When Is It OK to Accuse a Company of Copying?

LOL that's what i said in my example of Barbie The thing is, they actually must have both to be protected. Otherwise, only the name of the product (if not a human name) can be protected. And a copyright must also be filed. If you just create something, then someone else somewhere else happens to create that same thing, one of you would need to show proof of who registered the copyright first. So, a copyright must be registered as well with the Library of Congress. If they have no copyright for you on file, then your work is not truly protected. Also, "poorman's copyright" is not enough. (that's when you send yourself a copy of the written work/title/art and then sign for it. This leaves a registered mail date on it, and is some protection, but not enough) You can't just create something, then say it is a copyright, because you created it first. You have to be able to back that up. You can actually request copyright forms from the US government. They ask for a description of the work, the name of it, and the basic rundown of the body, and preferably an exact copy for them to keep on file. The forms are like 10.00 i think. Trademark and Patent however, are much more expensive to do, and extensive photos of your product/invention must be sent. You must also include extreme details on how it was made, and it's purpose.

 

Actually this is incorrect. Trademark covers names and such. Copyright does not. And while patent does cover and protect the functional parts of the doll, the actual sculpt is protected under copyright law. For example, if I went and stole a head sculpt I would most likely NOT be sued under patent law, but under copyright law.

 

Well yes, if what you are creating is essential to your business you should always, always register. Lawyers can't emphasize this fact enough to their clients. Copyright is created upon creation. That is always true and to have proof of this, you need not register your Copyright. But what registering is really essential for is for lawsuits. If someone copies you and you aren't registered at the time then you can't sue. You actually would be allowed to register after the fact and then file your lawsuit, but you'd only receive actual damages (which are usually not very high or very hard to calculate) instead of the more lucrative Title 17 damages.

Patents are more of a pain in the ass though. It's all about who files first. And yeah, it's really pricey.

 

Trademarks only cover names and such as in TRADE....the name of a company, the name of a service, etc. that is all trademark covers. (This is where the name "barbie" can be trademarked. It's an object of Trade. It cannot be under copyright or patent. (I just went to the gov site and looked this up to be sure. Copyright protects the body of work iteself, and not the ideas therin. It protects work on paper, music, etc. Patents last for exactly 20 years from the date of registration, and cover the existing parts/sculpt/etc of the object. You can actually look this up here....

http://www.lib.washington.edu/engineering/ptdl/faq.html

If you do a search on any government site (federal) you can also find what the library of congress determined each is covered by.

when i said 'Copyright" referring to a body of work such as a poem, or song, or book, THAT is a name that can be under copyright. A name as under a body of work. The name "Sweet Caroline" is a name, and is a name under copyright. THe name "Caroline" would not be, as it is simply a person's name and everyone has the right to use that. A trademark specifically covers all words and Acronyms used in that name or service.

 

Copyrights don't cover names. I don't see how a name would ever meet the criteria for copyright. o_O A character might be covered, a name, no. And even that's said to be debatable at times (some courts have been really weird with this). This is from the copyright office directly:

How is a copyright different from a patent or a trademark?
Copyright protects original works of authorship, while a patent protects inventions or discoveries. Ideas and discoveries are not protected by the copyright law, although the way in which they are expressed may be. A trademark protects words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifying the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from those of others.

***

A word alone simply does not have enough originality to ever receive a copyright.

Eh, are you saying that copyright does not cover sculpt or are you just saying that patent covers it as well? Cause copyright definitely does. I have numerous examples of this in my copyright texts. As for patent, I'm less familiar with that (haven't taken that yet in law school, but will do so shortly). So I'll take your word on it covering sculpts too.

[edit] Oh I see you were talking about as far as the names of whole bodies of work go. But still, if we are talking about the term "Dollfie" I would think it's trademark that mainly covers that. Volks has even filed one for the term here in the U.S. Like I technically can't make a doll and run around calling it a Dollfie or I'd be sued for a trademark violation.

Volks has a trade mark for Dollfie Dream and Super Dollfie, but it looks like they abandoned Dollfie.

 

We are splitting hairs. NAMES of people, places, etc will never be able to be protected under copyright.
HOWEVER, names of bodies of work, (as i've stated 3 times now) can be under copyright. If i write a song called "The Function of Faith", and then a complete song to go with it, and i register it, i can copyright that name. It's a series of words used to name a body of authorship.

I've agreed three times...you cannot copyright a name as in a person or place. You can, however, copyright the specific name of a body of work. And i've also explained about trademark. Yes, Dollfie is a "Trademark". Just as is "Barbie". It's a name that is USED for trade. Barbie is a trademark of Mattel, just as Dollfie is a trademark of Volks. (and honestly, to be correct, i believe it is only "SUPER DOLLFIE" that is trademarked, but i could be wrong on that.

You can trademark any name that is used specifically to your trade. to your business. However, you cannot copyright it. LOL

We are agreeing on practically everything, but i think you think i'm disagreeing with you.

And Copyright, Patent and Trademark are all different. They are different in the realms they protect. A copyright does not protect your 3 dimensional work. It only protects the descriptive designsor body of authorship. A patent protects the technology, and object, if it is not an "authorship" or canvas type art piece. And Trademark protects that "name" ONLY in association with your business, and/or trade. (hence why it is referred to as a "trademark".

