hasbro grows a brain and stops bullying fans online, they do not deserve any of our money.

Except it doesn't appear that this was Hasbro at all. Turns out the DMCA notices are coming from Irdeto, an anti-piracy outfit we've discussed before, and are being sent on behalf of Lucasfilm, which is, of course, Disney. And those DMCA notices are going out not only to the original uploader of the picture, but even to those using the picture in a discussion or news capacity, and even those retweeting the picture.

So, let's recap. Hasbro made a toy that was released by a Walmart and bought legally by a fan, who uploaded a photo of the toy. Disney/Lucasfilm, which does not have a copyright on that photo, is having a third party, Irdeto, send out DMCA notices for the uploading of a picture, or a retweeting/reposting of the picture, which is not copyright infringement. And this gross abuse of the DMCA process is being done simply to stifle the speech of Star Wars fans and save them from a spoiler that apparently is coming from the depiction of this toy.

If that isn't the kind of DMCA abuse that results in some kind of punishment, nothing is.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, fans, figurine, star wars, takedown
Companies: disney, hasbro, irdeto, lucasfilm, walmart

Fox News Anchor's Suit Over Toy Hamster Likeness Results In Hilarious Point-By-Point Hasbro Rebuttal

from the rats dept

Okay, damn it, fine, let's talk about Harris Faulkner and her insane likeness rights lawsuit against Hasbro over a toy hamster. I've been avoiding this stupidity since September, when the lawsuit was filed, because how do you even broach a topic like a cable news anchor suing a toy company over a tiny little inanimate hamster? In any case, Harris Faulkner, an award winning Fox News anchor, sued Hasbro over its "Harris Faulkner" hamster, alleging that the toy not only shared her name, but was an appropriation of her "unique and valuable name and distinctive persona." Her lawsuit, in fact, spends a great deal of time making sweet love to Faulkner's awesomeness for reasons I can't even begin to understand.

In her time at FNC, Faulkner has covered many major news stories. She has anchored key moments of FNC’s political coverage, including the 2013 government shutdown, the 2013 State of the Union Address, the 2012 vice presidential debate, and the 2012 election night. She has also reported on significant international news events, including the fall of Tripoli in 2011 and the death of North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il, as well as some of the most significant domestic news in recent memory, from the death of Whitney Houston, to the trial of George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin, and the Emanuel A.M.E. Church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina.

Hopefully lawyers for Hasbro will be willing to stipulate that Harris Faulkner is indeed the cat's pajamas. The problem is that, other than sharing the not-really-super-unique name Harris Faulkner, the tiny toy hamster doesn't share any of the likenesses that Faulkner has alleged.

Yeah, one of them is a lovely looking woman news anchor and the other is a hamster. That, combined with the absurdity of the idea that Hasbro was somehow marketing toy hamsters to Fox News loving tots really should be all that's necessary to understand how silly this all is. We don't really need to write out a blow by blow explanation of how Faulkner and this toy hamster aren't similar, do we? No, we don't, because Hasbro chose to do it for us in their response.

"First, Ms. Faulkner is an adult, African-American, human, female newscaster; the Hamster Toy is an inch-tall, cartoon-like plastic animal, which has no apparent gender or profession, or even clothing that might identify its gender or profession," Hasbro responds. "Second, contrary to Plaintiff’s allegation, the Hamster Toy does not have the same 'complexion' as Ms. Faulkner," continues Hasbro. "The animal depicted by the Hamster Toy has 'fur' (not skin), which is golden yellow, a wisp of 'hair' that is medium-brown, a pink nose,and a muzzle that is white. Third, despite Plaintiff’s claim, neither the 'shape' of the Hamster Toy’s eyes, nor the 'design of its eye makeup' misappropriate Ms. Faulkner’s likeness," Hasbro puts forth. "Ms. Faulkner has brown, almond-shaped eyes; the Hamster Toy has large, circular blue eyes."

