Writing Tip for new writers: Copyrights definitions

[Deleted member 45782]

Question, what if my novel contains references?
Like tekken and stuff

idk. i vaguely heard people have to change names and labels like if famous mention colacola cuz everytime mention those things they get something out of it and the writer doesn't want get in trouble. but i dont remember some ppl comment on r/writing or whatever bout it being vague and can still be in trouble and depends how done. so not too sure, something have to look up.

Fanfics are treated as copyright infringement. It is illegal. The original author can sue you at any time.

As for what to put when you publish a fanfic here, that's up to you. You are infringing other's copyright, but your own creation has copyright and nobody else can infringe on your copyright.

If you don't want others to defile your fanfic, you can put it as All Rights Reserved, which means you're not allowing anyone else to change or write using your original characters or plot.

If you relinquish all rights to your fanfic, put it as Public Domain. This means you cease having any legal rights over it.

If you want to retain the rights to your fanfic, but doesn't mind others writing stories making use of elements of your fanfic, then Creative Commons. Please be aware that when you use Creative Commons, you need to inform which Creative Commons you're using. Creative Commons is not a one-size fits all. It is a blanket term for several different licenses. Below are some of them.

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 "CC-BY-SA 3.0" This license requires you to release any modifications you make to the art/literary work in question under the same license.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 "CC-BY 3.0" This license requires you to attribute the author of the content in the way that they specify. Provided the author is properly credited, it is generally safe to use this content in a commercial work.
Copyright-Only Dedication (Public Domain) "CC0" This license is equivalent to the Public Domain. There are therefore no legal concerns with using it, and it is safe to use in any project.

Other Creative Commons licenses include:
CC-BY = Credits the author
CC-BY-NC = Credits the author, noncommercial use only.
CC-BY-ND = Credits the author, no derivatives or adaptations permitted.
CC-BY-NC-SA = Credits the author, noncommercial use only, share adaptations under the same terms.
CC-BY-NC-ND = Credits the author, noncommercial use only, no derivatives or adaptations permitted.

Wait, what the heck? Ai-chan replied to a one year old thread.

thanks Ai-chan. very informative! :D

 

[Ai-chan]

Question, what if my novel contains references?
Like tekken and stuff

idk. i vaguely heard people have to change names and labels like if famous mention colacola cuz everytime mention those things they get something out of it and the writer doesn't want get in trouble. but i dont remember some ppl comment on r/writing or whatever bout it being vague and can still be in trouble and depends how done. so not too sure, something have to look up.

thanks Ai-chan. very informative! :D

Generally speaking, references are not illegal. Using other's trademarks are illegal, though. For example, in the USA, it is illegal to make mention the names of guns, such as Glock 19 or FN P90 unless you have written permission to advertise for them, or you have paid for the license to feature them in your literature or games. For amateur authors not planning on selling their work, this is a non-issue, but if you sell the literature, you can be sued by Glock for featuring Glock 19 without a license. In this case at least, a 'Glock gun' is not illegal, but specifically mentioning 'Glock 19' can get you in trouble.

In Japan, it is unlikely for you to get sued for simply mentioning Doraemon, for example. Although it is a trademark, the Japanese are not so lawsuit-happy as Americans. So simply stating "Are you Doraemon?!!!" to refer to a man with dimensional pocket is unlikely to get you in trouble, but Japanese authors tread the safe line anyway because it would be a pain if the trademark owners do sue them.

By right, the trademark owners and copyright owners have the right to sue, if they deem that your referencing or using their image leads to them suffering losses in revenue, defames or defiles their images or portraying their images as something it was not intending to be. For example, Doraemon, if you just refer to a character as something like Doraemon, it is unlikely to get you in trouble, but if you make Doraemon an alcoholic, child molester and shoves his dick in people's throat, Shueisha will most likely call you to court. Whether they win or not, that is a completely different issue.

As for doujins, the Japanese is quite tolerant to it. There are several reasons why doujins are not punished, the two biggest reasons are that they are seen as parodies, not infringement, while the other reason is that doujin makers do not make much money from it. Shinzo Abe himself once said that doujins should no be seen as copyright infringement, but as an expression of people's interest in common media. That being said, the copyright owners can still sue, but they will not do so, as these doujin makers are usually also their hardcore fans and they are afraid of the backlash from alienating their biggest fans.

