Your thesis missed one important element right here:
As if the ability to restrict the creativity of others is a natural right like the freedom of speech.
Practically or legally speaking there isn’t a restriction of creativity. Its a restriction on the ability to profit from that creativity or negatively affect the profits of the rights holder with your work using their name.
If you call yourself the Burger King in your kitchen, there’s no trademark infringement there. However, if you start selling you food and calling yourself the Burger King, then that is a trademark violation. If you want to write Twilight fan fiction using the characters and story lines from the books, you’re free to do so. There is no copyright violation. However, if you want to profit from your expansions to another author’s work, you have to rename the characters and setting and call it “Fifty shades of grey”.
There is a reason respect for copyrights is at an all time low.
I’ll agree with this though. Large rights holders have been able to get changes to law that exceed the original IP mandates. This means extensions wildly beyond what was reasonable before, or getting things protected by IP law that are questionable at best.
If you call yourself the Burger King in your kitchen, there’s no trademark infringement there. However, if you start selling you food and calling yourself the Burger King, then that is a trademark violation. If you want to write Twilight fan fiction using the characters and story lines from the books, you’re free to do so. There is no copyright violation. However, if you want to profit from your expansions to another author’s work, you have to rename the characters and setting and call it “Fifty shades of grey”.
I believe in must jurisdictions its the distribution that makes it an issue not the selling. If you started handing out your “Burger King” burgers in a public place I would expect to be shut down.
You’re right, but I didn’t want to dive too deep with a throwaway internet comment. I’m using the word “profit” here loosely not to mean only dollars. The act of distribution can negatively affect the rights holder if the person violating the copyright/trademark dilutes, tarnishes, or misrepresents the rights holder’s IP.
I touched on this a tiny bit with my comment in there “or negatively affect the profits of the rights holder with your work using their name.”
Your thesis missed one important element right here:
Practically or legally speaking there isn’t a restriction of creativity. Its a restriction on the ability to profit from that creativity or negatively affect the profits of the rights holder with your work using their name.
If you call yourself the Burger King in your kitchen, there’s no trademark infringement there. However, if you start selling you food and calling yourself the Burger King, then that is a trademark violation. If you want to write Twilight fan fiction using the characters and story lines from the books, you’re free to do so. There is no copyright violation. However, if you want to profit from your expansions to another author’s work, you have to rename the characters and setting and call it “Fifty shades of grey”.
I’ll agree with this though. Large rights holders have been able to get changes to law that exceed the original IP mandates. This means extensions wildly beyond what was reasonable before, or getting things protected by IP law that are questionable at best.
I believe in must jurisdictions its the distribution that makes it an issue not the selling. If you started handing out your “Burger King” burgers in a public place I would expect to be shut down.
You’re right, but I didn’t want to dive too deep with a throwaway internet comment. I’m using the word “profit” here loosely not to mean only dollars. The act of distribution can negatively affect the rights holder if the person violating the copyright/trademark dilutes, tarnishes, or misrepresents the rights holder’s IP.
I touched on this a tiny bit with my comment in there “or negatively affect the profits of the rights holder with your work using their name.”
deleted by creator