Slashdot Mirror


Warner Bros. Sued By Meme Creators Over Copyright Infringement

Krazy Kanuck sends this quote from the BBC: "Warner Bros is being sued for the alleged unauthorized use of two cats that have achieved internet fame. ... The complaint alleged that the cats were used without permission in Scribblenauts, a series of games on the Nintendo DS and other platforms. Court documents alleged that Warner Bros and 5th Cell 'knowingly and intentionally infringed' both claimant's ownership rights. 'Compounding their infringements,' court papers (PDF) said, 'defendants have used "Nyan Cat" (designed by Christopher Torres) and "Keyboard Cat" (created in 1984 by Charles Schmidt), even identifying them by name, to promote and market their games, all without plaintiffs' permission and without any compensation to plaintiffs.' "

54 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. Well... by Sigvatr · · Score: 5, Funny

    That escalated quickly.

    1. Re:Well... by Hsien-Ko · · Score: 2

      I just hope this doesn't become some sort of sue-bait kind of thing. Memes can't have enough room to fit in a copyright disclaimer.

    2. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Let us all watch and see how the MPAA/RIAA mafia wear their own regulations when thrown back at them, legitimately. ...installs self in couch, orders large supply of chips and sodas...

  2. I can haz memes? by femtobyte · · Score: 4, Funny

    nyan cat is watching you litigate!

    1. Re:I can haz memes? by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

      hmm lots of pictures from popular movies shows and other corporate owned works are made into memes i wonder if this caes could be used by them as precedent to shutdown web sites like 4chan which live of of people posting memes.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    2. Re:I can haz memes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fair Use.

    3. Re:I can haz memes? by msauve · · Score: 5, Funny

      So, you're saying that WB infringed the memes, knowing they'd be sued, just so they could lose the case and set a precedent which they could then turn around and use against 4chan?

      I think your tin foil hat is borken.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    4. Re:I can haz memes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, I think it's not that it's being used, per se. That happens all the time and people do these and share them for fun. What happened here is that it slapped onto a product that was sold for profit without the original creators permission. In other words, they were actually making money off of someone else work without compensation.

    5. Re:I can haz memes? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      That's ceiling cat, nyan cat just flies through space shitting rainbows.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:I can haz memes? by pipatron · · Score: 2

      What are you talking about? You specifically settle out of court just so that you're not setting a precedent. Legally, they would gain nothing doing this.

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
  3. A Taste of Your Own Medicine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... How do you like them poptarts?

    1. Re:A Taste of Your Own Medicine by langelgjm · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's Pop-Tarts®. You'll be hearing from our lawyers shortly.

      Sincerely,

      Kellogg Company Special Counsel for Intellectual Property Issues

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    2. Re:A Taste of Your Own Medicine by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cherry Poptart, an X-rated comic book, dropped the last name after the first issue.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:A Taste of Your Own Medicine by steelfood · · Score: 2

      I don't know if you're just not familiar with the legal on-goings in Hollywood, but big movie studios get sued for copyright infringement all the time. All the time.

      This is because every Tom, Dick, and Harry has an idea, and every movie that's even remotely similar to this brilliant idea of their's will cause them to sue. Now, that doesn't mean these aren't always legitimate lawsuits. Many times, the studios will take something someone pitched, and turn it into a movie, without compensating the originator of the idea. But they have had a lot of experience dealing with these kinds of lawsuits.

      Oh, and the movie studios usually win. Southern California, and in fact, most of California, soon to be the United States federal government, is their home turf, and you can't expect to win against them on their own home turf.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    4. Re:A Taste of Your Own Medicine by idontgno · · Score: 2

      You could hear the discomfort and almost see the cringing as the author of TFS carefully tiptoed around the IP minefield.

      Seriously. Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. We are becoming afraid to speak, create, express ourselves... not because of Big Brother or the New World Order (or even the Illuminati), but because of the Intellectual Property criminal syndicate.

      They own the words. They own the pictures. They own the ideas, FFS. What are we left with? "Shut up and consume your media, Consumer! And then BUY MORE."

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    5. Re:A Taste of Your Own Medicine by idontgno · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And since the other distinguishing characteristic is the name (and the soundtrack), ripped directly from a copyrighted Japanese pop song, I think the creator of Nyan Cat owns significantly less than 25% of the thing.

      Although I would never wish legal trouble on anyone, even a copyright troll, it would certainly tickle my sense of poetic justice for Christopher Torres to be served with papers from Kellogg's and whoever "daniwell" on Nico Nico Douga is.

