May
25th
2016
Guys, Calm Down. Jim just trolled someone on Twitter and EqD took it seriously because they're idiots. · 4:39pm May 25th, 2016
If you haven't seen this EqD article yet, I advise you to take it with a grain of salt.
If you have seen it, I advise you to take it with a grain of salt AND consider the source.
Guys...Big Jim is trolling on Twitter. VERY OBVIOUSLY trolling on Twitter.
WHY Equestria Daily thought this tweet was newsworthy, I have no idea, but they've blown it out of proportion and created a panic.
You can't copyright a person's name. Even if you could, fair use and parody trump copyright law in cases such as this.
Even if this were serious, which it isn't, the courts would laugh at Coco Chanel's estate/lasting corporate legacy for even TRYING to sue over something like this.
Big Jim is trolling, and Equestria Daily derped hard.
So don't panic.
Well, thank Arceus, Bionis and Celestia for that...
Well, the episode does call her "Miss Pommel" in the credits. Which is suspicious.
well i took it serious
3971346 Rarity called her Miss Pommel in the episode and she was never referred to on-screen as Coco. The typesetter for the credits probably wasn't advised to credit her as Coco Pommel. Simple explanation that doesn't involve a bullshit C&D that there is no proof actually exists. Other than a tweet from Big Jim which looks more like a troll post than anything.
If we freaked out every time Rarity called a pony "Miss" something...or every time the credits misspelled or miscredited a name...(Buried Lede anyone?)
3971351 You should probably learn not to leave yourself open like that.
3971353 well i took myself with a bag of salt
I thought Big Jim was trolling until I saw the EQD post. Guess I should not always take things for their face value even if they're from supposedly "more credible" sources.
Good. I rather thought that this was a big load of road-apples myself when I saw it.
If only for the reason that you stated about, Mythril.
3971362 Until I see something concrete that isn't a dubious Twitter post, I am strongly disinclined to believe any such DAMN thing about Coco Pommel's name being dropped. It doesn't make sense and it's laughable to think corporate lawyers wouldn't know fair use and parody when they see it...especially since cartoons have been parodying Coco Chanel since the 70s.
3971352 It's still possible it happened. If the Red Cross can sue people over using a red cross icon on a white background, Coco Channel can sue MLP for Coco Pommel.
3971369 Not really? The International Red Cross symbol is a copyrighted and trademarked symbol of a global nonprofit organization. Using the Red Cross symbol without modification IS grounds for legal action, because it's a protected symbol for a LOT of reasons, some of which are directly related to "rules of warfare". A parody of "Coco Chanel" is a completely different matter, and cartoons have been doing parodies of the name since the 70s. Seriously, this whole thing smells like a fresh-baked pile of Applejack's finest horseapple cobbler.
3971376 I was specifically thinking of when they sued Hasbro over using the cross symbol on Ratchet and similarly medic-themed transformers.
3971382 Yeah, toy manufacturers et. al. can't legally do that without the approval of the International Red Cross, and it IS a trademarked symbol. The only reason they get away with it with Nurse Redheart is because the symbol is modified substantially enough to pass trademark/fair use law.
Oh, thank goodness. I don't hate Jim for trying to have a little fun, but this attempt at trolling backfired on him.
The applicable law here is not copyright or trademark, but the right of publicity. The right of publicity is essentially a right to profit off your identity, and depending on your jurisdiction can give you the exclusive right to make commercial use of your name, image, likeness, voice, signature, or other recognizable aspects of your persona. Or it can protect none of those things. Unlike copyright, patent, and trademark, the right of publicity in the United States is not recognized in federal law. It is purely a creation of state law, and about half the states don't recognize it. The ones that do recognize it tend to be big media markets like New York and California, though, so it is important.
Because the right of publicity is a creation of state law, jurisdication is important to determining what the actual right is. California, for example, recognizes a right of publicity for 70 years after death, while New York only recognizes it for living persons. Given the players involved, including Hasbro, Hasbro Studios, DHX Media, the estate of Coco Chanel, and possibly others, jurisdiction is a skein that's beyond me to unravel. The estate is French (I think), so they could probably get into U.S. federal court if they wanted to, and could drum up the claimed damages high enough. The federal court would apply the state law of the American party, which could be Rhode Island (for Hasbro itself; RI recognizes a right of publicity), or California (for Hasbro Studios). A suit upon DHX would be brought in Nova Scotia, which would obviously be a Canadian court applying Canadian law, making all this discussion of American law moot.
But for simplicity's sake, let's say the estate sues in the Ninth Circuit, which applies California law. The question becomes, what is the California law? Right off the bat, I want to clear up a misconception. Fair use is a defense to unauthorized copying under federal copyright law. It is not a defense under any right of publicity statute I'm aware of. Nor should it be; fair use protects the transformative copying of expressions of ideas, but the right of publicity protects one's image, something closer to one's identity, something personal. The text of the statute can be found at http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-3344.html and http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-3344-1.html, if you want to read it, but the important bits are summarized here: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-right-publicity-law.
You'll notice that while California does recognize a posthumous right of publicity, it protects that right to a lesser degree than it does the rights of living persons. Notably, while an estate can prevent the use of the deceased person's image in commercial advertisement for "products, merchandise, goods, or services," it cannot such use in "a play, book, magazine, newspaper, musical composition, audiovisual work, radio or television program, single and original work of art, work of political or newsworthy value, or an advertisement or commercial announcement for any of these works." The question for a district judge would be whether My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is a "radio or television program" for entertainment on its own merits, or whether it is an advertisement for toys. You and I, as fans of the show, have a ready answer to that question, but there are hours upon hours of legal research that could go into confirming how a district judge in the Ninth Circuit would answer it, and what arguments to make for and against. Hasbro's lawyers are paid for that sort of thing, and I'm not, so I hope you'll forgive me not doing that research. It is a perfectly rational corporate decision, however, to avoid the risk, and the billable hours, entirely.