 

[Deleted member 45782]

thanks. pretty informative!

 

[Sylverius]

Generally speaking, references are not illegal. Using other's trademarks are illegal, though. For example, in the USA, it is illegal to make mention the names of guns, such as Glock 19 or FN P90 unless you have written permission to advertise for them, or you have paid for the license to feature them in your literature or games. For amateur authors not planning on selling their work, this is a non-issue, but if you sell the literature, you can be sued by Glock for featuring Glock 19 without a license. In this case at least, a 'Glock gun' is not illegal, but specifically mentioning 'Glock 19' can get you in trouble.

In Japan, it is unlikely for you to get sued for simply mentioning Doraemon, for example. Although it is a trademark, the Japanese are not so lawsuit-happy as Americans. So simply stating "Are you Doraemon?!!!" to refer to a man with dimensional pocket is unlikely to get you in trouble, but Japanese authors tread the safe line anyway because it would be a pain if the trademark owners do sue them.

By right, the trademark owners and copyright owners have the right to sue, if they deem that your referencing or using their image leads to them suffering losses in revenue, defames or defiles their images or portraying their images as something it was not intending to be. For example, Doraemon, if you just refer to a character as something like Doraemon, it is unlikely to get you in trouble, but if you make Doraemon an alcoholic, child molester and shoves his dick in people's throat, Shueisha will most likely call you to court. Whether they win or not, that is a completely different issue.

As for doujins, the Japanese is quite tolerant to it. There are several reasons why doujins are not punished, the two biggest reasons are that they are seen as parodies, not infringement, while the other reason is that doujin makers do not make much money from it. Shinzo Abe himself once said that doujins should no be seen as copyright infringement, but as an expression of people's interest in common media. That being said, the copyright owners can still sue, but they will not do so, as these doujin makers are usually also their hardcore fans and they are afraid of the backlash from alienating their biggest fans.

Cool, at least I can be at peace XD

 

[compass96]

Fanfics are treated as copyright infringement. It is illegal. The original author can sue you at any time.

As for what to put when you publish a fanfic here, that's up to you. You are infringing other's copyright, but your own creation has copyright and nobody else can infringe on your copyright.

If you don't want others to defile your fanfic, you can put it as All Rights Reserved, which means you're not allowing anyone else to change or write using your original characters or plot.

If you relinquish all rights to your fanfic, put it as Public Domain. This means you cease having any legal rights over it.

If you want to retain the rights to your fanfic, but doesn't mind others writing stories making use of elements of your fanfic, then Creative Commons. Please be aware that when you use Creative Commons, you need to inform which Creative Commons you're using. Creative Commons is not a one-size fits all. It is a blanket term for several different licenses. Below are some of them.

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 "CC-BY-SA 3.0" This license requires you to release any modifications you make to the art/literary work in question under the same license.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 "CC-BY 3.0" This license requires you to attribute the author of the content in the way that they specify. Provided the author is properly credited, it is generally safe to use this content in a commercial work.
Copyright-Only Dedication (Public Domain) "CC0" This license is equivalent to the Public Domain. There are therefore no legal concerns with using it, and it is safe to use in any project.

Other Creative Commons licenses include:
CC-BY = Credits the author
CC-BY-NC = Credits the author, noncommercial use only.
CC-BY-ND = Credits the author, no derivatives or adaptations permitted.
CC-BY-NC-SA = Credits the author, noncommercial use only, share adaptations under the same terms.
CC-BY-NC-ND = Credits the author, noncommercial use only, no derivatives or adaptations permitted.

Wait, what the heck? Ai-chan replied to a one year old thread.

Fanfics are not illegal. Guys please know your rights. This is why the organisation of transformational works was created. Fanfic are derivative, transformational texts. Although copyright law is complicated, they currently are legal or at least in the grey area as long as you don't monetise them. And you can even commercialise a fanfic if it is transformative enough and you have filed off the serials. Afetr all, this is how 50 shades of grey was able to become published. For more information on the legality of fanfic please go here - Archived OTW FAQ on legality of fanfic or for a more current faq - OTW FAQ. It's important for fans to know that fanfic is legal so that they can be certain of their rights and comfortably create.