I've stated that a word alone (a single word) does not constitute a copyright. But a SERIES of words as in the title of a song, or book, DO. The Title (name) and the body together are under copyright (if the creator has registered it)

 

Considering you wrote this without any mention of trademark I think it was perfectly reasonable for me to ask for clarification:

Now that we do see that we are actually agreeing on some things I suppose we can move on.

 

Copyright absolutely does cover 3 dimensional works. You're saying sculptures are not covered by copyright? ^^;;; It's definitely covered in Title 17, section 102. There have been numerous cases where dolls, mannequins or action figures were stolen and companies sued under copyright law.

 

yes, i understand. Something is only protected within the realm of your industry. If one person has a doll, and calls it dollfie, and then the other person has a type of window called a dollfie window (for whatever insane reason) they can both be protected to those individual owners, as they have nothing to do with each other, and they would not be a competing product.

Basically in the end, (getting back on topic) it really is not up to us to accuse anyone of "copying". Companies can really suffer from inexperienced people throwing accusations like that. I have seen questionable dolls, that i thought were copies, and i just emailed the companies, and then showed them what i found. (Once even got a sweet thank you email back from Luts.)

I don't come here throwing my opinions out in the open, because, what if i'm incorrect, and the dolls just look frighteningly similar? Then i'd feel like a jerk for pointing a finger at someone who didn't need the drama. I think when people come here and create threads accusing doll companies of plagarism, or lack of integrity, it just causes everyone to question that company, instead of waiting for the investigative results.

 

Yes I understand that about industry and trademark. Eh, but the point of me pointing out that part of your discussion (which is part of what prompted me to start all this to begin with) is that you were discussing an issue that is largely a trademark one and not a copyright one, but you only referred to copyright. Dollfie and Super Dollfie are (or were in the case of Dollfie) trademarked terms. Talking about industry and trademark makes sense in this case. But you didn't do it in that paragraph, so I find that curious.

I'd say industry is not a huge factor in copyright law (for this type of situation at least, not others) because the words that make up the title of a copyrighted work would very likely not be protected even if it is in the same industry. I could go and copyright a book with a certain title and someone else down the line could create an original novel and name it the same thing. Yet, I don't think you'll find any courts that will call that copyright infringement. That's not the case with trademark as far as protecting something within the industry goes at least. But using copyright to protect a term or short phrase even as a title of a work is just generally ineffective no matter what.

A name/title is part of the whole of a copyrighted work. You do register the title when you register the work. We all agree on this. But I think if that's the only thing "copied" a court will probably say it's de minimus and throw it out regardless of industry. Which means a title of a copyrighted work is just about as good as not being protected at all...at least by copyright law. The Copyright Office does state that titles are not protected most likely for this very reason. Which is why I say copyright is ineffective for this. Here is another informative website about the subject of titles and protection. You may want to look into American Law Reports as well for more info. The citation for the volume discussing this issue would be 23 A.L.R 2d 244

Maybe I'm saying all this for nothing though and we are really agreeing (it does seem like we agree on some things at least). I just wanted to point out that one paragraph and my view on it, that's all.

Let me see....this is getting very OT so I'll throw in my view on this topic. I agree with armeleia. I'm unwilling to wait for a legal ruling. That could take years, or may not happen at all. Most cases don't make it to trial. They settle. For cases like Lolidoll where the copying is really blatant I don't think we should wait on it. People need to be warned. But for more ambiguous cases it's harder. There is a reputation of a company on the line and it would be unfair to tarnish that reputation if they are innocent. There should be a hell of a lot of evidence in such cases.

 

yes, this is why i say that It is protected ONLY when in context to the body of work...the "authorship" that it is attached to. A name alone cannot be protected.

 

So we are clear and agree that you could never sue for copyright infringement in a case involving mere titles of copyrighted works even if it was in the industry. It's not protected by copyright. By bringing up that example before and only discussing copyright it just seemed you did not understand what I was saying at all. Particularly from this quote as well:

"Sweet Caroline" is not protected. So everyone has the right to use that title, just as they have the right to use the name "Caroline." At least as far as copyright goes. You might be able to sue under other laws to protect "Sweet Caroline." It just seems that you are implying that "Sweet Caroline" is protected and that everyone does not have the right to use that title. This is obviously not the case (at least under copyright). If you did not mean to imply this, then all is well I suppose.

If you do agree, then that's fine. We agree. So we can move on as far as that point goes.

Though, you still haven't explained why you think three dimensional works are not protected by copyright when the act clearly protects sculpture and such. I'd say that's still one pretty big point of disagreement.

