Polish IP & IT law » 2007

Archive for: November, 2007

November 28th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

It’s a very interesting project and it has a disclaimer that I liked the most, but I am more interested in Lucasfilm Ltd. reaction regarding this issue.

STAR WARS SHADOWS OF THE EMPIRE: GRAPHIC ADVENTURE
UNOFFICIAL FREEWARE FANGAME

Star Wars, Shadows of the Empire, Death Star and all other names, characters, situations, music related to Star Wars are registered trademarks of Lucasfilm L.t.d., LucasBooks, George Lucas, John Williams and all other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

Death Star Games is NOT affiliated in any way to Lucasfilm L.t.d. We don’t intend to break any copyright. Death Star Games and Shadows of the Empire: Graphic Adventure are no-profit fan made works; the fangame is distribuited for free. Death Star Games is NOT responsible for any eventual selling of the game that should be considered always unauthorized. In order to prevent that possibility, the program will contain explicit statements of its no-profit nature from the title screen.

The fangame project may exist (and has been started) thanks to the tolerance policy notoriously applied with farsightedness by Lucasfilm L.t.d. to no-profit Star Wars initiatives like this one or the well known Fan Films, that require an enormous amount of non-paid work of passion that doesn’t damage in any way the legal rights owners, preparing instead the advent of official products, that the fandom eagerly waits for. This tolerance policy is, in fact, the same that applies to all websites, Fan Films, small fan games, etc. dedicated to the Star Wars universe, which provide copyrighted material: the common trait is the free sponsorization of the Star Wars franchise than fans carry on, spreading their knowledge and love for the saga.
If these projects would be stopped, the fandom would collapse carrying with it the Star Wars economical success.

SOTE:GA does not contain elements such as volgarity, violence, etc alien to the pure spirit of the Star Wars saga, to which we try to remain faithful. The adventure game includes original sections that are result of our fantasy, but they’re created so to match the rest of the established saga, just as happens with every fan film: an unofficial free interpretation.

But, most important, Death Star Games -to advantage of Lucasfilm L.t.d. and its affiliates- openly and publicly renounces to claim in every situation, every condition, every circumstance, every way, every form and forever its authorship and its rights even on all the original elements of the fan game, since they’ve been created in a fictional world that is totally intellectual property of Lucasfilm L.t.d. and its affiliates.
If one or more original elements, situations, characters, names, details, etc. featured in this game would be used in the future -in any form, circumstance, medium- by Lucasfilm L.t.d. and its affiliates, either for an eventual choice motivated by the appreciation of that element, or for preexisting or future projects identical to it, such a use will be welcomed and will be done in complete freedom without any reference or credit to DS Games, who renounces to claim the authorship of those elements and publicly donates them to Lucasfilm L.t.d. and its affiliates and considers them, forever, intellectual property of Lucasfilm L.t.d. and its affiliates, who can use them as their registered trademarks and products of their genius.

The fans working on SOTE:GA pledge therselves officially and publicly to that commitment.

Death Star Games

Davide Canavero

Turin, Italy, january 13 2005.

More details available at dsgames.guerrestellari.net website.

Categories: copyright law.

November 22nd, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

It is not my personal statement or motto, but a disclaimer I spoted when looking at “Banksy: Wall and Piece” book published by The Random House Group. For all of you who are really interested or do not believe me I put a scan (JPG file, 167KB) of the page where you can easily find this at least provoking sentence.

Categories: copyright law.

Poland: special courts for trade mark cases

November 21st, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish daily newspaper Rzeczpospolita has published an article, imprecisely entitled “Patent Courts will deal with trade marks“. It briefly describes a new initiative of the Polish Ministry of Justice (PMJ), which is also warmly supported by the Polish Chamber of Patent Attorneys and the Polish Patent Office (PPO). In essence, the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw is currently the only court dealing with procedural complaints regarding the PPO’s decisions (for example invalidation of issued patents or trade marks). Those proceedeings are governed by the Administrative Proceedings Code. Trade mark infringment cases are heard and decided by common courts on the basis of civil procedure. Such a separation is a big obstacle in to prompt decision making. Trade mark attorneys also complain about the quality of such judgments. According to Rzeczpospolita, the PMJ wants to propose a bill that would introduce within the Polish legal system a unified judicial system to solve these problems.

