Boing Boing on Marvel Comics "stealing our language"
BoingBoing.net had a post last week on Marvel and DC's trademark on the word "super-hero":
Marvel Comics is continuing in its bid to steal the word "super-hero" from the public domain and put it in a lock-box to which it will control the key. Marvel and DC comics jointly filed a trademark on the word "super-hero." They use this mark to legally harass indie comic companies that make competing comic books.
A trademark's enforceability hinges on whether the public is likely to associate a word or mark with a given company -- in other words, when you hear the word "super-hero," if you think "Marvel and DC," then Marvel will be able to go on censoring and eliminating its competition.
One way of accomplishing this dirty bit of mind-control is by adding a ™ symbol after the word "Super-Hero." That TM lets the world know that you claim ownership over the word it accompanies. If you can get other people to do it, too, eventually you may in fact get the world to believe that the word is your property -- and then, it becomes your property.
Cory Doctorow goes on to recommend that fans call DC and Marvel's characters "underwear perverts" rather than super-heroes. Writer Will Shetterly jumps at the chance with a new blog, SuperUnderwearPERvertHERO:
No one knows when the word was coined. It had been used by comics fans for decades to describe costumed vigilantes with unusual powers or gadgets. Neither Marvel nor DC had ever had a character called "Super Hero." Yet, because of their trademark, anyone who wants to use the word or words like it in a title has to pay Marvel and DC. As recently as 2004, the companies were using their trademark to stifle competition: Super Hero Happy Hour Changes Name
Both companies often use words and characters from other sources. George Bernard Shaw popularized the English word, "Superman." Norse legends provided Thor.
So do Marvel and DC have a leg to stand on?
posted by JK Parkin @ 7:31 AM
5 Comments:
I have a hard time getting too worked up about this one. So you can't use "Super Hero" in a comic book title? Okay. You can't call a magazine "Time" either, because that's a trademark, but I haven't seen anyone complain that the publisher is trying to "steal" the word away from us.
Really, checking out possible trademark conflicts should be part of any new publishing initiative. Marvel and DC's claim isn't new; they've had it for a few decades now and the law requires that they defend it.
(BoingBoing.net has a notice on their homepage that "Boing Boing" is a trademark. I'm pretty sure they didn't invent that phrase either. Why are they stealing it from me?)
While I think their claim to the word is a little silly, what I wonder is whether or not they've lost that claim due to lack of defending the trademark. As I understand it, if you let folks use the name without paying here and there, you lose your claim. And I know for a fact I've heard the word used tons of times on Buffy the Vampire Slayer (and considering the creator of that show has been writing comics for Marvel, I don't know if Marvel or DC could argue they never knew about it). And while I can't cite other specific examples off the top of my head, I know there have been plenty of other instances.
And regardless of the legal basis, I'd argue that holding on to the trademark does nothing to help either company. As superheroes - through movies and video games and even novels - are brought more to the forefront in popular culture, that only helps the companies' sales.
Even if I'm wrong about that, what does it matter anyway? Other people can still use superheroes, they just have to call them something else. They call them "Freaks" like Larsen does in Savage Dragon or "Aces" like George Martin and co. do in the Wild Cards series. You can call them "Supers" or "Costumes" or "crime-fighters" or a dozen other things.
I don't know. No matter what way I look at it, it seems to do more harm than good to the Big Two.
Just to toot the ol' horn, I did a bit on this awhile back, too! :)
http://goodcomics.blogspot.com/2005/07/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-9.html
Well, Brian, I read what you wrote and the Todd VerBeek article you linked to. Assuming VerBeek is correct, my initial response to this post is all just a whole bunch of stupid because I didn't know the trademark only applies to the commercial use of the word (i.e., you can use the word in a movie, tv show, etc., just not to advertise your show, movie, etc.).
Still, I'm curious if, other than the Super Hero Happy Hour example, the companies have actively been defending their trademark. I know of, for example, a collection of prose fiction about superheroes (original stories, not licensed characters) titled "Superheroes" published in 1995.
The answer, Michileen, exists in the trademark itself. The trademark is only for PUBLICATIONS, PARTICULARLY COMIC BOOKS AND MAGAZINES AND STORIES IN ILLUSTRATED FORM [(( ; CARDBOARD STAND-UP FIGURES; PLAYING CARDS; PAPER IRON-ON TRANSFER; ERASERS; PENCIL SHARPENERS; PENCILS; GLUE FOR OFFICE AND HOME USE, SUCH AS IS SOLD AS STATIONERY SUPPLY;] NOTEBOOKS AND STAMP ALBUMS )) and there's an additional one for costumes.
So a novel/non-fiction book would not be protected by the trademark, so DC and Marvel would not have to bother trying to enforce it.
Post a Comment
<< Home