      Or maybe we just acknowledge that pop culture is a rich fertile humus best cared for by tilling and turning, rather than by boxing up and labeling.

      Yes. It's cultural compost. People are arguing about who owns manure. Makes me proud to live in the 21st Century.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    6. Re:A Taste of Your Own Medicine by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You joke... but Kellogg sued Image-Line over their use of "Fruity Loops" because "it confused customers." ... Image-Line makes audio production software.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    7. Re:A Taste of Your Own Medicine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not sure if it was actually _suing_, but you could've found it by grepping for "Kellogs" in Image-Line's wiki page, which links here

      Being nicer than you, I'll even give you a quote:

      Kelloggs decided to challenge us when we applied for the FruityLoops trademark in the US. We had a very strong case AND we received the trademark in Europe as the two markets are obviously separated. But later they claimed to have released CDs and games in their cereal boxes, and as we didn't want to waste money fighting them in court for 5 years ...

    8. Re:A Taste of Your Own Medicine by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 2

      as when a hot air balloon has a bulgy shape and the hole is always at the bottom

      Damnit, so that's what I did wrong...

  4. The LOLCATS endgame. by GodInHell · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well -- we all knew they were up to something -- now we now it really was world domination, just not the way we all expected.

  5. Copyright of IDEAS is ridiculous by SmokeSerpent · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Can we all just agree that idea of "copyrighting" characters is ridiculous? Trademark is one thing, but characters created without trademark should be considered travelers within the realm of culture, IMO. Actual direct digital copying of DRAWINGS of said characters, of course, falls under copyright.

    --
    All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
    1. Re:Copyright of IDEAS is ridiculous by mark-t · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This.

      If the creators really wanted to protect their creations from such use, they should have trademarked them.

      Of course, trademarked stuff can't really become a meme in the first place, since the trademark must be actively defended at all times. And not becoming a meme would have meant it probably wouldn't have been found in allegedly "unauthorized" works anyways.

    2. Re:Copyright of IDEAS is ridiculous by Hsien-Ko · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've seen those two particular "memes" on the Playstation Store as dynamic themes in a recent April 2013 update, "officially licensed", for $3 each.

      So yep.
      . Who knows what would happen to the Steam Workshop for Scribblenauts Unlimited now, as it's 99% encumbered by facsimilies of real registered trademarks, created by players.

    3. Re:Copyright of IDEAS is ridiculous by briancox2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Can we all just agree that carrying forward the ancient concept of copyright is ridiculous in a world where it cannot be enforeced without draconian measures?

      --
      We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
    4. Re:Copyright of IDEAS is ridiculous by Chris+Dodd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Which is why they're sueing for TRADEMARK infringement. The fact that slashdot gets things totally wrong in the headline is besides the point

    5. Re:Copyright of IDEAS is ridiculous by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 5, Informative

      From the article:
      "Both Mr Torres and Mr Schmidt own copyrights and trademarks of the characters."

      --
      This space available.
    6. Re:Copyright of IDEAS is ridiculous by mark-t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then why were those trademarks not defended when they started being publicly used without authorization in the first place? There is an abundance of historical precedent that if you fail to defend your trademarks, you lose them.

      Of course, if they had defended them in the first place, then by very definition of what a meme is, they never would have become one.

    7. Re:Copyright of IDEAS is ridiculous by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      Yep, absolutely ludicrous, but if someone started using the idea of Bug Bunny and was making a buck, then Warner Bros. would unleash the lawyers and leap down your throat. It's important that the big boys have to play by the same rules as the little guys, even if the rules are bullshit.

      You know, cause we kinda expect this system to try and be fair.

      Trademark is one thing, but characters created without trademark should be considered travelers within the realm of culture, IMO

      Warner Bros is a trademark. They've marked their trade with a logo. Bugs Bunny is a character. Content. The idea of a funny cartoon rabbit does not identify something made by Warner Bros. It is, as you say, a traveler within the realm of culture. Or does the blessed corporation's creations get imbued with some magical quality that places them above whatever youtube user #92859321 released?

      Keyboard cat is content, it is not the logo, mark, brand, or signature of a company or maker. The name "keyboard cat".... maybe. But I'd still kinda call bullshit. The entire concept of intellectual property is kinda fucked up and hasn't kept up with the times.

    8. Re:Copyright of IDEAS is ridiculous by mark-t · · Score: 2

      A meme, by definition. is a public idea. Nobody "owns" it, even if a specific person originated it, because it's just an idea. You can trademark specific characters, but you can't trademark the ideas behind them. A cat playing a keyboard is an idea, and not a copyrightable or trademarkable notion.