 

[Ai-chan]

Fanfics are not illegal. Guys please know your rights. This is why the organisation of transformational works was created. Fanfic are derivative, transformational texts. Although copyright law is complicated, they currently are legal or at least in the grey area as long as you don't monetise them. And you can even commercialise a fanfic if it is transformative enough and you have filed off the serials. Afetr all, this is how 50 shades of grey was able to become published. For more information on the legality of fanfic please go here - Archived OTW FAQ on legality of fanfic or for a more current faq - OTW FAQ. It's important for fans to know that fanfic is legal so that they can be certain of their rights and comfortably create.

Fanfictions ARE illegal, by default. There is no such thing as a grey area. Whether you win or lose a court case is based on which law you can summon to support your case. That's not grey area, that legal tomfuckery. The only way fanfictions are not illegal is if the original copyright holder expressly, in writing, permits its existence. Also don't be confused, copyright infringement remains illegal even if no money changes hands. Just because the copyright owner doesn't bring the infringer to court does not make it grey area.

It's like your neighbour taking your motorbike key and going to the cinema with it. By right, that's illegal, because he took your bike without permission. What if you want to use it? But you don't call the cops on him because you know he will return it. That being said, it is within your rights by law to report it as stolen. You simply choose not to report it.

And why are you using waybackmachine? The fact that the page doesn't exist anymore means they've redacted their statement. What this means is they no longer stand by their previous statement. Also, that's not a legal page, as in a website that explains law. That's their beliefs in the legality of something. As stated here:

Is the OTW trying to change the law?
No. While case law in this area is limited, we believe that current copyright law already supports our understanding of fanfiction as fair use.

It is their understanding, that is not the law. Their statements should be taken with a grain of salt, not taken as an absolute truth.

But let's talk about that. That page mentions 'fair use'. Fair use is not applied to fanfictions. In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Fanfictions in general are neither of these.

You said 50 Shades of Grey was able to be published. Yes, that's an interesting topic, let's talk about that. The original was said to be a fanfiction of Twilight, Ai-chan was told the story made use of Twilight's characters. That is illegal, but the copyright owner chose not to pursue legal actions. This does not mean it's grey area, the copyright owner simply choose not to bother, but they have the right to do it if they want to.

But when 50 Shades of Grey became traditionally published, all the character names were changed. Now, you would think that this is not a big change, but it is. The original 50 Shades of Grey didn't even break the law, unless you want to use trademark law because of the use of character names. When it got published, the names were changed, and now not even trademark law can be used.

People keep referring to 50 Shades of Grey when championing fanfictions, but 50 Shades of Grey never did anything wrong. It simply had the sin of being shared and labeled as a fanfiction. But apart from the names of characters, there was nothing 'fanfiction' about it.

 

[MNJolleyWriting]

The best copyright advice I can offer: Don't take legal advice from a forum thread.

What Ai-Chan said about trademarks is almost completely wrong. You are absolutely, 100% allowed to reference or name products without getting permission from the trademark holder. You might get into hot water if you start assigning values or choices to a real product or entity - for example, if the Coca Cola company decided to sponsor a fictional athlete character in your book, then you could get in trouble, but if your athlete just drinks some Coca Cola, then you're in the clear.

Trademark doesn't make it illegal to say something's name or reference something in a work of fiction, that would be an absurd breach of the first amendment.

 

[Ai-chan]

The best copyright advice I can offer: Don't take legal advice from a forum thread.

What Ai-Chan said about trademarks is almost completely wrong. You are absolutely, 100% allowed to reference or name products without getting permission from the trademark holder. You might get into hot water if you start assigning values or choices to a real product or entity - for example, if the Coca Cola company decided to sponsor a fictional athlete character in your book, then you could get in trouble, but if your athlete just drinks some Coca Cola, then you're in the clear.

Trademark doesn't make it illegal to say something's name or reference something in a work of fiction, that would be an absurd breach of the second amendment.

The licensing of a gun trademark for use in fiction or games is a real thing. An online zombie game Dead Frontier was given a C&D and threatened lawsuit for portraying guns without permission. He had to change the names of the guns so that he could continue running the game.

