Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Sep 19, 2017, 11:10:
Oh boy. The guy has no case, nothing. He abandoned his copyright, didn't defend the trademark. Threw it to the wind, and on top of that "pepe" falls into transformative work everytime a new meme is made.

Nice try but no cigar.
Pepe the Frog creator Matt Furie has won against the alt right infowars freaks. praise be

Orogogus wrote on Sep 20, 2017, 12:06:

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Sep 20, 2017, 09:26:
"People of 4chan" is the internet. Think on it this way, 4chan is one of the heaviest trafficked sites in the world. 4chan considers as part of their manifesto to be "a website anyone can use." By granting 4chan use, he's effectively given the internet and everyone the right to use it. Since there's no way to define "who" uses 4chan except anyone with an internet connection that leaves it open to anybody.

As Beamer notes -- I did say on 4chan, because that's the implication in the text I quoted. But 1) that in no way implies that he put it in the public domain, giving up all his rights to the material and 2) you can revoke permissions. If you couldn't then licensing agreements would be eternal.

He did actually abandon his copyright. See the existing case of pillsbury vs milkyway if you need an in-depth example of how an entity who doesn't defend their copyright and it "gains a life of it's own" can't retroactively try to claim copyright on it.

I'm looking at the Wikipedia page and I see a case talking about parody fair use protection, which doesn't seem like what you're talking about here. 1) That copyright was in full force but the court deemed it a valid application of fair use; 2) you lose trademarks, not copyrights, by abandoning them, like I said earlier; 3) the Pillsbury Doughboy was in no way abandoned, then or now.

Yeah, dude is conflating different sets of laws and apparently doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about. I think we're done here.

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Sep 20, 2017, 09:26:
"People of 4chan" is the internet. Think on it this way, 4chan is one of the heaviest trafficked sites in the world. 4chan considers as part of their manifesto to be "a website anyone can use." By granting 4chan use, he's effectively given the internet and everyone the right to use it. Since there's no way to define "who" uses 4chan except anyone with an internet connection that leaves it open to anybody.

As Beamer notes -- I did say on 4chan, because that's the implication in the text I quoted. But 1) that in no way implies that he put it in the public domain, giving up all his rights to the material and 2) you can revoke permissions. If you couldn't then licensing agreements would be eternal.

He did actually abandon his copyright. See the existing case of pillsbury vs milkyway if you need an in-depth example of how an entity who doesn't defend their copyright and it "gains a life of it's own" can't retroactively try to claim copyright on it.

I'm looking at the Wikipedia page and I see a case talking about parody fair use protection, which doesn't seem like what you're talking about here. 1) That copyright was in full force but the court deemed it a valid application of fair use; 2) you lose trademarks, not copyrights, by abandoning them, like I said earlier; 3) the Pillsbury Doughboy was in no way abandoned, then or now.

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Sep 20, 2017, 09:26:

Orogogus wrote on Sep 20, 2017, 08:35:

I don't see anything in there where he put it in the public domain. Part of copyright is that you can give permission for other people to use it. That doesn't mean you give it up. It seems to me that he gave permission for people on 4chan to use his design, for posting on 4chan.

2. Again, he hasn't abandoned his copyright. He never said he gave up all his rights to his creation or ceded it into the public domain, which is what it would take. With the most generous reading in the world, you can willfully ignore the context of 4chan in the profit question and read that he gave permission for anyone to profit off his work, but that still doesn't cancel out his rights of ownership.

3. It seems like he does have an abandoned trademark (link) but you can see that it's for the actual name, "Pepe the Frog" (hence the description of the typeset). That generally would have protected against Disney or the like making a character called "Pepe the Frog" and doesn't relate to the artwork.

"People of 4chan" is the internet. Think on it this way, 4chan is one of the heaviest trafficked sites in the world. 4chan considers as part of their manifesto to be "a website anyone can use." By granting 4chan use, he's effectively given the internet and everyone the right to use it. Since there's no way to define "who" uses 4chan except anyone with an internet connection that leaves it open to anybody.

He did actually abandon his copyright. See the existing case of pillsbury vs milkyway if you need an in-depth example of how an entity who doesn't defend their copyright and it "gains a life of it's own" can't retroactively try to claim copyright on it.

1) Good thing you're not an attorney, as you changed a key word. He said people ON 4chan, you changed it to people OF 4chan. That's a massively different thing, as one limits use to a site, and one allows anyone from that site to use it anywhere.

