Infringement. Who cares?

[Dao]

I think it is a interesting debate.

"Can you Xerox that form for me?"
The word Xerox is commonly used, but I don't think it create a problem. Even if someone put that line in a movie. (of course, I could be wrong ) However, if I use for marketing a product, that's a different story.

I think the Judge will look at if indeed people may think the product is related to the TM owner.

i.e. Nissan Computer (Owner of nissan.com) vs Nissan Motor (The car maker)
http://www.ncchelp.org/The_Story/the_story.htm

 

[MichiganFarts]

Ed: And he does actively go after infringers. It's not something you see in the news like the Pystar(sp?) Apple case, but he doesn't take lightly to people that infringe on trademark and copyrights.

The guy you're defending already told you (in your OP quote) he hasn't even sued anyone over the alleged infringement.

And you're going to compare his supposed "going after infringers" , to an actual lawsuit, by a huge corporation?

Sounds like you're getting your morning stretching in...major stretch there.

Nobody's going to care until he can sue someone and win. Until then, I got some Strobist gear to sell on Ebay...

 

[Village Idiot]

Ed: And he does actively go after infringers. It's not something you see in the news like the Pystar(sp?) Apple case, but he doesn't take lightly to people that infringe on trademark and copyrights.

The guy you're defending already told you (in your OP quote) he hasn't even sued anyone over the alleged infringement.

And you're going to compare his supposed "going after infringers" , to an actual lawsuit, by a huge corporation?

Sounds like you're getting your morning stretching in...major stretch there.

Nobody's going to care until he can sue someone and win. Until then, I got some Strobist gear to sell on Ebay...

Hi there. Read below.

Ed: And he does actively go after infringers. It's not something you see in the news like the Pystar(sp?) Apple case, but he doesn't take lightly to people that infringe on trademark and copyrights.

See "doesn't take lightly to people that infringing on trademark and copyrights."

He's dealt with copyright violators many times. Seems to me like you should brush up on your reading skills before practicing your comedy.

 

[MichiganFarts]

See, your own quote in your op.

Will-

I did not know about that circumstance, but I constantly have to go after those guys for trademark infringement.

Fact: They have NOTHING to do with the site, and are merely using the term to try to get into your pants. I would not trust them, and by extension, whatever they are selling, as far as I could throw them.

They are very close to becoming my first trademark infringement suit. I am tied up in two big projects right now, but expect to turn my sites on them shortly.

-D

He hasn't even had a lawsuit over trademark infringement yet...that's taking things lightly compared to the Apple suit you mentioned.

EDIT: Or a copy of a letter David Hobby's lawyers sent the infringer's? Surely you have some substance to this thread and it's not all just hearsay yeah?

 

[kundalini]

Is David Hobby the new millennium's Alan Freed?

 

[Village Idiot]

See, your own quote in your op.

Will-

I did not know about that circumstance, but I constantly have to go after those guys for trademark infringement.

Fact: They have NOTHING to do with the site, and are merely using the term to try to get into your pants. I would not trust them, and by extension, whatever they are selling, as far as I could throw them.

They are very close to becoming my first trademark infringement suit. I am tied up in two big projects right now, but expect to turn my sites on them shortly.

-D

He hasn't even had a lawsuit over trademark infringement yet...that's taking things lightly compared to the Apple suit you mentioned.

EDIT: Or a copy of a letter David Hobby's lawyers sent the infringer's? Surely you have some substance to this thread and it's not all just hearsay yeah?

Reading comprehension escapes you. I'm saying that he has been in disputes with people for copyright violation previously. That's what I pointed out in my last post.

This was from last week:
My Apologies for Copyright Infringement of Photos

This was from January 5th:
Strobist: So, I Got Published in TechCrunch Today?

There's been other instances in the past. Those are two in the past month and here's a partial quote from David Hobby in the comments section of the second link.

That said, I can and do go after companies who use my photos without permission. I have in the past settled with companies for infringement of my copyright for amounts ranging from high 4- to mid 5-figure amounts.

 

[Village Idiot]

Is David Hobby the new millennium's Alan Freed?

Don't you mean Louis Thomas Hardin?

He's not an unreasonable person and you don't see him going for blood in every instance. In the two examples posted, he let the first use the photo after making them aware of what they were doing was infact, infringement, and in the second he didn't sue the person.

A trademark is different though as that's another company using the fame and reputation you've built to sell their products. MPEX sells Strobist kits, but that's because they've been granted permission to. Just like Roscoe sells Strobist gel packs and a company sells Strobist Trade Secret Cards.

Edit: But how would any of you feel if some one started marketing a product using your business name and the reputation you've built for your company? I'm sure if that happened, people wouldn't just say, "Oh, but my names common usage so there's nothing I can do about it"

 

[MichiganFarts]

See, your own quote in your op.

Will-

I did not know about that circumstance, but I constantly have to go after those guys for trademark infringement.

Fact: They have NOTHING to do with the site, and are merely using the term to try to get into your pants. I would not trust them, and by extension, whatever they are selling, as far as I could throw them.

They are very close to becoming my first trademark infringement suit. I am tied up in two big projects right now, but expect to turn my sites on them shortly.

-D

He hasn't even had a lawsuit over trademark infringement yet...that's taking things lightly compared to the Apple suit you mentioned.

EDIT: Or a copy of a letter David Hobby's lawyers sent the infringer's? Surely you have some substance to this thread and it's not all just hearsay yeah?

Reading comprehension escapes you. I'm saying that he has been in disputes with people for copyright violation previously. That's what I pointed out in my last post.

