From Engadget:
Netflix's choose-your-own-adventure style film Black Mirror: Bandersnatch is the subject of a new lawsuit, brought against the streaming giant by Chooseco LLC The company is known for publishing the "Choose Your Own Adventure" book series popular in the 1980s and 90s, and it's claiming Netflix infringed upon its trademarks, Variety reports. Netflix tried to obtain a license for Chooseco's trademark in the past, according to Chooseco, but never reached a deal with the publisher.
In its complaint, Chooseco specifically points to a scene in Bandersnatch where a character makes a reference to a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book -- and that appears to be Chooseco's main infringement charge against Netflix. It also says Netflix is "causing confusion, tarnishing, denigrating and diluting the distinct quality of the 'Choose Your Own Adventure' trademark," and that Bandersnatch's "dark and violent themes" reflect poorly on its brand.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Booga1 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @03:39AM (12 children)
One the one hand, trademarks are used in isolation. You can have Acme Tool Company and Acme University both having the same trademark on "Acme," so just because they used "Choose Your Own Adventure" in the show doesn't automatically mean the book trademark and film trademarks would result in confused viewers.
On the other hand, Netflix obviously thought the usage was close enough that they were negotiating with Chooseco for the rights to use it.
I guess my questions would be:
My bet is the only winners here will be lawyers. I suspect most viewers would neither confuse Netflix's usage with the book trademark, nor would they feel it damaged that trademark.
(Score: 4, Informative) by RandomFactor on Wednesday January 16 2019, @03:50AM (6 children)
They also sued for a Jeep commercial that used 'choose your adventure'
I can understand Netflix somewhat, particularly if they have plans to move into that medium, but Jeep isn't referring to any genre of media consumption, just driving around in the woods, roads, beach, whatever. So I'm going to lean towards overzealous trademark protection.
I have to wonder what this means for Ren'Py novels?
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 5, Interesting) by FatPhil on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:31AM (5 children)
I would proffer that "choose your own adventure" is an exemplar for that situation. As is "Windows". Genericised trademarks not so, the order of time is important, and kleenex/sharpie/xerox/etc. did get there first, and they weren't the simplest natural language description for the thing before they became genericised, even if they are now.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Wednesday January 16 2019, @11:56AM
Heh! Subway got away with it - they made a trademark [upi.com] from their descriptive (but falling short [huffingtonpost.com.au]) names of their products.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by mobydisk on Wednesday January 16 2019, @03:19PM (3 children)
It never occurred to me how Microsoft could try to abuse that trademark. As evil as Microsoft has been, I've never heard of them trying to sue someone for using the term "windows" to describe the UI concept, or the portals installed on the sides of my house and car. That would be hilarious actually.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Booga1 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @05:03PM (2 children)
Behold: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com,_Inc. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Booga1 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @05:09PM (1 child)
Though, in retrospect that was over the name of the OS, not the actual UI concept.
The lawsuit to try to lock down the GUI was by Apple against Microsoft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by mobydisk on Friday January 18 2019, @05:43PM
I was going to point out the Lindows OS name thing. Thanks for the clarification.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday January 16 2019, @05:05PM (4 children)
It was referenced in the show itself in relation to a fictional book called "Bandersnatch". (The Lewis Carroll estate might also be interested, but it was a character and not a title of a book). The fictional book was described as a "choose your own adventure" book by the protagonist, a hobbyist programmer trying to adapt the book for a computer game. The series is set in the 80s in Britain and has various 8-bit systems. The author of the fictional book ends up going insane and committing murder and being committed. The protagonist in many variations also takes unflattering actions during the course of it (not wanting to spoiler much).
Like the books themselves the movie itself offers the viewer pathways to choose (does character do X or Y?) and has loopbacks and can repeat cycles of the narrative which may adjust slightly to the order in which the paths are chosen. As a quasi-horror quasi historical sci/fi it is excellent IMVHO. (Mrs. Lawn, who likes Black Mirror anyway, turned me on to it and we watched it this past weekend).
My personal opinion, were I a biased juror, would be:
Yes, they use the name in the show. They use the name in regards to a book. They use it as a generic moniker, but it is a trademarked name in the book world. Other book series have had to use other descriptors for the format. The coloration of the book's creator, etc. could cause a negative association with the series. The name has been used before in a 2008 Australian TV series, licensing status unknown but probably irrelevant.
The only defense the producers could mount IMVVVHO would be to claim that the title has slipped into generic usage. (And/or settle for a small sum and edit the film to remove the name).
I think what the book publishers want is for people to shun the movie. Frumiously. Too bad it's so good!
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by Booga1 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @05:18PM
Thanks for the run down. Might give that a shot this weekend if I find time!
(Score: 2) by Kalas on Thursday January 17 2019, @01:32AM (2 children)
So is the movie online only then? I suppose the branching pathways deal could be done off a BD too but it makes me wonder because I see there's no shortage of pirated releases for it. Sounds like anyone pirating it without knowing the nature of the movie is getting only one fixed version without even knowing it's supposed to be interactive because these are just loose video files I'm seeing in the torrents. Unless I'm thinking of this wrong and the "interactivity" is more like "for option A go to exact time X" so you're just skipping along one big long video file.
