Topic: Legal Query: How convoluted is US Copyright Laws?
Chairman Kaga
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
This has got to be one of the worst Anime debates i've gotten myself into.
Okay, on one Anime MSB I go to, there is a long running heated debate about a Japanese Anime named Detective Conan, which got renamed in the USA as Case Closed. The reasons cited by many (but mentioned on the official site as only "legal considerations.") was that it would conflict with the copyright holders of Conan the Barbarian. Of course, when I mentioned that they might be playing some homage to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (aka the author of the Shelock Holms stories, which the main chaarcter adores and strives to become as his hero.), I got flamed the likes I never saw before when I said Dragonball Z is not something Anime should be proud of.
Since the official site refuses to discuss details, and the Conan the Barbarian arguement is not holding water with me (because it's just being linked automaticlly, without proof, other than "the Japanese folks wanted it changed due to legal ramifications" and nothing to back up the Barbarian Claim) I for one want to know a few things.
1. Could the Copyright Owners of Conan the Barbarian go after Detective Conan distributors here in the US if they didn't do the change? I'm seriously doubtful your average idiot could think that a japanese kid turned super detective would be mistaken for a muscle bound guy with a huge sword and a dirty loincloth. Then again, this is the US Justice system we're talking about here.....
2. Does the Conan the Barbarian holders have exclusive copyright to the Conan name and any derivitives (and not just Conan the Barbarian)? This doesn't explain why we have Conan O'Brian.
3. Is it just me, or am I just a glutton for such crap from my fellow anime fans?
IP: Logged |
posted
Not being any sort of real law person, this is just my rough understanding: The only way that Detective Conan could be a problem with Conan the Barbarian is if he had something in common that they can show they took/stole to leach of Conan the Barbarians popularity. Correct me if I am wrong people!
From my understanding of reading other threads is that you cannot copyright a name (Mario thread comes to mind), so no they couldn't protect Conan and any derivitives.
The only anime fans I've come into much contact with are Dragon Ball Z fanatics... lets just say they don't reason with anything very well.
Personally, if I were to hear of a show called Detective Conan I would think of Conan the Barbarian going into the future and being some sort of crime stopper. Maybe that's why they changed the name Posts: 846 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Donfrow: Personally, if I were to hear of a show called Detective Conan I would think of Conan the Barbarian going into the future and being some sort of crime stopper. Maybe that's why they changed the name
I think you nailed it right there. The potential confusion between the two properties is the issue here; I don't think it'd be too much of a stretch for the estate of Robert E. Howard (creator of Conan the Barbarian) to claim that someone might confuse the two, especially since you're probably not the only person to think that upon hearing the title.
By the way, I believe this is actually a trademark issue, not a copyright issue. From what I understand (not a lawyer), copyright refers to the actual content of the work. From a copyright perspective, there's not much to confuse the two; a Hybornean Age barbarian thief and a modern day teen detective in the body of a child aren't likely to share too many plot points. Trademarks, however, refer to more superficial aspects of the work, usually for marketing purposes. The works themselves don't have to be similar, if the packaging of one could potentially confuse someone into thinking they were buying the other. Thus, if someone could conceivably purchase "Detective Conan" thinking it was related to "Conan the Barbarian", there would be a trademark issue. Which appears to be the situation in this case.
Any lawyers, feel free to point out the glaring errors that I undoubtedly made here.
As for the whole Case Closed issue: personally, I don't care either way. It's just a name change. If they're not making significant changes to the series itself, what does it matter what they call it? (And if the changes to the series mean it's not so darn repetitive, I say go for it! )
-------------------- "I've allowed my love of gravy to distract from my prescriptivist linguistic crusade!" -T-Rex, Dinosaur Comics Posts: 726 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
NIffyBiffy
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
I thought Mattel actually copyrighted "Barbie"? I remember that 'Barbie Girl' song lawsuit and Mattel lost, as well as the guy who used Barbies in his art (sexual art).
IP: Logged |
Garil
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
I don't think this is so much about law as it is about marketing.Marketing has always been a big thing in America and they don't want to take unecessary risks.Other name changes have been made before to help marketing and make sure the consumer know what they're getting.For example
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone ->Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone
They were scared the average american wouldn't know the myth of the Philosopher's Stone and even after the already great popularity of the wizard boy,they nevertheless decided to simplify the name
I think it's the same case here.They're afraid the name Conan would be too attached to the barbarian and draw people away from Detective Conan under it's original name.
posted
Well, copyright law is extremely complicated and not my forte', but I have done a little in it, and this may be more of a trademark issue. That is, copyright is actually using someone's material. Trademark has more to do with infringing on their brand.
The question is: "what are the potential costs of using 'Conan'?" In a new franchise, at least in this country, if changing the name will avoid any chance of a legal battle and the old name is not a valuable brand in the new market, then there is no reason to risk an expensive lawsuit.
I will now momumentally oversimplify the issue...for my own sake. The basic standard is "confusingly similar." Will reasonable, average people (not enthusiasts) think this anime is connected with Conan the Barbarian? If so then perhaps the trademark holders have a point. If they would not connect the two, then there is no protectible interest.
