I have a question that actually has nothing to do with Louisiana or hurricanes. Tonight I stumbled upon a guide for an Atari 2600 game called Star Fox. I had to read it to verify it wasn’t a typo, because I thought the SNES Star Fox was the original. Well, it truely was Star Fox, but has nothing to do with the SNES game. Now we’re getting to the unusual part. The original Star Fox was put out by a small company which only released three unpopular games before going under. According to what I read, whoever made the SNES Star Fox was able to use the name because the maker of the original had copyrighted it under a different name and changed the name at the last minute without changing the copyright. Now apparently the new company owns the rights to the name. I just don’t understand this. Aren’t copyrights implied upon creation of the product? Or am I thinking of trademarks? I always got the two mixed up. It’s not like the old company is around to sue the new company, but I don’t see how the new company could sue others who would use the name.
IANAL but Copyright applies only to substantive works of art, not naming. If the SNES Star Fox had largely the same plot and gameplay as the Atari Star Fox, then copyright issues would apply. Trademark protects naming rights. However, trademarks
a) have to be applied for
b) have to be actively enforced
c) must only deal with cases in which confusion is possible.
I gather it’s because the trademark was not enforced that SNES was allowed to publish star fox.
I thought it was trademarks that applied to names, not copyrights, but the document said copyrights, so I believed it. Anyway, the name wasn’t applied for nor enforced by the original company, but it still seems odd to me that Nintendo (I believe that’s who made the newer game) could just steal it from them and trademark it themselves. What if the company came back? They couldn’t even make a sequel to their game, the true Star Fox, without renaming it. It just doesn’t seem logical to me.
Although only one part of the story, the name was registered as a UK trademark by Nintendo in 2001.
This is an issue of trademark law, not copyright. If the original company that marketed “Star Fox” went under, they no longer have a valid trademark. Since they were no longer marketing “Star Fox”, they can’t lose money from any trademark infringement.
Trademarks apply to names (among other things), copyright applies to “content.”
As Shalmanese said, trademarks are only valid when A) applied for, B) defended, and C) when fighting something that could reasonably cause confusion in the marketplace.
A) If I started a syndicated newspaper column about old-style printing presses and called it “Tips from a Typesetter,” but didn’t trademark the title, anyone else could come along and use the title for anything, including newspaper columns, without my permission. If I later syndicated the column in a paper in the same city as someone else using the title, it would be confusing but I don’t believe either of us would have any legal standing to get the other’s changed.
B) is the old standard about “cellophane” and “dry ice” becoming “genericized” trademarks through the original company’s failure to defend them. see [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark]wikipedia.
C) “The Simpsons” is a trademarked name of a television show (and numerous other products). However, if I wanted to open an ice cream parlor or pizza place or millinery called “The Simpsons’ ________,” I’d probably be on ok ground.
Your answers are surprising to me, but confirm what the author said. I guess trademarks don’t quite work how I believed. Thanks for the enlightenment.