Support NeoGAF

[jakonovski]

How curious, the name Nyan Cat was actually spontaneously conceived by the internet. I wonder how something like that affects copyright.

 

[Zeeman]

This is a dumb as hell case, but hopefully it keeps devs from including shitty memes to begin with

 

[ZealousD]

How curious, the name Nyan Cat was actually spontaneously conceived by the internet. I wonder how something like that affects copyright.

I don't think it would have any affect.

 

[Persona7]

I should probably buy this before it gets pulled from the market.

 

[ronito]

I think the parody defense is rock solid here. I think they're just trying to scare up a settlement or something.

 

[blitzcloud]

How curious, the name Nyan Cat was actually spontaneously conceived by the internet. I wonder how something like that affects copyright.

Copyright is not attributed to name, it's the creation. Ideas and names can't be copyright. that would be the work of patents and trademarks.

A piece has copyright since the moment it comes to be (at least according to spanish laws)

I think the parody defense is rock solid here. I think they're just trying to scare up a settlement or something.

Imo it isnt a parody. Still, the weight they have on the whole game is pretty pointless, so I don't think they have much of a case. Except the keyboard cat owner is looking like a loser who got his/her thunder stolen, and the nyan cat creator doesn't even understand that 90% of the fame came from someone else's idea of mixing the gif with a song). In short: they look like asses for what they're doing.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

A piece has copyright since the moment it comes to be (at least according to spanish laws)

Same deal in the US. One doesn't have to register a copyright for there to be a copyright -- all ya gotta do is make the thing.

 

[jakonovski]

Copyright is not attributed to name, it's the creation. Ideas and names can't be copyright. that would be the work of patents and trademarks.

A piece has copyright since the moment it comes to be (at least according to spanish laws)

Yeah, should've said trademark as that's where it'd come into play. Damn you IP law for being so confusing!

 

[Drkirby]

I could see the Nyan Cat guy having a claim, but not the Keyboard Cat one. I am pretty sure the Nyan Cat guy has actually exercised copyright control over the appearance of Nyan cat in other games and merchandise related to it, but can't think of anything like that for the Keyboard Cat Image.

 

[Tan]

How timely. Why is this happening now?

 

[NaughtyCalibur]

I hope this blows over. I know the games are profitable, but that doesn't mean 5th Cell is swimming in enough cash to take a major legal hit. I know a few of you guys on here have even worked on their games, and of course Jackson himself posts here.

I hope this doesn't screw you guys in the end. :/

 

[Camp Lo]

WB needs to pay up on this one. Trademarks gonna trademark.

 

[Balphon]

I could see the Nyan Cat guy having a claim, but not the Keyboard Cat one. I am pretty sure the Nyan Cat guy has actually exercised copyright control over the appearance of Nyan cat in other games and merchandise related to it, but can't think of anything like that for the Keyboard Cat Image.

Unlike with trademarks, failing to police your own copyright generally has no impact on its continuing validity. It can be relevant in assessing damages or evaluating licensing agreements, however.

 

[WordAssassin]

Imo it isnt a parody. Still, the weight they have on the whole game is pretty pointless, so I don't think they have much of a case. Except the keyboard cat owner is looking like a loser who got his/her thunder stolen, and the nyan cat creator doesn't even understand that 90% of the fame came from someone else's idea of mixing the gif with a song). In short: they look like asses for what they're doing.

Then how was South Park able to use all of those characters in ImaginationLand, and call them by name, if not for parody? They did not license those characters out. They had minor visual tweaks to keep them juuuust out of the realm of copyright infringement and in the land of parody.

 

[blitzcloud]

Unlike with trademarks, failing to police your own copyright generally has no impact on its continuing validity. It can be relevant in assessing damages or evaluating licensing agreements, however.

the thing is, what did he exactly copyright? acting can have a copyright, but a drawing of a cat on a piano bears little resemblance to the play which is the only thing that can be copyrighted. He's grasping for straws there. The nyan cat is entirely different, but since the fame of nyan cat came from something else than the pixel art, i think the author should keep quiet about this.