Now here's the problem. That determination is only finally made after years of litigation during which you pay more than one lawyer $250 or more per hour to fight your case. So, 5 years later and with hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket, you win.....great.
As I originally said, why pick a fight, even if you would win, if you would eat up any chance of a profit in court? Nope, better just to change the name.
As for Conan O'Brien, that's his name. You can always use your own name if it is your real name and not one you had legally changed for a fraudulent purpose. A guy named "McDonald" could likely run his own "McDonald's Restaurant" as long as he did not, in any way, imply a connection to the other McDonald's.
-------------------- "I've argued in front of every judge in this state, often as a lawyer." Posts: 1021 | From: Northwest Indiana | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had a teacher named McDonald. Some students asked if they could call him Big Mac. He said no.
Posts: 846 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just an interesting aside, it's not really an American thing to have such copyright/trademark issues. When I was in New Zealand, my daughter pointed out that Cadbury apparently has a trademark on the color purple. Not a particular shade, the entire color. Or at least that is what is implied by the legalease on the choclate fish wrappers.
quote:Originally posted by Garil: Also I did some research and yes the name Conan is copyrighted http://www.conan.com/ip.shtml
That's a trademark notice, not a copyright notice. The name is trademarked. I don't believe you can copyright a name.
-------------------- "I've allowed my love of gravy to distract from my prescriptivist linguistic crusade!" -T-Rex, Dinosaur Comics Posts: 726 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NIffyBiffy: I thought Mattel actually copyrighted "Barbie"? I remember that 'Barbie Girl' song lawsuit and Mattel lost, as well as the guy who used Barbies in his art (sexual art).
{pauses briefly to shudder} Ok i remember this, The Band actually releid on parady excpetions and had to specify on their CD's that this was the case. It was not rlated in any way to the acutal matell brand name and that it was a parady.
-------------------- W.W.F.S.M.D? But this image of Bush as some sort of Snidely Whiplash tying the fair maiden to the railroad tracks is beyond the pale. - Joe Bentley Posts: 2311 | From: Minnnesota | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Channel 5 Eggs in One Basket
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
Uh oh, looks like Conan O'Brian's in trouble...
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lawguy: As for Conan O'Brien, that's his name. You can always use your own name if it is your real name and not one you had legally changed for a fraudulent purpose.
I noticed that some celebrities have registered their names as trademarks, came up in a Jerry Fallwell story recently, and I know musical artists like Billy Joel have also trademarked their names. So does this mean, for example, if my name is legally Billy Joel from birth, I cannot release recordings under that name? How and why could the law stop someone from using their own name for commercial purposes as long as the person wasn't misrepresenting their material as another's?
A guy named "McDonald" could likely run his own "McDonald's Restaurant" as long as he did not, in any way, imply a connection to the other McDonald's. Absolutely right. There was a restaurant called Joe McDonald's Steakhouse in Montvale, NJ that actually predated the chain. Up until it closed ten years ago, the sign out front said "McDonald's" in plain letters (no Golden Arches, etc) and it's very possible that the "McDonald's" sign itself predated the chain. No legal battles as far as I know, the name was completely legitimate and it was never misrepresented as the home of Ronald and Big Macs. The menus said "Joe McDonald's Steakhouse", the full name of the restaurant.
Posts: 370 | From: New York. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Galaxia
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
quote:Originally posted by Chairman Kaga: [QB] 1. Could the Copyright Owners of Conan the Barbarian go after Detective Conan distributors here in the US if they didn't do the change? I'm seriously doubtful your average idiot could think that a japanese kid turned super detective would be mistaken for a muscle bound guy with a huge sword and a dirty loincloth. Then again, this is the US Justice system we're talking about here.....
If they would go Funimation for using the name Conan, then why don't they go after Diney for "Dave the Barbarian"? It's name is even more simmilar, and someone would be likely to think it was an animated sequal to the movie.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 6-Ironsman eats Signal-12 Hot Wings: I noticed that some celebrities have registered their names as trademarks, came up in a Jerry Fallwell story recently, and I know musical artists like Billy Joel have also trademarked their names. So does this mean, for example, if my name is legally Billy Joel from birth, I cannot release recordings under that name? How and why could the law stop someone from using their own name for commercial purposes as long as the person wasn't misrepresenting their material as another's? [/QB]
I think the problem is that, just by using the name, you could be generating the potential for confusion even without intending to do so. If someone sees two albums by "Billy Joel", they'll naturally assume both are by the same guy (specifically, the "Piano Man" guy). Even if you don't set out to misrepresent people, such confusion will be unavoidable. Can the law legally prevent you from releasing your recordings under your real name in that situation? I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me.
(I don't know how this works for recording artists like Billy Joel, but I do know that if you're an actor, the Screen Actors Guild union prohibits two people from registering and performing with the same name; if your name (even if it's the name you were born with) is the same as a previously registered name (even if it's a stage name), you have to register with another name. That's why the former Miss America acts as "Vanessa L. Williams", for example, or why Michael Keaton goes by that name (his real last name is Douglas, but there was already a Michael Douglas and a Mike Douglas registered). However, I believe this is a union issue, so it may not be enforceable by law, and I don't know if any similar rules (or union) exist for musicians.)