(Score: 2) by Booga1 on Thursday January 17 2019, @03:38AM
Branching pathways in "movies" is not exactly new. DVD had the options for different footage for viewing angles.
In addition to that, the directional buttons have even been used to make full games work on DVD by skipping to different chapters mid-movie, like Dragon's Lair. [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday January 17 2019, @11:23PM
It was produced by Netflix and AFAIK is an online Netflix exclusive. I think we looked at least once while it was playing that it didn't seem to have quite the same play controls as a regular netflix movie. The scene keeps playing in the background as the choices are shown just below the screen, and continues to play a little bit after you click before it transitions - very smoothly - to the scene in the option you chose. Like I mentioned above, sometimes you find yourself looping back to the same scene (or being offered to go either to the credits or click to an earlier point in the story,) but even then some of the scenes were subtly different when replaying from a branched point. And several times it gave flash-montage recaps of the story when jumping back to earlier scenes.
One might be able to manage the movie through subsequent jumps to DVD-menus, but I doubt it could be anywhere like what it was live.
And for some other history of this in Media, I'd reference the movie Clue from 1985/6 which had different endings depending on the theatre, but the closest I can think of is not just Dragon's Lair as mentioned by Booga1 but the interactive Star Trek story Borg which had John DeLancie as Q, the Borg, and a completely different ship and crew than any other series (which was one of the best Trek titles ever IMVVHO but YMMV.)
This sig for rent.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @05:46AM (2 children)
The author of the GPL licensed text-mode casino game "GPC-Slots 2" has rescinded the license from the "Geek feminist" collective.
( https://slashdot.org/submission/9087542/author-recinds-gpl [slashdot.org] )
[Notice: the revocation of the "Geek Feminists"'s license /just/ occurred. 2019. January.]
The original author, after years of silence, notes that the "Geek Feminist" changed[1] a bunch of if-then statements which were preceded by a loop waiting for string input to a switch statement. The author reportedly noted that to use a switch statement in such an instance is no more preformant than the if-thens. Switch statements should be used where the input to the switch statement is numerical, and of a successive nature, for most efficient use of the jump table that is generated from said code.
The author reportedly was offended, after quiet observation of the group, that the "Geek Feminists" mocked his code, mocked his existence as a male, and never did any work on the code afterwards and never updated to include new slot machines added to the original code by author subsequently.
The author notes that he neither sought nor received any compensation for the granted license, that is was a gratuitous license, and that there never was any refutation of his default right to rescind given. (A right founded in the property law of licenses.)
The copyright owner has reportedly watched quietly as each year the "Geek Feminists" published a recount of their heroic efforts regarding his code.[2][3] Presumably he has now had enough of it all...
The author notes that the SF Conservancy attempts to construe a particular clause in the GPL version 2 license text as a "no revocation by grantor clause", however that clause states that if a licensee suffers and automatic-revocation by operation of the license, that licensees down stream from him do not suffer the same fate. The author of "GPC-Slots 2" reportedly notes that said clause does only what it claims to do: clarifies that a downstream licensee, through no fault of his own, is not penalized by the automatic revocation suffered by a licensee he gained a "sub-license" from (for lack of a better term.)
The author reportedly notes that version 3 of the GPL did not exist when he published the code, additionally the author notes that even if there was a clause not to revoke, he was paid no consideration for such a forbearance of a legal right of his and thus said clause is not operative against him, the grantor, should it exist at all.
(Editor's note: GPL version 3 contains an explicit "no-revocation-by-grantor" clause, in addition to a term-of-years that the license is granted for. Both absent in version 2 of the GPL)
The author reportedly has mulled an option to register his copyright and then to seek damages from the "Geek Feminists" if they choose to violate his copyright post-hence.
(Editors note: Statutory damages for willful copyright infringement can amount to $150,000 plus attorney's fees for post registration violations of a differing nature to pre-registration violations.)
[1]https://geekfeminism.org/2009/10/19/
[2]https://geekfeminism.org
[3]http://geekfeminism.wikia.com
GPC-Slots 2 is a text console mode casino game available for linux with various slot machines, table games, and stock market tokens for the player to test his luck. For the unlucky there is a Russian Roulette function.
[Notice: the revocation of the "Geek Feminists"'s license /just/ occurred. 2019. January.]
Addendum: Statements from the program author:
"It's my right to rescind the permission I extended.
I have done so.
You speak as if me controlling my property is a criminal act.
And to you people, perhaps it is.
If the "geek feminists" wanted a secured interest, they would have to pay for one."
"I did rescind the license, yesterday"
>Reportedly
"I did rescind the license, yesterday
Not "reportedly" anymore."
"
>Then you should have used them.
Not necessary, the language used in the press release identifies them easily.
>should
As if I somehow can't just rescind using their names either.
License to use/modify/etc the GPC Slots 2 code is hereby terminated for. Alex "Skud" Bayley, and Leigh Honeywell.
(Note: this termination is not to be construed as a lifting of the previously issued termination regarding the "Geek Feminism collective", this termination is an addendum)
"
"
You will just keep saying that I cannot rescind permission to use my property.