Why It’s So Hard to Stop Marketing Guns in Video Games

Video games don’t cause mass shootings, but they do serve as insidious advertisements for weapons.

www.theatlantic.com

If a game wanted to use a recognizable, trademarked design or a brand name of gun, it would need permission. The same was true for vehicles, recognizable landmarks, or other kinds of weapons.

Another lawyer familiar with the development and consultation process, who requested anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak on the record, explained that gaming companies still work directly with trademarked material. The legal-review process is eerily similar to the one portrayed in guns-in-real-life YouTube videos. Game companies submit virtual guns to intellectual-property lawyers, either internally or at outside firms. Lawyers view images of real guns and how altered versions will appear in the game, recommending changes so that guns are recognizable but don’t meet the standard for infringement.

https://features.hollywoodreporter.com/the-gun-industrys-lucrative-relationship-with-hollywood/

As a licensing consultant who works on product integration, Auerbach helps some of the country's biggest gun manufacturers. In 2013, he negotiated a $250,000 deal with Beretta to have the firm's 92FS pistol featured in Peter Berg's Afghanistan war drama Lone Survivor, starring Wahlberg and Taylor Kitsch.

"Smith, Glock, those companies don't have to do anything," says Angelina Giudice, an independent licensing consultant who spent a decade working with Smith & Wesson before joining big-time pistol firm Taurus this year. (Neeson carried its Millennium Pro PT111 in Taken, while its trademark M1911 is a regular film presence, prominently held by Leonardo DiCaprio in The Great Gatsby.) "They just have to sit back and wait."

As for other trademarked products:

Are You Using Trademarked Words in Your Writing?

Q: An editor once pointed out that I was using brand names instead of the generic equivalent. How am I to know which words have been trademarked and which

www.writersdigest.com

Q: An editor once pointed out that I was using brand names instead of the generic equivalent. How am I to know which words have been trademarked and which aren't?—Anonymous

A: When your character cuts his hand, does he cover it with an adhesive bandage or a Band-Aid? Does his mother use a hand-held vacuum cleaner or a DustBuster? And be sure to blow your protagonist’s nose with a tissue, not a Kleenex.

Trademarked words aren’t off-limits for writers, but be sure to use them correctly—double-check the spelling, use proper capitalization and refrain from writing out specific product names when you’re using it as a generalized term. And if you want to know which words are legally restricted, you can visit the International Trademark Association (inta.org). They offer an updated (though not complete) list of most trademarked words and phrases.

https://www.sidebarsaturdays.com/2017/05/20/httpwp-mep7vddb-hr/ specifically validated Ai-chan's previous statement.

Normally, infringement is not an issue for writers. We are not selling Gucci handbags. The question we should ask is whether the use of the trademark in our manuscript confuses or deceives consumers as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the book. If it does, then the use is unauthorized.

To avoid running afoul of trademark dilution, stay away from genericising a trademark. You would not say – she googled her crush. Instead, use the unbranded version – she searched his name on the Internet. Or, she used Google to search his name on the Internet. Do not ask to have a kleenex. Ask to have a Kleenex tissue. Or just a tissue. When you use a trademark, make it more distinctive (and less generic) with capitalization. Once the courts declare a trademark generic, use it as you wish. For example, “She wrapped the aspirin in cellophane and dropped it in the thermos full of kerosene.”

Portray a trademark in a negative light, destroy its commercial value, and you have tarnished the trademark. One of the most famous tarnishment cases I remember from law school was a claim by the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders that the porn movie Debbie Does Dallas tarnished their trademark when the porn stars wore Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader uniforms.


To avoid disparaging a trademark in your manuscript, do not depict a brand name, company, or their product in a highly offensive way. Instead, invent a fictional brand or company. Or, in the case of Debbie Does Dallas, use a generic cheerleading uniform. You will save yourself some legal hassles and have more fun creatively (plus you can disparage all you like). However, if the work is a parody or the statement is true, no matter how damaging (like the deaths linked to faulty ignition switches in certain General Motors cars), then you are clear to use that fact in your plot or mention it in your narrative.

