From the latest followup posted, it seems they actually think they might be able to work something out (which probably means either they are painfully naive or it's not Nintendo). Of course, since they are doing manuals for three different games from three different companies, working something out with just one of them doesn't put them entirely in the clear...
Also, to be clear, they have said what they got was not a formal cease and desist letter. Rather, "We were contacted by a lawyer representing one of the game companies suggesting there may be [unspecified] concerns."
In case anyone is wondering, like me, when the statue falls out of copyright, the two key facts: The statue was made in 1913 -- except that doesn't matter under Danish law; the sculptor died in 1959. Danish copyright is life+70, so the statue enters public domain in 2029. Which means we have 8 more years of this nonsense to look forward to.
And after Contreras took the cell phone, he broke into her house (because she had changed the locks) which is where the Chief relieved him of one weapon -- but did not force him to leave.
In 2003, SCPD investigated allegations that Contreras had sexually abused a child, but SCPD ultimately concluded the allegations were unsubstantiated.
The documentation of the investigation has since disappeared. After Ms. Bascom’s murder, SCPD came to possess a memory card that contained apparent child pornography, including images of Contreras, in uniform, exposing himself to young girls.
I got curious to see if there were any consequences for the chief in this case, and discovered something interesting: He retired very suddenly in May 2018, appearing unannounced at a City Council meeting and giving only one week's notice. That... is not how one normally retires.
And there's an update: In a video just posted to his account, Anthony says he has now been hired by the company Florida Paints and will be moving to Florida to help make their paint cool. So there's at least one paint company that gets it.
Let's not forget that, while Linus was responsible for the kernel, some 90% of the codebase of the GNU/Linux system predates him, dating back as far as 1983 (though it's less clear when it became a work-from-home project).
Now if you want to credit Linus for Git/Github, that's a different story, and probably the one you should have written.
Good point -- though it wasn't really briefed. If they had mentioned that they only just discovered the books (and why), it might be more compelling; otherwise, it just seems like they have been poor stewards of their copyright.
And you've now given some hint of why this was filed in New Mexico.
There's a long road between initial filing and trial. As I suggest below, there's also an excellent chance this case will get thrown out long before witnesses or a jury are needed.
Why TF was this filed in New Mexico? The author of the original novels lives in Florida, the companies are incorporated or based in Delaware, New York, or California, the film production company is in Georgia, and a couple of other defendants are British. I expect it to get tossed on venue alone. The only people in New Mexico are the lawyers.
And then, on top of it all, as others have pointed out, the film itself could be argued to depend only on those stories that have (now) fallen out of copyright. The original novels could be another story, but given that they were published from 2006-2010, it would seem there's a statute of limitations issue. They're playing some kind of silly statutory limitation handwave to try to artificially add three years to the copyright term to rope in the four 1923-24 stories.
That's before you even get into the weakness of the primary argument, which was the focus of Tim's article. Oh, and the fact that they mention "precedent" but cite no cases.
I am not a lawyer, but I can't believe 3 lawyers signed off on this.
OK, I skimmed through some of the archived stories about the car wash, and the city looks even worse. According to those stories, the owner, apparently recognizing that Dallas PD wasn't going to do the job he needed, formed a PID (an association of local businesses) to collect extra taxes for security and trash pickup. There were some such services for a time, but they stopped (but the taxes did not).
Headline is incorrect; as the article states, it's 414 pages of calls, not 414 calls. By my count, there were 130 calls, as each call takes 2 to 6 pages (most are in the 3-4 page range; average is about 3.2 pages). Still an awful lot of calls, but let's be accurate here.
I'm going to give Skippy half a point here, because unlike some of the other trademark stories that have been covered here, there is actually peanut butter used in the beer, and someone could theoretically think, given the name, that the peanut butter used is Skippy -- similar to how Oreo has licensed their trademark for candy bars and pudding. However, the "not currently sold in Canada" aspect does still make this a trademark bully situation. Plus, the graphic design, if you can call it that (a simple black-on-white block lettered label) in no way resembles the peanut butter (yes, I watched the linked video to find that out -- along with the new name, "Illuminutti").
Update on the teen (actually, he was 21 at the time)
I got curious, and found this update: https://www.theunion.com/news/nevada-city-energy-supplement-business-returns-after-2019-logo-opposit ion-from-monster-energy/
In short, he redesigned his logo to remove any obvious "M" - it's now so stylized even Monster's lawyers apparently can't find a similarity.
New year, new logo
An update: https://www.theunion.com/news/nevada-city-energy-supplement-business-returns-after-2019-logo-opposit ion-from-monster-energy/ -- in short, he now has a completely new logo.
Mike is not a lawyer...
... otherwise, he might have simply referred them to Arkell v. Pressdram.