    9. Re:Copyright of IDEAS is ridiculous by immaterial · · Score: 2

      I don't know how you got up modded for implying it is possible to put a stop to an internet meme. Especially considering the Streisand effect.

    10. Re:Copyright of IDEAS is ridiculous by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 2

      Because only Scribblenauts Unlimited, which just came out a few months ago, uses Nyan Cat - presumably Torres was the instigator of this action, and is just bringing Keyboard Cat along for the ride.

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    11. Re:Copyright of IDEAS is ridiculous by marcello_dl · · Score: 2

      By allowing only trademark you will give a strong incentive to creative guys not to share. Worst idea ever.

      Anyway you're derailing.
      A media company caught violating copyright under current law should be fined a lot more than all the others. Not because they're more or less evil. Because

      1. they know these laws better than anybody, they might have even paid for them.
      2. they bother LEGITIMATE PAYING CUSTOMERS with their hubbub about piracy at the beginning of DVD, games, ads... and then, they proceed to take advantage of others' creativity? Awful.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    12. Re:Copyright of IDEAS is ridiculous by Aerokii · · Score: 2

      Upon inspection, when "froogle"ing "Nyan cat t-shirt", there are thirteen pages of results. This does not include all sorts of other media- people who make 'Nyan Cat' buttons at cons and sell them, the playstation themes mentioned in the comment section here, and any number of other products.

      This trademark has absolutely not been protected until now against public OR commercial use.

    13. Re:Copyright of IDEAS is ridiculous by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      because this is commercial use... that's why.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    14. Re:Copyright of IDEAS is ridiculous by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      Can we all just agree that carrying forward the ancient concept of copyright is ridiculous in a world where it cannot be enforeced without draconian measures?

      What's Draconian about a cease and desist letter? It takes minutes to write one, and it takes the people ripping off someone else's work to further their own commercial activities minutes to take down the ripped-off material. It takes them even less time to decide not to rip stuff off in the first place. Hey, look! Nothing draconian involved.

      Oh, you mean the draconian measures required when someone has had it pointed out to them that they're ripping off someone's work to avoid paying for the marketing material they're using in their own money-making activities and refuse to stop? The only thing that could make that draconian is the deliberate action of the person ripping off the work. It's a self-inflicted wound, and so no, "we" can't all agree on anything at all resembling what you're saying.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  6. Copyrighted Memes... by idontgno · · Score: 3, Insightful

    are the submarine patents of culture.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  7. Madness must stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't want to defend Warner Brothers, but this suit is stupid. These characters are totally pervasive on the Internet - de-facto public domain, so to say. They're also quite old. Extremely few of the people who use them have a clue that they're copyrighted.

    If you create a meme and plaster it all over the Internet, you can't expect to keep people from using it, for profit or otherwise. That's just beyond ridiculous. If the creators of Hello Kitty were to sue every small clothing maker who used images, we'd have millions of stupid lawsuits like this under way.

    If it was a character with a strong brand association, say like Mickey Mouse or Mario or anything from a cereal box, there might be a case. These characters exist solely for the purpose of sending people LULz everywhere on the webs, so it's really not the same thing, as they aren't commonly associated with any known brand or company.

    1. Re:Madness must stop. by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How is Hello Kitty different than Mickey Mouse?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    2. Re:Madness must stop. by operagost · · Score: 5, Informative

      de-facto public domain

      No, in fact, they're not public domain. Declaring them public domain based on their pervasiveness would mean that Mickey Mouse is also public domain-- and we all know that isn't true.

      If you create a meme and plaster it all over the Internet, you can't expect to keep people from using it, for profit or otherwise

      Pretty sure Fatso the keyboard cat was simply posted on YouTube and the meme snowballed.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:Madness must stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think you should consider a key difference here: not only is Warner Bros. using the work to make profit on the game but they are also using these images to promote the game. There is a huge difference between some kid posting Nyan cat on 4chan for the billionth time and Warner Bros. using Nyan cat for marketing. That random kid on 4chan isn't making a profit from it. It's not part of his business model.

      It's perfectly reasonable for the creator of Nyan cat to say "I don't mind it when random people (even if it is a lot of random people) post Nyan cat on imageboards just to have a laugh but I don't want a global corporation to use my image to make money without my permission".

      That's how copyright works and to a certain degree that's perfectly reasonable. You shouldn't be expected to litigate against every single person who ever uses your image withot your permission. That is going to be way too onerous for something like Nyan cat. The Nyan cat creator would go bankrupt trying to sue the internet. It does make sense, however, to target a huge corporation who really should know better.