EDIT: Why did you say it breach second amendment? Second amendment is this, right? A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. The matter is concerning licensing to portray the guns. It doesn't have anything to do with keeping a real gun. Unless you're talking about the second amendment of Moldova?

 

[MNJolleyWriting]

So, silly mistake aside - I meant to say 'First amendment' but my brain just bluescreened for a moment and I typed the wrong thing - Ai-Chan, why didn't you read that first article before quoting it to try and defend your argument? Because a few paragraphs into that article, we get this:

"But then two events changed the tenor of that relationship, at least on the surface."

The article is clearly setting up a thing here. 'It WAS this way, but now it's this other way'. 'It used to function like this, but now it functions like this'. (Or, since it was a Supreme Court decision, it's more, 'It was vague and unclear, but now it's been clarified.)

That article also has this paragraph really prominently:

It effectively granted video games new legal standing as bona fide artistic expressions, with similar legal privileges to movies, TV, and books, which, generally speaking, do not need to license products in order to depict them.

So I have to ask: Did you read your own source?


I couldn't find anything online about a Dead Frontier lawsuit. Do you have a source for that?


As for the next source you provide: They weren't giving legal advice, they were just explaining how to use trademarked terms correctly.

Finally, for the third source: No, it does not validate your previous statement. Dilution is not just the use of a trademarked name, and neither is tarnishing - The 'Debbie Does Dallas' example is exactly what I was talking about when I said, "You might get into hot water if you start assigning values or choices to a real product or entity". The issue was not that the film mentioned the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders, but that it portrayed them doing something in a way that tarnished the Dallas Cowboy brand.

Neither dilution nor tarnishment prevent you from just mentioning trademarks. You can have your character using a Glock 19. You can't refer to a pistol that's not a glock as a Glock 19, and you can't say that the Glock 19 was given to your protagonist by Glock because they're supportive of what he's doing with that Glock 19.

But, going back to your original statement:
You cannot be (successfully*) sued for featuring a Glock 19 without a license.

*Technically they could bring a frivolous suit against you, but it'd fail for lacking merit.


And, once again, my original point:
DON'T TAKE LEGAL ADVICE FROM A FORUM THREAD. We're all armchair experts here.

 

[Ai-chan]

So, silly mistake aside - I meant to say 'First amendment' but my brain just bluescreened for a moment and I typed the wrong thing - Ai-Chan, why didn't you read that first article before quoting it to try and defend your argument? Because a few paragraphs into that article, we get this:


The article is clearly setting up a thing here. 'It WAS this way, but now it's this other way'. 'It used to function like this, but now it functions like this'. (Or, since it was a Supreme Court decision, it's more, 'It was vague and unclear, but now it's been clarified.)

That article also has this paragraph really prominently:


So I have to ask: Did you read your own source?


I couldn't find anything online about a Dead Frontier lawsuit. Do you have a source for that?


As for the next source you provide: They weren't giving legal advice, they were just explaining how to use trademarked terms correctly.

Finally, for the third source: No, it does not validate your previous statement. Dilution is not just the use of a trademarked name, and neither is tarnishing - The 'Debbie Does Dallas' example is exactly what I was talking about when I said, "You might get into hot water if you start assigning values or choices to a real product or entity". The issue was not that the film mentioned the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders, but that it portrayed them doing something in a way that tarnished the Dallas Cowboy brand.

Neither dilution nor tarnishment prevent you from just mentioning trademarks. You can have your character using a Glock 19. You can't refer to a pistol that's not a glock as a Glock 19, and you can't say that the Glock 19 was given to your protagonist by Glock because they're supportive of what he's doing with that Glock 19.

But, going back to your original statement:
You cannot be (successfully*) sued for featuring a Glock 19 without a license.

*Technically they could bring a frivolous suit against you, but it'd fail for lacking merit.


And, once again, my original point:
DON'T TAKE LEGAL ADVICE FROM A FORUM THREAD. We're all armchair experts here.

Ai-chan's point was, you could get sued. You still can get sued, if they want to. Whether they win or not, that's a completely different matter, as Ai-chan said previously.