And you are wrong.
I can and _I HAVE_ (from the previously identified people). I have that power as the owner of the work. It is not YOUR work, it is not THE WORLD's property (I did _not_ dedicate it to the public domain), it is M I N E.
I know this very well. I am studied in the law. I know the bullshit defenses non-owners try to pull against owners (mostly equity "pleees not fair judge" - usually when they don't like an increase in payments)
There is no K, I am not bound by the terms that I require people using my property to follow. If they do not follow the terms they are simply violating MY copyright and I sue for damages. If I decide I don't want them to use my property I can revoke permission at any time, then if they continue to use it: again they are violating MY copyright and I sue them for damages.
"
------------------------------------------------------------
p46 "As long as the project continues to honor the terms of the licenses under which it recieved contributions, the licenses continue in effect. There is one important caveat: Even a perpetual license can be revoked. See the discussion of bare licenses and contracts in Chapter 4"
--Lawrence Rosen
p56 "A third problem with bare licenses is that they may be revocable by the licensor. Specifically, /a license not coupled with an interest may be revoked./ The term /interest/ in this context usually means the payment of some royalty or license fee, but there are other more complicated ways to satisfy the interest requirement. For example, a licensee can demonstrate that he or she has paid some consideration-a contract law term not found in copyright or patent law-in order to avoid revocation. Or a licensee may claim that he or she relied on the software licensed under an open source license and now is dependent upon that software, but this contract law concept, called promissory estoppel, is both difficult to prove and unreliable in court tests. (The concepts of /consideration/ and /promissory estoppel/ are explained more fully in the next section.) Unless the courts allow us to apply these contract law principles to a license, we are faced with a bare license that is revocable.
--Lawrence Rosen
p278 "Notice that in a copyright dispute over a bare license, the plaintiff will almost certainly be the copyright owner. If a licensee were foolish enough to sue to enforce the terms and conditions of the license, the licensor can simply revoke the bare license, thus ending the dispute. Remeber that a bare license in the absence of an interest is revocable."
--Lawrence Rosen
Lawrence Rosen - Open Source Licensing - Sofware Freedom and Intellectual property Law
p65 "Of all the licenses descibed in this book, only the GPL makes the explicity point that it wants nothing of /acceptance/ of /consideration/:
...
The GPL authors intend that it not be treated as a contract. I will say much more about this license and these two provisions in Chapter 6. For now, I simply point out that the GPL licensors are in essentially the same situation as other open source licensors who cannot prove offer, acceptance, or consideration. There is no contract."
--Lawrence Rosen
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday January 16 2019, @02:31PM (1 child)
Informative: SN has a little known secret mechanism whereby you can submit something like this as a potential front page story.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18 2019, @09:21AM
They keep deleting the submissions
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:08AM (4 children)
Having one of their books mentioned - isn't that called "free publicity"? WTF are they upset about?
Oh, I get it. They haven't published a book in 20 years [wikipedia.org], so they've decided to be come a "trademark troll". All the profit, none of the work...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:14AM (1 child)
Shouldn't the trademark then be lost due to non-use?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Wednesday January 16 2019, @02:34PM
Google for four words: "eu trademark big mac". If McDonalds can lose the BigMac tirade mark for being a grade-A hole and tirade mark bullying, then why can't another company lose a tirade mark, at least in the EU?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Kalas on Wednesday January 16 2019, @11:43AM
Yeah I was just thinking I haven't seen any around since childhood. And I get the impression today's kids don't really give a shit about reading books. Certainly not on dead trees anyway.
Luckily our legal system often lets them have their cake and eat it too, receiving free publicity then suing the hell out of whoever was dumb enough to help them for free.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday January 16 2019, @05:13PM
They might be upset because (actual spoiler)
So yes, if it is their active trademark and not a generic descriptor, they might have a right to be upset that the trademark was used without permission.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @11:30AM
It seems like all the projects that get the official trademark are tweenager friendly. If the argument is that the mark becomes worth lest to the company and to consumers if it gets associated with more violent stuff then I think there is a case for that.
There was just a few months ago a boardgame that came out with that trademark. It was tween friendly.
(Score: 1) by Only_Mortal on Wednesday January 16 2019, @12:09PM (3 children)
Given its origin, shouldn't UK law apply here?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday January 16 2019, @02:36PM (2 children)
Google for four words: "eu trademark big mac". (See my similar post above) McDonalds lost its tirade mark on BigMac in the EU.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday January 16 2019, @05:16PM (1 child)
Yeah, but can I get a Royale with Cheese there???
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Freeman on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:57PM
No, that is trademarked in France and shall be viciously protected by itself from itself.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by The Archon V2.0 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:53PM
> Bandersnatch's "dark and violent themes" reflect poorly on its brand.
Oh, you mean the series where a dictator slowly crushed the bones in a kid's hand to "prepare him for the firing squad"? (Journey to the Year 3000, the last "bad end" you can get before the good ending.)
For assorted other such endings, visit http://youchosewrong.tumblr.com/ [tumblr.com] - you'll be able to tell the CYOAs from the others by that font.