myk
volveré y seré millones
Posts: 14424
Registered: 04-02 |
Gez said:
They are not registered, but they are claimed explicitly. "DOOM likenesses are trademarks of id Software, inc.,(C)1993."
There's nothing explicit there about cyberdemons and BFGs. From what I understand, that refers to the logo image and variants and not to other things in DOOM. Later notices exclude it, either because they were doing something redundant or improper or because trademark registration made the clarification unnecessary. Under your interpretation, that line gives no way to define what is or isn't trademarked in the artwork, and a trademark has to be very clear. The fact that imps and cyberdemons are distinctive is just a quality of creative copyright and by no means makes them trademarks.
Carmack's email about not using cyberdemons and BFGs counts as trademark protection. The continued sale and development of the Doom series games counts as trademark use.
Carmack's email was not an official document or statement of trademarks. The continued use of easily identifiable and repeated designs doesn't make them trademarks, it simply reinforces the ease with which their copyrights can be protected.
fraggle said:
The Doom monsters - at least the distinctive ones - would count as trademarks. That includes the Cacodemon, Cyberdemon, Mancubus, etc. So would the BFG-9000, and possibly some of the other weapons. These are all distinctive and memorable elements of Doom that make the game what it is.
No. If that were the case, they would be declared trademarks. That's why I asked for an instance saying "cyberdemon is a trademark of id software." They need that claim at least or (more strongly) to register it. They are copyrighted artwork, but their names themselves aren't protected in any way.
Basically, when you think of trademarks, think of Coca-Cola (the name and the logo), or Mickey Mouse. Nobody's stopping you from making your own cola, but you can't call it "Coca-Cola" (or even "Moca-Cola"). Similarly, nobody's stopping you from creating a cartoon with a talking mouse, but you can't call it Mickey Mouse and it mustn't look identical to it.
With Mickey Mouse, you have two aspects. For one, I bet the name is trademarked, secondly, the animated character in all its incarnations is copyrighted and very recognizable as a character. This makes any art that, if the context makes it clear, appears derived from that character, copyright infringement. For Mickey's image to be trademarked it has to be specific, such as a certain design of his face or a pose in some style. They would be like "Mickey logos." But in general, you don't need that to protect the copyright of an identifiable character versus any derivate works by others. The thing is that a character is easy to identify from repetitious use and thus easier to protect its copyright than with other more incidental artwork.
That said, the Wikipedia says "Mickey Mouse is also trademarked" although it doesn't provide citations, at least not there. This could be correct, bad research (especially if it just means the name, which is certain, but not any and all images), or based on some claim Disney made which may or may not be legally valid. In any case, Mickey Mouse is registered multiple times as a trademark for different purposes. I did see some mentions of "trademarked characters" in notices, as well.
Trademarks are badges for companies, products lines and the like that specifically serve as identifiers. The cyberdemon is just artwork in the game. Key artwork, but that does not make it a trademark.
|
07-20-11 21:48 
