You are free to feel whatever about it you want. Suffice it to say that any honest, heartfelt reply to you on that would get me a mod warning if not an instaban, so I’ll settle for this–a Facebook post about it from May 19th. Note the comment from Steve and Karen Davidson’s friend David Gerrold.
Also, a link.
I do not understand this at all. What difference does it make how long he has owned it, or if he has used it? He purchased a piece of intellectual property, it is properly registered with the authorities as his, he has the right to license the IP to anyone who wants to use it. If I purchase the rights to a song, am I a copyright troll for demanding royalties even though I didn’t write the song?
I guess what I’m confused about is, he owns the trademark to the name “Amazing Stories”, (and from the original linked article in 2011 it seemed to indicate it was for magazine type stuff only) but as far as I can tell, he doesn’t own the rights to the older TV series. Meaning, he can’t start releasing DVD of the show, or he can’t reprint the original magazines. Is this correct?
So if the people that actually worked on the show decide to start it up again, what’s the big deal? They can just call it “Steven Spielberg presents Amazing Stories”, or “Steven Spielberg’s Amazing Stories”
So the fact that he seems to be asking for people to donate to his fight seems odd.
The dates thing is a little weird to me because all the articles and the OP say he bought them in 2011, but the link given shows 2016.
I don’t know the reason for the difference in dates, but he was already publishing anthologies of classic stories from Amazing Stories in 2014.
I wonder if they could get away with calling it Steven Spielberg’s Amazing Stories.
This whole thing reminds me of the story involving “Ken Hill’s Phantom of the Opera.”
Not the reincarnation of Sol Cohen, I hope.
I’m fairly certain that the TV series Amazing Stories licensed the trademark from the publisher - certainly given that the magazine was not quiet about the tie-in, and not negative about it either.
IANA Trademark L but I’d think that a science fiction TV series would be considered close enough to a science fiction magazine to be covered. And I don’t think that coming out with a TV series called Voyager’s Star Wars would fly.
Plus when he got the trademark he’d have no way of knowing that anyone would be interested in reviving the TV series. If you told me that someone would back a few years ago, I would have laughed. I watched the series, but it wasn’t that good or that successful.
Yes, it wasn’t just a coincidence that the series had the same name–it was an explicit reference to the legacy of the magazine, and licensed from the publisher. And I just dug up this article where Bryan Filler (back when he was connected with the possible remake in 2015) made an explicit reference to the magazine:
Funny, then, that they try to brush off the guy who is really curating the Amazing Stories magazine.
(As an aside, if Davidson hadn’t bought the trademark, neither NBC nor Spielberg was in line to snatch it up–it was going to go to a Canadian travel magazine.)
Correction: He has held a trademark registration since 2016. A registration is pretty good proof of trademark rights, but it can be rebutted.
His current trademark rights are not dependent on the past rights of someone who no longer holds the trademark rights.
If Hasbro truly abandoned the “Amazing Stories” mark (three continuous years of no use in commerce is presumed to constitute abandonment), then anyone can start using it.
No, that’s not how trademark rights first. If Hasbro abandoned the mark, then the person who establishes use in commerce first gets the rights. And he has a pretty good argument that Steven Spielberg presents Amazing Stories", or “Steven Spielberg’s Amazing Stories” creates a likelihood of confusion with “Amazing Stories.”
The link shows registration in 2016. Trademark rights are created by use in commerce not by registration. The relevant date is first use in commerce, which is 2013.
There’s nothing shady about this timeline—
2011 — purchased rights from previous owner (this is merely an agreement between old owner and new owner, not what definitively establishes ownership rights)
2013 — first use in commerce—>this is what establishes ownership rights
2016 — registration
If he has been using the trademark since 2013, then he’s the owner of the trademark, and Spielberg’s use creates a likelihood of confusion, then Spielberg would lose this fight in court.
I just looked it up. Davidson has two federal registrations.
The first one was issued in 2012:
He might have jumped the gun in 2011 by misunderstanding the publication for opposition to mean the same thing as registration.
This registration’s priority date is 2012 (first use in commerce).
He’s now reporting that NBC is negotiating with him:
See his longer file770 comment I linked in post #22.
Heh. That’s a blast from the past. For the half dozen of us old enough to remember.
What you’re talking about is copyright, which is almost completely different from trademarks. There’s more than one kind of “rights”.
He just owns the rights to the trademark, which was at one point licensed to Spielberg for the TV show. The actual videos are copyrighted by Amblin’ (I assume), so he has no claim to them (and they had the right to use the trademark back then).
He pretty much just has the rights to use Amazing Stories as a magazine (web or print – it doesn’t matter). It’s not likely he has the rights to any of the stories still under copyright (though he could reprint anything that isn’t*).
Spielberg, OTOH, can’t use* Amazing Stories* because he doesn’t have the trademark. Calling it Stephen Spielberg’s Amazing Stories is not a way around the trademark. Davidson would be able to rightfully claim that that causes confusion. (It’s like Walter Taylor not being able to use his own name on his wine, since his family sold the trademark to Coca-Cola).
Last I looked on Facebook, Davidson said they were 99% in agreement on a licensing agreement and he feels that they’ll iron out the differences soon.
I think Hanlon’s razor applies here: NBC set up a licensing agreement with Davidson but neglected to pay him (probably more a bureaucratic glitch – someone not sending the right form to finance). There was likely some turnover of the people involved and the belief at NBC was that they had bought the trademark, so they went ahead.
*If the copyright lapsed prior to 1978, it would be public domain. Many of the copyrights of the early years of the magazine were probably not renewed, and thus lapsed, but it would be difficult to pin them down.
Just a point here, if you lose your trademark rights through abandonment or some other means, your “residual reputation” means nothing against someone who has subsequently established use in commerce and the other requirements for trademark rights.
Update:
Steve Davidson has announced that he and NBC have a deal. It’s just a matter of the usual working out of minor wording in the contract.