2) Pillsbury v Milkyway is from 1981. The law changed in 2006. The precedent may still exist, but it also may not, and saying something is clearly true because if it is clearly false.

I'm not weighing in on either side here, but your argument has extremely glaring holes in both of your key points.

I'm also not surprised that you're coming out in favor of white supremacists. You'll claim this is free speech and yadda yadda yadda, but it's yet another time you adamantly claim the white supremacists did nothing wrong. It's just odd how, whenever Richard Spencer is on one side of an argument, you seem to be there with him...

Orogogus wrote on Sep 20, 2017, 08:35:

I don't see anything in there where he put it in the public domain. Part of copyright is that you can give permission for other people to use it. That doesn't mean you give it up. It seems to me that he gave permission for people on 4chan to use his design, for posting on 4chan.

2. Again, he hasn't abandoned his copyright. He never said he gave up all his rights to his creation or ceded it into the public domain, which is what it would take. With the most generous reading in the world, you can willfully ignore the context of 4chan in the profit question and read that he gave permission for anyone to profit off his work, but that still doesn't cancel out his rights of ownership.

3. It seems like he does have an abandoned trademark (link) but you can see that it's for the actual name, "Pepe the Frog" (hence the description of the typeset). That generally would have protected against Disney or the like making a character called "Pepe the Frog" and doesn't relate to the artwork.

"People of 4chan" is the internet. Think on it this way, 4chan is one of the heaviest trafficked sites in the world. 4chan considers as part of their manifesto to be "a website anyone can use." By granting 4chan use, he's effectively given the internet and everyone the right to use it. Since there's no way to define "who" uses 4chan except anyone with an internet connection that leaves it open to anybody.

He did actually abandon his copyright. See the existing case of pillsbury vs milkyway if you need an in-depth example of how an entity who doesn't defend their copyright and it "gains a life of it's own" can't retroactively try to claim copyright on it.

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Sep 20, 2017, 06:53:

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Sep 19, 2017, 13:11:

This is exactly why I was asking. I looked around a bit, but don't see anything about him putting Pepe in the public domain, so I had no idea what he was talking about. As far as I can tell, that never happened.

Read the article I linked. He placed it into the public domain himself, abandoned the copyright himself, and has never defended the trademark.

As far as I can tell:

1. He gave 4chan permission to use the frog as their mascot. I think these are the relevant quotes:

>Thoughts on Pepe becoming the mascot for 4chan?

Pepe offers you complete support, attention, and embraces how capable you are of birthing your own Pepe. As your God, my hope is to enhance your Pepe birthing experience by empowering you through it. Obey Pepe. Obey Me. Bow down to your leader. Worship me. Give me genital love or non-genital love. Both are wonderful.

>But 4chan went crazy for Pepe, yes?

I believe that the most important thing I can do as an artist is to protect the voices of anonymous people on the Internet and help ensure that that those voices are honored. It is my job to help 4chan have the experience that they want without judgment or criticism. In the end, I want 4chan to feel they were supported by being heard, respected, and part of the decision-making process. Instead of promoting my own agenda, it is my goal to promote 4chan. Different things work for different people. Let me support you in the way you choose to draw Pepe.

>What about people profiting off of Pepe?

I believe in supporting people’s decisions to profit off of Pepe in order to provide them with the most positive business experience possible. I strive to be an advocate for Pepe in both love and enterprise and hope to help business people to have an empowering and joyful experience while making an ocean of profits as limitless as the universe.

>Pepe is now immortal on the internet.

Having Pepe is one of the most life-changing experiences I will ever have. While many may fear the frog, there is no need for anxiety, especially when you feel confident and supported by the 4chan community—this is something my body was created to do, and I did it!

I don't see anything in there where he put it in the public domain. Part of copyright is that you can give permission for other people to use it. That doesn't mean you give it up. It seems to me that he gave permission for people on 4chan to use his design, for posting on 4chan.

2. Again, he hasn't abandoned his copyright. He never said he gave up all his rights to his creation or ceded it into the public domain, which is what it would take. With the most generous reading in the world, you can willfully ignore the context of 4chan in the profit question and read that he gave permission for anyone to profit off his work, but that still doesn't cancel out his rights of ownership.

3. It seems like he does have an abandoned trademark (link) but you can see that it's for the actual name, "Pepe the Frog" (hence the description of the typeset). That generally would have protected against Disney or the like making a character called "Pepe the Frog" and doesn't relate to the artwork.