As for Dead Frontier, it did not reach a lawsuit, it was just a C&D. There used to be an announcement of that on their main site years ago, but don't expect Ai-chan to go through their announcements from years back. You can see a small mention that the names of the guns were changed in their wiki and you can also look at their wiki for a list of guns that they had to change the name of because they're not allowed to use the guns' names. For example, Beretta RX4 was renamed Beta RX4 and Benelli M1 Super 90 was renamed Mancini M1.

This was put here: https://deadfrontier.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Weapons

Note: With the exception of melee weapons, every weapon in Dead Frontier has had its name changed, due to copyright laws. The real life name of these weapons will be listed in the weapon entry.

For amateur authors not planning on selling their work, this is a non-issue, but if you sell the literature, you can be sued by Glock for featuring Glock 19 without a license. In this case at least, a 'Glock gun' is not illegal, but specifically mentioning 'Glock 19' can get you in trouble.

Referring to Ai-chan's previous words, mentioning 'Glock 19' can be either dilution or tarnishment. While specifying Glock 19 is not dilution, repeated use can be considered dilution (through generacizing the use of a trademarked product). If the Glock 19 is used to kill children, it could be considered tarnishment. To Ai-chan, this shouldn't be a problem, but Ai-chan isn't the owner of Glock, so Ai-chan's words don't matter. Ai-chan's point was, it could get you in trouble. Could is the past tense of can.

By right, the trademark owners and copyright owners have the right to sue, if they deem that your referencing or using their image leads to them suffering losses in revenue, defames or defiles their images or portraying their images as something it was not intending to be. For example, Doraemon, if you just refer to a character as something like Doraemon, it is unlikely to get you in trouble, but if you make Doraemon an alcoholic, child molester and shoves his dick in people's throat, Shueisha will most likely call you to court. Whether they win or not, that is a completely different issue.

Ai-chan clearly described tarnishment up here. Ai-chan just didn't say the word tarnishment. But this is clearly the description of tarnishment, in a way easier for laymen to understand.

 

[MNJolleyWriting]

You're not acknowledging the fact that your own source contradicted what you were saying.

And if your argument hinges on the fact that you 'could be sued', well... You could be sued for *anything*. You could be sued for having a yellow hat in the book, because a man named Stueben doesn't like yellow hats and decided to sue you for including it.


In the case of that video game - That game came out in 2008, according to a quick google search. This means that the Supreme Court hadn't yet made it official that this sort of trademark problem did not apply - So it wasn't that the game makers were doing anything illegal, it's that there wasn't precedent and they didn't want to pay for a lawsuit to establish that precedent. (Also, regardless, this would never have been a copyright issue, it'd be a trademark issue. You can't copyright a one-word name. So the wiki is pretty dubious.) Now that there's explicit, overt Supreme Court precedent, this sort of legal threat would get tossed out the second it hit a courtroom, and even before 2011, it wouldn't apply to books, short stories, or anything else we'd be talking about making in this forum.

And regardless of the fact that you also brought up tarnishment later on in your post, you still said:

"In the USA, it is illegal to make mention the names of guns."

That statement, which you made, is incredibly incorrect. Even if you can get sued for it, it's not illegal. Even if some video game company more than a decade ago decided to change some stuff because of a frivolous C&D, it's not illegal. Just because it's possible to do other illegal things, doesn't make this illegal.

Simply making mention of the names of guns or other products is not illegal.

Do not take legal advice from a web forum for creative writing.

 

[Ai-chan]

You're not acknowledging the fact that your own source contradicted what you were saying.

And if your argument hinges on the fact that you 'could be sued', well... You could be sued for *anything*. You could be sued for having a yellow hat in the book, because a man named Stueben doesn't like yellow hats and decided to sue you for including it.


In the case of that video game - That game came out in 2008, according to a quick google search. This means that the Supreme Court hadn't yet made it official that this sort of trademark problem did not apply - So it wasn't that the game makers were doing anything illegal, it's that there wasn't precedent and they didn't want to pay for a lawsuit to establish that precedent. (Also, regardless, this would never have been a copyright issue, it'd be a trademark issue. You can't copyright a one-word name. So the wiki is pretty dubious.) Now that there's explicit, overt Supreme Court precedent, this sort of legal threat would get tossed out the second it hit a courtroom, and even before 2011, it wouldn't apply to books, short stories, or anything else we'd be talking about making in this forum.