Hasbro also asked the court to note that identical names aren't enough on their own to cause a valid publicity rights violation, so this whole thing comes down to whether Faulkner and the hamster are similar in appearance. Which they aren't. At all. As lovingly detailed above in one of the most absurdly awesome court rebuttals I've ever seen. However, Faulkner gets a chance to respond to Hasbro's response, which at this point I sincerely hope she does, because I want to see what her legal team comes up with next.

Publicity rights, man. They provide such entertainment.

Filed Under: hamster, harris faulkner, likeness rights, publicity rights, toys
Companies: hasbro

Hasbro Spent Time, Money, Lawyers' Attention To Barely Make A Difference Over My Little Pony Fan Game

from the pony-up dept

Several years ago, we wrote about a fan game that had been shut down by Hasbro because it incorporated My Little Pony intellectual property. Yes, an expression of fandom was bullied out of existence by Hasbro. The argument trotted out by those in support of the company was the same argument that's always trotted out in these instances: the company had to shut the game down, or else risk losing its trademark protections through non-enforcement of its rights. That's not actually true, of course. There were many smart business routes to go for Hasbro, including offering a low-cost license to the gamemakers to allow the project to continue. Hell, we've actually seen instances in which Hasbro has chosen to enable fans to do some things with MLP characters, such as these 3D printing capabilities. But Hasbro chose to be the bully. And how'd that turn out?

Well, the company essentially might as well have done nothing as far as the end results go. Yes, the fan game is back, albeit with a barely different name, fractionally altered game characters, and with the collective understanding by everyone looking at it that this was supposed to be My Little Pony in a fighting game but now isn't because trademark. What was Fighting is Magic has become Them's Fightin' Herds and it's every bit as insane as it sounds. Oh, and they actually got someone who has worked on MLP properties to boot.

Them’s Fightin’ Herds is a 2D PC (Windows) fighting game with adorable animals in an original universe designed by Lauren Faust (producer and developer for "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic"; creator, director and developer for "Super Best Friends Forever"). It is the spiritual successor to “Fighting is Magic”, with improved gameplay mechanics and graphics, an entirely new (and awesome!) dynamic music system, a graphic lobby, and a whole bunch of new features.

So, let's review. A group of My Little Pony fans created a fan fighting game using the Hasbro property. Hasbro, rather than spending ten seconds looking for an amicable route that would protect its interests while allowing this expression of fandom to continue, instead decided to sic the lawyers on its own fans. Those fans complied and took the game down...only to slightly rework it to avoid the legal issues and are now releasing the game pending its crowdfunding campaign, which has managed to generate over $100k of its $436k goal in one day, as of the time of this writing. The game is blatantly similar to the original MLP game, save for the changes made to avoid Hasbro's interference. And it looks like the team has a good chance of cashing out in a major way.

So, the legal route got us all to a barely different place than we would have all been three years ago. How much time and money did Hasbro spend on this? And, whatever that amount was, was it worth it just to get us to what could have been passed off as a possible example of what the many-worlds theory would look like in practice? A barely different adjacent reality that is nearly identical to our own, save for a few ultimately meaningless differences? And, the better question, why didn't Hasbro learn this lesson the first time, when its legal action against Scrabulous resulted in the exact same outcome?

Filed Under: fan art, fan games, intellectual property, licensing, my little pony, overreaction
Companies: hasbro

My Little Pony Fan Game Shut Down By Hasbro Over Trademark

from the my-little-trademark dept

If you have spent thirty minutes in the past year surfing the internet for anything revolving around memes, you know what bronies are. They're a rather passionate adult fanbase for My Little Pony and they love to create stuff to express their fandom. We previously covered (surprisingly) that Hasbro appeared to be a company that embraced this fanbase, realizing that all the additional attention and exposure would only serve them.