Then how was South Park able to use all of those characters in ImaginationLand, and call them by name, if not for parody? They did not license those characters out. They had minor visual tweaks to keep them juuuust out of the realm of copyright infringement and in the land of parody.

I dont say that there's not a right of parody that falls under fair use. I'm just saying this is not a parody, while it still can be fair use. If a level had to do exclusively with nyan cat or keyboard cat, i'd understand their discomfort with it. I don't get why they sue over this aside from MONEYGRUB.

 

[Zoe]

I dont say that there's not a right of parody that falls under fair use. I'm just saying this is not a parody, while it still can be fair use. If a level had to do exclusively with nyan cat or keyboard cat, i'd understand their discomfort with it. I don't get why they sue over this aside from MONEYGRUB.

Why do you think this is not a parody?

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Why do you think this is not a parody?

Well, I could see the argument being "this is just Nyan cat, plopped into the game. There's nothing unique or creative about the way he's incorporated into the game -- this isn't satire or comedic or anything that puts some sort of spin on the original. they've just taken the author's copyrighted work and placed it in their game verbatim."

And that sort of approach has worked for defeating fair use before.

 

[Balphon]

the thing is, what did he exactly copyright? acting can have a copyright, but a drawing of a cat on a piano bears little resemblance to the play which is the only thing that can be copyrighted. He's grasping for straws there. The nyan cat is entirely different, but since the fame of nyan cat came from something else than the pixel art, i think the author should keep quiet about this.

That'd likely be a question this case would have to resolve. However, acquiring a copyright in the US is incredibly simple, an copyright covers a (perhaps excessively) wide breadth of works. I'm not sure how you'd argue this wouldn't be subject to copyright protection per se.

 

[P44]

Hope the WB lawyers can get this thrown out.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

That'd likely be a question this case would have to resolve. However, acquiring a copyright in the US is incredibly simple, an copyright covers a (perhaps excessively) wide breadth of works. I'm not sure how you'd argue this wouldn't be subject to copyright protection per se.

Well, with keyboard cat, one could probably argue without much difficulty that a cat playing a piano is just an idea. Ideas aren't copyrightable. There's nothing especially original about keyboard cat as a character, and that's basically the only way you'd show that keyboard cat can be protected by copyright. So keyboard cat dude is screwed.

Nyan cat is almost definitely copyrightable. A cat composed of a cat head, toaster pastry, and rainbow is quite original.

 

[Balphon]

Well, with keyboard cat, one could probably argue without much difficulty that a cat playing a piano is just an idea. Ideas aren't copyrightable. There's nothing especially original about keyboard cat as a character, and that's basically the only way you'd show that keyboard cat can be protected by copyright. So keyboard cat dude is screwed.

Nyan cat is almost definitely copyrightable. A cat composed of a cat head, toaster pastry, and rainbow is quite original.

Thats's more of an argument concerning how broad a copyright keyboard cat should possess than one addressing whether it should be granted a copyright at all. After all, every creative work is "just an idea" if you abstract it enough.

Likewise, the originality threshold for copyright in the US is exceedingly low, and will typically operate to bar copyright protection only for things like pure, uncurated data.

 

[Zoe]

Well, I could see the argument being "this is just Nyan cat, plopped into the game. There's nothing unique or creative about the way he's incorporated into the game -- this isn't satire or comedic or anything that puts some sort of spin on the original. they've just taken the author's copyrighted work and placed it in their game verbatim."

And that sort of approach has worked for defeating fair use before.

They haven't placed it verbatim though, it was redrawn in the style of other cats in their games.

 

[Starwolf_UK]

So does this mean we'll never got a European retail release (Wii U, 3DS) now? Or maybe a neutered version. In fact I wonder if this was the reason that the release silently slipped (then again if there were legal troubles wouldn't the game also be pulled from Steam...I guess NOE could be worried about a recall and they don't do retailer returns).