To sum up, based on the law involved (and not a related but ultimately irrelevant field of law), I'm not ready to dismiss this as a troll just yet.
3971561 There's no evidence that any such C&D ever existed, so you just wasted a lot of time and energy on an unproductive argument.
...are you by any chance a member of Congress?
3971573 So has the MLP Wikia, but EqD is the flashpoint of all of it. When EqD falls for something, the bulk of the fandom falls in line.
3971569 Recent law school graduate. Clearing up IP law-related misconceptions (and your argument for why Mr. Miller was trolling is founded in part on the misconception that copyright law applies) is more fun than bar prep
Although . . . can I spin that comment as an endorsement if I ever do run for something?
3971589 I haven't misconcepted anything. I know it's trademark law, because that's what's actually being applied here. Assuming ANY law is being applied here. Which it isn't. Because my basis for calling this out as a troll is that there is absolutely nothing supporting this beyond one tweet in response to an out-of-left-field question.
3971624 There's no need to shout. I know that there might be no dispute at all. But there are grounds for one, and there's no point is pretending there aren't. The argument that there's been no C&D publicized is a lot better than the argument that "you can't copyright a person's name," or that fair use is at all relevant.
Wouldn't be the first time EqD has derped. They have a habit of taking a lot of social media crap seriously.
3971698 This is why I largely ignore EqD except for anything they have an official source for that I can cross-check via Google.
3971709
I'm on EqD for two things: Episode posts and artwork. Everything else is just annoying to me.
3971798 Don't try to call a Twitter troll out on BS trolling on Twitter. It's highly unproductive. Either this is a troll and it'll all blow over, or it's legit and we'll eventually see proof of it.
3971834 Highly doubtful. Hasbro isn't that paranoid and MLP, LPS, and even Transformers have been doing this kind of thing for years. It's kind of what cartoons DO.
I don't see what is stopping them from this copyright BS. A LOT of people have words copyrighted that we use in our everyday vocabulary. Did you know FACEBOOK has the word FACE copyrighted? If they can do that, what is stopping this?
I didn't understand this to begin with, so thanks for clearing it up for me.
To be honest, I really don't think this is a troll. While I agree I doubt copyright or trademark laws are involved considering it is simply a play on a real person. However a lot of sites are reporting this and lots of official merchandise has been renamed to 'Miss Pommel' (Bear in mind I've never looked at any of her merch before so it may always have been named that). I can see why you might have thought this was a troll but I doubt Jim would post something like that without at least trying to make his post look like a joke as something like this could cause the entire fandom to panic (as they have done). As well as his blunt reply to 3971798 I highly doubt he was simply trolling. It may be too early to say at the moment, but we should definitely not rule out the possibility that this is actually true.
3972099 "A lot of sites are reporting this" because Equestria Daily reported it. That doesn't give it any more credibility.
The merchandise thing is another matter, but seeing as I don't normally even pay attention to the merchandise, I couldn't say one way or the other on that.
3972103 Yeah, you may be right about the sites just copying EQD, but I'd like to think they'd at least do their own research before blindly writing an article over a change like this. As for the merchandise I just thought that would be one of the first things they would change and did a little searching myself.
3972111 The bottom line is there is not a shred of evidence to support any of this except that one tweet.
When the only proof you can find of something is one tweet, it's never a good idea to jump to conclusions.
3972117 Of course not. I'm just simply saying we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the possibility
To be fair, the copyright system IS That bullshit.
It's worth pointing out that the toyline renamed her too. The Cutie Mark Magic (tie-in to season five) line called her Coco Pommel, while the Exploring Equestria line (tie-in to season six) calls her Miss Pommel. Note what she's actually called on the box, rather than what commentary or captions call her. Either they changed her name in the toyline to match what one episode called her (assuming that she does not appear again this season), or the name change came from higher up the chain.
I'll give this about a week, then if an official statement by Hasbro or DHX hasn't been made, I'll assume it was all a troll, and a frankly scarily successful one at that.
For now, I'll just sit here with my salted popcorn (gotta take these things with a pinch of salt, after all) and watch the drama unfold as the Coco/Miss Pommel arguments arise.
You know people will vehemently defend one side or the other in EqD comments.
Even if it were true who cares? Fans pretty much keep using the names the fans have come to know for years anyway, like Derpy and Vinyl Scratch. The only exception I can think of is Bulk Biceps but I like that name way better anyway.
3972776 Because this fandom loves to create drama.
...yeah it makes no sense when you think about it.
I don't think the Chanel estate/company has actually requested the name change, but I do think Hasbro's legal team is paranoid enough to do so preemptively and for good reason.
3976123 Eh, there ARE a few weird retards working for Hasbro Legal (which is what caused the Buttongate fiasco), but I seriously doubt this is actually a thing that happened and will continue to doubt it until conclusive proof appears to the contrary.
Toys named "Miss Pommel" and Jim's tweet are not conclusive proof.
So what is the verdict now? Troll or Truth?
3998556 Still nothing conclusive beyond that one tweet. I'm starting to wonder, though, given the eps of MLP and LPS that aired a week apart from each other both underwent last-second title changes on the airdate ("The Saddle Row Review" and "Bake It Till You Make It"; originally "Saddle Row & Rec" and "Bake Boss" respectively).