Well, reader PonyRock alerts us to news that Hasbro hasn't completely come over to the light side of the force, having recently shut down a fan-made MLP game. For their part, the makers of the game appear to bend over backwards in professing understanding of Hasbro's position, even after spending a year and a half developing their game.

Hasbro is not to be blamed here. As per U.S. Trademark law, as soon as an infringement comes to light, they are obligated to defend the trademark, or they will lose it. They had no choice in the matter, regardless of what they thought of the project or how it benefited them.

As I said, very gracious, if perhaps a bit incorrect. Hasbro likely did indeed have other options beyond a strict takedown of the game, which is now lost to everyone. If they had wished instead to continue to embrace their rabid fanbase, I would imagine they could have issued a zero dollar or low-cost license to the developers, allowing the game to go forward and potentially benefiting from even more exposure. Instead, the nuclear option was chosen, resulting in the game disappearing and exposure of the takedown instead of the game.

Despite the developers being more than fair to Hasbro regarding the takedown, the comments on the article are rather negative towards the company. I almost wonder if all the bending over backwards towards Hasbro might not be part of a strategy to get the company to reconsider and go the route described above. It'd surely be the better route. Going nuclear gains nobody anything.

Filed Under: fan game, my little pony, trademark
Companies: hasbro

Hasbro Offers Nerf Blogger Free Samples, Sends Lawyers And Investigators Instead

from the what-a-way-to-treat-a-fan dept

We've praised Hasbro in the past for embracing and supporting the fan culture that surrounds the My Little Pony cartoon, but we've also pointed out that they aren't always so accommodating. This story, unfortunately, falls into the latter category. Callum points us to a rather disturbing tale from the operator of an Australian blog about Nerf, another Hasbro product, who got quite a shock out of what he thought was a friendly gesture by the company.

It started wonderfully: he was contacted by a Hasbro product manager who was asking for his mailing address so she could send him some free samples of a rare-in-Australia Nerf gun to offer as a promotional giveaway on the blog. He gave it to her, and soon after got something in the mail from Hasbro: a legal nastygram.

Not the nastiest of nastygrams, sure—in fact he makes a point of saying how polite it was. Which is why he decided to comply with its request that he take down some photos of an unreleased Nerf gun from the blog, which Hasbro claimed were copyrighted and confidential. The letter also asked him to tell them where he got the images, and he responded explaining that he's not sure where they came from because he gets photos sent to him constantly—and also reminded them that journalists and their sources have certain protections under Australian law. They emailed back and said they wanted to talk more on the phone; he responded saying the matter seemed to be resolved and he couldn't see any point in talking further. In the mean time, he got another email from another product manager confirming that they were sending him free samples! He was understandably confused, and then things got genuinely nasty:

Flash forward to today- I forgot all about this for a bit and didn't reply to the latest letter from the lawyers. Then I get stories from neighbours that some strange woman and some burly, repo-looking type is hanging around my apartment block. How creepy is that?

Sadly they weren't here to give me free stuff. Turns out they're from Hasbro's lawyers!!! I told them the same stuff all over again and tried to explain that I got a bunch of stuff from ebay and taobao – of course they haven't heard of taobao and seem to want me to do their job for them.

Yup. They sent people to his house to investigate and intimidate him. All while at the same time trying to court him with free stuff from another arm of the organization. At first, naturally, he wondered if the offer of free samples was a ruse to track him down, but Hasbro's lawyers roundly denied that and as the story began to gain traction, Hasbro released a statement on the Nerf Facebook page:

We appreciate the opportunity to provide the following statement concerning Hasbro’s investigation into “leaked” IP information regarding its NERF brand products. As with anything, there are two sides to every story. While we cannot comment on the details of any ongoing investigation, Hasbro takes all circumstances of its stolen and leaked IP very seriously and will continue to investigate sources of unauthorized information and products as it relates to its brands. We would like to clarify one of the inaccuracies that has been reported. While a local Hasbro Australia marketing team did reach out to the Urban Taggers website to engage in promotional activity for which it required its address, it was completely unrelated to the confidential global investigation being conducted on Hasbro’s behalf by independent investigators looking into sources of leaked IP information. Hasbro greatly values and appreciates its fan communities and is very proud of its strong relationships with many bloggers and sites that cover our brands and products.