-------------------- "I've allowed my love of gravy to distract from my prescriptivist linguistic crusade!" -T-Rex, Dinosaur Comics Posts: 726 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Galaxia: If they would go Funimation for using the name Conan, then why don't they go after Diney for "Dave the Barbarian"? It's name is even more simmilar, and someone would be likely to think it was an animated sequal to the movie.
Probably because "barbarian" is a generic and common term, whereas "Conan" is more specific, and most often used only to refer to the Robert E. Howard character (or the talk show host, but, as a real person, that's a different issue). If I'm not mistaken, merely evoking a copyrighted or trademarked work isn't enough to constitute infringement, as long as an audience can reasonably be expected to differentiate the two works. (The title "Dave the Barbarian" may evoke Conan, but it's likely that people can tell it isn't Conan. "Detective Conan", based on title alone, could confuse people into thinking it relates to the REH character, even if such confusion was completely unintentional.)
-------------------- "I've allowed my love of gravy to distract from my prescriptivist linguistic crusade!" -T-Rex, Dinosaur Comics Posts: 726 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Galaxia: If they would go Funimation for using the name Conan, then why don't they go after Diney for "Dave the Barbarian"? It's name is even more simmilar, and someone would be likely to think it was an animated sequal to the movie.
Probably because "barbarian" is a generic and common term, whereas "Conan" is more specific, and most often used only to refer to the Robert E. Howard character (or the talk show host, but, as a real person, that's a different issue). If I'm not mistaken, merely evoking a copyrighted or trademarked work isn't enough to constitute infringement, as long as an audience can reasonably be expected to differentiate the two works. (The title "Dave the Barbarian" may evoke Conan, but it's likely that people can tell it isn't Conan. "Detective Conan", based on title alone, could confuse people into thinking it relates to the REH character, even if such confusion was completely unintentional.)
Furrthermore when they refer to Conan The Barbarbarian they usually refer to him as "Conan The Barbarian". However when they refer to Conan O'Brian" in teh terms of his Late Nite Tv show "Late Nite With Conan O'Biran" probably to soecifically avoid confusion. Leno often tags on "conans next" or somehtng to that matter since its obvious who he's refering to. Also with the commercials that say "tonight on Conan!" al;ong with footage of teh show.
Anyay, whenever O'Brians name is mentionsed, they usually specify which conan they are talking about.
-------------------- W.W.F.S.M.D? But this image of Bush as some sort of Snidely Whiplash tying the fair maiden to the railroad tracks is beyond the pale. - Joe Bentley Posts: 2311 | From: Minnnesota | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Galaxia: If they would go Funimation for using the name Conan, then why don't they go after Diney for "Dave the Barbarian"? It's name is even more simmilar, and someone would be likely to think it was an animated sequal to the movie.
Probably because "barbarian" is a generic and common term, whereas "Conan" is more specific, and most often used only to refer to the Robert E. Howard character (or the talk show host, but, as a real person, that's a different issue). If I'm not mistaken, merely evoking a copyrighted or trademarked work isn't enough to constitute infringement, as long as an audience can reasonably be expected to differentiate the two works. (The title "Dave the Barbarian" may evoke Conan, but it's likely that people can tell it isn't Conan. "Detective Conan", based on title alone, could confuse people into thinking it relates to the REH character, even if such confusion was completely unintentional.)
Furrthermore when they refer to Conan The Barbarbarian they usually refer to him as "Conan The Barbarian". However when they refer to Conan O'Brian" in teh terms of his Late Nite Tv show "Late Nite With Conan O'Biran" probably to soecifically avoid confusion. Leno often tags on "conans next" or somehtng to that matter since its obvious who he's refering to. Also with the commercials that say "tonight on Conan!" along with footage of teh show.
Anyay, whenever O'Brians name is mentionsed, they usually specify which conan they are talking about.
-------------------- W.W.F.S.M.D? But this image of Bush as some sort of Snidely Whiplash tying the fair maiden to the railroad tracks is beyond the pale. - Joe Bentley Posts: 2311 | From: Minnnesota | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Laup7
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
From what I can remember from my communication law course in college...obviously words or phrases cannot be copyrighted...however the use of a word or phrase can be controlled by trademarks. As far as I can remember...trademarks protect graphic design, color scheme, etc. Such as the red and white color and the curved writing of Coca-Cola. It could be the words "Detective Conan' looked similar to "Conan the Barbarian" in design. I think the company may have been concerned there could be a problem so let's change it to make sure their isn't.
As far as Billy Joel or musicians...You probably can use your name if it's the same as long as you don't design your cd so it looks just like your other name sake...unless it's a parody.
IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, people care that much about Detective Conan? I'm so happy. Seems that a lot of them are jerks though. I can't possibly imagine someone thinking "Detective" would have anything to do with a barbarian. God help them if they ever release Future Boy Conan here.
Tantei "refrains from making a shameless plug to my Conan website that can be found in my profile" Kid Posts: 722 | From: Colorado | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[fish]](graemlins/fish.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