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Sep 19, 2017, 13:11:

This is exactly why I was asking. I looked around a bit, but don't see anything about him putting Pepe in the public domain, so I had no idea what he was talking about. As far as I can tell, that never happened.

Read the article I linked. He placed it into the public domain himself, abandoned the copyright himself, and has never defended the trademark.

WaltC wrote on Sep 19, 2017, 15:56:
it doesn't get anymore racist than that.

You could look in the mirror if you want to see what a real racist looks like.

WaltC wrote on Sep 19, 2017, 15:56:

Dacote wrote on Sep 19, 2017, 11:18:
So the creator of Pepe the Frog is defending his copyright against conservative racist trolls. Furie has hired intellectual property lawyers to defend his creation against misuse by racists, and he is winning.
Way to go dude, keep up the good fight.

That's especially amusing as it was liberal legacy news casters--re: ABC's Stephanopoulos AKA "Staphinfection", etc.--who first branded "Pepe the Frog" as a racist character and swore to bring Pepe down...;) Utter hogwash, of course. More fake news brought to us in living color by lunatic (D)s...! But the (D) party is certainly racist, if nothing else, and that's not fake news in the slightest. The only racists Pepe has to worry about are (D)'s who aren't shy about calling *anything* "a racist meme"...anything at all. (D)s love to define individuals according to their skin color--and it doesn't get anymore racist than that.

Are facts even allowed in your universe.

WaltC wrote on Sep 19, 2017, 15:56:

Dacote wrote on Sep 19, 2017, 11:18:
So the creator of Pepe the Frog is defending his copyright against conservative racist trolls. Furie has hired intellectual property lawyers to defend his creation against misuse by racists, and he is winning.
Way to go dude, keep up the good fight.

That's especially amusing as it was liberal legacy news casters--re: ABC's Stephanopoulos AKA "Staphinfection", etc.--who first branded "Pepe the Frog" as a racist character and swore to bring Pepe down...;) Utter hogwash, of course. More fake news brought to us in living color by lunatic (D)s...! But the (D) party is certainly racist, if nothing else, and that's not fake news in the slightest. The only racists Pepe has to worry about are (D)'s who aren't shy about calling *anything* "a racist meme"...anything at all. (D)s love to define individuals according to their skin color--and it doesn't get anymore racist than that.

Do you think putting the parenthesis around D is correct, or do you think it makes you look smart?

It works kind of as well as putting Tara Reid in glasses in Alone in the Dark.

Dacote wrote on Sep 19, 2017, 11:18:
So the creator of Pepe the Frog is defending his copyright against conservative racist trolls. Furie has hired intellectual property lawyers to defend his creation against misuse by racists, and he is winning.
Way to go dude, keep up the good fight.

That's especially amusing as it was liberal legacy news casters--re: ABC's Stephanopoulos AKA "Staphinfection", etc.--who first branded "Pepe the Frog" as a racist character and swore to bring Pepe down...;) Utter hogwash, of course. More fake news brought to us in living color by lunatic (D)s...! But the (D) party is certainly racist, if nothing else, and that's not fake news in the slightest. The only racists Pepe has to worry about are (D)'s who aren't shy about calling *anything* "a racist meme"...anything at all. (D)s love to define individuals according to their skin color--and it doesn't get anymore racist than that.

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Sep 19, 2017, 13:11:

Orogogus wrote on Sep 19, 2017, 12:54:
I don't see anything that suggests that the creator put Pepe the Frog in the public domain, which isn't a thing that happens automatically until 75-120 years after the creator dies.

And you don't seem to be using copyright and trademark correctly. The frog is a copyrighted work. You don't lose a copyright by not defending it, and you can selectively sue whomever you want to sue.

A trademark is a brand name or logo. You have to register trademarks with the government to get the force of law on your side, and then you do have to use and defend it or it's gone. But what you're defending against is people using Legos as a generic term for building blocks, Q-Tips for cotton swabs, and so on. Trademark - a mark of trade, i.e., a brand; the courts let those lapse because once everyone is calling a vacuum flask a thermos they're not going to let the former owner take a million people to court.

I think you're really wrong on this, but if there's something that shows that this frog is in the public domain, or that you lose copyrighted works of art by not defending them, post it here.

Plus, you've got Cutter on your side, so that's not a good sign.

This is exactly why I was asking. I looked around a bit, but don't see anything about him putting Pepe in the public domain, so I had no idea what he was talking about. As far as I can tell, that never happened.