I'm inclined to believe them—but that doesn't make their behavior all that much less shameful. This is a problem a lot of big companies have: their legal departments and their marketing departments are completely disconnected, so one is out there encouraging activity that the other is trying to squash. It's why you get nonsense like Viacom suing YouTube over videos they uploaded themselves. This may have just been a coincidence with really horrible timing, but at the end of the day it's no way to treat a customer—much less a super-customer who promotes your products to others.

Oh, and he never got his free Nerf guns.

Filed Under: intimidation, nastygram, nerf
Companies: hasbro

Brands Slowly Learning Not To Freak Out When Someone Creates A Parody?

from the not-quite-there-yet dept

A whole bunch of you have been submitting the recent story from Variety, that picks up on the silly takedown of Peanutweeter, and notes that at least some brands have realized that it's good to embrace such parody accounts even if they're technically infringing. The "surprise" company that has really embraced this kind of thing is Hasbro, with its support of the "bronies" -- adult men who (ironically?) use My Little Pony footage to remix it with other content, such as Wu Tang Clan songs. And it's a surprise (though not mentioned in the article), because Hasbro has a pretty well-documented history of going after parodies.

That said, much of the rest of the article isn't particularly encouraging. Yes, Hasbro appears to allow and support some of the brony remixes, but still feels that it can and should step in when it sees what it doesn't like. Other brands still feel the need to stop any of this kind of activity.

Amusingly, the article's discussion on fair use suggests (incorrectly) that YouTube's new "Copyright School" helps explain the nuances of fair use:

YouTube in particular has tried to enlighten its users to the nuances of fair use. The Google-owned site introduced a tutorial on the subject in April, as well as a "copyright school" -- a video series that educates users who have been flagged for copyright violations, followed by a quiz they're required to pass in order to be reinstated.

Except, that's not the case at all. YouTube's copyright school was criticized widely for brushing aside fair use and leaving out the nuance entirely. In fact, that's why there was an entire contest by Public Knowledge to create a second video that explains fair use to go with YouTube's original misleading video.

Either way, while it's nice to see Hasbro realize that not all parodies are evil, and that it's even good to support some cases of parody, it's a bit unfortunate that the overall prevailing view still seems to be that these kinds of things should either be shut down or possibly tolerated, rather than embraced as an important element of culture.

Filed Under: acceptance, copyright, culture, parody
Companies: hasbro

Hasbro Sends Sharron Angle Cease & Desist For Monopoly-Like Game Board On Website

from the cultural-commentary dept

It does seem odd that Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle (who apparently has a half-decent chance of winning) keeps running into intellectual property issues. Angle, of course, was the candidate who promised to sue Harry Reid, whose job she's trying to take, for copyright infringement, because his campaign reposted an older version of her website to suggest she was changing her positions. As far as I can tell, no such lawsuit was ever actually filed. However, Angle got into some infringement hot water herself when Righthaven sued her for copying a LVRJ article on her website. Now we can add Hasbro to the list. Hasbro, the notoriously overprotective game maker, is threatening Angle because she put up a fake gameboard for a game which attacks Reid. Apparently, the boardgame looks too much like Monopoly for Hasbro's tastes. Apparently, Hasbro wants to make sure it keeps its monopoly on Monopoly... If Angle actually wins, it would be nice if she then used her new job to help fix problematic intellectual property laws that get in the way of free speech, but seeing as she seemed willing (at least in talking) to use the laws herself in the same manner, I doubt we'll see anything productive from her on this topic.

Filed Under: harry reid, monopoly, sharron angle, trademark
Companies: hasbro