Dynamite's defense seems to be that everyone else is doing it, so why can't we. It'll be interesting to see how that holds up from a legal perspective.
3 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
- Why do I have the feeling a judge will have the same reaction to that defensive argument as every single human's mother ever had? ;)Apr 6, 2012
- Actually - it's not that "everyone's doing it," it's that, "You haven't gone after everyone else, so you can't argue that you've got a trademark to defend." According to U.S. law, you have to aggressively protect trademarks. If you fail to do so, or only do so selectively, then, in the eyes of the law, you've not met your own obligations - and forfeit the mark.
Trademark law and copyright are very, very different. What's happening here (and everywhere else, these days) is that corporate entities are attempting to subvert & circumvent existing copyright law through the (mis)use of trademarks - and that's not how either one is supposed to work.
Public domain had - and has - a creative purpose, and a good one. But the legislators who crafted the laws that put a limit on the length of time that a copyright could be enforced had no way to forsee that corporations (that, in effect, go on forever) would gain control of copyrights and continue to control them long after the original creators had died.
It amuses me that Disney, which built its library on public domain fairy tales, is one of the companies most committed to lobbying for the elimination of "public domain" entirely. They live in corporate terror of someone else using Mickey Mouse....Apr 7, 2012