 

[blitzcloud]

That'd likely be a question this case would have to resolve. However, acquiring a copyright in the US is incredibly simple, an copyright covers a (perhaps excessively) wide breadth of works. I'm not sure how you'd argue this wouldn't be subject to copyright protection per se.

Keyboard cat is a copyrighted work. The video is. But the animal does not have image rights (or so I think), nor the author of the video holds exclusivity to cats playing piano or wearing t-shirts.

The nyan cat is something else as they copied an original design of the creator and plastered it there.

But copyright laws have distinctive differences between countries so I don't know.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Thats's more of an argument concerning how broad a copyright keyboard cat should possess than one addressing whether it should be granted a copyright at all. After all, every creative work is "just an idea" if you abstract it enough.

Likewise, the originality threshold for copyright in the US is exceedingly low, and will typically operate to bar copyright protection only for things like pure, uncurated data.

I guess all I'm trying to say is that keyboard cat could really only be copyrighted if it's a character. All the keyboard cat guy did is make a video of a cat playing a keyboard, not create a character... the video itself is original, but the cat could fall below even the low bar for originality. Although I suppose I didn't consider whether he turned it into a character with all the merchandise and shit that followed afterwards. That could actually change things.

Eh, but anyway, even with the low threshold for originality in the US, it seems iffy to me, just looking at the keyboard cat video itself.

They haven't placed it verbatim though, it was redrawn in the style of other cats in their games.

That's true, but that doesn't necessarily make it parody... I hate to be the dude to cite court cases, but that's basically Roth Greeting Card v. United Card.

 

[ZealousD]

They haven't placed it verbatim though, it was redrawn in the style of other cats in their games.

Redrawing in another style is not sufficient for parody. There has to be some element of comedy or commentary. I couldn't draw my own Batman comic and start selling it just because it's drawn in my own style.

 

[RustyO]

You can't own a fucking keyboard playing cat.

Correct. The keyboard playing cat owns you.

/Slave to two felines.

 

[EviLore]

Time for Evilore to sue.

Used with permission.

 

[Quadraphonic]

Used with permission.

So they asked for permission for THIS site but never bothered to for memes? That's odd and doesn't help their case.

 

[Lunar15]

Well, no matter what happens, this is going to have the dumbest/silliest sounding lawsuit documentation ever.

Also, I'm never using either of those memes again. (not that I was going to). I just think it's stupid that these guys want to grab some cash for a dumb reason like this.

 

[Mr. Enigma]

What a pointless lawsuit. These cat characters were nothing but cameos and Easter eggs. Many games every year include homages to famous pop-culture characters. The new Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon game has a Ninja Turtles Easter egg but you don't see their copyright holder getting angry. Also, I think it would be safe to assume that in the marketing for Scribblenauts those two characters were never shown. Meaning, 5th Cell or WB never use those characters to increase sales from potential customers. I think those two guys would be friends with Tim Langdell.

Bad example. Ubisoft owns the TMNT video game license, so there's obviously no issue with them putting TMNT stuff in Far Cry 3.

 

[Balphon]

Well, no matter what happens, this is going to have the dumbest/silliest sounding lawsuit documentation ever.

Don't be so sure.

 

[ultrazilla]

I would've thought memes would be under public domain or fair usage.

After all, there are literally hundreds of thousands of duplicates from different people that they made without needing to go after a license or anything.

The case is paper thin(if there's even a case here). Warner can come back with saying the images/use of marks are used for satire which is protected.

 

[ghostmind]

Copyright/trademark law has jumped the fucking shark.

I'll lump patent law in there too... the whole thing has become ridiculous.

 

[Face it Tiger..]

Nyan cat doesn't have chance an hell, as the Pop-tart is both Service marked (SM) and trade marked.

so WB could just tear that one up.

 

[axisofweevils]

The Eurogamer article about this has been updated with a statement from the creator of the Nyan Cat meme:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...5th-cell-hit-by-keyboard-cat-nyan-cat-lawsuit

 

[Zabant]

On one hand, fuck these greedy assholes.
On the other, this might lead to less internet memes in games.

