Is this case similar to that of Universal studios being granted a copyright not for the character Frankenstein, but for the visual representation created for the film? The book and character had long been in the public domain, but Universal can, and has, strongly defended its right to the image that was originally used in the 1931 movie.
Can you please critique this letter to the estate of Tarzan's creator? Long posts before the letter.
I am about done with this foolery.
I am not worried because you are never going to do anything. You’re not going to read an original Tarzan story, you’re not going to write one, and you’re not going to challenge any of the Burroughs estate’ intellectual property rights.
You also show by this statement that you haven’t actually understood any of the concepts being discussed here.
[/quote]
Hah. Do you even know what copyright restoration means? If you did you would know that the Supreme Court has already found copyright restoration to be constitutional in some cases.
And your attempt to shoehorn trademark rights into the concept of copyright restoration in such a broad way isn’t ever going to impress anyone.
This is never going to happen. A fundamental concept of copyrights is that any author who comes up with creative and original expression will have rights in that creative and original expression, even when it is merely adding to an existing work. You are basically trying to rob authors of their own new creations.
The rest of this I’m going to dispense with because it’s nothing but a wish list of robbing creators of their rights by someone who hasn’t and won’t create anything of value. Someone who is so worked up about a century old series of books he hasn’t even read.
They are a jumble of poorly understood legal concepts and a lack of respect for the rights of people who are actually creating things of value.
Hey, someday I will hopefully be actually creating things. Said Tarzan stories would be years from now.
Th IP-Watchdog blog post “Supreme Court OKs Public Domain Works Being Copyrighted” (1/19/2012) has founder/editor and patent attorney Gene Quinn actually bring up a valid point on copyright restoration:
Dude, this 2380-word blog/rant is something I could listen to an audio book of over and over.
It is just so sad that the only thing preventing you from becoming a successful, widely read author is your inability to use a trademarked character in your fiction. Surely the world shouldn’t be prevented from reading the incredible stories you can create?
OP, even if the copyright/trademark issues were set up in your favor, what do you think you’ll be able to do? You’ve already said you have little experience at writing, and haven’t read much Tarzan source material to being with. If you manage to scrape together a Tarzan book, why would anybody want to buy it?You have no name recognition, Tarzan movies don’t do that well at the box office, and the ape-man isn’t nearly as popular as he was last century.
Yeah, no.
Yeah, let us know. :rolleyes:
Kadmos1: You can get around these rules by obscuring things just a little bit. I suggest that instead of “Tarzan”, call him “Zartan.” And instead of in the jungle, have him live in a bayou. Write a few of those stories and sell them.
If we have statutes dealing with private property being made public property (eminent domain), the same should be more explicit on the opposite happening.
And make sure it is a realistic, down-to-earth novel that’s completely off-the-wall and swarming with magic robots.
Your letter has been thoroughly critiqued, and during the discussion your follow-up points have also been thoroughly critiqued, but you are unwilling to accept the learned criticism and you keep recycling the same points.
In 1972 the Buffalo Children’s Zoo had a tapir. When observers fed it a carrot, the tapir would have erection, but being built low to the ground as tapirs are wont to be, it would step on its own penis and lose the erection, at which time the observers would feed it another carrot.
Dude, yer steppin’ on yer own dick.
The opposite, as in public property becoming private property? When the municipal government sells it.
Not sure what you’re saying here. Are you saying that someone should have explained trademark law to you earlier? I’m pretty sure you don’t have more than a general idea of eminent domain, either. If a government entity makes you an offer on your property, get a lawyer. (Eminent domain is a last resort. It always starts with an offer to purchase.)
So the lesson we should all take from this thread is–tapirs really like carrots?
Are you happy to see me, or is that just a carrot in your feed trough? 
OP: If you think you can bring us around to your POV by your endlessly repeating your same arguments, just louder and slower each time, let me assure you. It won’t work, because we have this unfortunate tendency to rely on actual facts in evidence, not idiosyncratic self-defined terminology and our own assumptions. We can’t buy into your arguments because they’re based in how you think things should be, not how things actually are. You’ve confused your opinion with some greater law that is binding on reality. In fact, cultural reality is shaped by law as it is, not how we think it should be.
Feel free to send your letter as is, since we can’t improve on it in any fashion you would approve of. I’m sure it’ll be no less effective at its intended recipient as it is here.
I have, it’s not that good. I actually found it in the Walmart $5 bin. The 86 minutes it takes to watch the movie is better spent soldering your eyelids closed.
Like naughty pictures of Vetty and Beronica.
Ignorance…fought. :dubious:
Sauce plz?