 

I'm not sure what you are reading, but i don't think you are entirely reading my responses, because you keep telling me that i'm saying things that i'm not saying. So i can't keep saying this over and over again. The name is ONLY protected when it is connected to the body of work. In other words, if someone wrote a song called sweet caroline, and then used an entirely different set of lyrics, then they'd be fine. But if those lyrics were the same exact ones (or even remotely similar) Then they'd be in trouble. Shaggy wrote his version of "Angel of the morning" (Originally sang by Juice Newton) and the reason he was sued by Juice Newton's record label was because the songs were similar enough that people could tie them together. The judge ruled in favor of Juice Newton's record label, and she now is being paid royalties. The songs didn't even have the same lyrics! There was a loop in the song that was very easy to tie in to the original, and this lost him the case. So the law does not play with people who "straggle the line". It isn't something that courts find "hard to say". If you use things that are under copyright, patent, and or trademark, you can (And most likely will) lose. This is why it's so important for people to protect themselves when they write or create something.

we can move on again anyways, because i really don't know how else to say the same thing. I called my professor last night, (who i'm still good friends with) who taught me all this stuff, and he completely agreed. A name IS protected, but ONLY when it is connected to the body of work. I told himn what i've stated, and he agreed, correcting me only in the idea that i needed to make sure that i was saying that the body of work is the key. A name alone is not protected. (Which i've now said 4 times.)

At this point, the same thing is being said over and over again, so the point is mute. This really isn't the point of the thread anyways, so let's just move back to the topic of when it's ok or not ok to accuse a company of copying work.

 

And yes, I've already agreed numerous times that a title is part of the whole of a copyright. It definitely is a factor taken into account in a true infringement action (that is where there is more than mere title taken). It would definitely go towards evidence of substantial similarity in such an action. I never said otherwise. So pointing to case law on this point is rather useless here. I simply said title alone is not protected. That was what I was arguing on from the beginning. That's something we seem to agree on now. But the way you wrote your posts made it sound like you were saying that the title alone is protected (again see my previous quote). Yes, you have since clarified your position and I recognize that. I'm simply saying some of your previous statements were incredibly misleading with their implications. That's all.

Of course, I'd say the protection of 3 dimensional works is relevant to this thread. So that is definitely something that needs to be brought up. And again, copyright law absolutely does protect 3 dimensional works such as sculptures, mannequins and doll sculpts.

 

Well, Professor Orich (who teaches copyright law) and myself, will agree to disagree with you LOL And we'll just leave it there.

 

Eh? You actually still think 3 dimensional works aren't protected under copyright? Because the statute clearly states sculptural works are protected. Numerous rulings have come down protecting toy, doll and mannequin sculpts. If you are only talking about your misleading wording and the implications that arose from that wording in your earlier statements regarding titles, then yes, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on that.

 

Here. Copyright law both linked and quoted:

As you stated CBAB:

According to the actual copyright law you are wrong, it covers the work, not the author, not the process. BJD would be covered under this, just not the process of making them. Your professor can say whatever he wants, but the law speaks for it's self.

I'm done now.

 

I saw this earlier today on Yahoo.....i thought this would pretain more to our subject about accusing companies and when it's ok....

It's very very sad This is why i'd never accuse companies of anything. People from different cultures react harshly to accusations or findings against them....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070813/ap_on_bi_ge/china_tainted_products

They said the co-owner hung himself after a toy recall due to lead-tainted paint in products they sold. The paint used in the products was sold to him by his best friend. We never know the full extent of the story, and this is why i'd never accuse anyone. I'd feel horrible if i launched a war against some company, and this happened. Granted, this was an extreme case, but it's a good example of people reacting to a situation in their company that could damage business. Ironically, it also showed what happend to a reporter who made false accusations against a chinese company. Yes, he made deliberate false accusations, however, you never know. Your accusations could be portrayed as deliberate. For me, it's just a world i stay out of. If I find that someone seems to be copying molds or work, then i'd just tell the company and leave everyone else out of it. It's not my place to damage someone's company by accusing them of something when i have no solid proof of what i'm accusing.

 

I agree with all the comments that say "when it's proven".

I would also further add, that when a company is discovered to be legit, that the threads discussing it should be required to be properly edited to reflect that info.
And I would extend this requirement to threads such as "illegal seller" etc. It's the right thing to do for the wrobngly accused.

M

 

I had a new thought on this subject. (Everyone goes )

I wonder if there's not some danger of creating a vicious cycle with the accusations of copying. An outline:
-- Someone starts a thread with an accusation of copying.
-- A number of people see the first thread, and become "vigilant" for other copying going on. From this group, we get several other suggestions of copying.
-- People see the other suggestions. Now, people start to believe that there is a pandemic of copying in the doll community, based on the number of accusations.
-- Because of the belief that there's a sudden surge of copying, you get even more people posting that X is a copy of Y, further increasing the belief that there's a lot of copying going on, which leads to more posts... and so on.

It becomes something of a self-perpetuating myth. I think of it like any number of subjects on the news, or "ripped from the headlines" prime-time dramas. One outstanding event colors the perception of the whole community. A person gets a pair of scissors through airport security, and suddenly every local and national newscast across the nation is beating the drum of "HOW SAFE ARE OUR AIRPORTS?!? "

Is there really more copying going on? I don't know. It may be that there's the same amount/percentage that there always has been, but the higher number of companies in the market artificially inflates the strict number of occurrences. But, it may also be that there's a bit of a Chicken Little "the sky is falling" mentality at times.