Hard to decide how I feel on this.

 

[Sblargh]

The Eurogamer article about this has been updated with a statement from the creator of the Nyan Cat meme:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...5th-cell-hit-by-keyboard-cat-nyan-cat-lawsuit

We reached out to the companies in hopes of working out an amicable resolution of the issue, yet were disrespected and snubbed each time as nothing more than nuisances for asking for fair compensation for our intellectual property. That's not right. I have no issues with Nyan Cat being enjoyed by millions of fans as a meme , and I have never tried to prevent people from making creative uses of it that contribute artistically and are not for profit. But this is a commercial use, and these companies themselves are protectors of their own intellectual property. Many other companies have licensed Nyan Cat properly to use commercially. In Scribblenauts Unlimited, you have to actually type out the words "Nyan Cat" and "Keyboard Cat" to get our characters to appear in the game. In fact, the game forbids you from making any copyright references in their games with a pop-up error. Meanwhile, 5th Cell recently negotiated proper rights for several Nintendo characters for their games. Just because popularity with millions of fans has caused Nyan Cat and Keyboard Cat to become famous by virtue of their viral or meme nature, doesn't give these companies a right to take our work for free in order to make profits for themselves, especially considering too that they would be the first to file lawsuits against people who misappropriate their copyrights and trademarks. It just isnt fair. I've been working alongside with the creator of the music and the lady who uploaded it to YouTube since the start. There are many reputable companies that have respected our rights and negotiated fees to use our characters commercially. Warner Bros. and 5th Cell should have done the same.

Since Warner Bros. and 5th Cell chose to act as if we had no rights in characters we created, filing a lawsuit was the only way we had to protect our intellectual property rights from being used for others' commercial profit without our consent. Too often normal artists like us don't have the means and resources to protect our rights against big media corporations who use our work for their own profit without permission. We are looking here just to be treated fairly and to be fairly compensated for our creative work.

The greedy assholes' side.

 

[OMG Aero]

You can't own a fucking keyboard playing cat.

But man do I wish I could.

 

[TryHardShounen]

What has society come to when memes can be trademarked or copyrighted?

 

[blitzcloud]

What has society come to when memes can be trademarked or copyrighted?

a society that rewards creators?

Everyone has image rights by nature, yet memes stomp on them daily. Most of the people in memes realize it's pointless fighting against it though.

 

[Night_Trekker]

Stupid as hell lawsuit. I hope 5th Cell wins.

 

[Principate]

Honestly I don't see the issue, the guy created something so he doesn't want someone else making money off of what he created without getting any money whats so ever. Like the case with most IP owners, it's one thing if this was simply a something being posted on a website as a joke etc but anyone dumb enough to use some else IP without consent for the purposes of profit deserves any shit they get.

 

[Metal-Geo]

Not sure how I feel about this. I'd like to think people/companies don't have the liberty to simply use my 'creations' in their commercial products. On the other hand, this is merely a nod/reference/parody to the original 'designs'. :/

 

[Basil]

Nyan cat is fucking annoying.

 

[Proven]

5th Cell will need to pay up, this lawsuit has clause.

I am not letting this gem from the first page go unnoticed.

 

[redmetal86]

Torres better not sue the dudes who made Bombermine, assuming Konami doesn't do it first.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

How curious, the name Nyan Cat was actually spontaneously conceived by the internet. I wonder how something like that affects copyright.

As has been pointed out before, the name Nyan Cat would be a trademark issue, not a copyright issue. Names collectively attached to something by the general public can still be trademarked by the original owner. The classic example is "Coke" for Coca-Cola. Consumers, not the company, came up with the nickname "Coke." But the company was able to trademark "Coke."

 

[Team Filler]

I assume this falls under parody.

 

[truly101]

Maybe the creator of the Astro Cat meme can sue the Keyboard Cat guy due to proprietary confusion in the meme market place. After all, which keyboard cat is the REAL keyboard cat?


and thus begins the meme wars.