Re: naming the bully
From the latest followup posted, it seems they actually think they might be able to work something out (which probably means either they are painfully naive or it's not Nintendo). Of course, since they are doing manuals for three different games from three different companies, working something out with just one of them doesn't put them entirely in the clear...
Also, to be clear, they have said what they got was not a formal cease and desist letter. Rather, "We were contacted by a lawyer representing one of the game companies suggesting there may be [unspecified] concerns."
Term of copyright
In case anyone is wondering, like me, when the statue falls out of copyright, the two key facts: The statue was made in 1913 -- except that doesn't matter under Danish law; the sculptor died in 1959. Danish copyright is life+70, so the statue enters public domain in 2029. Which means we have 8 more years of this nonsense to look forward to.
Link to article
Since this article didn't provide the link, here is the original article on Axios.
It just keeps getting worse...
And after Contreras took the cell phone, he broke into her house (because she had changed the locks) which is where the Chief relieved him of one weapon -- but did not force him to leave.
And Tim didn't even mention the child porn!
From the decision:
Chief resigned
I got curious to see if there were any consequences for the chief in this case, and discovered something interesting: He retired very suddenly in May 2018, appearing unannounced at a City Council meeting and giving only one week's notice. That... is not how one normally retires.
Yay for Florida Paints
And there's an update: In a video just posted to his account, Anthony says he has now been hired by the company Florida Paints and will be moving to Florida to help make their paint cool. So there's at least one paint company that gets it.
Re: streisand effect
It's even more explicit (and funnier) at https://youtu.be/K3v5wFMQRqs?t=1119
So, is Richard Stallman chopped liver?
Let's not forget that, while Linus was responsible for the kernel, some 90% of the codebase of the GNU/Linux system predates him, dating back as far as 1983 (though it's less clear when it became a work-from-home project).
Now if you want to credit Linus for Git/Github, that's a different story, and probably the one you should have written.
Re: Re: 10+ years ago
Good point -- though it wasn't really briefed. If they had mentioned that they only just discovered the books (and why), it might be more compelling; otherwise, it just seems like they have been poor stewards of their copyright.
And you've now given some hint of why this was filed in New Mexico.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's a long road between initial filing and trial. As I suggest below, there's also an excellent chance this case will get thrown out long before witnesses or a jury are needed.
10+ years ago
According to the complaint, the books were written in 2006-2010. That would seem to be outside the statute of limitations for bringing a claim.
Venue shopping?
Why TF was this filed in New Mexico? The author of the original novels lives in Florida, the companies are incorporated or based in Delaware, New York, or California, the film production company is in Georgia, and a couple of other defendants are British. I expect it to get tossed on venue alone. The only people in New Mexico are the lawyers.
And then, on top of it all, as others have pointed out, the film itself could be argued to depend only on those stories that have (now) fallen out of copyright. The original novels could be another story, but given that they were published from 2006-2010, it would seem there's a statute of limitations issue. They're playing some kind of silly statutory limitation handwave to try to artificially add three years to the copyright term to rope in the four 1923-24 stories.
That's before you even get into the weakness of the primary argument, which was the focus of Tim's article. Oh, and the fact that they mention "precedent" but cite no cases.
I am not a lawyer, but I can't believe 3 lawyers signed off on this.
OK, what "official" rule does this break?
https://twitter.com/DevinCow/status/1278092655914659840
Unless the rule is "we don't like it" -- which as Mike points out, is valid, but hypocritical. Heck, they aren't even making fun of Parler.
It's even worse...
OK, I skimmed through some of the archived stories about the car wash, and the city looks even worse. According to those stories, the owner, apparently recognizing that Dallas PD wasn't going to do the job he needed, formed a PID (an association of local businesses) to collect extra taxes for security and trash pickup. There were some such services for a time, but they stopped (but the taxes did not).
414 pages = 130 calls
Headline is incorrect; as the article states, it's 414 pages of calls, not 414 calls. By my count, there were 130 calls, as each call takes 2 to 6 pages (most are in the 3-4 page range; average is about 3.2 pages). Still an awful lot of calls, but let's be accurate here.
Not as weak as some similar stories...
I'm going to give Skippy half a point here, because unlike some of the other trademark stories that have been covered here, there is actually peanut butter used in the beer, and someone could theoretically think, given the name, that the peanut butter used is Skippy -- similar to how Oreo has licensed their trademark for candy bars and pudding. However, the "not currently sold in Canada" aspect does still make this a trademark bully situation. Plus, the graphic design, if you can call it that (a simple black-on-white block lettered label) in no way resembles the peanut butter (yes, I watched the linked video to find that out -- along with the new name, "Illuminutti").
More comments from jonr >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by jonr.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt