Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 14 submissions in the queue.

Couple Takes Pics of Star Wars Figure They Bought, Get DMCA Notice from Lucasfilm

posted by CoolHand on Saturday December 12 2015, @01:13AM   Printer-friendly
from the bloodsucking-lawyers dept.

darkfeline writes:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/dmca-takedowns-sent-over-pics-of-star-wars-action-figure-bought-at-walmart/

For the last decade, Marjorie Carvalho and her husband have produced Star Wars Action News, a podcast dedicated to Star Wars collectibles of all sorts. Predictably, they've had a lot to talk about, as waves of action figures and other collectibles have been launched in the run-up to the much-anticipated release next week of Star Wars: Episode VII—The Force Awakens.

On Tuesday, a Star Wars Action News staffer saw something he shouldn't have—and bought it. A 3 3/4" action figure of "Rey," a female character from The Force Awakens, was on display in a Walmart in Iowa, apparently earlier than it should have been. The staff member bought it for $6.94 plus tax, no questions asked. The following day, he posted pictures of the Rey figure on Star Wars Action News' Facebook page.

"Have we known this figure was coming?" the staffer, named Justin, asked in the post. "I just found her at Walmart—no new other figures."

A short time later, Carvalho got a surprising message.

"A friend texted my husband saying, hey, are you getting sued?" said Carvalho in an interview with Ars Technica. The image from the Facebook post was gone. "We looked and noticed we'd gotten a notice from Facebook saying our image violated copyright. It was confusing because our staff member, Justin, he took the photo."

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Couple Takes Pics of Star Wars Figure They Bought, Get DMCA Notice from Lucasfilm | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 50 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2, Disagree) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Saturday December 12 2015, @03:21AM

    by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <axehandleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday December 12 2015, @03:21AM (#275288)

    ...it's pretty clear the propaganda is working - because you yourself are using the confounding term, "IP", in exactly the way copyright maximalists want you to use it...

    I really can't see a problem with abbreviating the term "Imaginary Property"...

    --
    It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Redundant=1, Underrated=1, Disagree=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Disagree' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @06:34AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @06:34AM (#275321)

    The problem with a blanket term is that it pre-supposes that Trademarks, Patents, copyright, Trade secrets, Plant Breeder's rights, Integrated circuit topographies, and database rights are all very similar.

    In fact they are not.

    • Trademarks are designed to reduce confusion in the marketplace. They last indefinitely, provided they do not become a generic description of the product (which competitors would then be able to fairly use).
    • Patents are limited-time monopolies on manufacturing an invention. In some ways, they are stronger than copyright in that Independent development is not a defence.
    • Copyright covers the creative expression of ideas. Facts are not subject to copyright, nor are databases (they do not meet the "creative" test).
    • Trade Secrets allow private companies to keep proprietary business methods, well, secret. Companies can lose trade-secret status by publishing the "secret". I think generally leaks do not break trade-secret status.
    • I am not familiar with Plant Breeder's rights.
    • Before researching integrated circuit topographies, I thought they were a lot like Patents due to the short term. In fact, they are more like how copyright should be: lasting 10 years and requiring registration. Including a notice of registration in your circuit topography is recommended.
    • Database rights offer a copyright-like claim on a collection of data, without actually tainting the underlying data itself (which may or may not be subject to copyright).

    All that said, I sort of find the "Industrial Protectionism" term acceptable. While it conflates many different aspects of law, it does so while explicitly explaining what they all have in common.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @08:30AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @08:30AM (#275338)

      I am not familiar with Plant Breeder's rights.

      Of course you are not, corn fucker!!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @07:56AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @07:56AM (#275331)
    The proper term is Industrial Protectionism [torrentfreak.com].