Sorry! This post has been deleted by its original author.
- they/them/moo
- chimoora.zone/
avatar by @citriccenobite
you can say "chimoora" instead of "cow of tailed snake" if you want. its a good pun.
i ramble about aerospace sometimes
I take rocket photos and you can see them @aWildLupi
I have a terminal case of bovine pungiform encephalopathy, the bovine puns are cowmpulsory
they/them/moo where "moo" stands in for "you" or where it's funny, like "how are moo today, Lupi?" or "dancing with mooself"
Bovigender (click flag for more info!)
twitter
twitter.com/awildlupidragontwitch
twitch.tv/lupidragonYou must log in to comment.
in reply to @tcrf's post:
Wow! extremely silly
I'd probably reply with something like "i believe this falls under fair use" etc and that if they disagree further you'll get an attorney to work it out
hopefully it's just some horrible copyright violation bot and they wont pursue once a human reviews and finds it to be silly
yeah this sounds reasonable "it's fair use bro" and leave it at that. Or maybe add a protected copyright disclaimer at the top of the page which explicitly specifies that tcrf has nothing to do with this shit.
"fair use" seems to be more associated with copyright; "nominative use" seems to be the specific term for this kind of usage in trademark-land. sincerely, not a lawyer
lawyer may indeed be the right move
you might consider contacting the eff, they may not help but they may be able to direct you to someone who can, or other resources https://www.eff.org/pages/legal-assistance
it's hard to reply to these very formal demand letters with anything less, it's all legal incantation voodoo
i am not an expert but i am pretty sure this is fair use? this is however VERY funny. motherfucking Bingo Blitz is trying to strike you down
Since when did a background check and records company own a game studio?
I'd at least talk to a lawyer to see if it's worth a Fair Use claim. If not, just comply and replace all offending content with an image of a disclaimer explaining why it's not there anymore, in layman's terms.
I feel like you could subtly corncob them one way or the other.
Important thing of note - Fair Use as it relates to trademarks is a little different to copyright, and considering that was a "Trademark Infringement" document and not a DMCA notice.
https://www.inta.org/fact-sheets/fair-use-of-trademarks-intended-for-a-non-legal-audience/ - This has a fairly good Non-technical breakdown of how that stacks up, it looks to me like this does fall under the case of Nominative use (You're using the mark to describe the product, you're not likely to cause confusion, and you're not suggesting yourself as being sponsored by it)
Obligatory "I am not a trademark or copyright lawyer", but you don't have to be a lawyer to make a legal argument so (shrug) - Def seems like they're trying to intimidate you with the trademark angle over the DMCA angle (it's pretty rare to get hit with the former and it's almost always Not Actually Trademark Infringement)
I am a trademark and copyright lawyer, and while I'm not going to give free, unsolicited legal advice to strangers on the Internet, I will say that (1) one the face of this, it sound like abusive trolling for which a fair use defense would apply, and (2) these things are very fact-intensive, so you should for sure consult to a lawyer officially.
Since you are in this department, can you point us in a good direction of where to go? I'm not really sure where to start looking for someone who can adequately handle this (hence the post).
It will depend in part on where your organization is located (which might be its own legal question, if you don't have a corporate entity set up). At the risk of sounding self-serving, I'd be happy to at least Zoom chat with somebody on a more official basis, get some more information, maybe be able to point you in the right direction.
One main issue being that law licenses are a state-by-state thing, so not just any lawyer is allowed to help you.
Have someone redraw their title screen in MS paint and call it something daft but similar-sounding and review as normal
You need to contact a lawyer right away, even if you intend to comply with the takedown notice. If you don't have one, take @pinball's advice and contact the EFF.
The best time to have talked to a lawyer was immediately after receiving the notice, before you did anything, including posting on Cohost. The second best time is right now. As in, stop reading this right now and immediately seek legal help.
Of all the advice on the actual law, @Colgate is the closest here, but the advice is also completely irrelevant. Even if the law is on your side, the only way to win a legal argument is in court, and you do not want to go to court over this. Litigation is costly and time-consuming. It becomes your life. It drains you, even if you win.
The lawyer at LexusNexus who drafted this notice does not care whether or not TCRF is infringing. They've been hired to protect a brand, and they have no responsibility to ensure that the notice is likely to survive a legal challenge before sending it. In fact, they can file a lawsuit against you even if it is entirely without merit. There's nothing stopping them.
They are experts in the American legal system, meaning they can pull its levers to cause you pain, purely at their whims. The only way to protect yourself is to get someone on your side who can pull those same levers.
If you contact them trying to explain it's not infringing, all you are doing is painting a target on your back, telling them that you were dumb enough not to hire an attorney. It makes it extremely easy for them to threaten you with a lawsuit and pressure you to settle. Again, even if you would win the suit, it would cost you more to fight it than to settle. LexusNexus isn't going to complain about a staff lawyer bringing in a few thousand dollars off the back of a fraudulent legal claim.
This is why it's best to get a lawyer even if you intend to comply with the notice. You don't want them thinking you're an easy target.
Please don't get on my case for "what you should have done first". That's not useful, because I didn't know what to do first. That's why I asked.
I just reached out to the EFF via their email address and am waiting to hear back.
My apologies if it came off as blaming you. I was attempting to underscore the seriousness of the situation. The unfortunate truth is that even asking the question in a public forum like this opens you up to risks. You shouldn't be making any further public statements on this, even to reply to people here, without going through a lawyer.
It's not your fault that you didn't know what to do. This isn't covered in school, but it should be. All Americans ought to know: If you ever need to talk to a lawyer or a police officer, always, always, always do it though your own lawyer, for your own protection.
That's the problem, I do not have a lawyer nor do I know how to find one that handles this type of problem. This is my first time encountering such a thing.
Right, it's a problem. The EFF is probably your best bet. But if they had the mind to, LexusNexus could cause problems for you (or even me, considering I said their lawyer doesn't care whether their notices are valid) based on public comments here. The sad truth is that even posting the takedown notice publicly can cause you problems if this goes to trial.
So I should add to what I wrote last time. All Americans should know that they need a lawyer, and that they should seek one privately, not publicly.
Ok, so people are correctly pointing out the fair use and lawyer aspects to this. BUT here's the funny thing to do here – if they are issuing a copyright notice for referring to them by name, issue an equivalent notice for using your website's name in their email. If just using a name in reference is infringing, then they are infringing.
sadly, this is a dangerous suggestion and would show the real ass lawyer on the other side that you don't intend to take this seriously
Not a lawyer but sounds like fairly straightforward SLAPP
Only if (maybe, depending on the local laws) they wrote a scathing review of the game or something. This just sounds like stupid trademark trolling.