All of those carpet patterns are copyrighted. Strange, right? But all of the big casinos, cinemas, hotel chains, etc. protect their carpet patterns like they would a novel or a song.
I couldnât understand why the carpet designer did this until someone mentioned the cosplayers were selling the design. That rather puts a different complexion on the matter.
And itâs the first time theyâve been called on the carpet.
I suppose, but this seems like one of those cases where the money spent on pursuing the cease-and-desist has to far outweigh any lost sales. Is the company really making a mint from people buying square yards of carpeting to make costumes out of? Is there a danger that someone would buy a berber cat suit when they were in reality trying to carpet the lobby?
Unfortunately the way that copyright law works is that if a company fails to enforce the copyright themselves when they learn of infringements they are considered to be ceding the ownership of that copyright â sometimes for all purposes. Given the square yardage of all the worldâs Marriot hotels that could actually hurt them quite a bit. If they were selling already-constructed costumes they could make a reasonable case that it was a non-infringing use, but selling the raw fabric is definitely a violation of the copyright as it applies to the pattern.
This is a pernicious myth.
There is no such thing as abandonment of copyright.
You are thinking of trademark.
Your copyright cannot be lost through a failure to enforce. Ever.
Ever.
The difference is that trademark protects a distinctive mark or word from misleading uses in the stream of commerce. If a mark loses its distinctiveness, a court might rule that it has become generic (this happened to âcolaâ for example, which is why we have both Pepsi Cola and Coca-Cola). This happens very, very rarely, though it does happen.
Copyright, on the other hand, protects creative expression (not uses in commerce) for the life of the author, plus 70 years (or a total of 90 years for works-made-for-hire for corporations).
Copyright has many exemptions, including those that a court might call fair use, as well as incidental uses (called âde minimusâ uses), through which you are allowed to make and adapt works without permission.
Trademark doesnât have fair use per se, but it only applies to commercial use, and its exclusivity is limited to confusing uses. That means that trademark only allows you to prevent people from using marks in a way that is likely to confuse a ânaive consumerâ about the origin of goods or services.
Itâs really important not to repeat the myth that unenforced copyrights lapse. This is used as a catch-all excuse for otherwise inexcusable bullying. it also frightens people into threatening other people due to fear of loss of their copyrights.
It doesnât appear to be the actual pattern, though. It is definitely based on it. Which makes it a test case. Too bad the cos-players are not a huge corporation so they could afford to defend themselves and make the point.
The real point of their action is to stifle an unknown without doing too much work. It is like swatting a fly for these clowns. They donât even want to do the work to find out if it really is an infringement. They will just stop it without thinking. THE PROBLEM.
Maybe they could dress as the drapes instead. (Did they match?)
Let us take as a given that the company has the absolute right to do this. (Maybe they do, maybe they donât, but letâs not worry about it.)
This is pretty much the definition of a marketing own-goal. Work out a deal. Put the cosplayers in your ads. The company was handed a brilliant promotional campaign on a silver platter.
The joke will be stale by now, so it doesnât matter. It was the fact that they did it, once, that matters.
Lost sales is probably not even a potential issue. Crazy-assed carpet designs like this are typically sold as exclusives, if not custom-designed for a particular hotel/casino. The Bellagio wouldnât stand for some seedy downtown single-deck place having the same carpet.
I donât know they were selling fabric, but the (digital) design itself. The amount they were making is somewhat immaterial (no pun intended), as they were acting as if they had ownership of the basic design. I could see why the carpet makers had a problem with this - it wouldnât necessarily be confined to costumes. If it was confined to costumes, I donât think it would be an issue, but by selling the design, they were opening the door to people buying it and thinking they in turn had the right to sell their own products using that design, etc. Best to nip it in the bud, from the carpet makerâs perspective.
Like this? (3:22)
I remember that from its original airing. 
Or, for the 4-billion year life of our sun plus an addition 30 million years, if the work somehow includes a talking mouse.
These people need Popehat on the case!
i donât think the luxury hotel industry will really miss the patronage of mostly penniless and slovenly hordes of the unwashed.
Those Dragon Con Hotels can count on 100 percent occupancy for that event. Thatâs pretty much Christmas/black Friday time for them at very little discount price.
For a hotel to completely fill 100 percent of their rooms means they can charge ârack rateâ for prices or a minor âdiscountâ convention rate.
