Forum - View topic

NEWS: Square Enix Wins $600,000 from Unlicensed Sword Sellers

dragoneyes001 wrote:

as for the weener who doesn't understand a Gatling gun is a patented design as well as the web belt one of which are currently held by the Colt co. SE is actually breaching copy right by designing the arm gun based on the gatling guns original design and then saying they own the copy rights to the design because its within their product.

A patent does not prevent a likeness of something from appearing in a fictitious work. It only prevents another person from building, selling, or utilizing an actual gatling gun without the patent holder's permission. Patenting, Copyrighting, and Trademarking are all different things.

DerekTheRed wrote:

dragoneyes001 wrote: as for the weener who doesn't understand a Gatling gun is a patented design as well as the web belt one of which are currently held by the Colt co. SE is actually breaching copy right by designing the arm gun based on the gatling guns original design and then saying they own the copy rights to the design because its within their product. A patent does not prevent a likeness of something from appearing in a fictitious work. It only prevents another person from building, selling, or utilizing an actual gatling gun without the patent holder's permission. Patenting, Copyrighting, and Trademarking are all different things.

If guns were adherent to strict copyright and patenting issues, you guys know that MGS wouldn't have the freedom to use half the weaponry it does, right? Look at how many different weapons from different manufacturers are in MGS4; if they were demanding of royalties and things, no way in hell Konami could pay them all back -- I mean they probably had to pay decent money to Apple and Ubisoft to use the iPod, Mac, and Altair licenses/looks in the game.

So riddle me this: let's say someone uses a design nearly identital to the Buster Sword and calls it the Meat Cleaver of Doom or something. Because the name is not the same, would they still be allowed to use that appearance for the weapon?

As for your riddle, if the Cleaver appears in another work of fiction, it would probably be completely fine. Ever notice how many anime characters have SQNY TV's or Mindows operating systems? If it were being sold as a physical item, It would still seem legal to me, but I would guess it depends on how good SE's lawyers are.

Well, you can't copyright weapons or weapon concepts, I don't think.

On the other hand, though, I don't think you could actually use the likeness of the Keyblade from Emo Hearts in a game not sanctioned by SE.

Of course, look at laser-based melee weapons -- nearly everyone has ripped off the lightsaber in some way, shape, or form, creating weapons that look almost exactly like the ones from Star Wars, but as long as it doesn't have the same name, you can go ahead and use the concept of the weapon.

Unit 03.5-ish wrote:

Of course, look at laser-based melee weapons -- nearly everyone has ripped off the lightsaber in some way, shape, or form, creating weapons that look almost exactly like the ones from Star Wars, but as long as it doesn't have the same name, you can go ahead and use the concept of the weapon.

It appears many an unscrupulous company cannot wait to cash in on others' intellectual property to sell their bootlegged toys, as I pleasantly found out. It appears they're copying more than just fictional weapons.

Unit 03.5-ish wrote:

Of course, look at laser-based melee weapons -- nearly everyone has ripped off the lightsaber in some way, shape, or form, creating weapons that look almost exactly like the ones from Star Wars, but as long as it doesn't have the same name, you can go ahead and use the concept of the weapon.

It appears many an unscrupulous company cannot wait to cash in on others' intellectual property to sell their bootlegged toys, as I pleasantly found out. It appears they're copying more than just fictional weapons.

well SE really doesn't have the right to even say the gunblade is their creation because bayonets have existed for a couple hundred years.

dragoneyes001 wrote:

well SE really doesn't have the right to even say the gunblade is their creation because bayonets have existed for a couple hundred years.

You do realize that with patents and copyrights there is a time limit right? So even if somehow a gunblade= bayonet thus infringement you'd have no case becuase the patent would now move into common works, the only thing you could patent is the process of making your specific bayonet, like a special metal or a process involved that makes it stand out from other bayonets.

Also gunblade to bayonet isn't a 100% comparison, a Gunblade is more comparable to the British Knife-Flintlock Pistol, early 19th C.

First there are distinct differences between that weapon and a gunblade.

1. The English Knife Gun is eleven inches long, the gunblade is easily at least 3 feet.

2. The English Knife Gun is a flintlock with one shot, the Gunblade is a revolver with at least 6 shots.

3. The English Gun's grip is straight like a knife or traditional sword, the Gunblade's grip is a pistol grip.

In addition that weapon is sold as a generic replica, not tied to any specific person. A gunblade however is tied to either Squall or Seifer and is when, as this case showed, they were selling it as a replica of Squall's Gunblade, using the character's image and SquareEnix' reputation to sell them.