This was from last week:
My Apologies for Copyright Infringement of Photos

This was from January 5th:
Strobist: So, I Got Published in TechCrunch Today?

There's been other instances in the past. Those are two in the past month and here's a partial quote from David Hobby in the comments section of the second link.

That said, I can and do go after companies who use my photos without permission. I have in the past settled with companies for infringement of my copyright for amounts ranging from high 4- to mid 5-figure amounts.

I think you haven't a clue wtf you're talking about anymore. Isn't the OP about trademark infringers, not photo copyrights? I'm actually pleased I don't understand what you're saying, makes me feel secure in my sanity.

 

[Village Idiot]

See, your own quote in your op.





He hasn't even had a lawsuit over trademark infringement yet...that's taking things lightly compared to the Apple suit you mentioned.

EDIT: Or a copy of a letter David Hobby's lawyers sent the infringer's? Surely you have some substance to this thread and it's not all just hearsay yeah?

Reading comprehension escapes you. I'm saying that he has been in disputes with people for copyright violation previously. That's what I pointed out in my last post.

This was from last week:
My Apologies for Copyright Infringement of Photos

This was from January 5th:
Strobist: So, I Got Published in TechCrunch Today?

There's been other instances in the past. Those are two in the past month and here's a partial quote from David Hobby in the comments section of the second link.

That said, I can and do go after companies who use my photos without permission. I have in the past settled with companies for infringement of my copyright for amounts ranging from high 4- to mid 5-figure amounts.

I think you haven't a clue wtf you're talking about anymore. Isn't the OP about trademark infringers, not photo copyrights? I'm actually pleased I don't understand what you're saying, makes me feel secure in my sanity.

Ed: And he does actively go after infringers. It's not something you see in the news like the Pystar(sp?) Apple case, but he doesn't take lightly to people that infringe on trademark and copyrights.

You quoted that with "supposed going after infringers". I posted examples where he has went after people infringing on his copyright.

DH even posted that he wasn't originally interested in registering the name Strobist until some "unscrupulous companies" forced his hand.

 

[bigtwinky]

You can go after an infringer without actually suing them. There are many steps that need to be taken before you go to court.

Asking them nicely to stop, sending them a registered letter to stop, getting a cease and desist order... I consider that going after, which David Hobby has done for various copyright issues.

What he is saying is that he has never taken someone to court over it, as I assume the other methods have worked in the past.

I figure when you get a to a certain level of popularity, the cases you have to deal with revolve not only around actual photo copyrights, but also name trademarks.

Farts, I'm sure if you need more info on David Hobby's legal issues, you can easily google it

 

[kundalini]

Don't you mean Louis Thomas Hardin?

Mmmmm, no. The point is that Alan Freed coined the term Rock & Roll in 1951 on air circa 1951 in Cleveland on the AM station WJW. Much like David Hobby coined (and trademarked/incorporated/registered/whatever) the term Strobist. It's just a different time now. Freed would never have considered the need to sue nor would there have been a need to sue. Nothing against Hobby. I could care less of what anyone's wardrobe is BTW, but I must say that I'm .......

​

 

[Village Idiot]

Don't you mean Louis Thomas Hardin?

Mmmmm, no. The point is that Alan Freed coined the term Rock & Roll in 1951 on air circa 1951 in Cleveland on the AM station WJW. Much like David Hobby coined (and trademarked/incorporated/registered/whatever) the term Strobist. It's just a different time now. Freed would never have considered the need to sue nor would there have been a need to sue. Nothing against Hobby. I could care less of what anyone's wardrobe is BTW, but I must say that I'm .......

​

Wikipedia said that Hardin was using it before Freed and that's why he sued. Got to love free information. Maybe I'll check urban dictionary for references while I'm at it.

 

[Overread]

I have to say considering how many times I've been told that flash and strobist mean the same thing by people

I have to ask, at this point, is that what you've heard? Flash and Strobes are generally considered the same thing. A flash = strobe, a strobe = flash. I've never heard that a flash and a "strobist" are the same thing.

Ahh sorry I got that wrong - yes flash and strobe are the interchangeable names with regard to the lighting and (as far as I know) David does not own the rights to the word strobe itself - he only claims the strobist side. However one can argue that strobist is just a variance of that word that is used to describe a user of strobes - a common parlance word rather than a product name that could be protected under copyright.

 

[epp_b]

Sorry, but that's where you're flat-out wrong...

Indeed.

I would, furthermore, argue that "strobist" is simply a logical and dynamic extension of "strobe" and isn't really a valid trademark, even if it is registered. The USPTO has been funded only by processing fees for two decades now, so they'll accept anything.

Seems to me that when some one is trying to have a conversation, you can't wait to jump in with insults and condescension. So if I wanted to start a company called Nykon and sell a Nykon Xerox Machine, I could get away with it?

If, one day, Nikon becomes absolutely ubiquitous and synonymous with "camera", and Xerox becomes absolutely absolutely ubiquitous and synonymous with "copy", then, yes. There are still many people, myself included, who still say "photocopier".

a common parlance word rather than a product name that could be protected under copyright.

TRADEMARK.

How is that almost no one can understand the difference between copyright, trademark and patent? Honestly, it's not rocket science.

 

[Village Idiot]

Sorry, but that's where you're flat-out wrong...

Indeed.

I would, furthermore, argue that "strobist" is simply a logical and dynamic extension of "strobe" and isn't really a valid trademark, even if it is registered. The USPTO has been funded only by processing fees for two decades now, so they'll accept anything.

Can you find me a documented use of the word strobist prior to 2/28/2006?

Just curious as if there's anything out there.