Access Copyright Claims Trademark On The Copyright Symbol
from the you-have-to-be-kidding-me dept
Okay. This is just insane. Via Howard Knopf, we learn that Canadian copyright licensing agency Access Copyright is claiming to hold the trademark on the classic copyright symbol: ©. You can see it in their new website:
While there are three TMs in the image, at least two of them (top logo and in the righthand column) appear to be on the copyright symbol itself. You can see one directly here:
Are they serious? I mean, I recognize that maximalists believe strongly in copyright, patents and trademarks together… but it still seems insane that a group like Access Copyright would make a totally ridiculous trademark claim on the © symbol.
Filed Under: canada, copyright, copyright symbol, trademark
Companies: access copyright
Comments on “Access Copyright Claims Trademark On The Copyright Symbol”
Stake My Claim
Quick! What’s the address for the USPO? I need to get my patent on ? before somebody else does!
Re: Stake My Claim
Too bad I just copyrighted ‘patent’ you need to license it from me in order to apply for a patent on ?
Re: Stake My Claim
Too late. John Stewart did that on his show a couple days ago.
The “TM” is gone now; methinks they realized their mistake.
Re: Re:
Still, it raises an interesting question. The US hasn’t required the ? symbol since the seventies. Could it be considered an abandoned trademark? What exactly is the status of ??
Further Inspection
Apparently it was a mistake, they meant to ? the name and style of writing “access?” not the actual ? symbol. Their website now has removed the ? from the ? symbol.
Re: Further Inspection
Awwwwww…
Re: Further Inspection
Still exists in the header banner image as of 1:15pm EDT. They only removed it from the right hand column.
Re: Further Inspection
The creeps? have still left the symbol in the footer graphic of each page.
They must have watched the Daily Show and got the idea
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110517/14485114303/daily-show-highlights-seal-team-6-trademark-fcc-commish-joining-comcast.shtml
Re: They must have watched the Daily Show and got the idea
On The Colbert Report last week he did a skit on the trademarking of “Seal Team Six” and then said he was going to trademark the TM (so the TM had a little TM subscripted). I don’t browse Comedy Central (which has it’s own copyright-looking symbol) to have a link to the right segment…
See the "dot"
Appears to still have a white dot where the TM used to be like it was just made really small.
humor
so we suppose this means that a US company effectively cannot claim they own copyright on anything?
ahh yes, unintended consequences. Why hello, RIAA.
Not just for Stetson?
?? suck
Can I copyright the use of the .com/.net system. NO your browser is not allowed to use a URL because I haven’t received my payment yet!!
Re: Re:
Patent a method and system for automatically charging the user’s credit card every time your patent is used.
The cows have come home to roost
Well, this can hardly be all that surprising. When you push and create “education campaigns” and try to brainwash everyone into believing that you can own ANY idea or expression, then blatant overreach like this is going to be a natural outcome.
It’s like when you are told “ignorance of the law is no excuse” over and over with a blunt hammer, but when a cop pulls a gun on a guy lawfully carrying a holstered gun where its allowed and has the proper permits for it, threatening to kill him if he doesnt comply with a raving lunatic who doesnt even KNOW its legal, you dont really have the credibility to turn around and say “ah, the cop didnt know the LAW, so he was just being careful. No big.” Sorry, it doesnt wash.
You cant have these things both ways, and you cant go around hammering “sharing is THEFT!” and “I OWN that idea!” and expect any less than massive and illegal overreach like we see here.
I cant wait for the RIAA or some other org to come after me for selling my own music that I own the copyright on. They dont represent me, I never gave them assignment to work on my behalf, they have no right. But watch, it will start happening soon. They will make a massive land-grab and try to get laws enacted that will make it de facto that if its music, they represent it, regardless.
No, they’re not serious, if you look in the comments of that link, they called it a typo and they’ve removed it.
Re: Re:
That’s one hell of a typ?.
Re: Re:
I’m not really sure they know what a “typo” is.
Re: Re:
No, they’re not serious, if you look in the comments of that link, they called it a typo and they’ve removed it.
Sorry, but that’s just not believable. A typographical error would be like if they just hit the wrong key on the keyboard. It takes quite a bit more than that to do what they did. It looks more like it was intentional, they got caught, and now they’re trying to lie their way out.
Well...
There is a huge difference between claiming a trademark and registering a trademark. In the US, at least, they would have to register the trademark before actually bringing someone to court over it.
So does this make copyrighting something a copyright infringement?
Re: Re:
No, it makes copyrighting something TRADEMARK infringement! By the way, who owns the trademark on the trademark symbol?
?apital ?oincidence
?omplete ?ompliance ?an ?onvince ?opyright ?ons
The ?? Logo is Trademark (TM?) 2011 Access Copyright. Trademark? Copyright of Access Copyright??. ?? Is a registered trademark of Copyright Access. Copyright? 2011 All Rights Reserved (TM). All Rights Reserved (TM) is a Trademark? of the Copyright Logo??, All Rights Reserved, 2011. The Copyright Logo???? Is a Copyrighted Trademark, 2011 All Rights reserved.
It boggles the mind.
That screenshot is like the IP maximalist Hall of Mirrors.
Define irony
I love the irony of a copyright licensing company called “Access”. Unless the full company name is “Access,ltd”?
Where?s Nina Paley When You Need Her?
She could have some fun with this. 🙂
I really really hope this was a joke. It has to be. I know it isnt, I know, but let me believe for a little while!
Surprised?
Given the insanity surrounding IP, this was bound to happen at some point.
They do not have copyright over the word Access. However, they use the term Access (c) TM. This should be illegal, since it creates in the minds of the people some type of association with the term Access being copyrighted.
Total scam organization, apparently.
well
Patent 666
1. method and system for automatically having the patent/copyright/trademark on anything you want without doing a damn thing about creating anything or filing anything or any paperwork whatsoever, and automatically suing the living hell out of anyone/everyone including but not limited to real people, hallucinations and jerry the tap-dancing neon-green shark.