no, completely the opposite. copyright protects a specific work for a specific period of time. there is no "precedent." it's either protected, or it's not. again, this is just what copyright is.
I admit, you're merely being imprecise here, but you certainly have other options if you receive a c&d letter, like filing suit for a declaratory judgment (or whatever you call those cute retaliatory claims in the UK).
in the US, this is absolutely 100% false. they can immediately sue you. there is no legal requirement that you send the alleged infringer a c&d first. this is why you shouldn't be giving out this sort of advice; you might know a little bit from first-hand experience in the UK, but you were talking to someone in Nebraska.
you seem to be confusing copyright with trademark/trade dress/product identity. here, and particularly in your first paragraph about being "seen enforcing your rights", you're talking about maintaining product identity based on likeness, not copyright. again, common mistake, but you're not a lawyer, so i would just ask you to stop expounding on something where you can't even get the basic apples versus oranges right.
This is exactly the same as all the other times you've claimed you're a lawyer - 'im a lawyer and you're wrong' -> 'prove what is wrong' -> 'here are my thoughts'. Unless you have case law to back you up, then I'm afraid I'm going to call bullshit on all of that.
Do you even know what "case law" is?
Case law is when there is some point of contention about what the law is, which is clarified and expanded upon by a legal decision (a case).
So pretty fucking obviously, if there is never a particular point of contention about the law, there won't be any case law on it.
For example, there's no case law that says, "It's legal to put cheese on your eggs," because nobody would ever argue that it's illegal to put cheese on your eggs. There's no legal basis to say that it would be.
I can give you a billion different cases that recite the black letter law that copyright is a purely statutory construction, and that the only rights and duties under copyright are those imposed by the copyright act (Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591, 663-64, 8 L.Ed. 1055 (1834); see also Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 251, 110 S.Ct. 1750, 109 L.Ed.2d 184 (1990) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (stating that copyright is statutorily created); M. Kramer Mfg. Co. v. Andrews, 783 F.2d 421, 432 (4th Cir.1986) ("The right of copyright is a creature of federal statute, with its constitutional base in Article I, § 8, cl. 8."); Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123, 1129 n. 17 (9th Cir.1979); Microsoft Corp. v. Grey Computer, 910 F.Supp. 1077, 1084 (D.Md.1995) ("Unlike contracts, copyrights and the rights flowing therefrom are entirely creatures of statute...."), and I can give you a link to the copyright act (
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17), and then let you read the copyright act yourself, and see that there is no way to LOSE your copyright through lack of enforcement.
I GUESS you could argue that an untimely claim would be barred by laches (not that you know that is), but no, the doctrine of laches can't apply to copyright claims (
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1315_f20h.pdf ). So... if you want a case, sure. There it is. Petrella v. MGM.
To dismantle a few specific points though. First and foremost, GW is a UK company and has all of the legal issues that are specific to here to deal with as well as the ones in the US.
lol... what... do you mean? Do you even know what you mean?
I don't think you understand that whatever quaint rules the UK has for civil procedure, those won't apply in the US. UK law isn't going to govern anything about when a suit can be brought in the US. Moreover, in a copyright infringement suit in the US, US law is going to apply, not UK law. And vice versa, of course. The applicable substantive and procedural law is going to depend on where the alleged infringer is, because courts in the other country don't have jurisdiction on any activities in the other country.
Whilst they could technically sue immediately, it may be difficult to get the wheels turning if they made no contact beforehand - especially when it's a product that isn't being actively sold and is very small scale. Even GW may feel that's a bit OTT.
So which point were you dismantling here? The one where you said, "they can't sue you before sending a letter before claim" and I said, "In the US they can"? So that's settled, then?
More than that, lets take a brief look at what the UK Copyright Service has to say about this (https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p05_copyright_infringement): 'The first step is to make the infringer aware of your objection and put forward a reasonable settlement and time scale to reach the settlement.' Now they can still claim for damages, but I'd say it is unlikely to get through - again if you have actual case law, I'm willing to listen.
And again, as I said, in the UK, sure. Cute. But you weren't addressing someone in the UK. An American in America said, "better to ask forgiveness than permission", and you dropped an entirely irrelevant perspective on UK civil procedure.
More importantly, what you're citing isn't "law." If you want to cite the UK CPR, go ahead and do it.
Second point. In terms of 'precedent' it's something called 'sleeping on rights'. As you're in the US you might be interested in this one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2013/02/28/failure-to-enforce-trademarks-if-you-snooze-do-you-lose/#44dd15196c22. You'll find plenty of other items on that term to back that up. Again, it's not clear cut (nothing in the law is), but it's one of the reasons why companies are so jealous about protecting their rights. Again, case law to prove otherwise or it didn't happen.
Remember when I said, "you're confusing trademark with copyright?" The problem, as I said, is you fundamentally don't understand what you're talking about.
Thirdly, if an indie developer making a non-profit game as a hobby wants to try to counter a lawsuit from a huge corporation then...well...I mean go for it I guess?!?
Sure, this is a legitimate problem. You "win" a copyright defense case, and you get nothing. In the US, you can't even get your legal fees back. Even if you win, you don't win. I agree.
That said, you're generally going to get a settlement out of a huge corporation, too. Why? Lawyers are expensive. You're a small indie developer. You have no assets. They aren't going to "get" anything from you. Except that they want you to stop infringing, change whatever thing they think is wrong with it, or even sign a licensing agreement to make it all legit.
I'm well aware of the many elements of legalese that make up the different strands of product enforcement - I used the term copyright from the point of view that it's a well known term, and it's one everyone 'gets'.
rooooooofffffflllllll
These are incredibly technical and specific legal terms. Copyright is a specific set of rights that attaches to specific things at specific times. IT IS NOT interchangeable with "trademark" or "passing off" or any other form of IP (including patents and trade secrets). Hence the apples and oranges comparison I made earlier: "well, everyone 'gets' what an apple is, so I used that to talk about growing oranges and other citrus fruits, because both grow on trees."
Specifically, you say, "You have to defend your copyright" and the answer is, no, you don't have to defend your copyright. Do you have to defend your trademarks? Sometimes. Hence why you can't just swap the terms back and forth.
Lastly, I agree you shouldn't take legal advice from a forum (and certainly not from someone without any sources...) but I'm just putting forward what I believe to be true from my experience and backing it up with what I have.
so literally "no one should listen to me, but i'm talking anyway." cool.
Author
Topic: Chapter Master - In the name of the Emperor! (Read 799156 times)