November 17th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

I have a lot of fun with searching for law related jokes in different movies lately. As you can see I do not mean movies with flesh and blood actors and stories related to court rooms cases. Bee Movie is a really good production so I recommend you to go to a cinema. There are such releases as Bee.Movie.REPACK.TS.XviD-PreVail in the Internet of course, but nothing can replace a big screen. My favourite quotes? When Barry B. Benson (the bee on the right) comments on the suit against humans.

When I’m done with the humans they won’t be able to say “Honey I’m home” without paying a royalty

But the most accurate statement regarding the whole “legal issue” was presented by Mooseblood who is his mosquito friend (on the left), when he was asked whether he is a lawyer too.

Ma’am I was already a bloodsucking parasite. All I needed was a briefcase.

Categories: copyright law | trademark law.

November 15th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

My German friend or should I write mein Freund aus Deutschland, has sent me a link to the post available at supertouchblog.com website.

Islington’s city workers were now being trained as art conservators (using taxpayers’ funds) so that they are able to touch up and otherwise mend Banksy’s street installations that get defaced by other taggers

He also added his short comment on this whole issue.

Interesting how the categories legal/illegal fade away, once a streetart or graffiti “artist” is financially successful and recognized by the public.

I think there is more interesting questions not only concerning Banksy’s art, although moral rights or personal authors rights to ilegally placed graffiti or stencils seems to be the most controversial in this case. I recommend you to search for more information about the term brandalism, for which some sources give credits to Banksy. There are some others.

Brandalism [is] the creeping corporatisation of schools, libraries and other public buildings, which are gradually being daubed with company logos and slogans. The process is all too common in the United States and it is starting to happen here. Have you been in a Yahoo! taxi yet?

“A new industry, a new language,” The Daily Telegraph, April 5, 2001

Brandalism – The increased “defacing” of schools, libraries, and other public spaces with logos, advertisements, and corporate slogans.

Gareth Branwyn, “Jargon Watch”, Wired, February 1999.

Categories: copyright law.

November 9th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

My dear friend, great translator and interpreter and a very talented illustrator Artur Zawiasiński has sent me a link to stijlfigurant.nl website. You may also read more comments about the action against T-mobile’s trade mark/service marks at colourlovers.com website.

I would like to add a short legal comment on this whole issue. The US Supreme Court ruled in the case Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159 (1995), that a color may sometimes meet the basic legal requirements for use as a trademark.

The Court of Justice of the European Communities in its judgement from May 6, 2003, in the case C-104/01, Libertel Groep BV v. Benelux Merkenbureau, OJ C 146, 21.06.2003, p. 6, ruled that in answer to the questions referred to it by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of 23 February 2001, a colour per se, not spatially delimited, may, in respect of certain goods and services, have a distinctive character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(3) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, provided that, inter alia, it may be represented graphically in a way that is clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective. The latter condition cannot be satisfied merely by reproducing on paper the colour in question, but may be satisfied by designating that colour using an internationally recognised identification code.

In assessing the potential distinctiveness of a given colour as a trade mark, regard must be had to the general interest in not unduly restricting the availability of colours for the other traders who offer for sale goods or services of the same type as those in respect of which registration is sought.

A colour per se may be found to possess distinctive character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(3) of Directive 89/104, provided that, as regards the perception of the relevant public, the mark is capable of identifying the product or service for which registration is sought as originating from a particular undertaking and distinguishing that product or service from those of other undertakings.

The fact that registration as a trade mark of a colour per se is sought for a large number of goods or services, or for a specific product or service or for a specific group of goods or services, is relevant, together with all the other circumstances of the particular case, to assessing both the distinctive character of the colour in respect of which registration is sought, and whether its registration would run counter to the general interest in not unduly limiting the availability of colours for the other operators who offer for sale goods or services of the same type as those in respect of which registration is sought.

In assessing whether a trade mark has distinctive character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(3) of Directive 89/104, the competent authority for registering trade marks must carry out an examination by reference to the actual situation, taking account of all the circumstances of the case and in particular any use which has been made of the mark.