It's not a good idea to listened to brain-damaged morons like him.

Whatever he's doing, it's working.

"Furie and his lawyer, Louis Tompros, have been using DMCA takedown to get unflattering uses of Pepe removed from social media and from sites like Amazon, even r/The_Donald has removed Pepe from the forum.
Furie’s forward march is just one front of the war to liberate Pepe — Apple has put down a blanket ban on using the character in its App Store — and his tactic of using copyright law is being adopted more widely in efforts to make it just a little bit more of a pain to create alt-right or otherwise hateful content online."

src

Orogogus wrote on Sep 19, 2017, 12:54:
I don't see anything that suggests that the creator put Pepe the Frog in the public domain, which isn't a thing that happens automatically until 75-120 years after the creator dies.

And you don't seem to be using copyright and trademark correctly. The frog is a copyrighted work. You don't lose a copyright by not defending it, and you can selectively sue whomever you want to sue.

A trademark is a brand name or logo. You have to register trademarks with the government to get the force of law on your side, and then you do have to use and defend it or it's gone. But what you're defending against is people using Legos as a generic term for building blocks, Q-Tips for cotton swabs, and so on. Trademark - a mark of trade, i.e., a brand; the courts let those lapse because once everyone is calling a vacuum flask a thermos they're not going to let the former owner take a million people to court.

I think you're really wrong on this, but if there's something that shows that this frog is in the public domain, or that you lose copyrighted works of art by not defending them, post it here.

Plus, you've got Cutter on your side, so that's not a good sign.

This is exactly why I was asking. I looked around a bit, but don't see anything about him putting Pepe in the public domain, so I had no idea what he was talking about. As far as I can tell, that never happened.

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Sep 19, 2017, 11:42:

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Sep 19, 2017, 11:37:
What do you mean, "places it into the public domain"? Apparently not if the copyright has been enforced.

Copyright is automatic after the 1976 BERN convention. If you create a work you have copyright, but you can waive or in his case -- place it into the public domain. That leaves him with nothing.

I don't see anything that suggests that the creator put Pepe the Frog in the public domain, which isn't a thing that happens automatically until 75-120 years after the creator dies.

And you don't seem to be using copyright and trademark correctly. The frog is a copyrighted work. You don't lose a copyright by not defending it, and you can selectively sue whomever you want to sue.

A trademark is a brand name or logo. You have to register trademarks with the government to get the force of law on your side, and then you do have to use and defend it or it's gone. But what you're defending against is people using Legos as a generic term for building blocks, Q-Tips for cotton swabs, and so on. Trademark - a mark of trade, i.e., a brand; the courts let those lapse because once everyone is calling a vacuum flask a thermos they're not going to let the former owner take a million people to court.

I think you're really wrong on this, but if there's something that shows that this frog is in the public domain, or that you lose copyrighted works of art by not defending them, post it here.

Plus, you've got Cutter on your side, so that's not a good sign.

"contradictions" LMFAO The fraud was so great on the data they had to adjust it to reality.

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Sep 19, 2017, 11:42:

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Sep 19, 2017, 11:37:
What do you mean, "places it into the public domain"? Apparently not if the copyright has been enforced.

Copyright is automatic after the 1976 BERN convention. If you create a work you have copyright, but you can waive or in his case -- place it into the public domain. That leaves him with nothing.

Exactly. He doesn't like certain people using it so now he's trying to go 'backsies' and make a claim. If a judge ruled in his favor it's in error and will most certainly lose on appeal to a higher court.

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Sep 19, 2017, 11:37:
What do you mean, "places it into the public domain"? Apparently not if the copyright has been enforced.

Copyright is automatic after the 1976 BERN convention. If you create a work you have copyright, but you can waive or in his case -- place it into the public domain. That leaves him with nothing.

What do you mean, "places it into the public domain"? Apparently not if the copyright has been enforced.

Dacote wrote on Sep 19, 2017, 11:18:
So the creator of Pepe the Frog is defending his copyright against conservative racist trolls. Furie has hired intellectual property lawyers to defend his creation against misuse by racists, and he is winning.
Way to go dude, keep up the good fight.

How does one win when one waives copyright and places it into the public domain? Yeah, that one is easy to answer. I like the buzz words though. Maybe next time you can also toss in progressive racist anti-first amendment trolls too, just to balance it all out.

Oh and one of the people he's threatened has already said Come at me bro.