And regardless of the fact that you also brought up tarnishment later on in your post, you still said:



That statement, which you made, is incredibly incorrect. Even if you can get sued for it, it's not illegal. Even if some video game company more than a decade ago decided to change some stuff because of a frivolous C&D, it's not illegal. Just because it's possible to do other illegal things, doesn't make this illegal.

Simply making mention of the names of guns or other products is not illegal.

Do not take legal advice from a web forum for creative writing.

Okay, maybe you don't understand how the courts work. You see, court proceedings go following precedents. If the circumstances is similar to a previous case, the precedence will cause the verdict to be the same. However, if the circumstance is argued to not be the same, although it is the same case, the verdict can be different. Pay close attention to this, because this will be important.

Ai-chan didn't want to dwell on it because a lot of things go into a court case. Did you even understand what you keep pushing Ai-chan into addressing? Ai-chan's own source did not contradict what Ai-chan said. Ai-chan simply deemed it to be irrelevant to the topic.

For Brown vs Entertainment Merchants Association of 2011, it was a case of stores banning the sale of violent video games to minors without adults present. All it does here is specify that the law which banned the sale of violent video games to minors without adult's presence violated the first amendment, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It has nothing to do with copyright or trademark.

As for the second case, the Sandy Hook Massacre, all it did was mentioning the introduction of tax on violent video games. Why the article mentioned this, is because this article is about how gun companies profit from video games. The trademark thing is supportive information.

In 2013, EA chose to not renew their gun licensing, stating first amendment. Since then, game makers have chosen not to renew their gun licensing either, following EA's move. Gun manufacturers choose to not challenge this. What does this mean? It doesn't mean they can't sue. What it means is, if they sue and lose, they will create a precedence which means future legal actions could lead to them losing every case. The first verdict will determine future rulings. They just weighed it out and decided that a lawsuit in 2013 would not be in their favour as it was too close to the 2011 verdict and their court case would be affected by that verdict, even if it's not the same case.

Considering that 2011 ruling had nothing to do with copyright or trademark, in no circumstance does this mean that the use of trademarked items are completely legal now. You get allowances in that as long as you don't create confusion, you're allowed to use it; and you get restrictions in that if it defames trademark holder, you can go to court. Can, not will.

As for your quote, alright Ai-chan admits and apologizes that Ai-chan should've said that "mentioning the name of guns opens you to a lawsuit". But people have brainfarts. You had a brainfart earlier. Ai-chan simply didn't find it necessary to clarify it because it could still lead you to court.

As for your argument that anyone can be sued for anything, no. You legally can't be sued for just anything. Can someone bring you to court for wearing a yellow hat? Yes, they can but the case will not proceed, because it's not against the law to wear a yellow hat. If the case is brought before the judge, the judge will just throw the case out of court (dismissal during pretrial).

 

[MNJolleyWriting]

If you'd gone and read the article you'd posted, you'd know why the 2011 ruling was relevant - it's because it explicitly defined video games as Speech, and made it overtly clear that they had the same protections that books and other media already share.
Which is to say, the ability to name and use trademarked goods in the speech.

The article that you shared makes this explicit.

As for the "you can sue anyone for anything", I never said that the case would go forward. I said you could be sued for anything, which is true. It'd get thrown out right away, sure - but so would a lawsuit that tries to breach your first amendment rights.

 

[0xReki]

Time to necro a thread :3 and put my cents here:

Creative Commons have many flavours and you should be able to select which flavour you mean, for now I just but the flavour I mean under every single chapter to be sure. in my case CC-BY 4.0 (Attribution only)

Public Domain is waiving your rights to your work. While CC-0 is said to be equivalent to Public Domain, but the big difference is it's even applicable in countries where you can't put works into public domain without dying in the past, e.g. Germany. With released to PD being invalid action it automatically get the status All Rights Reserved over here, with default interest groups demanding money if though it's been put into PD over in the US.

The latter is why I would like to implore creators not just put things into public domain, I can't reuse it over here unless it's explicitly CC-0. It's a sad state of the world.