  8. Seems reasonable to me by ilsaloving · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These media conglomerates salivate in their sleep while dreaming of litigating the crap out of anyone they can get away with so that they can maintain a stranglehold on culture.

    I am totally in favor of culture biting them in the ass, using the very laws they weas^H^H^H^Hchampioned.

    1. Re:Seems reasonable to me by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Is this the same Warner Brothers that threatened children over their Harry Potter fansites?

      What is it the kids say these days? Oh, yes, Avada Kedavra.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  9. Pot, meet Kettle by redshirt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Doesn't Nyan cat use the image of a Pop Tart as the body of the cat?

    1. Re:Pot, meet Kettle by femtobyte · · Score: 5, Informative

      Frosted breakfast toaster pastries aren't an exclusively owned intellectual property. Nyan Cat doesn't have a "Pop Tart (tm)" label on the image; just an image of a food (?) product of which many generic variants are available.

    2. Re:Pot, meet Kettle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Frosted breakfast toaster pastries aren't an exclusively owned intellectual property

      I know this all too well, and still suffer the scars of my youth; that one time when my mom brought home "Toaster Pastries" instead of Pop Tarts.

  10. Re:Public Domain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "I was under the impression that once something becomes a meme, it is essentially public domain since it's extensive public use would forfeit any intellectual rights the creators may have had.
    "

    You don't seem to understand copyright at all then, sadly. Everything you just said is wrong. .

  11. let me explain by frovingslosh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Clearly the creators are confused. When big media takes something and uses it, that is just fine and everyone should look the other way. But if they (the big media maffia) even accuse anyone of taking something of theirs (or even that they would like to be theirs but really isn't) then that person is guilty and owes them irrational amounts of compensation.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  12. Re:Public Domain? by operagost · · Score: 2

    I was under the impression that once something becomes a meme, it is essentially public domain since it's extensive public use would forfeit any intellectual rights the creators may have had.

    Oh, good. let's start a Mickey Mouse meme, then.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  13. The second coming? by coldsalmon · · Score: 3, Funny

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

    Surely some revelation is at hand;
    Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
    The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
    When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
    Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
    a character with a cat's face and a body
    resembling a horizontal breakfast bar
    with pink frosting sprinkled with light red dots,
    flies across the screen, leaving a stream
    of exhaust in the form of a bright rainbow
    in its wake, while all about it
    Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
    The darkness drops again; but now I know
    That twenty centuries of stony sleep
    Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born.

    1. Re:The second coming? by AioKits · · Score: 4, Funny

      Strangest Burma Shave advert, ever.

      --
      "Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
  14. Re:Public Domain? by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

    I was under the impression that once something becomes a meme, it is essentially public domain

    Just because you want it to be true doesn't make it so.

    Legally, no it doesn't work that way at all.

    Culturally, the only thing that any self-respecting netizen would advance as a meme isn't created by corporate influences or anyone that has the money or means to try and... you know... "own" a meme. As much as the PR department of Folgers Crystals would love to have their product become a meme, that shit just ain't happenin. But companies are certainly trying. I mean, that thing with the Old Spice guy is pretty well known.

    Most memes are created and spread by, well, the poor. Poor in comparison to companies that own "brands", at least. The poor by and far do not enjoy the legal rights that people with lawyers do, and so the vast majority of memes are thrown about without worrying about being sued.

    So when you say "essentially in the public domain", you're actually kinda right. Any copyright owned by the poor probably isn't going to be enforced, which is almost equivalent to being in the public domain.

    If that seems unfair to you.... YEEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHH how about that suit against Warner Bros.?

  15. Purpose and character by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    they were actually making money off of someone else work without compensation.

    Which is irrelevant in determining fair use.

    How so? The first factor in a fair use determination under U.S. law (17 USC 107) involves whether or not the "purpose and character" was commercial.

  16. Re:And then BUY MORE by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2

    Sorry, the Buy More was a fictional store in the TV Series Chuck.

    So you can't do that either. But you can Purchase More if you like!

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  17. The poor don't have rights... by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 2
    "The poor, as well as the rich, are equally allowed to spend thousands or millions of dollars defending their copyrights and trademarks!" is an update of the old saw "The rich, as well as the poor, are forbidden from sleeping under bridges."

    It's just that the rich don't need to sleep under bridges, whereas the poor sometimes do. So laws against doing things that those without means must do (sleep outdoors, urinate in the park behind trees and shrubs, beg for money) are applied equally to those rich enough that they wouldn't have to break that law in the first place. Sigh.... exasperated sigh....